AZT and Interferon: How Does Compensation Recognise the Harm of Treatment?

People who underwent interferon treatment deserve to have their experiences recognised fully and compassionately.

In the Government’s consultation, respondents described exhaustion, pain, depression, anxiety and difficulties with memory and concentration. Some described lasting harm affecting work, relationships and everyday life. Those experiences deserve serious attention, including where people believe the compensation offered remains insufficient.

The new Level 2B hepatitis band provides more explicit recognition of interferon treatment. Government guidance describes a £10,000 increase over the Level 2 Injury award, alongside changes to financial-loss and care compensation. Evidence of treatment establishes eligibility without requiring people to prove their individual side effects or complete a minimum treatment period. The additional amount payable depends on the person’s existing compensation band and circumstances.

That recognition also invites a careful question about early HIV treatment: how is its burden reflected in compensation?

The Infected Blood Inquiry’s account of people’s experiences states:

“AZT treatment was particularly punishing.”

AZT, also called zidovudine, was licensed in 1987. The Inquiry’s HIV experts describe recognised side effects including anaemia, reduced levels of certain white blood cells, nausea, vomiting and muscle pain. They explain that side effects often limited treatment, particularly with the higher doses used in earlier years.

The same expert report records evidence of short-term clinical benefit in people with advanced HIV disease. That context matters. Treatment could offer hope while also causing significant harm. Its documented side effects do not establish that AZT caused any particular person’s deterioration or death.

For a compensation scheme, the question is how to recognise the suffering people experienced while undergoing treatment for an infection acquired through NHS blood or blood products.

There is an important part of the official record that must be acknowledged.

The Government’s compensation Expert Group explicitly discussed the adverse effects of early antiretroviral treatments, including their lasting consequences and impact on people’s ability to work. That formed part of its reasoning for recommending financial-loss compensation based on complete loss of earning capacity after HIV diagnosis.

Its description of Injury awards also includes harm from related medical treatment. It would therefore be inaccurate to say early HIV treatment harm was never considered.

What remains open to scrutiny is how fully the awards reflect that harm, and how clearly people can understand the reasoning.

The interferon comparison needs the same care. The Government’s February 2026 explanation says people with HIV and hepatitis co-infection would receive no additional award from Level 2B because their existing entitlement was considered to cover the relevant harms. It also describes limits on additional compensation for people already in higher hepatitis bands.

There is no separately named AZT award in the published scheme explainer. That alone does not establish that AZT-related suffering is excluded from compensation.

But people should be able to understand what is included, how it was assessed and what they can do if their experience falls outside the assumptions used.

There are clear questions Government and IBCA could help answer:

• What evidence about AZT and other early HIV treatments informed the awards?

• How were treatment-related pain, psychological harm and care needs reflected?

• How does that assessment apply to people who died, whose estates now represent them?

• What options exist where the standard awards do not adequately reflect the harm experienced?

• How will the adequacy of treatment-related compensation be reviewed as further evidence is considered?

These are questions about the scheme’s design and explanation. They should be answered with evidence that the community can understand and examine.

People who endured interferon deserve recognition for everything that treatment put them through. People who endured difficult early HIV treatments deserve the same care and attention when their experiences are assessed.

Equal respect does not require identical medical experiences. Nor should anyone have to argue that their suffering was worse before it is taken seriously.

For people who lived through treatment for more than one infection, these experiences can be intertwined. A discussion about compensation should make room for that complexity.

Recognition for one person should strengthen the principle of fair recognition for everyone.

The question for Government is whether it can demonstrate that the scheme delivers it.

Sources:

Government response to the compensation consultation: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-proposed-changes-to-the-infected-blood-compensation-scheme/outcome/government-response-to-consultation-on-changes-to-the-infected-blood-compensation-scheme

Infected Blood Inquiry — Final Report, Volume 2: https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/reports/final-report-volume-2.html

Infected Blood Inquiry — HIV Expert Report: https://www.infectedbloodinquiry.org.uk/reports/hiv-report.html

Government’s compensation Expert Group — Final Report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infected-blood-inquiry-response-expert-group-summary-report/infected-blood-inquiry-response-expert-group-final-report

Technical Expert Group — Interferon background paper: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infected-blood-compensation-scheme-technical-expert-group-2025/roundtable-background-paper-interferon-february-2026html

Government compensation scheme explainer: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/infected-blood-compensation-scheme/government-update-on-the-infected-blood-compensation-scheme-html

— The Unheard Voice