Background: Blood transfusion is a major route of Human T-lymphotropic virus (HTLV) transmission. In this study, we conducted a cross-sectional study of HTLV seroprevalence among blood donors in Shenzhen, with secondary investigations covering signal-to-cutoff (S/CO) predictive value, longitudinal follow-up, epidemiological characteristics, and possible familial clustering. Methods: Retrospective analysis was conducted on 512,200 Shenzhen Blood Center donors (2014–2022, with partial 2013 data). ELISA was utilized for initial HTLV screening, with MP, INNO-LIA and qPCR for confirmation. Confirmed cases received questionnaire follow-up and retesting. Some relatives of confirmed cases also received HTLV-1/2 testing. Results: Among 512,200 donors, 203 were screening-reactive, with 18 confirmed-positive cases (3.51 per 100,000 donors; 95% CI: 2.08–5.55) and 10 indeterminate cases. The screening-reactive rate declined significantly over the decade (p < 0.001), whereas the confirmed-positive rate remained low and showed no significant temporal trend (p = 0.363). Among initially screening-reactive donors, high S/CO values strongly predicted confirmatory positivity, whereas low-level reactivity was mostly transient. Questionnaire data were available for 9 of the 18 confirmed-positive donors (50.0%) and 51 control donors. In this exploratory analysis, only invasive medical procedures occurring in Fujian remained significantly associated with infection (adjusted p = 0.010). Two of the 10 tested family members were confirmed-positive, suggesting possible familial clustering. Conclusions: The confirmed prevalence of HTLV among Shenzhen blood donors was extremely low, and screening reactivity declined significantly over the ten-year period. Screening S/CO values strongly predicted confirmatory results. Fujian-related invasive medical procedures and possible familial clustering are exploratory findings that require confirmation in larger studies. Continued donor screening and blood safety surveillance remain warranted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: