Slashdot Mirror
Survivors' Blood Holds Promise, But Draws Critics, As Ebola Treatment
As reported by The Los Angeles Times, the World Health Organization is endorsing blood transfusions from Ebola survivors as a treatment for those currently infected. The idea behind blood transfusion is similar to vaccination by other means, though (at least as discussed here) administered only after a patient has been infected: "The blood plasma of people who have recovered from Ebola contains antibodies that were successful in fighting off the virus. If these antibodies are pumped into an infected person, they might help the recipient fight the disease as well."
The article mentions that while there is little evidence to back the efficacy in preventing Ebola, "Transfusions were used to treat a small number of patients during the 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak in Zaire, now known as the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to Dr. Oyewale Tomori, a professor of virology at Redeemer's University in Nigeria. A study published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases after the outbreak reported that eight patients received transfusions, and only one of them died."
The idea of blood transfusions has critics, too: Dr. William Shaffner of Vanderbilt University is skeptical, saying he was surprised that the WHO would make transfusions a priority in the ongoing crisis because they are labor-intensive, making it difficult to serve a large number of patients. "You can't do this en masse," Schaffner said. "This is going to be a desperate attempt to provide something for a relatively small number of patients." Finding suitable donors may also prove more challenging than WHO officials expect, he warned. Malnutrition and other health concerns could make it more difficult to draw blood from people. "These are people who have recovered from Ebola," Schaffner said. "When are they hale and hearty enough to actually do a donation?"
The idea of blood transfusions has critics, too: Dr. William Shaffner of Vanderbilt University is skeptical, saying he was surprised that the WHO would make transfusions a priority in the ongoing crisis because they are labor-intensive, making it difficult to serve a large number of patients. "You can't do this en masse," Schaffner said. "This is going to be a desperate attempt to provide something for a relatively small number of patients." Finding suitable donors may also prove more challenging than WHO officials expect, he warned. Malnutrition and other health concerns could make it more difficult to draw blood from people. "These are people who have recovered from Ebola," Schaffner said. "When are they hale and hearty enough to actually do a donation?"
I am wondering for some time.
I think recovered patience are not contagious anymore, and can likely not be infected again.
Why not hire them en mass as desperately needed hospital staff.
Even if it is just for basic care of the infected patients.
While it is true that there are any number of ways that the implementation of this could go horribly wrong in West Africa, the hard fact remains that they really don't have any other options. There's no "blue pill fairy" that's going to swoop down and save them. This isn't some episode of TNG where they can just technobabble their way out of the problem.
This may be a crazy hair brained idea but it seems to be the best thing they have going.
We ran out of the magical ebola drug after just 2 patients. Waiting on Big Pharma is probably not a good idea.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
There's a serious ethical problem with allocating scarce healthcare resources, particularly those in theatre to ideas that have no evidence of being worth trying.
It has been done during the 1995 Kikwit Ebola outbreak in Zaire. They tried it on eight patients and only one died. I have found no indication that any health care workers were infected. Notice the transfusions were done in Zaire. Also notice the ebola funding has increased quite rapidly.
As to numbers, There have only been 4,000 cases so far. Maybe a few hundred could be treated with transfusions and have their lives saved. Why deny them that? This is not an immunization treatment and therefore will only be used on already sick people. Restricting the practice to medical facilities that can handle the procedure will restrict if not eliminate infections of health care workers. Fewer people will be treated but it will be much safer.
If you save one patient with a blood transfusion but kill 2 others who accidentally get infected you're not really doing a good thing.
It you treat a few hundred people under restricted conditions and they live then it is a good thing.