From HIV to Aids back to HIV

[HIV? poz about being neg]

Sorry if this is the wrong place to post.
But ok so when a person has HIV and his numbers CD4 drop below a certain number is the person then considered to have Aids?   And if so when the person goes on treatment and there numbers climb back up are they just considered to be HIV positive...   ok in short what is the difference? between being HIV positive and having Aids?

[J.R.E.]

Hello,

This was discussed a while back in this thread :


http://forums.poz.com/index.php?topic=24378.msg307465#msg307465

Ray

[Assurbanipal]

There's been a lot of threads on this topic.  Basically summing them up:

AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome.  It is a technical term.  You still have the syndrome, even if your acquired immune deficiency is controlled by drugs.  

If you personally feel great, you shouldn't let an AIDS diagnosis make you feel unhealthy once your immune system is back in the normal range.  Just remember that staying healthy requires you to stick with your drugs and you should read up on them so you can monitor for any long term side effects.  There are a number of otherwise healthy people with AIDS.

For many of us  the idea of being otherwise healthy seems unattainable.  That's especially true for those who have already had an opportunistic illness.  But, for some, good health is in reach.  Just stick to the drugs.    

The technical term is used in US law in a bunch of places, including figuring out how to allocate resources to States to pay for programs under the Ryan White Act.

Regards
A

[red_Dragon888]

It's Full blown Aids that is dangerous to the body.  Hiv and Aids, just Aids, means more or less that the desease can be manage.

[sharkdiver]

It's Full blown Aids that is dangerous to the body.  Hiv and Aids, just Aids, means more or less that the desease can be manage.

AIDS is AIDS, full blown AIDS is such an antiquated term. stop using it

[mecch]

I think HIV+ and AIDS are terms that mean different things to different people in different countries and furthermore this changes over time.  My country doesn't follow US CDC guidelines, which seem to be important especially in the US for disability and insurance purposes, etc. 

Is Obama the first "black" US President or the first "metis" US President. Maybe its not two different things, HIV and AIDS.  Maybe it is. You decide.

[sharkdiver]

I didn't say that HIV and AIDS were the same diagnosis. Just that when You get an AIDS diagnosis for whatever reason, you have AIDS.

[komnaes]

There are "technical" differences I suppose between the two but as Sharkie has pointed out some of those might already been antiquated. This is one thing I think all of us need to get over is the label associated with AIDS; the more we try to avoid it the more (negative) power we are giving it.

I remember I was taken aback when one time a nurse used "POA" to include me - I didn't know what it meant so I asked, huh? And she added, oh, People with AIDS. For about 10 secs, I was thinking, do I have AIDS? Am I only HIV+? But then I realized that it was just my own prejudice. Yeah, of course, I have AIDS; calling it HIV+ doesn't make it less of a health concern.

As long as I don't have a life threatening OI that is about to kill me, and I am functioning well with/without meds, HIV or AIDS doesn't mean anything to me now.

[HIV? poz about being neg]

wow thank you all for responding and answering my question.

[blondbeauty]

According to my crazy Dr. it is all the same. He prefers to speak about stages. For him I am in stage IA, or at least that is what he writes in all the reports he gives me.
His signed diagnosis is: HIV INFECTION - STAGE IA

[milker]

I'll ask my doctor, but i'm classified as an AIDS patient, even though my CD4s went up to the 400s.

I think the problem here is the word and the stigma that goes with it. HIV+ is already hard for many to deal with, but AIDS sounds like a death sentence and uneducated people will be even more scared if you tell them you have AIDS.

I couldn't care less if I'm called an AIDS patient or an HIV patient or a XYZ patient. As long as I get the care I need then that's all I want.

As for the stigma that goes with it, then I guess people who are more afraid of AIDS than HIV don't know what they're talking about, so fuck them (with a condom).. who cares about uneducated people at this point?

There must be subtle differences in a clinical standpoint and insurance, but I'm not sure about those.

Milker.

[David_CA]

Recovery from PCP pneumonia and thrush was long and hard (my lungs will never completely recover from the damage), so I think I want to keep my AIDS diagnosis.  I worked hard and earned it.  Besides, the 'A' card trumps all others! 

Although my numbers are good now, they weren't all that bad when I got sick.  At least most HIV+ people with CD4's in the upper 200's don't end up hospitalized for 8 days with pneumonia!  I think that the fact that I was that sick and had decent numbers says something about my immunity (or about some aspect of my body); I don't think it's as 'effective' as other folks', otherwise I wouldn't have gotten so sick.  Differentiating between being HIV+ and having AIDS seems have value in situations like this (where 'something' about the individual's immune system isn't quite up to par).

[AtomicA]

My doctors always said that you were HIV positive until you had an "AIDS defining event", which if I understand correctly was a characteristic OI - then you had AIDS. I thought that meant I have only ever been HIV+, until I went to the travel clinic early this year for my trip to Belize. The travel doc had to request all my blood work from the HIV clinic and he told me that the same month I started meds, I had gone from being immune to CMV to having an active CMV infection. I was always told that was an AIDS defining event and yet my clinic a) never told me I had an active CMV infection once in the two years since I started meds and b) still refers to me as only HIV+
at least I know why I felt like garbage for the whole month before I started meds.

at the end of the day, does it really matter what we call it?

[franfrog]

AIDS is AIDS, full blown AIDS is such an antiquated term. stop using it

I never understood that either.  What would be the clarification between "full blown aids" and AIDS?  If you are classified as having AIDS, that is your diagnosis.  When I was diagnosed I had a cd4 of 52 and vl so high they could not even register and spent a month in the hospital with PCP.  I have since gone to a cd4 of as high as 829 and vl undetectable but to the cdc I am still considered to have Aids.
I now that some doctors will look at me and say I am HIV positive.  No matter what though my body has reached that AIDS stage and that is where my body has been affected and will remain.  I can feel better, and be better but will never recover fully from having AIDS.

[randym431]

Does SS disability go by different guide lines when you apply?
That is, do they call you hiv or aids or is it all one thing to them???

[Patrick]

This is a topic that kind of bothers me a little bit.  I think the way the CDC defines "AIDS" is antiquated and absurd.  I believe they define it as either an OI or a CD4 count recorded under 200.  That part is fine.  However, they go on to say that once diagnosed with AIDS, you always have AIDS.  This is just silly.  AIDS is a condition, not an infection.  HIV is the infection.  Infections go through different stages, and with modern medicine you can go from sick to the point of AIDS and then back to being healthy again.  Saying once you have AIDS, you always have AIDS is tantamount to saying once you have a cold and are sick, then you always are sick.  With a cold, you have a virus that makes you sick, but you get better and your condition changes from one of sickness to one of health.  However, that particular strain of the cold virus remains in your body always.  You never purge the virus.  Yet you are healthy.

With HIV, you have a virus that makes you sick, but when you take your meds, you get better and your condition changes from one of sickness to one of health.  However, that particular strain of HIV remains in your body always.  You never purge the virus.  Yet you are healthy. 

The same words can be used to describe the chain of events in both scenerios.  Please don't think I'm equating a cold to HIV in any other way, however.  I know full well it'd be silly to do so.

Many people, myself included have seen their CD4 counts fall below 200, only to reverse course dramatically once on HAART.  Once your CD4 gets back to a higher level, and you are asymptomatic, then it is silly to think your immune system is deficient.  Deficiency would be defined as a lack of efficacy due to a reduced CD4 count.  If your CD4 count is high to the point that your immune system can function normally, then there is no acquired immune deficiency syndrome present.  HIV infection still exists, but immune systems can and do recover very well in people who start therapy relatively early. 

Pesonal experience....

During my seroconversion, my CD4 dropped to 190, an AIDS defining level.  Yet 3 weeks later (3 weeks!!!!) it was over 800 and is now near 1000.  10 days after being diagnosed, I went and ran 4 miles.  That's not the behavior of a sick individual.  Now I hit the gym 4 times a week, run 20 miles a week, get over colds just as quickly as before I had HIV and live my life the same way as I used to, save I swallow pills twice a day.  I am very lucky and count my blessings daily.  However, I recoil at the thought that someone would define me as an AIDS patient, when my immune system is very healthy, as any HIV specialist would tell you, as any lab sheet would show. 

The CDC needs to update their definition of what AIDS is, as it is doesn't even pass the sanity test anymore.  I know some may disagree with me on this, and that's fine, but I wanted to put it out there.

[RapidRod]

No where does it say that you are incapacitated with AIDS. I was in 2005 with an OI and in the hospital for over a month and this past year built a two car garage with breezeway and a front porch. Does it mean I can hold down a 40 hour a week job. NO. Does it mean I can work an 8 hr day. No. But do I have a high chance of getting ill a lot quicker than someone that has never been diagnosed with AIDS, the answer is yes.

[Patrick]

Rod, very sorry to hear about your OI, but I'm thrilled you have recovered so well.  However, I feel that our experiences are likely quite different.  I would assume that you were poz for quite awhile before coming down with your OI.  If this is true, its likely your immune system was damaged permanently, and perhaps your body's ability to fully regenerage its immune system is compromised.  I have some good friends who are like this, who have been infected since before the HAART days.  They have undetectable cd4 counts now, but cannot get their cd4 counts much above 300 or so.  A case can be made for these individuals that they continue to have AIDS despite a cd4 above 200 (albeit barely).

However, I think that for many more recently infected individuals, if modern HAART is implemented soon after infection, then their cd4 count can be brought back up high enough and quickly enough so that no permanent damage ensues even if the cd4 nadir was sub 200. This would negate any reasonable attempt to define their condition as one of immune deficiency.

This all needs to be taken on a case by case basis, with the full knowledge and context of the individuals history and circumstances.  Which is why the CDC's definition is woefully inadequate.  It fails to capture the differing realities of the infection for many HIV+ people in 2008.

[RapidRod]

I was a LTNP for 21 years. CD4s 1400 and VL 4000. CD4s crashed in 2005 and have only been on meds 3 years and at that time was when I was diagnosed with AIDS. This year is the first time my CD4s have been over 200 since diagnosed with AIDS and it's not that much over 200.

[red_Dragon888]

I was a LTNP for 21 years. CD4s 1400 and VL 4000. CD4s crashed in 2005 and have only been on meds 3 years and at that time was when I was diagnosed with AIDS. This year is the first time my CD4s have been over 200 since diagnosed with AIDS and it's not that much over 200.

it is different for everyone.

[RapidRod]

it is different for everyone.

AIDS diagnosis is an AIDS diagnosis. It not different for everyone. Their signs and symptoms maybe different, but the diagnosis is the same.

[red_Dragon888]

AIDS is AIDS, full blown AIDS is such an antiquated term. stop using it

pardon my faux pas

[red_Dragon888]

AIDS diagnosis is an AIDS diagnosis. It not different for everyone. Their signs and symptoms maybe different, but the diagnosis is the same.

I meant his progression to higher cd4 levels

[md]

Does SS disability go by different guide lines when you apply?
That is, do they call you hiv or aids or is it all one thing to them???

SSDI is based on medical factors which limit your ability to work.

As far as I can remember, they don't really care about an AIDS diagnosis - they are looking for HIV infection plus one or more other factors that actually limit your ability to work.

See: here for details.

Simply having an AIDS diagnosis would not in and of itself qualify you for SSDI.