Latest Labs ...

[Blixer]

Well I had my 72 week on meds doctor and trials visit on Monday.  The doctor says I'm doing great as far as the HIV is concerned but I continue to battle sinus issues and now this cough has returned.  They don't seem to be concerned about it, but it is wearing me out.  Anyway,  I got the lab results back today with the exception of the viral load.

My CD4% was 29% which is up 1% from 12 weeks earlier.  But my CD4 absolute count was at 598 (down 80 from 12 weeks ago).  Then there was this "interpretive blurb" that followed and stated:

"Following CDC recommendations and guidelines a new methodology for the determination of absolute values for CD3, CD4, CD8, CD19, and CD56 has been evaluated and instituted.  A description of this flow cytometry based assay can be found at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5202al.htm .  The absolute values obtained with the new assay were shown to be approximately 18% lower than those obtained by the previous method but the percent values remain unchanged.  Please note the new reference range."

So what's up with that?  Has anyone else run across something similar? What a way to lose cd4 cells...     The new reference range though for normal using this assay is stated as 392 - 1332.

My AST was a bit elevated and my eosinophils were very elevated.  But the rest of the blood work came back very much in the normal range. 

[xyahka]

Hi don't know much about CDC standards, but just wanted to contratulate you for your new labs those numbers are quite good.

cheers,

Juan Carlos

[Robert]

David.

I have no idea what this means.  But Newt made it very clear last week that "The key test when on treatment is viral load. This tells you if treatment is working."

"When not on treatment, CD4 count is more important than viral load, because it tells you when to start/think about treatment."

My Dr sent me my results last week and, like you, for some reason I only had CD4 count.  I asked my Dr if we could test again for the VL and she agreed.

So I wouldn't worry about this new defination.  But I would follow up on the viral load.

You can read the entire thread and Newt's reply HERE.

We can discuss this further over cocktails in 2 weeks!!!

robert

[Blixer]

Thanks Juan Carlos..  I'm satisfied with the results. I'd like more CD4s, but I'm stingy in that way.  At least my % is way up from where I started.

Robert, we will have lots to talk about I'm sure.  Hard to believe the gathering is just two weeks away.  Anyway, they do a viral load every time but it takes longer to get back.  They send it off to John Hopkins.  I should have it back sometime late next week.

[Blixer]

Well I didn't check the URL before posting and it doesn't work.  Hummm....  that's what the hospital lab printed on my lab report.

[Jerry71]

Way to go on the numbers I'm jealous.

[Blixer]

Hey Jerry,

You can express you jealousy in San Fran...  hopefully in a nice way... LOL

But keep in mind, I started way above where you did.  So my % has doubled but my absolute CD4 is only up a couple hundred depending on what scale you use.

[Jerry71]

I just have a weak immune system. My % is 9.5. January will be my third year with this virus and my numbers have slowly climbed since then. So far my VL has been undectable since May 2005.

[Blixer]

Jerry,

I know you would like to have higher numbers.  But I keep hearing that the undetectable VL is the most important aspect.  A slow climb is at least a climb.  So good for you on that!!!

[northernguy]

Congrats on the new numbers, sorry to hear about the sinus stuff.

One of the things that frustrates me about CD4's is that very few of us know what our "normal" count was, do we?  Did I start off with 600, 800, 1200 before HIV started taking its relentless toll? 

[Blixer]

You make a very good point northernguy.  I think we all want to assume we had the 1,000 or 1,200 CD4 cells prior to infection when in fact we may have been running 600 -- still in the "normal" range.   Despite all that we do know, there is still a whole lot that is unknown about HIV and it's impact on each individual.

I'm pleased with my numbers.  Based on the the blurb on the lab report, I would have shown just over 700 CD4 using the old method and I'm very happy with that.  Under the new assay, the low end of "normal" is 392...     So either way, I'm about 200 into the "normal" range.  I'll take that.....

[Buckmark]

David,

Great set of results you have there.  I just received my latest results last Thursday (and may post them in another thread).  I also received this news about the new "methodology" for determining absolute CD4 counts.  I guess what concerns me most is how to interpret numbers using the old versus new methodologies -- I feel like I have trying to hit a moving target.

Congrats,

Henry

[Blixer]

Thanks Henry!  Isn't it a pain though?  You work so hard to get your CD4s up and then with one fell swoop they change the definition and you lose 18% of them. 

To calculate roughly what your % would have been under the old method.  Grab a calculator (or do it by hand if you're up to it) and just divide your CD4# under the new method by .82.  That should roughly give you what it would have been under the old method if the new method gives results that are approximately 18% lower.