NYC patient infected with AIDS virus by transplant

[Viva_La_Revolution]

Source: Palm Beach Post

ATLANTA — Health officials are reporting that a patient was infected with the AIDS virus through a kidney transplant from a live donor.

They are calling it the first confirmed instance of HIV spreading through an organ transplant from a live donor since routine laboratory screening of donors began in the 1980s.

It happened in New York City in 2009, but New York City health officials said Thursday that they only learned of the case late last year.

Read more: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/health/nyc-patient-infected-with-aids-virus-by-transplant-1327824.html

[Avant Guardian]

1. Thank god AIDS is now a curable disease

My doctor told me that the life span for an AIDS patient is now that of a person without HIV.

Having said that, this is appalling in the 2000s. I guess it is possible if the donor had just become infected.

[forty6]

2. I'm not sure "curable" is the right word... but it IS true people can live

reasonably healthy lives while still having the HIV virus, but it's not like they get "cured" as if they just had an infection or a cold. They take medications for the rest of their natural lives to keep the HIV in check. And a small percentage reach levels where the HIV is undetectable...but medications continue even then.

[CountAllVotes]

4. Your are right

A cure has not been found. The drugs are no picnic to take.

Shame on these medical professionals (or whatever they claim to be) for not screening more carefully!

:(

:kick:

[northernlights]

5. Shame on you. A certain amount of the screening depends on honesty

by the donors. Viral load can be so low as to be indetectable. Furthermore, the medical professionals (or whatever they claim to be) have to rely on the honesty of donors when it comes to high risk behaviors -- they can't exactly follow donors around for years in advance ensuring they've never engaged in any risky behavior, never had a blood transfusion, etc.

Stupid, senseless post.

[CountAllVotes]

11. ok, maybe the donor lied

N/T

[northernlights]

15. or maybe the donor didn't know or understand...

You would be surprised how many people don't realize they had received blood, say, during an operation or following an accident. They really don't pay attention. Or don't realize that their partners aren't necessarily faithful or smart. Or don't fully understand the implications.

The point is that no screening is 100%, ever. It simply cannot be. To automatically slam the medical professionals without any supporting facts is just plain wrong, not to mention irresponsible. Is it possible one of the professionals made a mistake? Yes, of course. Humans make mistakes. It's also possible the donor made a mistake -- more likely, in fact, given more opportunities for "error" in judgement or understanding. And it is possible that viral load was indetectable by current science.

[CountAllVotes]

16. I had three transfusions in 2009

They claimed it was 99.9% safe now. LIARS!

After reading this I think I'll get tested!

:grr:

:kick:

[northernlights]

17. 99.9% safe is not 100% safe.

They are not liars. 99.9% safe means that 1 person in 1,000 may have a transfusion reaction of some type, ranging from mild itching/allergic-type reaction to full blown hemolytic reaction to picking up a viral or bacterial infection.

Transfusions cannot be 100% safe. There is no way to make them 100% safe. Anytime you need a transfusion there is a risk that something may go wrong.

The screening process for transfusions is extensive, but it depends in part on honesty of the donors. Donors must be totally honest about risky behavior, which ranges from living in certain parts of the world for certain time periods, to traveling, to getting tattoos to taking any self-injected drugs to sexual behavior. And even the most upright, honest donor living within what they think is a long-term monogomous relationship can find out the hard way that their partner strayed just once.

As an individual you have to weigh the risk of transfusion against the risk of no transfusion, knowing that either way may not work out in your favor. Certainly it won't hurt you to be tested, and if it brings you peace of mind than would be well worth it.

[davidinalameda]

20. you should always get tested

especially since you've had transfusions and if you're sexually active with more than one partner

[CountAllVotes]

22. come to think of it I have been tested

I had two more surgeries after the three transfusions and was in the hospital on and off for over a month. I have luckily forgotten most of what happened as it was hell, believe me.

They had to test me to perform the other surgeries (luckily no more transfusions were needed).

[forty6]

10. Donor organs are taken from those who had volunteered while living, perhaps

before they ever contracted HIV. It is impossible to hold a donor organ for 8-12 weeks in a viable state and THEN test for HIV.
Organs cannot be frozen, and cannot be held unfrozen for more than a few hours 36 max, before natural bacterial decay would render them useless for transplantation.

[Yo_Mama]

28. The CDC did change recommendations as a result

http://www.medpagetoday.com/HIVAIDS/HIVAIDS/25379

But this case is not nearly as bad as the 2007 case:
http://forums.homedialysis.org/showthread.php/2731-Transplant-Surgeons-Changed-Practice-after-HIV-HCV-Transmission-Case

You can't make screening perfect, and you can't make testing perfect. You can try to educate the donors (this was a live donation) but that's all. The 79 day testing margin was a bit much.

[SoapBox]

9. First...HIV/AIDS is not curable but is now treatable (IF persons can get/afford treatment) as...

...a chronic disease.

Second...Yes, APPALLING in 2011 that testing (of blood or organs) is either not adequate or is not reading this mutation of HIV.

The virus is one dirty, sneaky bastard. It is called a sloppy divider because it does NOT replicate exactly...thus, persons develop a situation where their medication "regime" becomes ineffective. The virus also hides (and lays latent until stimulated) in various areas of the body (brain for one) that many medications can't get to.

If you are unsure about HIV/AIDS and want to do some reading in the privacy of your own home, some links:

http://poz.com/

http://www.critpath.org/

http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu/

http://www.hivdent.org/

http://www.projinf.org/

http://www.thebody.com/

Remember...Sex? Someone you don't know or haven't known long? Test! Ask Questions! And No Glove, No Love Baby!! ;)

[bitchkitty]

3. Not a death sentence anymore, but still not exactly a picnic.

There can be some hellish side effects to those drugs.

The article says that doctors believe the donor was infected after he was screened for the procedure, 10 weeks before. I would hope that most donors would be careful and not put themselves at risk, although the article doesn't say how the donor was infected and I'm certainly not blaming him. Maybe they should test closer to the time of the transplant. Still, I think this is probably an isolated case or one of very few cases that we will see in the future.

[northernlights]

6. AIDS is not curable. Life span for an AIDS patient with access to very expensive drugs

can be extended. Expensive being something like hundreds of thousands of dollars *per year.* Not to mention the quality of life is seriously compromised.

That most certainly does not qualify as a cure.

[Frisbee]

8. Agreed, though I would hope and expect...

that this particular patient will be receiving meds free for life, along with all doctors visits and treatments.

[closeupready]

19. He/she won't - unless they fight for it.

nt

[Frisbee]

23. Seriously? Not that I doubt you, but that's just wrong.

I would have thought they'd offer that up right away, if for no other reason than to look good in a courts eyes. I can't imagine a court that wouldn't be sympathetic to the victim in this case.

[closeupready]

25. It's not really about what the right thing to do is.

Doctors and other health care professionals can promise treatment, but that's not binding, and if it's not binding, it simply doesn't bind, esp. with regard to a sector of the economy that is the reliable gravy train for those who are supposed to only be administering a service.

I'd sue and get a judgment; I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion, that's realistically the best way to secure lifetime healthcare at the expense of the culpable party.

[Yo_Mama]

27. Treatable, not curable

Not that being alive isn't good!!

Curable means that the disease can be eradicated.

Treatable means that the disease process can be mitigated through medical intervention.

[Crowman1979]

7. Were there any budget or personnel cuts to the agency in charge or screening donated organs?

[forty6]

13. Screening donor organs for 100% NON infected donations is physically...

impossible. Donor banks have to rely upon the honesty and good heath of the donors. There is no possible way to definitively test each and every organ for HIV prior to transplantation, which must occur within hours. Testing and obtaining results for HIV takes DAYS, at the very least, and can really only be done to 99.9% effectiveness with blood donations, which can be frozen for weeks prior to use.

[davidinalameda]

21. testing does not take days

some tests can be done in a matter of hours

[boycottfaux]

12. Tort Reform Anyone?

Republicans want a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice
neglience . .

Unless, of course, one of their relatives gets infected!!!!

[forty6]

14. ALL organ recipients know that there is a small HIV risk, unavoidable, which they

are told about prior to the transplant.

[mysterysoup]

18. That doesn't make it their responsibility if the docs screw up.

Or if the donor was irresponsible. So don't mislocate the moral problem.

[northernlights]

24. transfusion reactions do not have to be a result of mistakes or screwups

Everybody can do everything right and you *still* can have a transfusion reaction, up to and including picking up an infection.

There is an inherent risk in the procedure, with no one to blame. You choose to get the transfusion and take the risk, or you refuse the transfusion and take that risk.

Lab instruments cannot detect extremely low viral load levels, AIDS in particular can "hide" (I forget where,it's been a few years) and not be circulating at the time of testing, or there can be an extremely low viral load that isn't detectable. Donors can't be 100% certain that their spouse has been 100% faithful, you may have lived in a certain country outside of the "risk" period and still get BSE, and so on. And over time, donors may forget or not realize that a surgery or car accident 20 years ago included receiving blood -- some people don't equate receiving blood with getting a transfusion. Or they just plain forget.

[forty6]

26. There is a moral problem with contaminated organs, but a greater

risk and greater NON moral, but LETHAL "problem" to the recipient if s/he doesn't get a transplant!

Bottom line: no matter how "moral" or ethical doctors and everybody is, there's STILL a risk taken by transplant recipients. No humanly possible way that transplants can EVER be 100% without risk.