Allen U D, Guerriere M, Read S E, Detsky A S
Department of Pediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Arch Intern Med. 1991 Oct;151(10):2033-40. doi: 10.1001/archinte.151.10.2033.
A decision analysis was conducted to examine whether health care workers should receive short-term (42 days) zidovudine treatment following percutaneous exposure to blood, as well as to determine the value of testing "donor" (patient's) blood. Three alternative options were analyzed: treat all, treat none, and test. In the treat all option, all health care workers receive short-term zidovudine therapy immediately after exposure; in the treat none option, no one receives zidovudine; and in the test option, donor blood is tested, and if it is human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive, zidovudine is given. Baseline variables were obtained from the literature. Each outcome was expressed as a utility; this is a method of quantifying the values that persons place on different health states. The results showed that the test option was preferred. Sensitivity analyses indicated that even if the risk of seroconversion were zero or the effectiveness of zidovudine were zero or the drug were withheld, this option was preferred, thus indicating some value of testing other than merely identifying health care workers who should receive zidovudine. In the baseline analysis, this was derived from the fact that approximately 95% of the health care workers would be reassured by a negative test; ie, only approximately 5% of donors are HIV positive. If the prevalence of HIV seropositivity exceeded 42%, the treat none option was preferred. This was found to be due to the fact that increased numbers of health care workers would be told that they were exposed to HIV-positive blood. The "worrying factor" associated with such an exposure was such that above 42% HIV seropositivity, the treat none option was preferred overall. Thus, the real value of testing donor blood is in identifying those persons (greater than 95%) who could be told that they were exposed to HIV-negative blood, that is, reducing their worrying factor to zero. Because acquired immunodeficiency syndrome is a fatal disease, and given that zidovudine is the only available therapeutic option at present, the drug has an important role to play if its effectiveness is greater than zero.
进行了一项决策分析,以研究医护人员在经皮接触血液后是否应接受短期(42天)齐多夫定治疗,以及确定检测“供血者”(患者)血液的价值。分析了三种替代方案:全部治疗、不治疗和检测。在全部治疗方案中,所有医护人员在接触后立即接受短期齐多夫定治疗;在不治疗方案中,无人接受齐多夫定治疗;在检测方案中,检测供血者血液,如果其感染人类免疫缺陷病毒(HIV)呈阳性,则给予齐多夫定治疗。基线变量取自文献。每个结果都表示为一种效用;这是一种量化人们对不同健康状态重视程度的方法。结果表明,检测方案更可取。敏感性分析表明,即使血清转化风险为零或齐多夫定的有效性为零或不使用该药物,该方案仍更可取,这表明检测的价值不仅仅在于识别应接受齐多夫定治疗的医护人员。在基线分析中,这源于这样一个事实,即大约95%的医护人员会因检测结果为阴性而放心;也就是说,只有大约5%的供血者HIV呈阳性。如果HIV血清阳性率超过42%,则不治疗方案更可取。发现这是由于越来越多的医护人员会被告知他们接触到了HIV阳性血液。与这种接触相关的“担忧因素”使得在HIV血清阳性率高于42%时,总体上不治疗方案更可取。因此,检测供血者血液的真正价值在于识别那些(超过95%)可以被告知他们接触到的是HIV阴性血液的人,即把他们的担忧因素降至零。由于获得性免疫缺陷综合征是一种致命疾病,并且鉴于齐多夫定是目前唯一可用的治疗选择,如果其有效性大于零,该药物将发挥重要作用。