Congress Passes HOPE Act
11 years ago
by ADMIN
in HIV Research
The law recently passed has made it possible to lift a ban on organ donors who are HIV-positive. The HOPE (HIV Organ Policy Equity) Act was finally passed. The law is for those who wish to donate their organs, even if they are HIV-positive. These organs are then given to fellow HIV-positive patients who are experiencing organ failure and are in need of a transplant. There are a number of issues that helped this law to pass, and here is a look at some of these, along with some of the benefits.
To begin with, the number of those needing an organ transplant is greater than the actual number of available organs, and this shortage creates waiting lists. In the meantime, modern medical therapies have greatly helped those with HIV to lead normal and healthy lives. This being the case, there are fewer deaths from HIV. However, there is a rise in the number of kidney and liver failures among those who are HIV-positive. This is becoming the number one cause of death amongst those living with the virus.
Each group in the case benefits with the passing of the HOPE Act: Organ donors who are HIV-positive can now donate and contribute in ways that they want to; the organ pool will now have hundreds (if not more) organs to choose from. This reduces the wait time for those in need of a transplant. For persons needing an organ who do not have HIV, the odds are now pushed in a more favorable direction as well: There are less people on the wait list, and the number of organs being donated is greater.
Medical research on how to better get HIV-positive organs into patients will further develop guidelines. In turn, better understanding of HIV-positive interactions between organs and patients should help increase the success rate of a transplant.
New Protein Could Be Breakthrough in HIV Prevention
11 years ago
by ADMIN
in HIV Prevention
The race to eradicate HIV and improve the vaccine has led to an exciting new development. Researchers within the last few weeks have published new findings regarding a protein and sugar molecule that has the potential to not only neutralize HIV, but that can connect to various strains of the virus as well.
The protein that was created mimics the outer layer of the HIV. The part of the layer that can bind to antibodies is the area researchers were targeting. This key part of the cell is where neutralizing the virus takes place. One of the factors that make the creation of this protein so important is that it may help scientists answer some of the most complex issues facing the prevention of HIV. For one thing, an antibody that can target multiple strains of the virus is hard to come by. Another problem is the response of the immune system: At times it is beneficial, but other responses can be negative and unwanted. Researchers are hoping that, with this protein, the immune system will be free to respond in a positive, beneficial way. The protein with the sugar molecule is better able to bond to the outer coat of the virus. It is hoped that broad-spectrum antibodies will be allowed to form. If this happens, the antibodies that can do the most neutralizing will have a better chance to complete their task.
Another benefit to the proteins is the potential to trigger a response from the white blood cells that produce antibodies. Should the antibodies produced by these B cells do what researchers are hoping, results could be disastrous for the virus. This aspect is what scientists are focusing on to develop an effective vaccine. Much more information is needed, as well as testing on animal subjects. This does not, however, negate the importance that this finding will have on the future of the battle against HIV.
HIV Screening for All
11 years ago
by ADMIN
in HIV Prevention
A recent study has shown that a more effective way of diagnosing those with HIV is to screen everyone who comes into an ER at random, rather than only offering testing to those who are considered to be at high risk for the disease. Of course, emergency departments are busy enough without adding HIV testing to the mix, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea for implementation.
Those who defend targeted testing as being the best method will point to its cost-effectiveness by reducing the number of tests performed; it also saves time for ER staff. The problem: People who aren’t considered at risk are far more likely to never think about getting tested. Thus, more can slip through the cracks without ever knowing that they have the disease. This leads to further spread of the virus.
A recent study has made a good case for random HIV screening. The test included nearly 10,000 ER patients. The patients who were screened randomly revealed more HIV-positive individuals than targeted testing. Also, the difference in the number of random tests performed was only slightly more than the number of targeted tests.
While about 60% of the randomly approached patients declined the test (this accounts for the number of patients tested being similar to that of targeted screening), testing on those who consented resulted in 6 individuals learning for the first time that they had HIV. This is crucial so they could begin antiretroviral therapy as soon as possible; it may have also resulted in these 6 individuals being able to take extra precautions so as not to spread the disease.
The verdict is, then, that targeted testing really doesn’t save that much time for ER staff, and it certainly doesn’t catch more undiagnosed cases of the disease. The better method is to implement a more random screening procedure if the staff cannot handle offering the test to every patient.
HIV Patients Fare Better Visiting Just One Clinic
11 years ago
“Continual and consistent therapy is better”—this is according to a recent study conducted on HIV patients and the clinics they visited. While most can appreciate why this is so, especially when it comes to the complexities involved in antiretroviral therapy (or ART), the importance of continuity of care is even more pronounced in these cases.
Patients and clinics were followed for a period of time to analyze the quality of care given and the compliance of HIV patients. It was found that most patients who visited different clinics received care that was, at times, less than adequate. Most of the time, care was inconsistent and patient follow-through was poor. This could be seen in higher viral loads in HIV patients who visited numerous clinics when compared to those who went to just one.
Those who were more likely to frequent various clinics were younger women normally in their first year of treatment. This practice of going to different clinics could be in part due to fear of social stigma, needing to seek treatment for diseases other than HIV, or other reasons. This trend worries researchers and clinicians alike—the quality of care and overall health of those HIV patients is at stake. The results of the study are now beneficial, meaning the system can now be altered to ensure that care is continuous and consistent. Making changes in order for clinics to provide better care means less ART errors and a lessening of viral load in new patients. Patient follow-through is likely to increase when they receive a measure of consistency, especially when it comes to complicated ART regimens.
As far as social effects are concerned, researchers are eager for a change in how clinics play into HIV treatment. If patients are not receiving, taking and following up with therapies and drug treatments, the risks of complications and transmission increases. Physicians hope that by making the system more efficient, these risks can be reduced.
Infectious Disease Specialists A Benefit to HIV Inpatients
11 years ago
Hospitalized patients face certain challenges when dealing with existing medical issues. For patients with HIV, the challenges can be critical if not handled expertly. This is especially true when they are admitted for medical reasons other than HIV. Infection, surgery or other issues or complications can throw off their ART or antiretroviral treatment. What can be done?
It has been reviewed that when a hospitalized HIV patient is seen by an infectious disease physician, the results are generally better. The complex regimen of HIV therapies can be confusing for staff members not used to regularly handling such issues. For these reasons, errors are often made, such as a wrong dosage or prescribing other drugs with ART contraindications. Infectious disease doctors and pharmacists can provide the required level of care.
Recent studies are showing that a great percentage of HIV patients seen by an infectious disease specialist report less errors than those who didn’t. Also the number of errors that were corrected or caught in time was remarkably higher. Due to education and familiarity with HIV therapy, specialists in the field are better equipped when it comes to managing certain aspects of inpatient care. In the end, patients required fewer hours of medical attention and demonstrated overall improvement in health when compared with HIV patients not seen by an infectious disease specialist.
In the case of medication and ART, pharmacists and clinicians trained in infectious disease evaluated, altered and administered drugs as needed. They were accurately able to determine risk and benefit for changes that were made. This type of consideration resulted in better management of medical issues with as little interference as possible with HIV therapies. These studies clearly indicate that there are indeed great benefits for an HIV patient to be under the charge of an infectious disease physician when admitted for other reasons to the hospital.
