Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / AIDS / September 2006
By James Ricci. Elites are extremely rare, accounting for an estimated one-third of 1% of known HIV-positive people and numbering perhaps 2,000. They and so-called viremic controllers, healthy infected people whose immune systems keep the virus at very low, although detectable, levels in the blood without drugs, are of keen interest to AIDS researchers.
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Don Saklad - 22 Sep 2006 14:49 GMT By James Ricci http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elites6jul06,0,7217065.story http://tinyurl.com/kqz5z
Los Angeles Times http://latimes.com
#LA Times California | Local News Feed
California | Local News
E-mail story
HIV-Positive Group May Hold the Key to Defeating AIDS
Infected but not ill, 'elite controllers' make up less than 1% of those with the virus. They may hold the key to its cure.
By James Ricci, Times Staff Writer July 6, 2006 SAN FRANCISCO -- Matt Traywick's personal life has been a treatise on how to contract AIDS.
A gay man, he'd been "very sexually active" in San Francisco in the late 1970s, he said, and tended toward unprotected encounters. Then he entered a long-term monogamous relationship, and after he lost both it and his job as a computer specialist, he sank into a life of hard revelry and so much intravenous methamphetamine use that he wound up homeless on the streets of the city's Tenderloin district.
"I always knew I would be HIV-positive," Traywick recalled. "I hit all the major risk factors. It seemed there was no way I would have been negative. When I tested positive, my doctor cried and I didn't. Walking home, I wondered if there was something psychologically broken in me because, for some reason, I wasn't worried."
Against all logic and expectation, his nonchalance has turned out to be justified.
Traywick was diagnosed 21 years ago and has been healthy ever since, despite never having taken anti-HIV medications. Antibody tests demonstrate conclusively that he harbors the virus. But his immune system has controlled it so effectively that repeated blood assays have never shown a detectable level of the invader, even though Traywick still occasionally uses speed and engages in unprotected sex.
A graying, rumpled man of 46 with darting eyes and nervous hands, Traywick said he has "spent a lot of time trying to figure out why I was a survivor. There's got to be a reason some people are chosen not to die."
In the argot of AIDS research, Traywick is an "elite controller." Elites are extremely rare, accounting for an estimated one-third of 1% of known HIV-positive people and numbering perhaps 2,000. They and so-called viremic controllers, healthy infected people whose immune systems keep the virus at very low, although detectable, levels in the blood without drugs, are of keen interest to AIDS researchers.
"I would say we still don't have the faintest idea why these people are doing as well as they are," said Harvard medical professor Bruce Walker, director of the Partners AIDS Research Center at Massachusetts General Hospital. "Achieving the state that these guys have reached in their bodies -- if we could do that through some intervention, we would solve the AIDS epidemic."
Being a long-term controller is not an unalloyed blessing, as Kai Brothers' journey illustrates.
Brothers, 43, a computer technician for Wells Fargo bank in San Francisco, got his first indication something was amiss in 1987. A frequent blood donor, he received a certified letter from his blood bank stating that someone had donated HIV-tainted blood and asking him to be tested.
Brothers couldn't bring himself to respond. As a gay man, he knew he was in a high-risk group. Eventually he had himself tested but couldn't face learning the results. It was 1989 before he had himself retested, confirming his suspicions.
"I deep-down knew," he said in a recent interview. "There was a heavy feeling but not a surprise or shock. There was fear: 'Am I getting sick? How long will it take before this time bomb went off?' "
Not knowing his future, he quit his job and cashed in his 401(k) account to travel in Europe. On his return, he learned his infection-fighting T-cells -- HIV's target -- had dipped slightly below the normal range, and his doctor wrote him a prescription for AZT, the first effective HIV drug but one with often dreadful side effects.
"I decided I was not going to get it filled," Brothers recalled. "Something instinctively told me not to. I decided to wait it out."
Wait he did, and although his T-cells occasionally dipped, he also declined to use the effective multi-drug HIV cocktail when it became available in 1996. A man of moderate habits, Brothers took to practicing safe sex -- although researchers think it unlikely that controllers can infect others, he has taken no chances -- and listening more closely to his body when it requested food or rest or exercise.
While the AIDS epidemic roared through San Francisco's gay community, killing his partner and several close friends, Brothers escaped unharmed.
"But it was a bittersweet feeling," he said. "It's hard to call yourself a survivor when you've been through so much devastation, so profoundly affected by loss and grief. Isolated was definitely something I felt at the end of the '90s. I used to go to support groups and hear what everybody else was dealing with, having AIDS and opportunistic infections. It was uncomfortable because a lot of them were upset or angry or frustrated. I couldn't identify with them, and I couldn't identify with those who were HIV-negative."
Such feelings of isolation are common among controllers, said Dr. Florencia Pereyra of the Partners AIDS Research Center. She established a small support group for controllers in Boston and found that "because they're not on medication and don't have high mortality rates, they feel apart from the rest of the HIV community."
Another common sentiment among them was a desire to be studied. "The question seems to come back to them all the time," said Pereyra: "Why me? What's so special about me?"
To divine the answer, researchers are, among other efforts, probing the body's so-called innate immune system, trying to discern if controllers harbor a defective form of the virus and undertaking an unprecedented study of hundreds of controllers in an attempt to learn if there is anything genetically unique about them.
Enigma (Robert Durell / LAT) June 22, 2006 [clicktoenlarge.gif] click to enlarge http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-elites_j1uh9unc,0,3388483.photo http://tinyurl.com/j8g48
Healthy (Robert Durell / LAT) June 22, 2006 [clicktoenlarge.gif] click to enlarge http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-elites_j1uhsfnc,0,7643765.photo http://tinyurl.com/gga49
Medicine (Vadim Ghirda / AP) May 25, 2006 [clicktoenlarge.gif] click to enlarge http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-aids_j05fndnc,0,5508493.photo http://tinyurl.com/ev82w
Human beings have two immune systems, the innate and the adaptive. The innate system is a general response to any incoming pathogen, and it can kick in almost immediately. Its component cells, including some known as "natural killer cells," dismantle viruses, kill off early cancer cells and engulf and eliminate foreign bacteria.
The adaptive system, which is dependent largely on infection-fighting T-cells and antiviral antibodies, is more finely tuned and needs to identify an invader precisely before going into action, a process that takes days or weeks. Thus far, the great bulk of HIV research has centered on the adaptive system.
Researchers at UC San Francisco have assembled a group of 50 elite controllers (including Traywick), and research on them has produced an intriguing discovery.
About half of the elites control the virus, as expected, through a powerful response by T-cells.
The other half shows no such T-cell response.
"The 25 people in our cohort who have no T-cell reaction can provide insight into whole new ways of thinking," says Dr. Steven Deeks, a prominent HIV researcher at UC San Francisco. "There are 25 guys who have no reason for controlling the virus."
Because their adaptive immune systems appear to play little or no part in controlling the virus, they are prime subjects for investigation into the innate immune system.
Since 1984, Dr. Jay Levy, director of the Laboratory for Tumor and AIDS Virus Research at UC San Francisco and one of the first to isolate HIV, has focused on the innate immune system and its unique infection-fighting tools.
In all of the controllers he has tested, Levy found evidence of an effective antiviral protein secreted by certain innate immune system cells. Over the last two decades, he and his team have searched through the thousands of proteins these cells make in the hope of identifying the antiviral protein. They've managed to narrow the number to about 80, but they need to winnow it further.
They've also been trying to identify the gene that causes controllers' cells to express the antiviral protein. Of the body's 37,000 genes, Levy's team identified, through several experiments, eight that look promising; they expect to identify five or six more.
Eventually, they'll introduce the most promising genes into human cells and look for the antiviral protein activity.
Levy is also looking at another tool of the innate immune system, a small number of cells that produce virus-crippling interferon. He has found that controllers have higher numbers of these cells than even healthy HIV-negative people.
Essentially, controllers show that the human immune system is capable of containing HIV naturally, Levy said. "This has been a long time coming, but in my opinion we can look forward to long-term survival without toxic drugs."
Some researchers have theorized that controllers are able to contain the virus because the strain of the virus they're infected with is somehow defective. Although the current belief is that a defective form of the virus does not in itself explain controllers' success -- it might even be that the virus is capable of repairing itself -- researchers haven't been able to tease the virus out of some elite controllers so that it can be examined for defectiveness.
"Whenever researchers find the virus, it usually looks normal," Deeks said. "But some of the people in whom it can't be found, it may be they were exposed to a defective virus."
To examine every controller for defective virus would be prohibitively expensive, he said. If such a study were mounted, he said, the idea would be "to see if the virus is there and if it is defective, because in theory that virus will give good insights into making an effective vaccine."
One of the problems with studying elites is that there are so few that researchers haven't been able to assemble local research cohorts large enough to study effectively. Now, however, Walker of Massachusetts General and his collaborators hope to collect blood samples from 500 to 1,000 elite controllers and a similar number of viremic controllers, subject them to detailed genetic analysis and compare the findings with those from two groups: HIV-negative people and HIV-positive people in whom the virus has progressed.
Working through AIDS caregivers and AIDS advocacy groups, the Massachusetts General team has amassed 76 elite controllers and 100 viremic controllers from across the country and is funding collaboration with UC San Francisco's cohort of 50 elites and 50 viremic controllers, including Brothers.
"Basically, we want to recruit every single one of these people in the United States," Walker said. "We have to have a large enough sample to begin to see patterns in this population."
He is optimistic that the genetic survey "will show exactly what the mechanisms are that will reveal drug targets that we can focus upon."
While researchers pursue various avenues for explaining his uniqueness, Matt Traywick is trying to put his life back together.
After his two years of homelessness, which included a brutal beating that hospitalized him for more than two months, he is living in Catholic Charities-supported housing, where he shares a bathroom with another tenant and visitors must leave identification at the front desk.
He said he still uses methamphetamine "only every couple of months" and remains sexually active. "I don't always keep myself safe, but I'd never put someone else at risk," he said. "I always disclose. I've never been so high that I didn't remember or think to disclose."
A potential irony of the highest order: Levy's research suggests that the protection provided elite controllers by the mystery antiviral protein fades in about a year after exposure to HIV, so that regular re-exposure might play a role in keeping a controller safe.
In any case, Traywick recently posted a resume on the Internet and has drawn a few interested responses from potential employers.
"For the first time in many years, it looks promising," he said.
He knows he's got to return to a productive life in order to save for retirement.
"I didn't think I'd make it to 30, much less 46," he said. "I never dreamed I'd retire. Now it looks like I might. That's the ultimate joke that God plays on us guys."
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elites6jul06,0,7217065.story http://tinyurl.com/kqz5z By James Ricci
jdach - 22 Sep 2006 19:49 GMT >From www.DrDach.com: The new CDC HIV testing proposals are BAD medicine and I oppose them.
"Elite Controllers" are HIV positives who are alive and well without disease for many years without ever taking anti-HIV drugs. Although current opinion suggests these are rare individuals, my opinion is that they are not so rare and many more will be stepping forward to identify themselves to participate in the Mass General Hospital study. My point is that this is a population of HIV positive people who never get sick and don't have a disease. The risks of toxic anti-HIV drugs is far greater to them than the theoretical risk of Kaposi's Sarcoma or Pneumocystis Carinii pneumonia which are the hallmark of classic AIDS as first described in the San Francisco Gay population in the early 1980's.
We know that the Elite Controllers are not rare because the CDC estimates that there are a quarter million HIV positives in the low-risk general population who are unaware of their HIV status. These people are generally healthy and find no reason to seek out medical testing and are probably Elite Controllers.
The new CDC recommendations to test all these low-risk people in the general population will merely identify Elite Controllers in the population and then recommend to them the standard toxic anti-HIV drug treatment which is far more dangerous to their health than their HIV positive status which will not cause a disease in this population.
I am a Board Certified MD with 25 years experience diagnosing and treating AIDs patients and I am opposed to the new CDC proposal for mandatory HIV testing of low-risk people who come into contact with the medical system at emergency rooms and ambulatory care centers. This is BAD medical practice. In addition, I urge all physicians to stand up and join with me in opposition to these new HIV testing policies proposed by the CDC.
Signed: www.drdach.com
David Weinshenker - 22 Sep 2006 20:59 GMT > The new CDC recommendations to test all these low-risk people in the > general population will merely identify Elite Controllers in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and join with me in opposition to these new HIV testing policies > proposed by the CDC. Sounds like the real "bad idea" would be, not the testing itself, but a practice of _automatically_ administering standard anti-HIV medications to the entire "HIV-positive" population identified by such testing without further investigation of virus levels, immune system status, etc. to distinguish the "controllers" from those who were at risk of developing dangerous levels of infection.
Are such risk-benefit evaluations not part of the usual decision- making process with respect to the medical response to the detection of "HIV-positive" status in any given individual, or is there an automatic assumption that anyone who "tests positive" should be advised to begin using anti-viral drugs?
Identifying the actual prevalence of "controllers" would be a valuable piece of information in itself, no?
-dave w
jdach - 25 Sep 2006 10:48 GMT > Sounds like the real "bad idea" would be, not the testing itself, > but a practice of _automatically_ administering standard anti-HIV [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > automatic assumption that anyone who "tests positive" should be > advised to begin using anti-viral drugs? Yes, it is a very bad idea to administer toxic anti-viral drugs to HIV positives who are otherwise healthy, i.e. "Elite Controllers". Unfortunately, the further investigations are NOT reliable in differentiating Elite Controllers from the rest of the population, and may falsely trigger an incorrect decision to treat.
www.drdach.com
> Identifying the actual prevalence of "controllers" would be a valuable > piece of information in itself, no? Problem is that by routine testing the low risk population (non-iv drug users and non gays) we are uncovering HIV positives people who never get sick and dont have a disease, (Elite Controllers). We know from experience that when you notify people in low risk groups that they have HIV, they are fired from their jobs, cant get health insurance , ostracized from the community and some commit suicide. Considering this kind of downside to uncovering this information, it is not valuable. It is harmful .
By the way, there has never been a documented case (in the medical literature) of HIV or AIDS disease transmitted from an Elite Controller to another person in the popoulation (spouse or otherwise), so the idea that by testing these people we will reduce transmission rate is false. www.drdach.com
crack baby - 25 Sep 2006 11:03 GMT jdach wrote...
>>Identifying the actual prevalence of "controllers" would be a valuable >>piece of information in itself, no? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > this kind of downside to uncovering this information, it is not > valuable. It is harmful . Harmful is a relative concept. While I don't believe it is true, it is claimed that standard ARV treatment reduces the viral load so much as to make the patient almost non-infectious. No studies that I know of have shown this is actually occurs, but it is used as a major argument for testing because low viral loads SHOULD mean fewer new HIV infections. If this argument is correct, then testing "Elite Controllers" would prevent them from infecting others, even if the drugs have unpleasant side-effects. But with an unknown HIV status (which is always personally interpreted as HIV-), the Elite Controller will continue to engage in unprotected sex and transmission of the virus that does not harm him. While you express such deep concern for the health of your precious Elite Controller, you have no concern at all for the health of the people he infects.
> By the way, there has never been a documented case (in the medical > literature) of HIV or AIDS disease transmitted from an Elite > Controller to another person in the popoulation (spouse or otherwise), > so the idea that by testing these people we will reduce transmission > rate is false. My personal opinion is that they are infectious, but I would like to see a scientific study conducted. There are no such studies that I know of, and you offer what appears to be anecdotal evidence with no experimental data to support it.
> > www.drdach.com Death - 26 Sep 2006 06:32 GMT "crack baby" <crack@backdoho.net> wrote in message >
> Harmful is a relative concept. While I don't believe it is true, it is > claimed that standard ARV treatment reduces the viral load so much as to > make the patient almost non-infectious. No studies that I know of have > shown this is actually occurs, but it is used as a major argument for > testing because low viral loads SHOULD mean fewer new HIV infections. I still say, let these guys inject the blood of low viral load patients. Let that stand the test of time.
Olbermann - 25 Sep 2006 02:04 GMT >>From www.DrDach.com: > [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Signed: www.drdach.com This is an honest question, I am not beeing a smart a.s but how are these people not a transmission risk and wouldn't it be better if they knew their status. If their viral load is very low or as close to zero as possible then what you say is true but what if it increases for whatever reason. I agree with the CDC and think everyone should be tested and the historically healthy can decide what is best for them and the knowledge gained would be very helpful, imagine a husband who has been positive unknowingly and faithful to his wife yet she never contracts the disease, this is information we need to have.
 Signature --Not a righty or a lefty, just a free thinker--
GMCarter - 25 Sep 2006 10:19 GMT >This is an honest question, I am not beeing a smart a.s but how are >these people not a transmission risk and wouldn't it be better if they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >been positive unknowingly and faithful to his wife yet she never >contracts the disease, this is information we need to have. As I understand it, this "routine testing" is NOT mandatory. However, the "voluntary" bit of it is watered down with this unprecedented method. As far as I know, no other disease is "routinely" tested with a kind of 'opt-out' rather than 'opt-in' approach that this appears to be.
Another extremely upsetting and despicable piece of this "test, test, test" nonsense is that it seeks to destroy the extremely critical "counseling" piece of testing.
It is the kind of thing, though, that we come to expect from the single worst administration in US history. George M. Carter
jdach - 25 Sep 2006 11:01 GMT > >This is an honest question, I am not beeing a smart a.s but how are > >these people not a transmission risk and wouldn't it be better if they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >been positive unknowingly and faithful to his wife yet she never > >contracts the disease, this is information we need to have. I didnt write this...the other gentleman did. see my reply above. www.drdach.com
enquiring minds - 26 Sep 2006 06:19 GMT > >This is an honest question, I am not beeing a smart a.s but how are > >these people not a transmission risk and wouldn't it be better if they > >knew their status. Well, in polite conversation, yes. But as recent sports heroes have exhibited and millions more have done so, they continue to have unprotected sex.
So the key to prevention or transmission is for everyone in the world to assume that everyone else is HIV+ and only practice safe sex.
The other reason is that anybody can be tested today, are infected, by the infection doesn't show up on the test for a few months. So again it is an example of why it is important to assume the world is HIV+.
> If their viral load is very low or as close to zero > >as possible then what you say is true but what if it increases for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >been positive unknowingly and faithful to his wife yet she never > >contracts the disease, this is information we need to have. A husband who had been positive unknowingly and faithful to his wife yet she never contracted the disease, is problematic because the parameters aren't stated so the information is meaningless.
> As I understand it, this "routine testing" is NOT mandatory. However, > the "voluntary" bit of it is watered down with this unprecedented [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > test" nonsense is that it seeks to destroy the extremely critical > "counseling" piece of testing. Why is counselling critical to an HIV+ person? They have the disease and they aren't getting rid of the disease. The only people whom should be counselled are the rest of the people on the planet because they are the only ones where there is hope they will practice safe sex and eliminate the risk of contracting the disease.
> It is the kind of thing, though, that we come to expect from the > single worst administration in US history. > George M. Carter jdach - 26 Sep 2006 06:35 GMT I did not write this...jdach
> > >This is an honest question, I am not beeing a smart a.s but how are > > >these people not a transmission risk and wouldn't it be better if they [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > single worst administration in US history. > > George M. Carter Death - 26 Sep 2006 06:27 GMT "GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
> Another extremely upsetting and despicable piece of this "test, test, > test" nonsense is that it seeks to destroy the extremely critical > "counseling" piece of testing. Let me take this opportunity to counsel you faggots again.
1.Don't stick your dick in sh.t. 2.Don't stick your dick in sh.t 3.Don't stick your dick in sh.t
and above all
4.Don't stick your dick in sh.t.
jdach - 25 Sep 2006 10:59 GMT > >>From www.DrDach.com: > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > -- > --Not a righty or a lefty, just a free thinker-- from www.drdach.com:
We know from 20 years of HIV research that there is no transmission risk from Elite Controllers. Cases of transmission of HIV have never been documented in the medical literature. In addition, heterosexual transmission between couples is actually quite rare and may never happen after many years of contact in some couples as reported by Dr. MacGregor, Horsburgh and Levy:
MacGregor RR et al. Failure of culture and polymerase chain reaction to detect human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in seronegative steady sexual partners of HIV-infected individuals. Clin Infect Dis. 1995 Jul;21(1):122-7.
Horsburgh CR et al. Concordance of polymerase chain reaction with HIV antibody detection. J Infect Dis. 1990 Aug;162:542-5.
Levy JA. The transmission of AIDS: the case of the infected cell. JAMA. 1988;259(20):3037-8.
www.drdach.com
jdach - 25 Sep 2006 11:06 GMT > from www.drdach.com: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Horsburgh CR et al. Concordance of polymerase chain reaction with HIV > antibody detection. J Infect Dis. 1990 Aug;162:542-5. Correction:
Cases of transmission of HIV have never been documented in the medical literature from Elite Controllers to spouses or partners
www.drdach.com
|
|
|