Write a Comment
3 Comments
The conclusions of this under-powered study (n=26) are overshadowed by the exlusion of true LTNPs, and the inclusion of chronic progressors and slow progressors of HIV. Concrete definitions of these groups can be located in a paper by Drs. Connors & Migueles (NIH) in JAMA.2010;304(2)pp.194-201, published on July 14, 2010. Data generated by a larger cohort of true LTNPs is needed to convince me that CVD risk is higher in my unique community.
This is an extremely small sample size. As an elite controller with CD4s maintained at 800 or above for 24 years, consistently undetectable viral load, and ARV and HAART naive, I do not (yet) take it seriously. A much larger sample with participants who are clearly in the elite controller category or LTNP category might prove interesting. References for elite controller & LTNP www.hivcontrollers.org/hivcontrollers aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/GlossaryHIVrelatedTerms.pdf
David Phillips
Where was the critical review at ICAAC that should have sent the research back to the scientist for insufficient evidence? As Loreen and Rob have noted, the ridiculously small sample size is not valid for drawing widespread conclusion; yet, POZ and other media have taken the bait. As a viremic controller of over 28 years, I also find the quoted distribution of HIV controllers misleading, as the HIV Controllers site notes the correct distribution as 1 in 300 -- that's a three-fold variance!
September 24, 2010 • College Park, MD