HIV returns in two patients after bone marrow transplan

Well it looks like the cure, that had been found, isn't quite the cure we were hoping for.

CNN Source

(CNN) -- HIV has returned in two patients who doctors hoped had been cured of the virus following bone marrow transplants, the Boston researcher who treated them said Saturday.

The HIV virus became undetectable in both patients approximately eight months after the transplant. The men remained on antiretroviral therapy until the spring of 2013.

"The return of detectable levels of HIV in our patients is disappointing, but scientifically significant," Dr. Timothy Henrich, a researcher at Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, said in a statement. "We have demonstrated HIV can be reduced to undetectable levels by very sensitive research assays and the virus persists."

The virus became detectable in one patient in August -- 12 weeks after ceasing antiretroviral therapy. In the other man, HIV became detectable this month, 32 weeks after antiretroviral therapy ceased.

"Through this research we have discovered the HIV reservoir is deeper and more persistent than previously known and that our current standards of probing for HIV may not be sufficient to inform us if long-term HIV remission is possible if antiretroviral therapy is stopped," Henrich said. "We have also learned that there may be an important long-lived HIV reservoir outside the blood compartment."

Although it seems this will help researchers continue their work towards a cure, for now these patients have had their miracle dashed a bit.

According to the article the therapy they were using has a 20% mortality rate and isn't available to everybody.

Thoughts?

~Tenth

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Interesting.

I had heard about the man "cured" because he got a very special transplant that included the mutation.

From what I understand these transplants were not from donors with the gene mutation CCR5 delta32.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Actually, the re-infection makes sense. HIV is a retrovirus, meaning it converts it's RNA genome to DNA that gets incorporated into the infected host cells' DNA, i.e. the viral genes are around as long as the host cell lives. The cells infected are of the immune system, e.g. helper T-cells, dendritic cells, etc. Those immune cells are formed from stems cells in bone marrow (the hematopoeitc stem cells). Unless there is complete eradication of the infected cells and new, uninfected immune cells formed, one would never be "cured." The transplants did go a long way in reducing viral numbers below detectable levels, but that didn't necessarily equate to viral eradication. The virus was still lingering around. This is actually a significant finding and one that may make a real cure imminent.

reply to post by OrphanApology

From what I understand these transplants were not from donors with the gene mutation CCR5 delta32.

Indeed, the article does mention those two mutations as being the ones required for the treatment.


reply to post by FatherStacks


Thank you for that explanation, that makes more sense to me now

~Tenth

OrphanApology
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

Interesting.

I had heard about the man "cured" because he got a very special transplant that included the mutation.

From what I understand these transplants were not from donors with the gene mutation CCR5 delta32.

Yes. Only one person got the transplant with the mutation, and he is still HIV free (undetectable levels). They were hoping this could be done without the need for the mutation, they were wrong. I was actually fairly surprised when initially it seemed to work.

reply to post by tothetenthpower



I'm just happy that my "area of expertise" could be useful on a post here at ATS. Being nearly a year and a half off chemotherapy and still not demonstrate detectible viral levels is quite an achievement. The notion the researchers present that HIV could be "hiding out" somewhere else in the body is both exciting and terrifying. In my opinion, those docs need to keep their foot on the gas with those anti-retroviral drugs.

Slightly off-topic but what is the life-expectancy for someone with HIV these days? I read an article a few weeks ago that said it was now an incredible 35 years. No is HIV no longer the death sentence it used to be?

Logman
Slightly off-topic but what is the life-expectancy for someone with HIV these days? I read an article a few weeks ago that said it was now an incredible 35 years. No is HIV no longer the death sentence it used to be?

No, that figure is way off. It's in the 70's. I believe a 20 year old infected today is expected to live to 71, a non infected person 78.

I think it depends on the strain of the virus, doesn't it?

There's a new strain that has a life expectancy of only 5 years running around now.

ketsuko
I think it depends on the strain of the virus, doesn't it?

There's a new strain that has a life expectancy of only 5 years running around now.

Source?

Sourcereply to post by OccamsRazor04


There was a thread about it here on ATS a day or two ago.

This also talks about how there are multiple stains around the world and some of them progress faster than others to full blown AIDS. So, yes, it depends on which strain you have.

I have no knowledge of this subject so this may be a stupid thought, but there was a lot of people who claimed HIV was man made, so, if that were true, is it not possible that those responsible may have re-infected the patients?

Seems a silly thought, but this is ats

ketsuko
Sourcereply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

There was a thread about it here on ATS a day or two ago.

This also talks about how there are multiple stains around the world and some of them progress faster than others to full blown AIDS. So, yes, it depends on which strain you have.

edit on 7-12-2013 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

I am well aware of that, I have not heard of any strain with a 5 year life expectancy. As I said source it, you post without a source, not sure how that is helpful. There is nothing in the medical forum on HIV or AIDS in the past few days.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


There is a link there. It's with the word "Source." The new strain develops into full-blown AIDS in 5 years, so I suppose it's not a 5 year life expectancy. It depends on how long you can live with full blown AIDS. My understanding is that full blown AIDS can kill you quickly, as little as one year. So, the new strain can kill you in about 6 years.

ketsuko
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

There is a link there. It's with the word "Source." The new strain develops into full-blown AIDS in 5 years, so I suppose it's not a 5 year life expectancy. It depends on how long you can live with full blown AIDS. My understanding is that full blown AIDS can kill you quickly, as little as one year. So, the new strain can kill you in about 6 years.

Two things.

First, do not put SOURCE up where it says reply, no one will ever see it there.

Second, life expectancy is how long you live, not how long it takes for HIV to turn into AIDS. Life expectancy is not 5 years with this strain. Life expectancy is not even mentioned in that article.

OccamsRazor04

Logman
Slightly off-topic but what is the life-expectancy for someone with HIV these days? I read an article a few weeks ago that said it was now an incredible 35 years. No is HIV no longer the death sentence it used to be?

No, that figure is way off. It's in the 70's. I believe a 20 year old infected today is expected to live to 71, a non infected person 78.

Wow--I thought it would have been much less like 45-50. I'm going to have to tell a friend this, she was diagnosed positive at 20 and treats it like a death sentence...

HIV isnt something I like researching due to the conflicting information going around. But its good to know there is hope for those affected.

reply to post by Logman

Well, I suppose that depends when one contracts HIV.

Although the lingo around HIV is very much about statistics, walking into a support group here could have a full range of pretty ordinary people.

There could be people in their 60s or 70s who just contracted HIV, or HIV-positive middle-age moms with teen children that were born with HIV.

I've been positive for ten years, but I'm supposed to start medication in February.

I do actually expect to live to 70, or at least the national life expectancy for my country.

However, it's not been an easy ride, and it's not going to be.
The medication could also have side effects that could be deadly.
For a few people it just doesn't work at all.
I'm scared to death.

I just wanted to add that, because although there's hope for HIV-positive people, I don't want people to think they can be careless because a pill will make it all go away.
It's still a nightmare, and please be careful and don't get it.

cartenz

OccamsRazor04

Logman
Slightly off-topic but what is the life-expectancy for someone with HIV these days? I read an article a few weeks ago that said it was now an incredible 35 years. No is HIV no longer the death sentence it used to be?

No, that figure is way off. It's in the 70's. I believe a 20 year old infected today is expected to live to 71, a non infected person 78.

Wow--I thought it would have been much less like 45-50. I'm going to have to tell a friend this, she was diagnosed positive at 20 and treats it like a death sentence...

HIV isnt something I like researching due to the conflicting information going around. But its good to know there is hope for those affected.

PM me if you have any questions. It's not the death sentence it once was, but still quite unpleasant.

reply to post by halfoldman


Yes, LENGTH of life is almost normal. QUALITY of life is not.

It's also so easy to prevent, especially for straight men, especially if they don't use drugs.

Can't imagine how it must feel to have what seemed a miracle cure turn out to be false. You must have your hopes so high, you've been cured. At least overall, treatment for HIV is moving in the right direction. It's no longer the death sentence it once was