Meds, Mind, Body & Benefits > Research News & Studies

Well Controlled HIV - Risks of Death No Higher Than Rest of Population...

(1/4) > >>

OneTampa:
Recent study article link:

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2013-03-death-patients-well-controlled-hiv-aids.html

Dr.Strangelove:
Thanks for the link.


--- Quote ---The new study provides the best evidence yet that, with effective ART that achieving good disease control, the mortality rate for people with HIV is essentially the same as in the general population.
--- End quote ---
That's good to know. I'll keep this article ready for those people who insist that despite ART I 'will get sick and die of AIDS eventually' *sigh*

Miss Philicia:
I was honestly hoping to avoid living to be 85 and wearing adult diapers.

ps: this study is flawed because it doesn't discuss the high suicide rate of pozzies.

buginme2:
This study is also flawed because it only takes into account people who have a sustained cd4 count of 500-1000. 

Many people with HIV fail to achieve a cd4 count above 500.  The study noted that those with cd4 counts less than 500 had a significantly higher risk of death.

"Patients with below-normal CD4+ cell counts (350 to 499 cells/mm3) were at elevated risk of death. Based on the standardized mortality ratio, the risk of death in this group was 77 percent higher than in the general population."

Considering much of the world won't even start treatment until you reach a cd4 count of 350 or less, many people don't achieve a response above 500.  Not to mention the scores of people who are diagnosed later.

Not to mention, are they discounting all the people who died of cancer?  Many cancers are related to HIV. 

Just seems that the news is great when you can cherry pick your study population.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311150951.htm

jkinatl2:

--- Quote from: buginme2 on March 13, 2013, 12:55:29 AM ---This study is also flawed because it only takes into account people who have a sustained cd4 count of 500-1000. 

Many people with HIV fail to achieve a cd4 count above 500.  The study noted that those with cd4 counts less than 500 had a significantly higher risk of death.

"Patients with below-normal CD4+ cell counts (350 to 499 cells/mm3) were at elevated risk of death. Based on the standardized mortality ratio, the risk of death in this group was 77 percent higher than in the general population."

Considering much of the world won't even start treatment until you reach a cd4 count of 350 or less, many people don't achieve a response above 500.  Not to mention the scores of people who are diagnosed later.

Not to mention, are they discounting all the people who died of cancer?  Many cancers are related to HIV. 

Just seems that the news is great when you can cherry pick your test subjects.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130311150951.htm

--- End quote ---

I submit that the news might be great for newly diagnosed people, or people who were diagnosed and responded favorably to treatment before their CD4 counts fell below 500. Sadly, many of the people in this forum alone (many of them newly diagnosed) do not meet that criteria.

There is compelling evidence that longevity and quality of health are more accurately measured by the nadir cd3 count. In other words, at our current (albeit fluid) quality of care, if you had a cd4 count of 100, but now have a cd4 count of 800, your lowest measured cd4 count is the standard used to determine your personal health prognosis. Well, that and the zillion other things that each individual possesses which makes up their biology.

That's one of the reasons it is frustrating when a study is taken out of a rather narrow context (and which is useful in a data extrapolation manner by researchers) and then foisted on the masses as though we were groundbreaking.

I have zero doubt that I, having a current cd4 count of 250 and a nadir of 12, will live much longer thanks to ART. I do not, however harbor optimism that I will see my 70th birthday. Given my medical health, ongoing and past issues, scarring of the lungs, damage to the brain and what-not, I think I will be a marvel if I limp past 60.

And I really am perfectly OK with that. Sure I have wasted gobs of time. Weeks, sometimes months. But when I have had the strength/willpower/courage to live fully, I think I've enjoyed an eventful, if not particularly noteworthy series of circles around the sun. Been nicer than I have been mean (sorry cabal, it's true.) Loved hard and long and usually pretty well. Paid Goddamned attention whenever I, well, thought to pay Goddamn attention, and failed as exquisitely as I have triumphed.

I can also make a red beans and rice that you would literally enjoy if you had to eat it out of the warm, scooped-out chest cavity of a human toddler.

These studies are great for research. Their translation into the real world remains to be seen.  Of course, add to the caveats the US's whopping 25% drug rate of treatment success/adherence, throw in some crystal meth, and other societal junk, and it really boils down to what a person is willing to do in order to promote that holy grail of a normal lifespan.

I honestly think most of our newly diagnosed members will meet or exceed that. Not because I have faith in their ability to adapt to their diagnosis. No, this forum is rife with biostasis. However, for the lucky ones (and most newly diagnosed and some of us Jurassic folks) medical science is struggling to, and I predict will, close the gap between effective treatment and easy treatment.

These studies, as John Cougar-Mellencamp so eloquently put it, "Stand on this single print of time."



Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version