PDA

View Full Version : Bone marrow transplant cures man of HIV



Squirt
02-12-2009, 10:15 AM
Gene therapy offers hope of cure for HIV

Doctors rid man of the virus with bone marrow transplant breakthrough

Doctors have succeeded in ridding a man of the HIV virus by giving him a bone marrow transplant in what they claim is the closest treatment yet to a cure for the disease.

By Jeremy Laurance, Health Editor

Thursday, 12 February 200

The remarkable case gives new impetus to the development of gene therapy for HIV which could ultimately replace the need for expensive and toxic antiretroviral drugs. Instead of taking drugs for life, HIV sufferers might instead have a one-off treatment that would leave them virus-free.

The 42-year-old American had been infected with HIV for a decade. He was treated with antiretroviral drugs in Berlin, where he lives, for four years to hold the disease in check, but then developed leukaemia. Since being given a bone marrow transplant two years ago, he has not taken antiretroviral drugs to control HIV and has had no resurgence of either disease. He is believed to be the longest HIV-free survivor who was previously treated with antiretroviral drugs. Full details of the case are published for the first time today in The New England Journal of Medicine. An editorial in the journal says it "places further emphasis on gene therapies" for HIV, adding: "The case paves the way for innovative approaches that provide long-lasting viral control with limited toxicities for persons with HIV infection."

The man's treatment began with a search by doctors at Berlin's Charité Hospital for a bone marrow donor with a genetic resistance to HIV. One of the strangest features of the disease is the way some people who have been exposed to the virus on many occasions remain uninfected. Twenty years ago, it was noticed that certain prostitutes in Nairobi remained uninfected despite exposure to the virus through thousands of sexual contacts.

It has since emerged that some people carry a mutation of a gene (CCR5) that confers protection against HIV. In Western populations an estimated one to three per cent have the mutation.

Dr Gero Hutter, a haematologist at the Berlin Charité Hospital, and colleagues tested 61 potential donors before they found one with the CCR5 genetic mutation, who agreed to the operation.

The American recipient of the transplant, who runs a holiday rentals business in the German capital, has undergone regular checks in the two years since the treatment. The doctors have tested his bone marrow, blood and tissues and found no sign of HIV. "For as long as the viral load remains undetectable, this patient will not require antiretroviral therapy," they say in the journal.

Speaking to The Independent yesterday, Dr Hutter said there had been several previous reports of patients being virus-free following treatment but none to compare with the latest case. "The difference is that in our patient we had a plan. It was not an accident," he added. "It is the longest time someone who has had antiretroviral therapy and stopped has lasted without the virus rebounding. Normally it rebounds within weeks. It is the closest we have come to a cure."

Dr Hutter said a bone marrow transplant would be too risky as a routine treatment for HIV and too difficult to find donors with the right genetic make-up. But a modification of the approach using gene therapy to render a patient HIV-resistant could work, he said.

Even a costly treatment could be worthwhile. The price of treatment with antiretrovirals in Europe is €70,000 to €80,000 (£63,000 to £72,000) a year compared with a one-off cost of €20,000 to €30,000 for a bone marrow transplant. FULL STORY (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/health-news/gene-therapy-offers-hope-of-cure-for-hiv-1607227.html)

rawTOP
02-12-2009, 10:47 AM
There's something like a 30% risk of death during the procedure, and the researchers say HIV is still probably hiding out somewhere in his body and may re-emerge - he is NOT cured of HIV.

Squirt
02-12-2009, 11:26 AM
The American recipient of the transplant, who runs a holiday rentals business in the German capital, has undergone regular checks in the two years since the treatment. The doctors have tested his bone marrow, blood and tissues and found no sign of HIV.Sorry I guess I misinterpreted these two sentence in the article


There's something like a 30% risk of death during the procedure, and the researchers say HIV is still probably hiding out somewhere in his body and may re-emerge - he is NOT cured of HIV.

Links please ~ as none of your statements were quoted from the article I posted.

rawTOP
02-12-2009, 11:33 AM
Links please ~ as none of your statements were quoted from the article I posted.

Damn, now I've gotta do work to post around here lol

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/11/health.hiv.stemcell/index.html?eref=rss_latest


"About a third of the people die [during such transplants], so it's just too much of a risk,"


Levy also said it's unlikely that the transplant truly cured the patient in this study. HIV can infect many other types of cells and may be hiding out in the patient's body to resurface at a later time, he said.

Squirt
02-12-2009, 11:36 AM
Damn, now I've gotta do work to post around here lol


HA! Welcome to the club it's a pain in the ass whistle

and regarding the quotes they are both from the same guy.

If I was infected I'd take a 70% chance at surviving the procedure which would give me no trace of HIV.

rawTOP
02-12-2009, 11:55 AM
If I was infected I'd take a 70% chance at surviving the procedure which would give me no trace of HIV.

It would be your body, but IMO that's sorta crazy...

Look at the data for who dies of HIV these days - it's pretty much just the people who don't get tested and don't find out until they're full blown, or the people who know and don't take meds. An average person who finds out in a reasonable amount of time and takes their meds is probably going to die of something other than HIV.

And since you want sources... Here's one... 40% of the people dying of AIDS in British Columbia had never taken ARVs. (http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82584aa1-06c7-4e4d-9d76-8222901d041a&k=39033) HIV infection rates are skyrocketing and death rates are plummeting, and a big chunk of the people dying aren't taking meds - you do the math...

Taking a 33% chance of death over a likelihood you'll live to an old age if you take your meds... That just doesn't make sense...

Squirt
02-12-2009, 12:28 PM
It would be your body, but IMO that's sorta crazy...

Look at the data for who dies of HIV these days - it's pretty much just the people who don't get tested and don't find out until they're full blown, or the people who know and don't take meds. An average person who finds out in a reasonable amount of time and takes their meds is probably going to die of something other than HIV.

And since you want sources... Here's one... 40% of the people dying of AIDS in British Columbia had never taken ARVs. (http://www2.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=82584aa1-06c7-4e4d-9d76-8222901d041a&k=39033) HIV infection rates are skyrocketing and death rates are plummeting, and a big chunk of the people dying aren't taking meds - you do the math...

Taking a 33% chance of death over a likelihood you'll live to an old age if you take your meds... That just doesn't make sense...

Ok I'm not trying to be a dick at all but if 40% of people dying of AIDS in British Columbia had never taken ARV's then that means 60% have taken ARV's and died of AIDS.

So a 60% chance of death due to AIDS while taking ARV's compared with a 33% chance of death by bone marrow transplant makes it seem like the bone marrow transplant would be the best option.

I'm not hot on this topic but from what I remember taking ARV's creates emaciation doesn't it?

rawTOP
02-12-2009, 12:39 PM
Ok I'm not trying to be a dick at all but if 40% of people dying of AIDS in British Columbia had never taken ARV's then that means 60% have taken ARV's and died of AIDS.

So a 60% chance of death due to AIDS while taking ARV's compared with a 33% chance of death by bone marrow transplant makes it seem like the bone marrow transplant would be the best option.

Have you ever taken a stats course? When I was in grad school I taught stats... Let's just say there are so many problems with what you said above it's sorta funny.

Squirt
02-12-2009, 12:50 PM
Well at least I can always fall back on my natural good looks and big cock rofl

My education ended after my first year of the Information Technology Masters program at Queensland University Southport, it was BORING.

gaybucks_chip
02-12-2009, 01:25 PM
well the other issue with stats, particularly medical stats, is that they can be grossly misleading.

I suspect there are a LOT of people who die of causes peripherally related to HIV (staph infections, cancers, or other things that aren't specifically opportunisitic infections directly brought on by AIDS) that aren't reported in the death rates of people with HIV, but would nonetheless not have occurred if the person wasn't infected with HIV.

A 30% death rate compared with a 70% chance of *maybe* curing the disease would probably be beyond my risk tolerance, though I could see why some would be OK with that. As long as I was basically healthy and functional I'd most likely stick with a more conservative approach.