Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human Blood Substitute Could Help Meet Donor Blood Shortfall

Posted by samzenpus on from the blood-2.0 dept.

Zothecula (1870348) writes According to the World Health Organization, over 107 million blood donations are collected around the globe every year, most of which goes on to help save lives. However, while the need for blood is global, much of that which is donated is not accessible to many who need it, such as those in developing countries. And of the blood donated in industrialized countries, the amount often falls short of requirements. To help address this imbalance, scientists at the University of Essex are developing an artificial blood substitute. It would be able to be stored at room temperatures for up to two years, which would allow it to be distributed worldwide without the need for refrigeration and make it immediately accessible at the site of natural disasters.

33 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Let gay men donate by Noxal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know what else would help the shortage? Let gay men donate.

    1. Re:Let gay men donate by JMJimmy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      And develop better screening tests - they rejected me and told me never to donate again because I have a protein in my blood that triggers a false positive on the cheap HIV test. A proper, more expensive, test works just fine though.

      That was a fun letter to get... starts off saying (paraphrasing) "Thank you for your donation, unfortunately your blood tested positive for HIV and cannot be accepted"... at this point most sane people might start freaking out and stop reading. When you do read on it explains it but I wonder how many people started calling people or crying before reading on.

    2. Re:Let gay men donate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reason that gay men typically aren't allowed to donate isn't because they're gay. Rather, it's because the sexual practices they often engage in, namely anal sex, happen to readily transmit HIV and other STIs. The higher prevalence of such carriers within the gay community further increases the risk of contaminated blood.

      How do you propose this be dealt with? Clearly allowing tainted blood to be used is not an option. It does no good to have large amounts of unusable blood available.

    3. Re:Let gay men donate by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2

      Is there a half-life on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?

      They won't let "mad cows" from Britain donate here in Australia. But the outbreak over there was a couple of decades ago.

    4. Re:Let gay men donate by peragrin · · Score: 2

      Actually Mad Cow randomly pops up now and again. Aggressive testing though limits it's affect to a couple dozen cattle as opposed to whole herds.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Let gay men donate by _merlin · · Score: 2

      Well it comes down to statistics. In Sydney, there's now supposedly greater than 20% HIV infection rate amongst gay men. It's quite high, and much higher than the HIV infection rate amongst the general population. This probably isn't the case everywhere, but in Sydney, a randomly selected gay guy is far more likely to be carrying HIV than a randomly selected person from the rest of the population.

      In Sydney the HIV infection rate amongst prostitutes is actually very low. However in Hanoi it's supposedly 30% (now this number might be inflated - prostitution is illegal in Vietnam, so the government might be stretching the truth a little to justify policy). One again, this is far higher than the HIV rate amongst the general population. A randomly selected prostitute in Hanoi is far more likely to be carrying HIV than a randomly selected person from the general population.

      What's the HIV infection rate amongst gay men in Hanoi? I don't know, but for argument's sake let's say it's lower than the general population. If this were the case, using the HIV statistic alone, it would make sense to accept blood donations from gay men but not prostitutes in Hanoi. But it makes sense to accept blood donations from prostitutes but not gay men in Sydney (one again, based on the HIV statistic alone; there are other statistics that could be used to argue against accepting blood donations from prostitutes in Sydney).

      Profiling is imperfect, but in theory it's still a useful like of defence. In reality it won't work so well, as people can lie pretty easily, especially if there's an incentive to doing so (e.g. prostitution is illegal in Vietnam, so a prostitute would be unlikely to list this as their occupation when donating blood). A lot of people also have some basic sense of responsibility, so gay or not a person who knows they're HIV positive is generally unlikely to donate blood (unless they're an arsehole, but then they'd likely lie to pass criteria anyway). Ultimately it's best to just trust no-one and test everything.

    6. Re:Let gay men donate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sorry, but this is just politically correct feel good bullshit.

      Things that preclude you from donating blood:
      Intravenous drug use
      Promiscuous Sex (Yeah, that's right, all those people who say prostitutes can donate are wrong!)
      Having recently traveled to certain parts of the world
      Having recently received a piercing from a place other than a certified clinic (read piercing or tattoo parlor)
      If you've recently had a cold (and in fact, if you come down with a cold a few days later, they ask you notify them so they can dispose of the donation)
      If you don't weigh enough

      It's hardly singling out gays. And lets be honest here, peoples lives are LITERALLY at risk. And historically, gays tend to be more promiscuous than straights. If you're going to argue this, please explain why HIV was originally going to be named GIV. It's because the disease was so overwhelmingly limited to the gay population that at the headlines were just saying "mystery illness traveling through gay communities". Also throw in that anal sex is the best way to transmit the disease short of blood exchange. And a lot of that has to do with the common occurrence of rectal bleeding during anal sex. And remember, none of this is singling out gays, they just happen to live a lifestyle that tends to hit several of the high risk buttons just simply by how they choose their partners. Remember they ask about how many sexual partners you've had and when the last time you had unprotected sex was, regardless of your orientation. Why? Because even the best testing procedures fail sometimes. It's best to simply disallow high risk people from donating because people can actually die.

      Stop the PC bullshit, especially when it matters. Deal with FACTS, even if they're uncomfortable.

    7. Re:Let gay men donate by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gay men, as a group, have the highest rate of HIV infection by far.
      Screening isn't perfect.

      It makes far more sense to prevent high risk blood from ever getting into the system than it does to draw it, store it, and try to detect it, and dispose of it it's bad.
      If someone's feelings get hurt, too fucking bad. I'd rather not die from tainted blood like my friend's mother did.

    8. Re:Let gay men donate by compro01 · · Score: 2

      Is there a half-life on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease?

      CJD has an insanely long incubation period. It can be over 50 years between infection and the onset of symptoms and they could be infectious for a significant portion of that.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    9. Re:Let gay men donate by QQBoss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All donors ARE tested for HIV (at least in USA, Canada, and China), but the test is post-donation and not pre-donation. Donated blood is tested for far more than just HIV, as well, and failing that post-donation test can result in a temporary or permanent ban from future donations. Prescreening of donors reduces the cost of testing relative to acceptable donations, which is a useful tool for keeping the cost of the existing donor supply lower than it would be otherwise. The American Red Cross revisits this policy about every 5 years, IIRC, and goes through the math of where the percentage breakpoints are for breakeven results- when any population crosses that line the wrong way, a new question goes on the prescreening survey. Homosexually active men are no more discriminated against than people who got tattoos or ear piercings within a certain time period, or who lived in certain countries (don't be from Cameroon or Nigeria, for example). Want to change that? Try changing the incidence of disease in the indentifiable community below that break point, because manipulating only the math doesn't turn out well in any scenario.

      Giving a blood test for all the possible BBPs (blood borne pathogens) and other issues prior to donating is not cheap if the number of donors goes up by any significant amount of people who wouldn't qualify, so a prescreening survey is going to remain the most cost effective way of dealing with these issues and keeping the number of people who would dilute the quality of the blood supply low.

      If you don't qualify to pass the written prescreening test, and you still want to donate blood, at least in the USA you can do that. There is a box you can check to indicate that you want your blood disposed of after donation. This is most commonly used by drug users and homosexuals who are donating in the presence of family, co-workers, or friends who the donor feels are not aware of their situation. It wastes staff time and some property (collection bags, etc...), but allows an individual to maintain their privacy for a lower cost than a prescreening blood test would cost.

    10. Re:Let gay men donate by QQBoss · · Score: 3, Informative

      Donating for a specific person, in particular for yourself, is a special situation where things are done differently. For example, many of the conditions that would make you ineligible to donate to another person are waived if you are donating for personal use (and the blood is tossed if you wind up not needing it). Though it also depends on what you mean 'my blood was tested...' If you mean that you were tested for blood type and anemia, things that can be done with only the blood from a finger prick, 100% of people receive those tests in any modern medical environment (and even most not so modern ones). If you mean they did a full screening for HIV and other BBPs before you were allowed to give more than a finger prick's worth, then that is a specific situation not covered by general donation rules. For general situations, the written/oral prescreening is a much less expensive solution to having to run a myriad of tests (some cheap, some not so cheap) on a lot of blood that never should have been donated in the first place.

    11. Re:Let gay men donate by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      In other news, HIV won't kill you

      Umm...excuse me? Troll much?

      Without treatment, average survival time after infection with HIV is estimated to be 9 to 11 years, depending on the HIV subtype.[4] After the diagnosis of AIDS, if treatment is not available, survival ranges between 6 and 19 months.[147][148] HAART and appropriate prevention of opportunistic infections reduces the death rate by 80%, and raises the life expectancy for a newly diagnosed young adult to 20–50 years.[146][149][150] This is between two thirds[149] and nearly that of the general population.[15][151] If treatment is started late in the infection, prognosis is not as good:[15] for example, if treatment is begun following the diagnosis of AIDS, life expectancy is ~10–40 years.[15][146] Half of infants born with HIV die before two years of age without treatment.[132]

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

      So yeah, without treatment it kind of sounds like there's a good chance it'll kill you. Even with treatment, there's a 20% chance of fatality anyway.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  2. Religious Objections by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know some people reject blood transfusions based on religious beliefs - if any of those are here, would you have an objection to artificial blood?

    1. Re:Religious Objections by Circlotron · · Score: 2

      If it is made entirely of non-blood components I would have no objection. Same goes for non-blood volume expanders such as Haemaccel, Saline, Ringers Lactate, Dextran, etc.

    2. Re:Religious Objections by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      I expect it would depend on the details. People have experimented with at least two classes of blood substitutes: hemoglobin based and fluorocarbon based. I assume people with religious scruples would be OK with fluorocarbon-based substitutes. Hemoglobin-based substitutes would probably be classified as processed blood still be off limits, unless the hemoglobin were actually recombinant and not extracted from blood.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

  3. Let gay men donate by Sable+Drakon · · Score: 2

    Agreed. The only reason they were ever banned from donating is the fear of disease. A fear that's bigoted and unfounded. Just force all blood donors to get tested for infection, regardless of orientation, then give the clean ones a certfification with expiry. Re-test as required to continue donating.

    --
    The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
  4. I used to donate blood... by kuhnto · · Score: 2

    Then i found outnhow much blood banks were making selling donated blood to hospitals and other places that nneded blood or plasma. It was discusting, not to mention the huge salaries that were supported basted on these fees. I think one story was based on the Central Florida Blood Bank. I think NPR's Planet Money did a show on this also. Do not believe all those " our reserves are low, donate now". Sorry, it was Radio Lab - http://www.radiolab.org/story/...

    --
    "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
    1. Re:I used to donate blood... by kuhnto · · Score: 2

      Please excuse my misspellings, as I am in the bathtub.

      --
      "A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
    2. Re:I used to donate blood... by mysidia · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then i found out how much blood banks were making selling donated blood to hospitals and other places that nneded blood or plasma.

      Then donate to the red cross. They are not selling it for a profit. People who won't donate for some perception of money changing hands -- should remember, that one day you may be on the other side of this equation, and dependent on some stranger to make a blood donation, as vital to your own survival.

      The fewer donated units are available, the more expensive it will get, and the more people that may die, because the supply or money wasn't there to get them the transfusion they needed.

      By law, all the blood donations in the US have to come from volunteers -- donors are not allowed to sell blood.

      It is very expensive to administer a blood bank; there are a lot of costs involved in getting the product, maintaining the product, ensuring the safety of the product, and distributing the product.

      Red cross says they do not charge for the blood itself --- but they do recover costs from hospitals for each unit distributed which they say are the costs of recruiting donors, screening potential donors, collection of blood by trained professionals, processing, storing, labelling, and the testing of each unit of each blood unit in state of the art laboratories.

    3. Re:I used to donate blood... by rgmoore · · Score: 2

      Then donate to the red cross.

      Or directly to a hospital that collects its own donations. Even non-profits like the Red Cross add extra layers of bureaucracy.

      --

      There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.

    4. Re:I used to donate blood... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      I know several people who would be dead if not for you. Hate me if you like, but hospitals pay because insurance pays because people don't understand the value of insurance.

      Hospitals charge because people don't pay.

      People don't pay because insurance does.

      Consider to whom you donate, but please do consider donating to someone.

      Tell me to donate and shut up if you like, but I cannot. I can only remind you that people, flawed as they may be, deserve more than your cynicism.

    5. Re:I used to donate blood... by Hategrin · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. There is a clinic that would pay people 40 bucks a pop per "plasma" donation. I used to go there back when I was making minimum wage and flip an ounce of my plasma into a silver bullion coin once every week. That's almost 3 pounds of silver a year just to be at 90% strength for a few hours instead of 100. They would also test your blood for infection, your sugar / protean levels and what not, so it was a way to monitor your health and actually get paid for it.

    6. Re:I used to donate blood... by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      Plasma donation is likely not for transfusion into a patient; the plasma itself is valuable to pharmaceutical companies for putting together various protein products and treatments for disease. A fractionation process can be used on plasma to derive various components, such as the immunoglobins, coagulation factors, and albumin solutions.

      The components of plasma are absolutely vital for the creation of certain vaccines and treatment of certain disease, such as factor VIII and factor IX proteins which may be administered in the hospital to hemophiliacs, or people suffering from liver disease or anticoag overdose.

      There is a much larger market for these products than for transfusions, and there is commercial interest in obtaining the plasma needed to derive these products.

    7. Re:I used to donate blood... by misexistentialist · · Score: 2

      A "non-profit" that pays the CEO a million dollars.

  5. Re:Old News by binarylarry · · Score: 2

    TIL this is how the walking dead starts

    --
    Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
  6. Re:Old News by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yep, like holographic storage it's always five years away. This time it's another promising attempt. If it's like the dozen or so previous promising attempts, the substance will become less promising once it gets through further testing. Eventually it's likely that some approach will succeed - it is not at all clear that this one has any better chance than before (the TFA wasn't terribly insightful).

    But this would be a Big Deal. A really big deal if it were priced reasonably. Blood and blood products are actually pretty expensive despite it being a non profit entity in the US - testing, storage and transport all run up a pretty hefty bill. Something that was storable (especially without refrigeration) and didn't require blood typing would be a huge win.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  7. Sign of the Crab by tepples · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't know about a cure for Cancer, but I do know that Cancer can largely be prevented by abstaining from sex in October.

  8. JWs' view and my view by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jehovah's Witnesses readily accept expanders not made from human blood. I used to associate with Jehovah's Witnesses but stopped about a year ago after discovering contradictions in the denomination's other doctrines. My own personal interpretation of "the life is in the blood" (Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:11, 17:14, Acts 15:29) means I'd reject red and white blood cells, but platelets and plasma are acceptable in a pinch because those aren't living cells.

  9. What money can't buy, the moral limits of markets by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You need to read that book.

    Taking money for blood might have the opposite effect on the supply. In the book from the title, Swiss were asked if their community would be willing to host a nuclear waste storage facility for the good of the country. Many Swiss were on board with it--for the good of their country. A subset of Swiss from the same community were asked if they'd store the waste for $. Those Swiss said NO WAY. The good of their country was far more motivating for the Swiss than $.

    And take me for example. $5 is in no way compensation for the enduring the needle stick and the time involved. I doubt $20 would motivate me. Maybe not even $100. However, I've donated 2 gallons or more. I do it because of this thought: one small needle stick for me, and a bit of time, and maybe someone gets to live.

    And I'm the least-risk group of donors, selected partly by my lack of $ motivation. I don't need money for drugs because I don't take them. D'you really want to give drug addicts motive to donate blood to get money? Sometimes there isn't time for blood to be exhaustively screened before use.

    Also, recent experience shows that the most powerful motivator for blood donation is solidarity. Blood donation went through the roof after 9/11 and other disasters. They literally couldn't stick people with needles and drain 'em fast enough.

    I really think that if we want more blood supply, we need to beat the solidarity drum, and make it really convenient for people to donate.

    Best,

    --PeterM

  10. Re:Old News by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course they still haven't made any mention of the *most* important questions:

    Do vampires find it palatable enough to reduce their rampant predation on our species? And if so will they now leave us alone, or exterminate us as an unnecessary threat?

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  11. Predicting the next epidemic by Guppy · · Score: 2

    Just force all blood donors to get tested for infection, regardless of orientation, then give the clean ones a certfification with expiry. Re-test as required to continue donating.

    Back in the 80's, one of the things we learned from the opening stages of the AIDS epidemic is the possibility that a new disease agent will enter the human population, sight unseen. If such a new virus were to appear, it could spread silently for years before being identified (just has HIV did).

    It is this risk which had led to the exclusion of the gay population. The elevated risk for HIV infection in that population serves as a marker -- it demonstrates that they have the epidemiological risk characteristics to become the initial host for such a new disease, should it ever appear. By excluding higher-risk groups, the idea is to slow down the opening stages of the next epidemic.

  12. Re:Old News by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is another example of the medical cartel screwing us over. In the old days those donation centers were called "blood banks" because they functioned like actual banks. You were personally credited with each pint of blood you donated. When you needed blood after an accident or surgery, you could use any accumulated credits. You could sign credits over to a family member who needed blood. or donate them to one of those public drives for a person in need. Blood banking incentivized donations without the moral hazard of paying donors in cash.

    No longer. You have to pay for any blood you or your loved ones use, no matter how much you may have donated. Personal blood credit is used only in giving out award pins for lifetime donation totals. And we now have an ongoing donation shortfall that we never had before.

  13. Re:Old News by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    Was that before or after HIV woke us up to the need to heavily screen each and every bag of blood that comes in? Was that before or after medical malpractice lawsuits became a way of life for a huge number of leeches (which in turn, drives up liability insurance)?

    I'm actually asking, I don't know a timeline. I just know that the costs have obviously increased greatly, to a point where not paying for it might not be viable today. Even if we WERE okay with letting people who didn't have enough credits go "bankrupt" by dying. Which I doubt we ever were.