Write a Comment
5 Comments
As a participant in the gene therapy study in UCLA, I took the risk in the hope the treatment will work. For the first time in my 20 years with HIV my T cell went below 200, so technically I had AIDS, but also, in those 20 years I never been sick, I have only been sick from secondary effects of the medications, and I have the zerit face as a result. I knew the risk. I was placebo. and disappointed, at the end, didn't work but it helped hemophiliac children so I would do it again !!
Thats a patient call. I lost count of the studies I did over the yr.s. some of us just want to give back.
Having been involved in a protocol development from start to finish and one of the most enlightening experiences I've had as an HIV educator and advocate. The inclusion exclusion and parameters that go into the development of the protocol before it ever goes out into the community is so intense and the impact on the community is of the utmost concern of the Developers and the researchers
As a member of one of the teams with a clinical trial group my role is to represent the community and gauge the risks to those who participate. I also sit on a Community Advisory Board that was asked to review one such protocol. We too were conflicted about the ethics associated with treatment interruption. As we studied it in it's entirety we were relieved to see the number of blood draws and office visits to monitor any Viral Rebound and act accordingly. There is always some risk in the field
1.5_CD4/CD8
Here is a study that requires (at least two) FDG-PET/CT scans with a radioactive dye. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03239899 It is NOT a therapeutic study, as only one dose of the anti-PD-1 antibody is given. The goal is to use the radioactive dye to measure the amount of HIV-pro-viral cells in the brain, give the agent (anti-PD-1 antibody) in the hope that it will allow HIV-specific T cells to become active, then give another dose of radioactive dye to measure the reservoir.
October 4, 2017 • Chicago