Experts from the statistics group
1. The report details how many people are estimated to have been infected with HCV and HIV via blood transfusion (the route of transmission). How many people are thought to have been infected (and with what) via the following routes of transmission…
a. Factor VIII concentrate
b. Factor IX concentrate
c. Cryoprecipitate
2. On the HCV blood products table found on Page 2. It says “This table does not include those infected with HIV, who are covered in Chapter 1, though the Skipton Fund number will include some such persons”
. Presumably this explains why the Skipton number is higher than the UKHCDO number?
a. When they say “some”, do they mean it will include all with HIV who have accessed the Skipton Fund? If not, how is the “some” determined?
i. Does that include estate claims made on Skipton on behalf of those co-infected who have died?
3. Staying on the table on Page 2… They say “We judge that between 2,400 – 5,000 people with bleeding disorders were infected with HCV”
. The lower end of that estimate can be seen in the table data, but given the “Additional ‘possible’” is said to be “2,400” in the UKHCDO data, that would give you 4,800 ‘possible’ at the top end. Can they explain where the additional 200 people are coming from?
. It may be the additional is coming from the Skipton number but then the numbers still don’t fit. Perhaps they have more insight into the Skipton-HIV double-counts than is mentioned here.
4. Page 8 “around half have died of HIV-related causes”
. Is it likely that the true number is higher due to HIV/AIDS cause of death information being omitted from death certificates and medical records?
a. Could there be discrepancy around what UKHCDO considers a HIV/AIDS related-cause?
5. 1.17 - Presumably, being infected abroad doesn’t necessarily mean being infected by non-NHS issued blood products? For example, a haemophiliac travelling abroad might travel with NHS-supplied products.
. There appear to be three elements to “abroad” and it would be good to get clarity on them and how they are referred to in the report. The three elements, as I see it, are: 1) The origin of the product (eg made in the USA) 2) The country/organisation that prescribed/supplied the product (eg NHS/UK) and 3) the location where the supplied product was taken (eg France on Holiday). Likewise, products acquired on holiday may have been taken upon return home.
6. 2.31 - Just to confirm again, this data includes at least some of those co-infected?
7. Page 38 - The table shows how many are estimated to survive 6 months and 10 years post transfusion. Is there data to estimate the number for 1 year and 5 years post transfusion?
. In many of the documents from the 1980s and 1990s available to the inquiry, there is consistent reference to 50% dying within 12 months of a transfusion of their primary illness. Is this reflected by the data seen by the experts? What does the 1 year/10 year drop off look like?
8. 4.18 - The mortality data given, could this inc co-infected deaths?
9. 4.31 - “we would expect the widely-reported 28,000 UK total to decrease” - What should the “widely-reported” figure be in each of their individual opinions? There are many numbers within this 186 page report. Which one should the media use when referring to the approximate number of people infected?
10. 4.58 - Would there be a further step down, not accounted for here, by the introduction of AIDS leaflets being made available to donors from 1983? There is a draft of the 1983 one at DHSC0002309_122
. And further step-downs with the various revisions to the leaflets?
11. 4.115 - What proportion of all people transfused fall into the 70-79 (and over) age band at transfusion?
12. Would it have assisted the experts if EIBSS (and the various other devolved schemes) did hold data on route of transmission?
. Should the schemes make efforts to obtain this data? (If the aim is to ensure better data sets and recording in the future)
