HIV life expectancy 'near normal' thanks to new drugs

[bemused]

With all the doom and gloom in the World I thought this story was a nice change:

HIV life expectancy 'near normal' thanks to new drugs - BBC News

I vividly remember when HIV was a death sentence and the government were running scary TV adverts warning people that a rogue bunk up could kill you.

Obviously you still want to avoid catching deadly viruses during hanky panky but this shows how far modern science can take us in a relatively short time - makes me hopefully for things like dementia etc.

 

[Rimbaud]

Great news. Only a couple days ago I accompanied a pregnant friend of mine to the hospital for some medical tests and she discovered she was HIV positive, so it's really good to hear that it won't necessarily end her life. Hopefully a cure will be on the way soon.

 

[Cheesypoof]

It's wonderful news, and great progress. However sorry about your friend, Rimbaud. Hopefully she will be able to have a long and healthy life X

 

[pseudonarcissus]

From the paper: "The expected age at death of a 20-year-old patient starting ART during 2008–10, who had a CD4 count of more than 350 cells per μL 1 year after starting ART, was 78·0 years (77·7–78·3)."

So the lesson is: test regularly. If you test positive start ART before you get sick (have low CD4 count) and you'll live pretty much as long as the general population.

must be time for an "HIVmeds cause AIDS" dinialsit conspiricy thread...we've not had one of those for years and years

 

[editor]

It's a incredible achievement.

 

[Idris2002]

It's a great bit of news.

But what's the current situation with regard to side-effects, etc.? I heard there can be things like strange patterns of weight gain, or paranoia. I'm not trying to rain on the parade here, I'd just genuinely like to know.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

It's a great bit of news.

But what's the current situation with regard to side-effects, etc.? I heard there can be things like strange patterns of weight gain, or paranoia. I'm not trying to rain on the parade here, I'd just genuinely like to know.

the current generation of meds are largely* side effect free, certainly lipodystrophy is much less prevalent. I hadn't heard of paranoia...vivid dreams on Atripla, certainly.

* most common side effects:

• Anemia (abnormality in red blood cells)
• Diarrhea.
• Dizziness.
• Fatigue.
• Headaches.
• Nausea and vomiting.
• Pain and nerve problems.
• Rash.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Bloody hell, that is remarkable.

I'm a bit young to remember the scare when it first broke, but as others have said, growing up it was basically "it'll kill you, and probably pretty quick".

Does give you a little hope, though with the way science is under attack at the moment, not a great deal...

 

[Teaboy]

It's a incredible achievement.

It absolutely is.

I also understand that there is some potentially very interesting stuff in the pipeline that could go beyond simply managing the condition.

 

[NoXion]

Excellent news. Here's hoping HIV goes the way of the smallpox virus.

 

[Miss-Shelf]

The key is to start drugs early. I friend of mine got quite ill before HIV was diagnosed (probably contracted it 4 years earlier) and he's having a harder time getting it under control

But yeah, another friend got diagnosed almost immediately and has it very much in control for the last 15 years

 

[Teaboy]

Is the treatment still a bit of a cocktail of drugs where timing is important or has that been refined? I ask this because I wonder how much effect the treatment is having in poorer countries which have suffered horrendously.

 

[weltweit]

Is the treatment still a bit of a cocktail of drugs where timing is important or has that been refined? I ask this because I wonder how much effect the treatment is having in poorer countries which have suffered horrendously.

Another question might be how much it costs which might have a bearing on which countries can afford it.

 

[stuff_it]

Is the treatment still a bit of a cocktail of drugs where timing is important or has that been refined? I ask this because I wonder how much effect the treatment is having in poorer countries which have suffered horrendously.

Working in the NHS around 15 years ago I met a young man who refused a test because he planned to return to his home country of Mali, which I think had around a 50% infection rate at the time. His reasoning was that since 50% of people had it, he could chose either to not have a life, lovers, kids, etc or could take his chances, since he didn't want to emigrate. Reliable treatment drugs weren't really available even for the rich at that time, so why find out.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

Is the treatment still a bit of a cocktail of drugs where timing is important or has that been refined? I ask this because I wonder how much effect the treatment is having in poorer countries which have suffered horrendously.

the current "rich world" treatments are more robust in terms of peoples' adherance than they used to be; missing odd days or variations in the times of day the meds are taken don't make much difference. Most of the people not achieving undetectable viral loads are due to resistance following previous non-compliance, or other issues; and people that loose weekends due to crystal meth, or whatever (this is a genralisation and not meant to accuse individual that the meds aren't working out for).

Access to meds in the developing wold is a sucess story, by and large, with local generics being made, funding thanks partly to Bill Gates and (amazingly) G W Bush. I think it's something like 50% of people diagnosed are on ART therapy, globally.

a lot of information and resources are available here.