infected at least 2,234 people in India with HIV through
transfusions in the past 17 months alone.
All hospitals are legally required to screen blood for HIV, as
well as hepatitis B, C, and other infections, before a
transfusion. But the new data suggests this isn't happening
consistently across the country, possibly due to a lack of
funding.
"Each such test costs 1,200 rupees (US$18) and most
hospitals in India do not have the testing facilities,"
information activist Chetan Kothari, who petitioned for the
data to be released, told the BBC.
"Even in a big city like Mumbai, only three private hospitals
have HIV testing facilities. Even the largest government
hospitals do not have the technology to screen blood for
HIV," he added . "This is a very serious matter and must be
addressed urgently."
The data was collected by India's National Aids Control
Organisation (NACO), but was only released to the public
when Kothari filed a Right to Information query.
When it came to infection rates, some parts of the country
were worse than others, with the highest number of
transmissions - 361 cases - being reported in the northern
state of Uttar Pradesh.
In the country's west, the state of Gujarat recorded 292
cases and Maharashtra had 276 cases. As reported in local
paper The Hindu, just last week, a three-year-old boy was
infected with HIV after receiving contaminated blood to
help treat serious burn injuries.
India already has more than 2.1 million people living with
HIV or aids, which is why it's so important to screen blood
for the virus before using it in transfusions.
By law, this needs to be done by all blood banks that
collect blood donations and distribute them to hospitals,
and they use a range of tests to isolate and seek out
pathogens such as HIV, malaria, hepatitis B and C, and
syphilis in every sample of donated blood.
Only blood that's clear of infection is allowed to be used in
transfusions. But this latest data shows that this screening
process isn't working in India, potentially due to the cost
and infrastructure required to maintain this system.
Kothari also told the BBC he thought the official rates were
underestimating the problem. "This is the official data,
provided by the government-run NACO," he said . "I believe
the real numbers would be double or triple that."
But deputy director of NACO, Naresh Goyal, told Himanshu
Goenka over at the IB Times that the country has made
great progress when it comes to reducing the risk of
infection.
"These are unfortunate cases and we are working towards
the goal of zero transmission. Having said that, these
numbers must be looked in the context of the scale of our
HIV program," he said . "It is now legally mandatory for
every blood bank to screening the units before giving it to a
patient."
India has also banned blood banks from paying donors, to
help reduce people at high-risk of HIV infection from
donating (although the BBC reported last year that blood is
still being sold readily on the black market in the country).
To put things into perspective, 20 years ago, 8-10 percent
of total HIV infections were caused by blood transfusions.
Now, that figure is below 1 percent.
The HIV infection rates are also slowly dropping in the
country - in 2007 there were more than 2.2 million people
infected.
Instead of blaming a lack of screening, Goyal told the IB
Times that contaminated blood could sometimes
accidentally get through, because of the 10-day period
after HIV infection that the virus remains hidden in the
blood.
"In some cases, the donor may be in a window period -
before his HIV viral load can be detected - when he donates
the blood," said Goyal. "In such cases, when screened, the
blood sample shows a false negative."
Still, there's more that could be done. In countries such as
the US, Australia, and the UK, potential donors are
screened even before they donate blood, to make sure they
don't carry any infections. The blood is then tested again
afterwards by blood banks.
These countries also don't allow people at high-risk of HIV,
such as sexually active gay men, to donate in order to
further reduce the risk of blood being donated during the
10-day false-negative window.
Let's hope progress continues, and eventually people in
India can receive a life-saving blood transfusion without the
fear of infection.
