Author Topic: Is it fair to compare HAART to .. (Read 8890 times)

Ihavehope · « **on:** February 13, 2007, 02:13:42 pm »

Hey guys

I was reading through a few threads in the website and noticed that a member here was giving advice to a newly infected individual and compared HAART to chemotherapy.

I am not a doctor nor a chemist and I am newly infected myself but I was under the impression that chemo is alot more harsher than HAART and does not serve the same purpose. We all know that all drugs are toxic, and HAART is known for this, but is it wise for someone to compare this to life-time of chemo to a newbie? If it is true that it can be compared to chemo, why bring up a comparison of such sort up?

RapidRod · « **Reply #1 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:27:34 pm »

No, they were not wrong with the comparison. AZT was/is a cancer treatment drug beside being used for HIV. HAART is doing the same thing to the body as other cancer given agents.

Ihavehope · « **Reply #2 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:34:37 pm »

Ok then, I guess we have a disease worse than Cancer, at least cancer patients don't have to be on it forever. Thanks.

Alain · « **Reply #3 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:35:24 pm »

Another drug called Hydroxyurea also comes to mind, having been on it quite some time ago and was part of my combo.

This drug is also a cancer treatment option for some.

Alain.

Boo Radley · « **Reply #4 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:37:39 pm »

As the person who started this awful rumor I'll merely provide this link to my response to you in the other thread.

http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=8920.msg108784#msg108784

Ihave, a friend of mine died from ovarian cancer a few years ago. One day we were talking and she mentioned to me that oncologists have learned a lot from HAART and HIV. Her chemotherapy was not as debilitating as it might have been 10 years ago because cancer researchers found that such large doses of chemo, that make people ill for days, were not necessary to be effective against the disease.

Cancer chemo is still hard on the body but it is only done for 6 - 12 months at a time. HIV chemo is not as hard as it was in the early years when doctors were guessing what doses to try but it is still chemotherapy by definition.

Boo

RapidRod · « **Reply #5 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:38:14 pm »

Ihavehope, not all cancers can be cured either.

jack · « **Reply #6 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:38:32 pm »

because some people become very sick on certain drugs. I do not think it was the patients that came up with the term. I heard it from medical people. I guess no one gets sick or has any problems anymore.
I was very sick for a couple years. Sick enough that I felt it was better to not take the drugs they had me on even though I had no other options. In other words I decided I would rather be dead than feel the way I was feeling. Maybe you just get used to feeling like shit or maybe the new drugs dont cause the same problems that the ones in the 90s did.

RapidRod · « **Reply #7 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:41:43 pm »

I know the dossage of AZT is not like it was when it first came out.

Ihavehope · « **Reply #8 on:** February 13, 2007, 02:50:03 pm »

Yea drugs suck..

AZT i hear was horrible back in the 80's and 90's. why are docs still prescribing it?

Boo Radley · « **Reply #9 on:** February 13, 2007, 03:05:44 pm »

Quote from: Ihavehope on February 13, 2007, 02:50:03 pm

AZT i hear was horrible back in the 80's and 90's. why are docs still prescribing it?

AZT, in combination with other drugs, is still effective against HIV for many people. It got such a bad rep because, like I said before, in the early years the doses were too high and AZT made some people as sick as AIDS did. Because of the sheer numbers of human guinea pigs around back then (and we're still guinea pigs but that's usually better than AIDS) researchers were able to lower the dose over time, trying successively smaller doses.

Overdosing was common with a lot of new drugs because no one knew what the optimal dose was. My life on meds is a hell of a lot easier because of the thousands of people before me who had a choice between taking a horrible drug or dying from AIDS. Most of us on HAART today owe a huge debt to those who came before us, and many of the esteemed members of AIDSmeds are among those pioneers.

Boo

jack · « **Reply #10 on:** February 13, 2007, 03:07:03 pm »

send cash.

Ann · « **Reply #11 on:** February 13, 2007, 04:53:28 pm »

Chemo = chemical.

Therapy = ... well, therapy.

HAART is chemical therapy. Better living through chemicals and all that.

Yep, the term fits. Whether a person likes the term or not is a personal choice. I used to refer to my interferon/ribavirin chemical cocktail as chemo. ~shrug~ If the word fits, say it!

Ann

Ann · « **Reply #12 on:** February 13, 2007, 04:57:32 pm »

And by the way, didn't the term chemotherapy come about as short hand for differentiating between cancer therapies involving radiation (radiotherapy) and chemicals (chemotherapy)

If it's therapy (which HAART is - Highly Active Anti-Retroviral THERAPY) and it's made up of chemicals, then it's chemotherapy.

Ann

bear60 · « **Reply #13 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:01:20 pm »

I have avoided posting until Ann did....and so.....I think "chemotherapy" in most minds is equated with CANCER and being hooked up to IV's once a week or whatever. I am glad to say I do not equate HIV therapy with chemotherapy but I do recognize that it is chemical therapy. I think its just my way of coping.
Modified to add: I meant that I wanted to hear what Ann had to say before I posted, and I do agree with her.

Ihavehope · « **Reply #14 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:05:59 pm »

Technically it is the a combination of chemicals, but so is tylenol and all other treatments. I also associated chemotherapy with potent drugs that basicaly knocked you out and made you fragil and you can't get out of bed for days or months. But then again I don't know anything about cancer treatment.

blondbeauty · « **Reply #15 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:13:48 pm »

I totally agree with Ann´s explanation about the word Chemotherapy. You have to be careful when you read medical reports and studies and the terms they use. It can be scaring if you are not a Dr.

bear60 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:17:24 pm »

well IHave....cancer treatments are not always debilitating.....I have a woman friend who had some form of breast cancer and she had chemo and radiation treatment and never was out of commission. She went to work and took care of her kids just like ........normal.
But I know what you mean when you say..... "I also associated chemotherapy with potent drugs that basicaly knocked you out and made you fragil and you can't get out of bed for days or months. But then again I don't know anything about cancer treatment. "

HIV drugs do that to some people. Not to others. And not all the time. But I would describe my partners overall condition as fragil. Which is why he is on disability.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #17 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:41:58 pm »

Quote from: Ann on February 13, 2007, 04:57:32 pm

And by the way, didn't the term chemotherapy come about as short hand for differentiating between cancer therapies involving radiation (radiotherapy) and chemicals (chemotherapy)

If it's therapy (which HAART is - Highly Active Anti-Retroviral THERAPY) and it's made up of chemicals, then it's chemotherapy.

Ann

Chemotherapy literally means using chemicals to treat a diease. Any disease.

The first modern time it was used was arsenic-based drugs to treat syphilis (I read National Georaphic religiously) in the early 20th century.

We use it to refer to what is technically "cytotoxic chemotherapy" for cancer (cytotoxic means it kills cells)... but even pencillin is a type of chemotherapy... just for a different use.

And you're completely right... HAART is a form of chemotherapy.

Because it's chemicals.

I am a huge nerd.

Boo Radley · « **Reply #18 on:** February 13, 2007, 05:49:30 pm »

Quote from: jack on February 13, 2007, 03:07:03 pm

send cash.

What's that? Can't you just take my Visa ^(TM) CheckCard number?

Boo

StrongGuy · « **Reply #19 on:** February 13, 2007, 06:08:07 pm »

Virtually every medication is a chemical (I always love looking at the diagram of the molecule that comes with the med warning like I have a clue what I am looking at.)

From a personal stand point, and in the way the term "chemo" is used in mainstream vernacular, I wouldn't refer to my HAART regime as chemo.

My grandmother just went through six months of cancer chemotherapy and every week my mother called me up crying how my grandmother was puking, lost so much weight, had sores in her mouth, lost all her hair, could barely walk and was severely anemic from the treatment. When I think of chemo that's what comes to my mind.

But as others have said drugs are chemicals and it is technically chemo - just not something I'd ever use in referring to HAART based on my personal experience.

dtwpuck · « **Reply #20 on:** February 13, 2007, 06:15:35 pm »

Both treatments are toxic, but effective. Although I am not sure that cancer treatments are as statistically effective as HIV, but I guess that depends on how you define it. Unsuccessful treatment of either disease has the same result. I hesitate to compare cancer vs hiv. Both are terrible, difficult things and I completely feel for anyone facing one or both. It is my opinion that each person's suffering is as potent to him or her as any others. It's really very relative and treating one person's experience with HAART as somehow better or worse than a different person's cancer treatment seems to me to be a bit off the mark. I don't know how any of this can be described in terms of 'better' or 'worse' anyway.

aupointillimite · « **Reply #21 on:** February 13, 2007, 06:18:00 pm »

Quote from: StrongGuy on February 13, 2007, 06:08:07 pm

(I always love looking at the diagram of the molecule that comes with the med warning like I have a clue what I am looking at.)

From a personal stand point, and in the way the term "chemo" is used in mainstream vernacular, I wouldn't refer to my HAART regime as chemo.

But as others have said drugs are chemicals and it is technically chemo - just not something I'd ever use in referring to HAART based on my personal experience.

I do that too! The chemical symbol for Sustiva is C(14)H(9)NClF(3)O(2). And it's name is 8-chloro-5-(2-cyclopropylethynyl)- 5-(trifluoromethyl)- 4-oxa-2-azabicyclo [4.4.0]deca- 7,9,11-trien-3-one.

Say that five times fast.

And I'm with you... I wouldn't call HAART chemotherapy... even though that's what it is... it's not a usage of the term that the vast majority of people would understand.

Much like I don't understand Sustiva's chemical name...

Boo Radley · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2007, 06:49:59 pm »

Quote from: StrongGuy on February 13, 2007, 06:08:07 pm

Virtually every medication is a chemical

But most other drugs don't fit the definition of chemotherapy (from American Heritage dictionary):
"The treatment of disease using chemical agents or drugs that are selectively toxic to the causative agent of the disease, such as a virus, bacterium, or other microorganism."

I suppose one could argue HAART drugs are not toxic to HIV but I think that's stretching it. The net effect is the same -- reduce the total number of viruses swimming about the bloodstream.

Quote

My grandmother just went through six months of cancer chemotherapy and every week my mother called me up crying how my grandmother was puking, lost so much weight, had sores in her mouth, lost all her hair, could barely walk and was severely anemic from the treatment. When I think of chemo that's what comes to my mind.

I guess that's what comes to mind for many people since cancer chemotherapy is known for its harshness on the human, which is why it's usually administered for 6 to 12 months at most. HAART is not as harsh NOW but the description of your grandmother's chemo effects is quite similar to the effects of meds on people in the mid-80s and beyond, and even some to this day. People like me who started HAART only a few years ago (I started 10/2004) have a lot easier time with HAART: we are usually taking lower doses than those administered in earlier years, we have fewer pills to take, and fewer restrictions/requirements as far as fasting, taking with or without food, taking with a low fat food, etc.

My point about HAART as chemotherapy is it's important, I believe, for infected people to be aware many of the drugs we're taking today are known to be toxic to many over a long period. The newer drugs have not been in use long enough to know they can be taken for 10 - 20 or more years without problems. Like all of us I hope and am optimistic about the outlook for us but I'm not ready to break out the fireworks and Urbana-Champa(i)gn yet.

Boo

6:11PM CST
P.S. Find the nauseous pun, win a neat prize! This offer is available to everyone in the world except people named Benj.

fondeveau · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:16:01 pm »

Right, a problem of perspective and one that may mislead people to forego HAART, if they equate it with the nausea, hair-loss, etc of chemotherapy treatment for cancer patients. Even doctors differentiate as in "He received chemotherapy concurrently with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), and lived for 14 months after the diagnosis."

aupointillimite · « **Reply #24 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:18:50 pm »

Quote from: Boo Radley on February 13, 2007, 06:49:59 pm

P.S. Find the nauseous pun, win a neat prize! This offer is available to everyone in the world except people named Benj.

Is the nauseous pun that the town in Illinois spelled "Champaign" without an e?

Hmm? Is it?

Love,

Benito

StrongGuy · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:25:36 pm »

Good point Boo...

Unforeseen toxicities may (or may not) rear their ugly head in the future for some of the HIV drugs (as they may also for other drugs people take for other conditions), and undoubtedly those who suffered through AZT in high dosages in the past were subjected to a inhumane toxic overload. And still today there are some people who suffer crippling toxicities.

But I'm optimistic too and I don't worry about the "what ifs" (but that's another topic). Just my personal preference leaving the "chemotherapy" term in a different category when referring to my drug regiment.

I also think it could scare people away from taking HAART (not a fan of instilling fear) by conjuring up images that may or may not happen without looking objectively at each regiment on it's own, it's varying side effects, etc...

Mike

Ihavehope · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:35:20 pm »

Quote from: StrongGuy on February 13, 2007, 07:25:36 pm

Good point Boo...

Unforeseen toxicities may (or may not) rear their ugly head in the future for some of the HIV drugs (as they may also for other drugs people take for other conditions), and undoubtedly those who suffered through AZT in high dosages in the past were subjected to a inhumane toxic overload. And still today there are some people who suffer crippling toxicities.

But I'm optimistic too and I don't worry about the "what ifs" (but that's another topic). Just my personal preference leaving the "chemotherapy" term in a different category when referring to my drug regiment.

I also think it could scare people away from taking HAART (not a fan of instilling fear) by conjuring up images that may or may not happen without looking objectively at each regiment on it's own, it's varying side effects, etc...

Mike

Thank you Strongguy for your opinion. I agree with you 100%

Boo Radley · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:38:55 pm »

Quote from: aupointillimite on February 13, 2007, 07:18:50 pm

Is the nauseous pun that the town in Illinois spelled "Champaign" without an e?

Then where the hell is Champaigne?? I know it exists... maybe not. Maybe I'm thinking of Charlemangie.

How dare you attack a helpless old man? I'm not changing it again. It might make me appear too pedantic.

Besides, your kind are excluded from entering the contest. One must draw the line somewhere.

Boonita

woodshere · « **Reply #28 on:** February 13, 2007, 07:52:15 pm »

Quote from: dtwpuck on February 13, 2007, 06:15:35 pm

Both treatments are toxic, but effective. Although I am not sure that cancer treatments are as statistically effective as HIV, but I guess that depends on how you define it. Unsuccessful treatment of either disease has the same result. I hesitate to compare cancer vs hiv. Both are terrible, difficult things and I completely feel for anyone facing one or both. It is my opinion that each person's suffering is as potent to him or her as any others. It's really very relative and treating one person's experience with HAART as somehow better or worse than a different person's cancer treatment seems to me to be a bit off the mark. I don't know how any of this can be described in terms of 'better' or 'worse' anyway.

I agree completely, but couldn't figure out how to say it without pissing people off. Well said dtwpuck.

Woods

Boo Radley · « **Reply #29 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:28:56 pm »

Quote from: dtwpuck on February 13, 2007, 06:15:35 pm

It's really very relative and treating one person's experience with HAART as somehow better or worse than a different person's cancer treatment seems to me to be a bit off the mark. I don't know how any of this can be described in terms of 'better' or 'worse' anyway.

Who claims his/her experience with HAART is "better or worse" than another's experience with cancer chemo? The point is when most people think of chemo they think of cancer chemo, not HAART although HAART is technically chemotherapy. People who don't want to acknowledge they are on chemo for HIV don't have to. Everyone being counseled before beginning HAART should be given an accurate assessment of the world today, not what we hope it will be in 10 - 20 years.

Boo

aupointillimite · « **Reply #30 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:39:05 pm »

Quote from: Boo Radley on February 13, 2007, 08:28:56 pm

Everyone being counseled before beginning HAART should be given an accurate assessment of the world today, not what we hope it will be in 10 - 20 years.

Exactly... it would be the height of irresponsibilty to counsel someone thinking about HAART using potential future benefits as a selling point to start now.

"In 2018, we'll have magical liver nanobots that can fix each damaged liver cell from the inside-out!"

Boo Radley · « **Reply #31 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:44:03 pm »

Hey Mike!

Quote from: StrongGuy on February 13, 2007, 07:25:36 pm

Unforeseen toxicities may (or may not) rear their ugly head in the future for some of the HIV drugs

For many current HAART drugs there are existing toxicities (over a longer-term). It's not hypothetical.

Quote

But I'm optimistic too and I don't worry about the "what ifs" (but that's another topic). Just my personal preference leaving the "chemotherapy" term in a different category when referring to my drug regiment.

As is of course your prerogative! I'll stop worrying about the "what ifs" when we have a few more years of HAART under our collective belt. When I refer to my regimen I usually call them HIV drugs, not chemotherapy, like most of us. Comparing cancer chemo to HIV chemo is pointless, which is I think a point made by puck before. Acknowledging that HAART involves ingesting toxic substances isn't requisite for anyone but I believe it is an issue which should be addressed before initiation of HAART even if it's never mentioned again.

Quote

I also think it could scare people away from taking HAART (not a fan of instilling fear) by conjuring up images that may or may not happen without looking objectively at each regiment on it's own, it's varying side effects, etc...

That is a good point, as long as people contemplating HAART are given a comprehensive explanation of the current situation, not a theoretical future situation. Too many doctors are telling new patients "not to worry" but their advice is premature. Too many people take HAART for granted now and they shouldn't be so complacent (yet).

I'm not suggesting everyone freak out and have panic attacks and live in constant anxiety because the future of HIV disease is not clear yet. I think people should be optimistic but cognizant that the meds they take are not yet proven to keep one alive over the long term. It will be 10 - 20 or more years before those assertions can be made.

I think this topic is somewhat a generational one. Many of us who were here in the early 80s and beyond are somewhat skeptical of claims the battle is over. For people more recently entering the wonderful world of HIV the outlook is decidedly better (for many) than it was 15 years ago. Also, being so new to HIVWorld and simply dealing with the fact of infection may make it better for newcomers to deal with one issue before addressing another one.

This is all academic since no one knows what the future holds and we won't until we get there! I'll keep my opinions until it seems reasonable to me to change them and everyone else can obviously do the same. I'm not trying to harsh anyone's buzz, dude, I'm trying to be realistic in a way that makes sense to/for me.

Boo

koi1 · « **Reply #32 on:** February 13, 2007, 08:56:17 pm »

Well as having had my brother in law fight lymphoma last year, I can tell you I am having a much better time fighting AIDS. I stayed with him many nights to comfort him, sometimes having to take him to the ER for unabatable fevers. I think there is a difference with today's treatments for AIDS than pre-HAART therapy.

There is no question that the toxicity levels in HIV drugs have come down over the years. Chemotherapy for cancer is more of a shotgon approach and involves more destruction of bodily structures. I know our meds are still toxic, but I still have not reached the appearance or the level of pain my brother in law did. I it doensn't mean I won't, but my brother in law had several close ones. With a collapsed lung, and many other issues.

rob

StrongGuy · « **Reply #33 on:** February 13, 2007, 10:38:17 pm »

Boo I agree with you and your analysis is well-thought and compelling as usual.

Just to clarify:

Quote

For many current HAART drugs there are existing toxicities (over a longer-term). It's not hypothetical

I was referring to toxicities that may come up that are "unforseen," (meaning may show up 10 or 15 years that haven't yet been seen because some drugs are so new not enough time has lapsed to know).

I was NOT discounting or ignoring the fact that long-term toxicities (however people define that - whether it's neuropathy for one drug or liver problems for another or a host of others) haven't been documented or don't currently happen for some HIV drugs and/or combos in some people.

My comment regarding "fear" was a general statement about the term chemotherapy -- not directed at you Boo at all or in any way intimating you, specifically, were trying to "harsh anyone's buzz" (love that phrase BTW).

I didn't even think about what your view on the term was when I wrote what I wrote above regarding fear/chemotherapy (plus I've read enough of your posts to know fear mongering is not your thing - you seem pretty realistic and pragmatic in my book). When I direct a comment toward someone I'm very direct

And, btw, your "generational analysis" is spot on IMHO...

Peace!
Mike

Boo Radley · « **Reply #34 on:** February 14, 2007, 10:25:26 am »

Mike,

Quote from: StrongGuy on February 13, 2007, 10:38:17 pm

Boo I agree with you and your analysis is well-thought and compelling as usual.

Look me straight in the eye and say that!!

"well thought?" No one has ever claimed that about my stream-of-semi-conscious rambling.

I won't pick apart your last response since I think we understand each other.

Quote

My comment regarding "fear" was a general statement about the term chemotherapy -- not directed at you Boo at all or in any way intimating you, specifically, were trying to "harsh anyone's buzz" (love that phrase BTW).

I didn't take anything you wrote personally so apologize if it seemed I had. I definitely agree many people associate chemo with cancer and referring to HAART as chemo could be alarming or confusing, which is probably why docs don't refer to it as chemo.

To re-re-re-reiterate, my specific concern is many people, poz and neg, think HAART is a simple matter of popping a few pills and, like all the lovely med ads show, then you go mountain climbing. Everyone contemplating HAART should be well-informed about the situation as it is now, in 2007, before deciding whether to start.

I am optimistic I'll be around far longer than I ever thought I would (and possibly longer than I really want to be, but that's another topic). I'm optimistic newer therapies will be less toxic and eventually HIV disease will be manageable for the entirety of one's life, but we're not 100% there yet.

I've babbled long enough!

Peace and goodwill,

Boo

Ann · « **Reply #35 on:** February 14, 2007, 10:31:01 am »

For the record, I'm not too sure if I'd refer to HAART as chemo either (even though it is technically correct) - I won't know until I've taken it.

However, I did refer to the drugs I took for hep C as chemo. After a few months it was obvious to people that something was wrong with me. My hair was falling out and I'd lost a hell of a lot of weight. It was easier to say (and this is exactly how I'd say it) that I was on "a type of chemotherapy for a problem with my liver". It normally had the effect of making the other person quickly change the subject, which was just fine by me. The last thing I was interested in doing was explaining the finer points of interferon and ribavirin to someone while standing in the middle of my local grocery.

Ann

Forums Index

Welcome

Author Topic: Is it fair to compare HAART to .. (Read 8890 times)