HIV Therapy

Teens with HIV Benefit from Early Treatment

A study involving teens infected with HIV has shown that the earlier treatment starts, the better longer term results are achieved. In fact, early infancy is not too soon for antiretroviral treatment to begin. Research has revealed that when treatment begins in early infancy, stores of HIV can’t be built up in the body. It is important to prevent these stores from occurring because they are responsible for fast progression of the disease should there be a break in treatment.

Nine teenagers were involved in the study. Five began antiretroviral treatments at just two months of age, while the other four were older when their treatments began. Blood tests revealed that the virus was not as able to reproduce successfully within the five teens who started treatment at a younger age. Also, no stores for the disease were found in them, whereas detectable stores were found in the other four teens who had started treatment later. The teens who started treatment early also had more HIV-specific antibodies.

This study comes in the wake of an infant whose HIV appears to be in full remission after starting treatment just 30 hours out of the womb. This builds a strong case for starting treatment as early as possible for children born with HIV. Obviously the ultimate goal for researchers is to develop therapies that will keep children from getting the disease from their mother in the first place, and further research continues in this regard.

In lieu of such a treatment, researchers are looking to investigate further the long-term suppression of HIV by introducing antiretroviral treatments in the first three months of life. It’s looking ever more likely that the rule of thumb will become “the sooner the better”.

Children with Fewer Resources get a Less Effective HIV Treatment

A large scale study has revealed that children between the ages of 3 and 16 fare better taking the HIV drug efavirenz than nevirapine. The study included over 800 HIV positive kids. The problem is that efavirenz, the more effective of the two drugs, is the less used drug in countries where the disease is most prominent. Unfortunately, most of those infected kids live in underdeveloped lands, and that is why they receive the inferior treatment.

Over 3 million kids around the globe have HIV, and more than 9 in 10 of those are found in sub-Saharan Africa, where government resources are limited. WHO is recommending both of the aforementioned drugs as a first attack on the disease when children are involved. This would involve a worldwide change in care, as efavirenz is far more expensive and less readily available than nevirapine.

The fact is that regardless of the cost, nevirapine gets better results in kids – thus it calls on agencies to assist in making the drug more readily available to underprivileged children who are infected with HIV in resource-limited nations. This process is already in effect with adults, who also react better to nevirapine.

Bulk orders for low resource countries may be the key to getting enough of the drugs to the right places at the right price. Non-government agencies are being called upon to assist in making this a more viable option for these millions of needy children.

The nation of Botswana is a fine example of a low-resource nation that has worked hard to provide better treatment options for citizens with HIV, by being involved in clinical studies. They have also provided a great deal of research on other diseases like tuberculosis. Thus, the nation has actually helped to improve health for not only their own citizens, but those of the entire world.

HIV Can’t Hide from the Math

For years now researchers have tried to determine the activity of HIV by measuring how much of the virus appears in blood samples – but this doesn’t account for the ability of the disease to hide in body tissue. Using math, researchers have developed a way to examine the true level of the virus’s reproduction.

Antiretroviral drugs will suppress HIV reproduction to such a degree that blood markers may disappear completely – but that doesn’t mean the virus has stopped progressing. It just means the replication process is no longer continuing in the blood. What about lymph nodes and other common hiding places for HIV?

Researchers have never bothered to check this before – it was always assumed that blood samples were a good indicator of what was going on throughout the entire body. New research using mathematical models is now digging deeper to uncover the true state of the disease.

The study involved testing individuals who were taking a mix of three HIV drugs for a period of at least two years – a fourth drug was then added to the mix. In all cases it appeared that the drugs were successfully stopping the spread of the disease. Blood replication was seemingly non-existent. The study did however reveal that progress of the disease continued unabated in other parts of the body despite what the blood was indicating.

In fact, the disease was still ravaging between one and 100 million healthy cells per day. The virus only slowed in replication because it was running out of cells to infect. The replication measurements of three out of the 10 patients involved in the study revealed that there had to be another point in the body at which replication continued with no inhibitions.

It’s bad news for current antiretroviral therapies, which may not be as effective as once hoped – but it is hoped this research will lead to the development of more effective treatment methods.

Lab Made Cells Are HIV Resistant

Researchers have found a way to make T cells that can keep HIV at bay in the laboratory – they achieved this by attaching HIV-resistant genes to existing T cells, the cells that are normally the main target of the disease when it reaches its later stages and begins to spread even more rapidly.

The gene used by HIV to enter the cells was isolated and altered to develop resistance within them to the disease – these minor alterations to the T cell can effectively prevent HIV from destroying the immune system and progressing to the AIDS stage.

Not only were the genes themselves affected but activation of a particular receptor in the T cell also occurred – the idea now is to use this process in the human body to create cells that resist HIV.

Those infected with HIV need to take several medications daily in order to avoid progression of the disease – if this gene therapy is to be developed into a viable substitute it will have to be tested, not just in a lab as thus far but clinically.

It is important to note that this is not a cure for HIV – a person given the modified T cells would still have the disease, but the inserted cells would simply halt the progression to prevent it from reaching the fatal AIDS stage. It could still be passed onto others.

The disease has always been tricky because it continues to change inside the body, hence the need for a combination of medications to keep it at bay. This study was part of an attempt to find the right combination of genetic modifications that could perform this process and alleviate the need for daily treatment.

There are two proteins within T cells that are known to be the locations at which the disease enters, and in fact some of the latest medications involve affecting this process. A very limited number of people have a gene that is already HIV resistant, thus preventing its spread throughout their bodies – this is another angle scientists have used to try and modify normal T cells and develop the same resistance within them.

The findings of this study were particularly significant and mark a large step in the right direction of fighting HIV through genetic research.

Cost Versus Effectiveness in HIV Treatment

Until last year, all antiretroviral drugs for HIV treatment were brand named. Generic substitutes are poised to save the United Sates health market about a billion dollars annually, but there’s a different price. The question has arisen as to whether or not these less expensive alternatives will be as effective in warding off the advance of HIV – a study in Massachusetts was conducted to address this very issue.

Basically the question becomes: How much is life worth? We are talking about both the length of a person’s life, and their ability to enjoy it to the full. The generic drugs may not be able to extend the life of an HIV patient quite as long or give all of the same health benefits, so is an astronomical saving, even $1 billion, worth it?

In 2011, HIV medicines cost the US about $9 billion. Most of this was paid for by the government. Now the issue faced by doctors is to determine what to prescribe, the patients who they can afford to treat, and the implications in wider society since most of the meds are being paid for by tax dollars.

Right now, HIV patients need to take a combination of three brand named drugs on a daily basis. Last year already saw a generic version appear on the market for one of these medications – 2013 will add another.

What effects will this have on patients? For one thing, the generic meds need to be taken three times per day instead of once – this makes the daily regimen more complicated and could result in more patients forgetting to take a vital dose. Missing doses can result in the treatment failing and the disease progressing. Furthermore, the use of the generic medicine currently on the market has proven to be slightly less effective in studies.

Using a mathematical model and examining worst case scenario predictions, it appears that while individual patients could save over $42,000 dollars in treatments, they could also lose an average of four and half months off their life span. Would you pay $42,000 for four and a half months longer to live? I think that anyone would take that offer if they could.

Go to Top