POZ Community Forums
HIV Prevention and Testing => Do I Have HIV? => Topic started by: Sadboy84 on August 23, 2009, 04:39:01 pm
-
Hi everyone, I know that today there is not some solution to eradicate the virus in the body 100%. But I have read an interview with an HIV spanish researcher where he says that maybe is possible eradicate the virus, even in the reservoirs, taken drugs from start. For example for a person who starts at the first three months it would take 7 years eradicate totally the virus. This researcher is the manager from the most important Spanish HIV hospital (Germans Trias i Pujol in Barcelona).
It's only an interview based on studies that they are trying in his hospital, but I'm very interested in information about similar studies here in the states or in another countries and if there are any results available. I have been infected the day 31-may-2009, I'm still negative on antibodies but i have been diagnosed by PCR during the acute infection. I supose that maybe at the start is not necessary take drugs until my CD4 are lower, but i feel very bad psicologically and i would be interested in participate on an study from persons detected on the acute infection. I know that with HIV I can live a lot of years.....but I don't know if i can live with this worry on my head for all my life: I prefered participate on an study which can give me a little possibility of eradicate the virus forever that waiting the natural process "wait without drugs until my body can't fight more against the virus". Please if someone knows information about this i would like to know it. I feel very sad now.
The interview in spanish is this:
http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=573327&idseccio_PK=1006&h=
Bonaventura Clotet: "Erradicar el sida no es un imposible"
Dirige el Instituto de Investigación del Sida IrsiCaixa, situado en el Hospital de Can Ruti, y está considerado uno de los máximos expertos internacionales en el virus del sida
--Acaban de identificar ustedes a un grupo de personas, muy jóvenes, que apenas un mes después de infectarse por el VIH sufrieron la versión más mortal e inquietante del sida. ¿Está cambiando el virus?
--El virus de inmunodeficiencia humana (VIH) siempre está cambiando, pero no estamos ante una epidemia nueva o más grave de sida. Lo nuevo es que hemos identificado con precisión a siete seropositivos que no reaccionaron con los tratamientos que son eficaces para el resto. Esas personas, que calculamos representan al 1% de los infectados, desarrollan un sida fulminante y gravísimo, que puede ser mortal en pocos días.
--¿Siempre hubieron casos así?
--Suponemos que sí. El mensaje de lo que hemos demostrado recuerda que no es lo mismo tener una hepatitis que sufrir sida. Aunque la infección evoluciona como una enfermedad crónica para el 80% de los pacientes, porque el tratamiento frena la replicación del VIH, te puedes encontrar con un virus fulminante que te mate en un mes. Lo importante es que a la gente le entre esto en la cabeza: procura no infectarte.
--¿Las generaciones jóvenes han entendido mal lo que es el sida?
--Yo no estigmatizaría a los jóvenes, sino que me dirigiría a toda la sociedad. Tenemos muchos pacientes de más de 70 años, que se infectaron cuando tenían 60 y tantos. Nadie se pone el condón. Nadie. Los jóvenes no tienen miedo. Piensan que, si se infectan, ya los trataremos.
--¿Y no era ese el mensaje oficial?
--Es un error. Aunque no te infectes con un VIH fulminante, puedes contraer un virus resistente a los fármacos y transmitirlo con facilidad, porque quien se acaba de infectar tiene una carga viral altísima. Y además de destruir tu sistema inmunológico, destrozas el sistema sanitario. La terapia antirretroviral le cuesta a la Generalitat 120 millones de euros al año. La industria farmacéutica debe revisar el coste de estas terapias.
--¿Qué han aprendido del VIH en estos últimos 20 años?
--Ahora sabemos mucho más cómo destruye el sistema inmunológico. Una de las principales líneas de investigación, en el mundo, se centra en las personas que pasan hasta 10 años infectadas por el VIH sin tratamiento y mantienen a raya al virus. Los llamamos controladores de élite. Si aprendemos cómo el sistema inmunológico de esas personas identifica el mecanismo infeccioso del VIH y lo ataca con energía, podríamos imitar su modelo en una vacuna.
--¿Hay muchos controladores?
--Menos del 1% de los infectados. Para el otro 99%, lo más importante es diagnosticar la infección al inicio y empezar el tratamiento días después de que se produzca, cosa que pocas veces se sabe. Cada vez se ve más claro que un tratamiento muy precoz, al principio, será la única forma de llegar a erradicar el VIH.
--Eso se considera una utopía.
--Erradicar el VIH sería curar el sida. No es un imposible. La investigación más avanzada va en esa dirección. Hasta hace poco no podíamos ni contemplar esa idea, pero ahora conocemos los pasos que da el VIH al entrar en las células, tenemos fármacos que lo frenan y sabemos cómo calcular el tamaño de los reservorios del virus --células infectadas, latentes inaccesibles a las terapias-- para ver si los reducimos o no.
--Habla de curar el sida.
--Es un cálculo matemático. Se ha visto que si un infectado inicia tratamiento años después de tener el VIH requeriría 70 años de terapia para que todas sus células infectadas fueran eliminadas y se pudiera hablar de curación. También se ha visto que si la terapia se inicia en el primer trimestre del contagio esos 70 años se reducen 10 veces: la curación se lograría en siete años.
--¿Y los reservorios inaccesibles?
--No son inaccesibles. Sabemos que los fármacos no atacan esas células infectadas porque el virus queda latente, dormido, en su interior. Desde fuera parecen células sanas y el medicamento no actúa. Si aprendemos a despertar a esos VIH e inician su ciclo de replicación, se les podrá destruir. Para eliminar los millones de copias diarias que produce el VIH y sus reservorios, es imprescindible tratar desde el inicio del contagio.
--Ahora no se medica al inicio, para evitar la toxicidad de los fármacos.
--Esa opinión es de la época en que no se veía posible erradicar el VIH.
--¿Qué se nota tras infectarte?
--La inmensa mayoría de los infectados por el VIH al principio no notan nada de nada, aunque tres semanas después del contagio el virus ya les ha destruido el sistema inmunológico. Algunos recién infectados pasan unos días de fiebrecita, con los ganglios crecidos, diarrea y dolor de cabeza. Pero eso pasa, sin más. Tres o cuatro años después, empiezan a tener algún herpes, hongos en la boca, la lengua blanca. Y siete u ocho años más tarde, el VIH se convierte en sida. Se les diagnostica a partir de infecciones graves o neumonía. Así es para la mayoría.
-
I find it very interesting that you can pinpoint the day you were infected.
-
I know the day I was infected as well. It is actually very possible under certain circumstances. An Acute infection narrows down your infected date to 4-6 weeks from the onset of symptoms. Of course, this is the case if you are symptomatic. Anyhow, I also know that the woman I was with, a one night stand, I had not been with anyone for a long time prior....many months.....and nobody after. So, it is possible in some cases BT.
:)
M
-
There's an anti-cancer drug called Zolinza (vorinostat) that has been shown to wake up dormant HIV in reservoirs. The link below is from an article which states:
Margolis would like to start testing a drug, Merck's Zolinza, that shows potential to flush out latent HIV. He is hoping the medicine will turn on the growth of HIV in cells where it is latent, so that the virus will kill them and its hiding place will be gone.
To test such drugs, scientists are searching for patients in the earliest stages of HIV infection - possibly the first candidates for curative treatment.
But I searched clinicaltrials.gov and found nothing for Zolinza with HIV. If you did find such a study, you would be a guinea pig which is risky.
It has been shown that going on HIV meds soon after exposure means your reservoirs will be smaller and made up of fewer types of resting T-cells, which may be good in terms of future attempts at eradication.
LINK:
http://organizedwisdom.com/helpbar/index.html?return=http://organizedwisdom.com/Zolinza&url=www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4834299&fSectionId=561&fSetId=662
If you look through the research forum here you will see threads about various other attempts at eradication ("Shock and Kill" technique and targeted chemotherapy), I've supplied the links below. Maybe you can search online for the email addresses of the various researchers and contact them saying you are interested.
LINKS:
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=27421.0
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=27666.0
-
Sorry about your diagnosis.
I was diagnosed last year during seroconversion. Like you, too, before I had antibodies.
I was treated during "actue infection", because actually it appeared I would never get out of acute infection. after about two months of waiting, the ID threw up his hands and put me on HAART.
About the resevoir and early treatment.....
You know that a few years ago, back toward early 2000's there was a lot of talk about treating at infection, if possible. Then maybe going to treatment interruptions.
Then that protocal didn't really work out so well, and it went back to the standard protocal.
However, i can tell you in Switzerland more and more ID doctors will treat again, at seroconversion even, for a few reasons. Perhaps this idea you say.... But more what I heard is because 1) Many seroconvertors are also highly infectious, so treatment is a kind of prevention. Any treated person at anytime, actually, is a also a kind of prevention, and rates are too high in Switzerland, now, so... And finally, there is some talk that treatment should begin early - not according to the American protocals. Nothing official yet, but Cantons are starting to differ about when and why they support treatment...
I think it would probably be HIGHLY individual, this idea that "7" would be the number of years to eradication if treatment at seroconversion.... How would you ever do a large scale test? Maybe a few might be a 2, maybe a few at 10 and probably most, never.
-
I have been infected the day 31-may-2009, I'm still negative on antibodies but i have been diagnosed by PCR during the acute infection.
Also, that makes 10 weeks. You sure you aren't HIV+ yet? This seems kinda long..... A PCR is not necessarily an HIV diagnosis. I think in most countries you have to retest and confirm... There are false positives.... Whats up in your case?
-
I find it very interesting that you can pinpoint the day you were infected.
I was infected on April 9, 2005 at exactly 3:37 pm. As drunk as I was I think that was the time, the clock on the wall was a blur.
-
I was infected on April 9, 2005 at exactly 3:37 pm. As drunk as I was I think that was the time, the clock on the wall was a blur.
Wow, quite precise Skeebo. You're probably joking, but I also know the exact "date" when I was infected, May 10th (and yes, I know some people will probably roll their eyes). The time-stamp is missing however. It was a night of debauchery and alcohol (sex, drugs, and rock n'roll typa thing) that I would rather forget. I am not claiming to be a saint here (probably slept with 1/3 of Miami's population back in 1997-99 and then 1/8 of Vienna in 2005; break-ups used to lead me to having bouts of promiscuity), but I had always been a safety guy who tested neg till earlier this year.
A PCR is not necessarily an HIV diagnosis. I think in most countries you have to retest and confirm... There are false positives.... Whats up in your case?
Mecch, I think it would depend on whether it was an RNA PCR or not. That's how my ID doc determined my infection at the time. We however don't know what kind of numbers were given to the OP to rule out a possible "false positive." My nearly mill and a half eliminated that possibility back then. The OP will need to get his results validated with one of the standard tests.
Now, as far as lowering the amount of years to only seven or so if you start treatment during the acute infection? I guess only time will tell. Probably not enough empirical evidence to prove such a hopeful possibility.
-
Wow, quite precise Skeebo. You're probably joking, but I also know the exact "date" when I was infected, May 10th (and yes, I know some people will probably roll their eyes).
No, actually I have proclaimed this as the day of my infection since I joined on the forums back in October of 2005. You can even go to the Thebody.com and see where I posted under Sadtom and how someone directed me here to Aidsmeds for support. However, you are correct... I was joking about the time though.
-
You can even go to the Thebody.com and see where I posted under Sadtom and how someone directed me here to Aidsmeds for support.
Gotcha. Yeah, I saw your entry at thebody.com. Some times we just know.
-
I know the month (late April '97) but not the day. I can be vague like that. ;D
Sadboy, I agree that you should be testing antibody positive by now. When was your last antibody test?
If you had a DNA PCR test, there's a good chance you had a false positive. DNA PCR tests are prone to them and that's why they're NOT approved for diagnostic purposes. (and lord knows why some doctors insist on using them this way anyway) Even with an RNA PCR test (which IS approved for diagnostics) there is a small chance of false positives. You really need to hang fire until you've tested positive with the antibody test.
Ann
-
Thanks to all for the answers. Thanks Inchingblue for this information, I know that I would be a guinea pig, but i prefer this than not have any hope :(((, but I know that today is impossible the eradication 100%
Is true that a PCR is not a confirmation system,here in Spain is like in USA, for this reason my diagnostic is not 100% official until i have antibodies. I have tomorrow blood analysis and can be the day. Anyone, I'm not silly and all this systoms that I have are from the acute infection.
I'm sure that the infection was on this date because this horrible day have been the only day I have had sex in a lot of time. I was a very healthy boy until this day, but someone decided blow job on my mouth without ask me permission and I was gingivitis. I went to the hospital, but they decided that oral sex is not very risky to give me the PPE and thanks to this hospital.........I will be with this problem for all my life.
-
Here's another thread that might be of interest to you:
http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=26236.0
-
The problem is that i can't access to this studies from Spain :((
-
Sad,
Just because you've had some symptoms does not mean you're hiv positive. Neither symptoms nor the LACK of symptoms means a thing when it comes to primary hiv infection. If any of your negative antibody tests were done AFTER you had the symptoms, then you most likely do not have hiv. The illness that some people experience is a result of the process the body goes through when making antibodies, so you should have at least tested indeterminate if you tested after you were ill.
If you think you became infected because you gave someone a blowjob, then it's very likely you've had a false positive PCR result. It's rare in the extreme to become infected through giving blowjobs. The hospital was right in refusing to prescribe you PEP - to prescribe you PEP after oral sex would be to go against the guidelines.
Let us know what your result is - and from what you've written so far, don't be surprised if it's negative.
Ann
-
Hi Ann, I have a little of hope today. Today is the day 86 after the last exposition and I have tested negative in HIV-1 and HIV-2. It's a little strange my situation, because I have still my tongue white all the mornings, several head aches, swollen lymf glands, several muscular ill and a very low level of plaquets (my habitual range is 212000 and in my last blood analysyis (5-8-2009) is 157000).
Anyway doctors here said the same as you, until you are positive on antibodies....there isn't any definitive diagnostic. The only explication I can found is that I have been coinfected at the same time with another virus (I have read that in this cases the window period can be longer) or maybe an interaction with the PPE that I have took 2 months before (Kaletra and convivir)
Thanks to all
-
Sad,
You don't have hiv. 86 days is twelve and a quarter weeks, and a twelve week negative antibody test is a conclusive negative.
If you took PEP (and the first time you brought PEP up, you said they would not prescribe it for you), then you need to test at three months after your last dose of PEP, but from what you've written, I don't expect your result to change. If what you're worrying about is the blowjob, then you never had a risk to begin with.
For this reason, I've moved your thread to the Am I Infected forum. Make sure you read the Welcome Thread (http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=220.0) - and don't post in any forums other than this one.
Ann
-
I wait u are right. After PCR qualitative positive and my symtoms, they have said to me that is sure I have HIV,but with the result of today I'm a bit confused too. I have not cancer or any anterior problems on my inmune system to test positive after 3 months. I wait so.
Thank you very much
-
The PCR was never intended to be used as a diagnostic test. Because of its high level of sensitivity a false positive is not uncommon.
Only an HIV test at the proper time will give you the answer you want. So you need to do that as Ann has told you, at 3 months AFTER the last PEP dose. Like Ann I do expect you are going to test negative.