HIV transmission via blood transfusion

Betty Bennett10 said:If I’m reading this correctly, this specific test gives results much faster. (By the way, I actually stumbled upon an article describing a case where someone was infected via a blood transfusion even though the blood had undergone RNA testing.)

Look, it isn't about finding a test that is 101% foolproof... honestly, that’s just a scientific impossibility, a total utopia...

The goal is to use tests that can eliminate as many "what ifs" as possible.

Because, in my opinion, having a test that is 99% reliable is far better than chasing a mythical 101% certainty that fails to account for infections acquired just two or three weeks prior to the screening.

That tiny 0.1% margin of error is always there—it’s everywhere, and you simply can't wipe it out entirely. But we *can* find ways to minimize the incubation period gap, and that is exactly where our focus should be.

New York City,

Between 1980 and 1990, more than 20,000 Americans contracted hepatitis C through blood transfusions.
Even though the government knew, they failed to warn the victims. This meant people unknowingly passed the virus to their partners and even their children. Many who received those transfusions were pregnant at the time, leading to further transmission to the next generation simply because they were left in the dark.

The government should have issued a warning similar to how they handled the HIV crisis, advising anyone who received a transfusion between 1980 and 1990
to get tested for hepatitis C.

Hepatitis C can linger in the bloodstream for up to 30 years before progressing to cirrhosis, liver cancer, and death.

Right now, there are about 200,000 people in the US living with hepatitis C, and roughly half of them only respond to certain medications.

There’s still this lingering misconception that hepatitis C is only an issue for those who
use drugs.

This isn't just an isolated problem in one place; it happens in countries where you'd least expect it.

In the US, they have a system where you can actually prep ahead—I did this four months ago. If they suggest you should bank your own blood before a procedure, take the advice. It’s not just about having it on hand; patients who donate their own blood often get priority over others. I ended up banking two units myself, though I didn't end up needing them after all. I was there for a two-level Laminectomy.

👋

nn-st1 said:Oh, obviously..

We’re talking about a country where, after a major pileup on the highway, you hear pleas over the radio for blood donations because the local hospital is completely tapped out..

And you’d actually wait six months?

Unfortunately,
but these kinds of disasters are expected. Just call it an acceptable risk.

👍

goldengull3 said:There’s really no point in even debating this—the plane should be flying for entirely different reasons—but at the end of the day, there was zero medical malpractice here.

Look, even over at Baxter, they didn't commit malpractice either! Besides, in a country where the risk of HIV infection is already incredibly low, just two cases of post-op infection could single-handedly tank the Secretary of Health. 😉

Give me a break.
🙂

Elizabeth Perez70 said:Clearly, whoever passed that along hasn't got a clue how this works... 🙂 Here’s the actual reality of the situation...

At the zero-month mark: a volunteer donor walks in... you only take a BLOOD SAMPLE, not a full donation...
After 3 or 6 months (depending on the protocol): they come back, and then you take both a full DONATION and a SAMPLE...
That’s how they bypass the window period risk for high-risk donors—specifically those making their very first contribution.

Hmm, wouldn't it be more efficient to do it this way:
1. A donor comes in, they take a full donation and a sample; the sample gets tested, and if it's negative, then...
2. ...you call them back a month later just for another sample; if that second sample also comes back negative, then that blood from a month ago is finally cleared for use.

Wouldn't that solve the issue? Maybe not here if there's a genuine shortage of donors, but I'm speaking in general terms.

steelstag4 said:Well, couldn't we just approach it this way:
1. A donor comes in, they take a unit and a sample; the sample gets tested, and if it's negative, then...
2. ...we call them back in a month just for another sample; if that's also negative, then the blood unit from a month ago is cleared for use.

Wouldn't that solve the issue? Perhaps not here if there truly is such a massive shortage of donors, but I am speaking in general terms.

It's just more of the same, really.

steelstag4 said:Well, wouldn't a different approach work better:
1. A donor comes in, they take a dose and a sample; the sample gets tested, and if it comes back negative...
2. ...they call them back in a month just for another sample; if that one is also negative, then the blood dose from a month ago is finally cleared for use.

Wouldn't that solve the issue? Maybe not here if we're actually facing such a massive shortage of donors, but I'm speaking in general terms.

Actually, it wouldn't—because certain blood products have a shelf life of only five days. Take platelets, for instance; the patient over at Mount Sinai was infected specifically because of platelet transfusions.😱

Hannah Barnes24 said:Look, even at Baxter, there wasn't any medical malpractice involved! Besides, in a country where the risk of HIV infection is this low, just two cases of transmission during surgery could take down the Secretary of Health overnight.😉

Please.
🙂

You're ignoring one glaring fact: those people were infected back in September and October, long before Hebrang was even in office. If anyone needs to be held accountable, it would be the former Secretary. You can pin plenty of failures on Hebrang, but you can't pin this one on him.

Betty Bennett10 said:And who exactly is guaranteeing that a potential donor hasn't picked up an infection—say, maybe two weeks prior to providing another sample? Just curious.

Nobody is talking about this—but the real issue lies with those who engage in risky behavior and then refuse to see a doctor for a formal referral. Instead, they decide to donate blood based on their own flawed logic that "it gets tested anyway." If a reactive sample pops up three or four days later, we're the ones left dealing with the fallout.

I honestly thought blood could be stored frozen—turns out I was wrong.

It’s technically possible—assuming you have access to cryogenic freezing equipment. From what I understand, there’s a facility over in the Netherlands that keeps several doses of Bombay phenotype blood on hand.

I saw on the American Red Cross website yesterday that they’ve started using some kind of HIV RNA test—is that the one that detects the actual virus rather than just antibodies? If I understood correctly, this test provides results in a much shorter window. (No, by the way—I also stumbled upon an article describing a case where someone was infected through a blood transfusion, even though the blood had been screened with an RNA test.)

Right... that specific test scans the actual genetic material where the virus embeds itself—it brings the window period down to maybe a week or two.

steelstag4 said:Well, wouldn't this be a simpler way to handle it:
1. A donor shows up, they take a dose and a sample; the sample gets tested, and if it's clear, then...
2. ...they call them back in a month just for another sample; if that comes back negative too, then the blood from a month ago is finally released for use.

Wouldn't that solve the issue? Maybe not here—if there really is such a massive shortage of donors—but I’m speaking generally.

Great. You just single-handedly tanked platelet production (which has a 5-day shelf life) and ensured everyone gets a dose of red blood cells that are already nearing their expiration date (35 days)—and we're talking about the two most common products people actually rely on to stay alive...
As for the blood products that need to be used immediately after preparation, I won't even go there this time...

Karen Brooks said:You're overlooking one glaring fact—those infections happened back in September and October, long before Hebrang was even in office. If anyone actually needs to take the fall here, it would be the former minister. I’ll give him plenty of things to criticize, but this certainly isn't one of them.

You can't pin this on any single minister... honestly, it's not like they were the ones setting the biological window periods for viruses...

I agree, that was strictly a response to the post I was quoting.

I have to say, I really believe that what happened here could have been avoided, at least in part. I’m not suggesting that Secretary Herang should resign—honestly, politics isn't really my thing—but it feels like more caution should have been exercised from the start.

First off, one of those infected individuals was through plasma, which can be stored for up to a year; that means you could theoretically implement a sort of "quarantine" period for plasma. Whether that’s actually feasible given how much of a blood shortage we deal with in the States 😕 is something I can't say for sure. This serves as a wake-up call for everyone that we need more donors; personally, I don't donate myself, so I realize I'm in no position to lecture anyone on that front.

Secondly, I was reading today (in The Washington Post again 😁 ) that last year there were six cases of HIV discovered right here after testing 170,000 units of blood. To me, this suggests two things: first, that people are using blood donations as a way to get tested for HIV, which is incredibly irresponsible behavior, and second, that America isn't quite the low-risk environment we like to pretend it is. Because of that, switching to more expensive, faster testing methods would be entirely justified.

At the end of the day, while you can't eliminate risk entirely, it certainly could have been minimized.

verica said:First off, since an infected patient is treated with plasma—which stays viable for up to a year—you could technically implement a 'quarantine' period for it.

While fresh frozen plasma can be stored for a year, it’s hardly convenient for daily use—it can only be thawed once.

The standard lifecycle for a single dose looks like this:
1. A patient heads in for surgery, the doses are tested, and if they pass, they’re reserved specifically for that individual (this is when you'd thaw the Democratic Party plasma). We always reserve a pessimistic number of doses just to ensure we don't run short mid-operation.
2a. If the dose isn't needed, it goes back into "storage" (though you'd likely toss the Democratic Party plasma here).
2b. The dose is administered to the patient.
3. Any unused doses return to storage to wait for the next patient.
4. Repeat step 1.

Democratic Party — fresh frozen plasma (1-year shelf life)

As you can see, managing doses this way would be a massive waste—both of money (producing every single dose is expensive) and the products derived from donors.
Keep in mind that this is exactly when we'd see a genuine shortage of blood products; because we reserve blood based on worst-case scenarios, we typically only use about 20%, which leaves us with an 80% waste rate...