Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Aids has been cured... By accident

  1. #1 Aids has been cured... By accident 
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Un..fricking..believable
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602394113507555.html


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    That's a really brutal cure. They've got to half kill you to replace all the marrow. Ouch. The treatment kills a third of patients. And you need a donor...


    Maybe the gene therapy option could be practical some day?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    792
    I suggested that on a thread in health and medicine months ago, that's hilarious that this now came out!
    Yeah it's a pretty bad cure not to mention expensive; this is the kind of thing that would bankrupt western healthcare systems and make it impossibly for those in the third world.

    ...doubt it would be approved as treatment by the FDA or any other regulating bodies either
    ...interesting nonetheless!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    The idea implemented here is one that been toyed with for a while. Total T cell deletion followed by introduction of CCR5d32 expressing T-cells or progenitors. We've known for some time that the CCR5 mutation prevents R5 HIV infection. It's a drastic measure, but this seems a good proof of principle. However, clearing the HIV virus from one person does not make an AIDS cure, I'm sorry to say.

    A single case-study published in the mainstream press gives us hope, but is very very far from allowing us to call "cure". We've called cure far too many times at this stage, after all.

    What this does do is open the door for larger trials. There's an ethical issue still in place with marrow or T-cell depleting a HIV patient. The patient in this case had cancer, so the marrow replacement was ethically okay. So what needs to happen next is a panel of 10-20 such HIV/cancer patients treated the same way. That should allow the ethical justification for moving on to HIV patients.

    Of course, all of the above relies on safety- and this treatment apparently kills 1 in three patients. Unless the HIV patients' risk of imminent death outweighs that, this is a non-runner until the safety profile improves.

    I reckon your thread title needs a "?" :wink:

    Incidentally, here is news of a more hopeful and less drastic alternative in development:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/...stroy-hiv.html

    A modified T cell that supplements the existing immune system.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    ok mr stupid here about to talk



    If some people are born with a natural HIV immunity why not just isolate this gene, then form it into an injection of some form?



    Regardless that is very amusing, a 20year problem solved by accident
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    ok mr stupid here about to talk

    If some people are born with a natural HIV immunity why not just isolate this gene, then form it into an injection of some form?
    They've known about CCR5 mutations that protect against HIV infection for quite some time. Trust me, they're working on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Regardless that is very amusing, a 20year problem solved by accident
    It really hasn't been solved. The long term survival rate for HIV infection is fairly good these days, it does not warrant a treatment with a 1 in 3 chance of death. Bleach kills HIV too, should we inject people with it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    This thread developed into a discussion of gene therapy, and the specific example of insulin regulation in diabetics was used. It is a viable and active area of biomedical research but there are a lot of issues still to be overcome before it can be used as an active commercial treatment.

    When it is, however, it will most likely be far safer than enduring a bone marrow transplant. As others have said and I will repeat for emphasis, it is a difficult and extremely risky procedure that is really only done as a last option treatment for cancer.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. verzen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    ok mr stupid here about to talk

    If some people are born with a natural HIV immunity why not just isolate this gene, then form it into an injection of some form?
    They've known about CCR5 mutations that protect against HIV infection for quite some time. Trust me, they're working on it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Booms
    Regardless that is very amusing, a 20year problem solved by accident
    It really hasn't been solved. The long term survival rate for HIV infection is fairly good these days, it does not warrant a treatment with a 1 in 3 chance of death. Bleach kills HIV too, should we inject people with it?
    Biologista - Yes, we should. It only has the bad side effect of killing the person... but regardless, it's just a flesh wound.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    What Biologista was saying was that it is not feasable for a person recently infected with HIV, who is likely going to live 10-20 more years with treatment to risk a 1/3 chance of death for a cure.

    Then for someone who is near death from AIDS associated infections I don't think the survival rate would even be this good.

    I don't see a treatment like this ever advancing to actual use on HIV infected individuals. Besides the burden it would put on healthcare systems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    What Biologista was saying was that it is not feasable for a person recently infected with HIV, who is likely going to live 10-20 more years with treatment to risk a 1/3 chance of death for a cure.
    That's my point exactly. More than that though, it is not sensible, ethical or economical to do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    It sounded as though they were suggesting the finding as a jump-off point to develop gene therapy, not marrow transplants as a cure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    It sounded as though they were suggesting the finding as a jump-off point to develop gene therapy, not marrow transplants as a cure.
    Less a jump-off point, since gene therapy is already in clinical trials for all sorts of conditions. More a nice proof of concept for the CCR5d32 mutation as a viable target. That said, the patient didn't live long and was in poor health for most of that time. So it certainly didn't work as a good assessment of any potential immune issues that might arise out a malfunctioning CCR5. We'd certainly expect there to be some, the receptor partially directs T-cell movement.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    You misunderstand, but no real matter.

    The point being that there may be no need for marrow transplants, which the bulk of the thread is concerned with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    You misunderstand, but no real matter.
    Really? I thought your point was fairly clear and I wasn't disagreeing in any significant way.

    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The point being that there may be no need for marrow transplants, which the bulk of the thread is concerned with.
    Agreed, a directly administered gene therapy option, or possibly a less invasive ex vivo technique would certainly make more sense.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard paralith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,190
    I was talking to a friend about this, and she told me that CCR5 delta 32 only confers significant resistance against HIV-1 type C. There are many other types of HIV-1, such as type B which can apply a different mechanism of infection that type C. So even this bone marrow transplant "cure" would only be effective against type C (which tends to be transferred through sexual mucosal contact), and the person could still get infected by type B (which tends to be transferred through blood contact, like needle sharing).

    As an interesting side note, recent research suggests that certain mitochondrial DNA haplotypes can also confer high protection against AIDS progression. That provides potential for more gene therapy based treatments for HIV and AIDS.
    Man can will nothing unless he has first understood that he must count on no one but himself; that he is alone, abandoned on earth in the midst of his infinite responsibilities, without help, with no other aim than the one he sets himself, with no other destiny than the one he forges for himself on this earth.
    ~Jean-Paul Sartre
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by paralith
    I was talking to a friend about this, and she told me that CCR5 delta 32 only confers significant resistance against HIV-1 type C. There are many other types of HIV-1, such as type B which can apply a different mechanism of infection that type C.
    I think all of the types do share an affinity for CCR5 at some point in their life cycle, but HIV also binds to CXCR4 at certain stages of infection. If I recall correctly, it undergoes a tropism shift towards that receptor once the host pool of CCR5+ cells has declined significantly. So perhaps the effect you're talking about may be a reflection of differences in the tendency to undergo a tropic shift or perhaps due to some other effect that leads to selection for R4 HIV.

    At any rate, your core point is bang on the money. HIV is a virus with massive genetic variability, across a single infection and to an even greater degree in the infected population as a whole. It is likely that there's just not going to be a single "magic bullet" treatment for AIDS.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •