Syringe Design Change Could Cut HIV Transmission

HIV transmission due to needle sharing could be greatly reduced by changing syringe design to ensure less trapped blood. Gretchen Cuda Kroen reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Sharing syringes is a big no-no. But despite the warnings, needle sharing among injection drug users is still a significant cause for the spread of HIV and other infectious diseases.

But HIV transmission due to needle sharing could be nearly eradicated by merely changing the design of the syringe. So says a study in the International Journal of Drug Policy. [William A. Zule et al., Are major reductions in new HIV infections possible with people who inject drugs? The case for low dead-space syringes in highly affected countries]

When the plunger on a syringe is fully depressed, a small amount of fluid stays trapped in what is known as the "dead space." By reducing the amount of dead space in the syringe design, researchers say they can reduce the amount of infectious blood trapped inside by a factor of a thousand—and thus vastly reduce the numbers of viral particles available to spread disease.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Using a simulation model, the authors found that switching to low-dead-space syringes could reduce annual HIV infections from syringe sharing to nearly zero within eight years.

Although there are still a number of barriers to making low-dead-space syringes available worldwide, the authors say this low-cost intervention could help keep drug users—and their families—disease free.

—Gretchen Cuda Kroen

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe