It did use to take 3-6 months to be sure - that was one of the problems - because most countries won't use blood older than 35-45 days. With these tests, the window period is shorter, with an average duration of 12 days"
" Newer tests look for the virus itself, such as the p24 antigen test, which looks for a part on the surface of the virus, and Nucleic acid tests (NAT), which look for the genetic material of the virus. " One model suggested that this change would result in one additional case of HIV transmitted by transfusion every 32.8 years."Īlso, new test are far more accurate than before. 1 in a million, 1 in 10 million, 1 in a billion, etc? Does anyone know the absolute risks involved, e.g. an absolute figure for the risk of relaxing restrictions I can't see how anyone can reach an informed opinion. The real risk to the blood supply is going to be somewhere in between, but without having an absolute figure for the current risk vs.
relaxing the restrictions on men who have sex with men will result in a 500% increase in risk, but surely without context that figure is meaningless.Ī 500% increase of an infinitesimally small risk will still be an infinitesimally small risk a 500% increase of a very high risk is likely to be catastrophic. I always see relative risk figures quoted in these discussions, e.g. Yes teats have got better, but part of providing good health care is minimising risk. if you remember the factor 8 problems a few years back it was tragic for all those people infected with Hep B, C and HIV. It's the blood transfusions services job to provide safe products donated blood is fractionated into many products. The guidelines are under review but as stand would require one to have been blood borne virus checked and to be either in a monogamous relationship or not had sex within the last 6months. The Scottish blood transfusion service is looking at altering the pre donation checks to allow gay men to donate. "īlood donation in the UK is so strict that donations to children are not sourced from this country, they come from America to reduce the risk of CJD transmission. Also frequently blood is used in trauma cases and the last thing you want to find out is "yes we saved you after that car accident but we've given you. Lots of blood transfusions are used in cancer patients and in reality with early and effective treatment can be cured, the last thing that group needs is the risk of a viral illness whilst immuosuppresssed (really it can be horrific, sudden and catastrophic). There are obviously patients who are stable at that moment or stable on some sort of therpy (eg dialysis) or very young whom the risk of an additional extra life limiting condition is not the best option (as they will be on immunosuppression for life).
Some are in a, well without an organ i'm dead now, others are from a similar risk group or are +ve for BBV already. As all solid organ donations are on a case by case basis unlike blood transfusion, there are patients who will or needing to accept organs from "less than optimal groups or situations" (is Mr X's organ suitable for Mrs Y?, as aposed to Mrs B needs blood here is a random bag)
Organ donation, hum well, technically donation is cover by the same policy, but in reality TSUK will consider harvesting anybody willing to donate at life end.