July / August #83 : Failure Is Sweet - by Emily Bass

POZ - Health, Life and HIV
Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:

Back to home » Archives » POZ Magazine issues




Table of Contents

Once Upon A Time...

Young At Heartland

The Lying Game

Life vs. Meth

This Is Only a Test

Mbeki's 180

Spin Doctors

Soda Wars

Iran Runs

New Friend

Sex Crimes

Got Milk? Get Meds

Got His Goat

Monkey C

Mind Trip

Beach Reads

Memory Lane

Face the Music

Failure Is Sweet

Who Done It

Defensive Tackle

Under the Sun

Cave Kava

Relayed Reaction

Habit Helpers

Ticked & Stoned

Rated X5

Vax Populi

TB or Not TB

IV Leader

Flower Children

Milestones

Drug Interactions

Dubya Trouble

Publisher's Letter

Mailbox

Reed Represents



Most Popular Lessons

The HIV Life Cycle

Shingles

Herpes Simplex Virus

Syphilis & Neurosyphilis

Treatments for Opportunistic Infections (OIs)

What is AIDS & HIV?

Hepatitis & HIV


email print

July / August 2002

Failure Is Sweet

by Emily Bass

April's Keystone Symposium in Colorado played a kind of winter games to this summer's 13th International AIDS Conference in Barcelona. Both meetings mix a luxe setting -- a ski resort, sun-splashed Gaudi cathedrals -- with new findings from AIDS' top researchers.

Keystone 2002 featured a variety of promising results, but the gold medal for relevance to HIVers went to Goldilocks -- the so-called Goldilocks Hypothesis floated by Mike McCune, MD, of the Gladstone Institute in California (see "Once Upon a Time"). San Francisco General Hospital's Steven Deeks has long noted that some patients whose regimens are failing nonetheless continue to have high CD4s and good health. McCune's study of SF General HAART-users who stayed on combos despite viral breakthroughs yielded provocative data. While these folks did not fare better than the undetectables, they were far healthier -- and for much longer -- than would be expected. It seems that HIV's genetic mutations -- shaped by pressure specifically from protease inhibitors -- creates a less harmful virus.

But that's not news. What's exciting is McCune and Deeks' discovery that some of those who stuck with therapy despite this protease-resistant viral rebound in fact had stronger HIV-specific immune responses than those with undetectable virus. Why? The immune system needs a certain threshold of virus to remain active; reducing viral load to near nothing "starves" immune cells of the necessary antigen stimulation. These responses are a homegrown weapon against HIV -- and may mean that the detectable virus does not equal a failed regimen.

That's where Goldilocks enters, that picky girl who wanted her bed, chair and porridge just so. McCune stresses that it takes "just the right amount of virus of just the right type" to get these beneficial effects. He observed the boost in HIV-specific CD4 and CD8 cells only in people with viral loads of 1,000 to 10,000. Above and below this range, the immune responses dropped away. A toast to Deeks and McCune for questioning received wisdom.




[Go to top]

Join POZ Facebook Twitter Google+ MySpace YouTube Tumblr Flickr
Quick Links
Current Issue

HIV Testing
Safer Sex
Find a Date
Newly Diagnosed
HIV 101
Disclosing Your Status
Starting Treatment
Help Paying for Meds
Search for the Cure
POZ Stories
POZ Opinion
POZ Exclusives
Read the Blogs
Visit the Forums
Job Listings
Events Calendar


    adoniz89
    san dimas
    California


    romanticseattle
    Tacoma
    Washington


    sefarady
    New York
    California


    HOTROD2010
    houston
    Texas
Click here to join POZ Personals!
Ask POZ Pharmacist

Talk to Us
Poll
Survey
Pop Watch

more surveys
Contact Us
We welcome your comments!
[ about Smart + Strong | about POZ | POZ advisory board | partner links | advertising policy | advertise/contact us | site map]
© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved. Terms of use and Your privacy.
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.