[Question #8601] HIV Transmission - Possible?
 |
42 months ago
|
Dear doctors, I would like to get your opinion on the possibility and risk of hiv transmission from the following 2 scenarios:
1) Getting massage with handjob and sucking nipples of masseuse (some websites mention risk of infected breast milk). Zero or low risk?
2) Theoretical scenario: Having a bleeding cut on hand (between index and thumb) and holding a contaminated napkin tightly onto the injury to stop blood flowing out. I know this is not an "injection" but what is your view on it?
Thank you
 |
Edward W. Hook M.D.
42 months ago
|
Welcome to our forum and thanks for your question. I’ll be glad to comment. HIV is more difficult to transmit/acquire than many people believe. The virus is transmitted only through direct sexual contact in which mucous membranes are directly exposed to infected secretions or blood or through injection of infected material deep into tissue. It is not even acquired through indirect transfer of infected material through exposure to genital secretions in the course of masturbation in which partners get each other’s secretions on one another, or on inanimate objects in which contaminated by HIV infected blood or secretions. That’s in response to your specific questions:
1. The activities you describe are no risk events. As mentioned above, receipt of masturbation is a no risk event. Similarly sucking on the breast/nipples of an infected woman represents no risk for adults. This is the case even if the woman is lactating at that time. In infants with an immature digestive system, ingestion of breast milk from an untreated infected woman can occasionally transmit HIV.
2. Irrespective of how the napkin you mention is contaminated, pressing it all then recent open wound would generally be considered a no risk event.
EWH
--- |
42 months ago
|
Thank you Dr. Hook for your reply.
Just as a follow up on the second scenario I have described for my own learning: i know that unbroken skin is a barrier for hiv transmission and that the virus becomes inactive after few hours out in the open environment, however could you potentially elaborate into why pressing a recently contaminated napkin, theoretically, onto a bleeding cut on the hand would not constitute a risk for transmission?
Have such scenarios been studied? Since all non-sexual risks are typically summarized by needle injection deep into the bloodstream while excluding contacts similar to the one i have described (i.e. bleeding cuts with inanimate infected surfaces)
Thank you!
|
Edward W. Hook M.D.
42 months ago
|
There are no formal studies of the second scenario you describe. Conducting such a study in a scientifically rigorous fashion would be quite difficult. On the other hand, there are no well described instances in which exposures of the sort you describe have been proven to lead to HIV acquisition despite the fact that the contact of open wounds and sores with infected secretions or blood (which contain similar levels of HIV in any given person) is quite common (there are literally hundreds of past questions on this Forum asking much the same question- none has ever been shown to lead to infection). The consensus amongst experts which such an exposure might theoretically result in infection, the probability of it occurring is vanishingly low (remember, even with true, DIRECT injection of material substantially less than 1% of instances lead to infection).
Reasons for the close to zero risk for transmission include that HIV rapidly looses its infectiousness when exposed to air and the environment and that viruses tend to adhere to fibers of material such as paper, cotton, or other fibers.
Consensus amongst experts is that this is a close to no risk event. EWH
--- |
42 months ago
|
Thank you Doctor
No follow up questions from my side.
|
Edward W. Hook M.D.
42 months ago
|
I hope the information I provided has been helpful. Take care. EWH---