More

HIV Spread Through Kidney Transplant

03/17/11 05:25 PM ET   AP

Hiv Kidney Transplant

ATLANTA — A transplant patient contracted AIDS from the kidney of a living donor, in the first documented case of its kind in the U.S. since screening for HIV began in the mid-1980s.

It turns out the donor had unprotected gay sex in the 11 weeks between the time he tested negative and the time the surgery took place in 2009.

In a report Thursday on the New York City case, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended that organ donors have repeat HIV tests a week before surgery.

"The most sensitive test needs to be done as close as possible to the time of transplant," said Dr. Colin Shepard, who oversees tracking of HIV cases for the New York City Health Department.

The CDC also said would-be organ donors should be told to avoid behavior that can increase their chances of infection.

Living organ donors in the U.S. are routinely tested for infectious diseases such as hepatitis and HIV. But the organization that oversees organ transplants in the U.S. does not have an explicit policy on when such screening should be done. That's left up to transplant centers.

Because of patient confidentiality, health officials released few details about the donor, recipient, their relationship or the hospital where the transplant took place, except to say that it is in New York.

Neither the donor nor the recipient knew he or she had HIV until about a year after the transplant, according to the CDC report.

The recipient developed AIDS, perhaps because he or she was on drugs that suppress the immune system to prevent organ rejection, while the donor did not, health officials said. Both are receiving HIV treatment. Their conditions were not disclosed in the report.

"We don't know how frequently this is happening and we need better surveillance," said Dr. Matthew Kuehnert, a CDC official who co-wrote the report.

HIV infections in a donor or recipient may not be discovered until long after a transplant, and even then, patients and their doctors may not make the connection and report it, health officials said.

In this case, once health authorities were notified late last year, they spent months investigating whether the transplanted kidney was the source of the patient's AIDS infection. Genetic analysis of the virus confirmed investigators' suspicions.

At least one similar U.S. case has been reported in the media. An Orlando, Fla., woman last year filed a lawsuit saying she was infected with HIV through a 2007 kidney transplant from a live donor in Florida. However, CDC officials said they have not been asked to investigate and could not confirm the report.

Before that, Italian doctors reported HIV transmission from a live organ donor in 1989.

Since the 1980s, there has been a confirmed report of a deceased donor's organs spreading the AIDS virus. That happened in Illinois in 2007, when organs from a 38-year-old gay man went to four recipients.

For many years, transplant organizations focused heavily on screening organs taken from the dead, which accounted for the large majority of transplants. But kidneys from live donors are becoming increasingly common. In 1988, about 32 percent of kidney transplants came from live donors. By last year, it was more than 46 percent, according to federal data. Donors generally are relatives or friends.

About 88,000 people are on the kidney waiting list right now, according the United Network for Organ Sharing, a nonprofit organization that manages the nation's organ transplant system for the federal government. The group is developing new nationwide policies for live donors, spokesman Joel Newman said.

Transplant centers have teams that evaluate potential donors and look for physical or psychological red flags. But some would-be donors may find themselves in a quandary: They want to save a loved one's life but are unwilling to reveal that they use drugs, have gay sex or engage in other behavior that raises their risk of HIV.

Some donors may assume they will be tested for every important kind of infection, and think it doesn't matter whether they disclose their risky behavior, Kuehnert said.

CDC officials recommend a HIV test developed in the 1990s that is more sensitive than traditional testing. The more sensitive test can detect HIV within 10 days after the person is first infected. An older test won't detect antibodies to HIV until three to eight weeks after infection. Yet the older tests are more commonly done.

___

Online:

CDC report: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTH

ATLANTA — A transplant patient contracted AIDS from the kidney of a living donor, in the first documented case of its kind in the U.S. since screening for HIV began in the mid-1980s. It turns o...
ATLANTA — A transplant patient contracted AIDS from the kidney of a living donor, in the first documented case of its kind in the U.S. since screening for HIV began in the mid-1980s. It turns o...
Filed by Nicholas Miriello  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 23
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:48 AM on 03/18/2011
The living donor road is a road that intelligent societies would never have gone down.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pinkasaurus
12:21 AM on 03/18/2011
This reminds me of the story that was in the news last spring about a man who contracted uterine cancer from a kidney transplant. The doctors all assured him that it was safe to receive the kidney, even though it was discovered that the donor had cancer. Well, he's dead now.
(I realize it is not the same situation, but the situation in this article reminded me of that past story).
07:50 AM on 03/18/2011
The idea of living donors is perpetuated and encouraged by those who make money from the transplant industry.

Organ mining is, in my view, highly distasteful.
12:19 PM on 03/18/2011
how is it organ mining if the person donates willingly and for no monetary gain? as a living donor myself i have to disagree with your statements. kidneys from living donors do much better and last much longer. not only did my recipient, a three-year-old child, get a perfectly healthy kidney but that meant that the next person on the list got thier transplant a bit quicker. Not enough people in this country are organ donors after they die. which is why 18 on the waiting list die every day. living donors save lives.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
onionboy
Blessed are the Cheese Makers
05:59 PM on 03/17/2011
This reminds me of two kidney recipients in the UK some years back. Each got a kidney from the same donor. Each got melanoma from the kidney they received. Terrible chain of events.
05:10 PM on 03/17/2011
Next the insurance company will end the contract since the patient now has a "pre-existing" condition.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rigmoten
Occupy the Micro-bio.
05:06 PM on 03/17/2011
Ugh. What a horrible turn of events. Going from the joy of getting a needed transplant to the terror of discovering you have AIDS is something no one should be put through.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pinkasaurus
12:21 AM on 03/18/2011
It really is an awful situation. I feel for that poor individual.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlsoSarah
Medicare for all
04:11 PM on 03/17/2011
I have had a few tests in my family that were wrong. I really don't have alot of faith in 100% accuracy of medical tests.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pinkasaurus
12:22 AM on 03/18/2011
It is good to have a little skepticism about what medical professionals tell you. After all, they are human and they screw up sometimes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlsoSarah
Medicare for all
04:09 PM on 03/17/2011
Frankly, alot of medical test are simply wrong.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
08:09 AM on 03/18/2011
HIV tests are not "wrong" though, just limited in certain circumstances.
They usually just screen for antibodies against the virus, which take a couple of weeks to appear in the blood and show up positive on the test. There are more appropriate tests such as PCR which detects virus itself - these can show after just a few days. Ideally, any donor should be screened immediately pre-transplant with the most sensitive and best tests available. That might have prevented this tragic turn of events.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chuck Bluestein
Always searching for latest health breakthrough
02:45 PM on 03/17/2011
I wonder what the guy did during those 10 weeks to get HIV? Getting HIV is preventable.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:18 PM on 03/17/2011
From the article:

"he reported having unprotected sex with another man during that time."

"That time" being the 10 week interval between when they tested him and when he donated his kidney.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dyson
debunking pseudoscience, one fallacy at a time.
08:12 AM on 03/18/2011
Hope he gets sued.
Such behaviour is not only irresponsible, but is almost criminal in my mind if one is about to donate one of one's kidneys (as altruistic as that may be)
02:05 PM on 03/17/2011
He was tested and did not have AIDS. No fault on doctor's part. You would think if he knew he was going to give a kidney he wouldn't have had unsafe se x or shared a needle. Probably a relative. I wouldn't want to be at their nrxt Thanksgiving.
01:59 PM on 03/17/2011
One would think they would be more careful with these sorts of things...
02:26 PM on 03/17/2011
How? Lock him up until the operation. If he knew he was donating a kidney why would you engage in risky behavior?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pinkasaurus
12:26 AM on 03/18/2011
Perhaps he didn't realize it was risky. You would be amazed at some of the behaviors people engage in that they do not see as carrying risks, while most casual observers would be able to identify the behavior as risky. Some people are either oblivious or in denial regarding their own mortality. The truth is, we really have no idea why the donor did what he did, but I think we can all agree that it is a sad situation that could have been prevented.
05:11 PM on 03/17/2011
You'd think.