Stem cell transplant has cured HIV infection, say doctors

http://www.aidsmap.com/page/1577949/

by timf • 16 years ago

83 40 16 years ago

BluePoints• 16 years ago

Stem Cell Research must be allowed.

pshapiro4• 16 years ago

I came here to extoll the benefits of stem cell therapy with bio-matter obtained from the proper sources... but you beat me to it. :)

Bud• 16 years ago

What are the "proper" sources?

burgerbrain2• 16 years ago

Agreed of course, though this really isn't the place or time to get political.

If I understand this correctly, these were stem cells from an adult donor who happened to be resistant to HIV, and there is pretty much no opposition* to adult stem cell research.

*well, some people of course oppose it, but the opposition worth mention is against embryonic stem cells.

burgerbrain2• 16 years ago

Further elaboration: "Doctors chose stem cells from an individual who had an unusual genetic profile: a mutation inherited from both parents that resulted in CD4 cells that lacked the CCR5 receptor."

IIRC, there are only a handful of embryonic stem cell lines currently in active use. If one of them happened to be resistant to HIV I think we would have heard of it before now.

1337p337• 16 years ago

Certainly, if the apparent cure (which I hope and I'm sure the rest of the world hopes it is) came from embryonic stem cells, this would deplete any political capital held by the opposition to embryonic stem cell research.

As the cells came from an adult donor, though, the talking heads on both sides of the issue can rest assured that on a slow news day, they can still fall back on dogmatic opinion pieces!

Groxx2• 16 years ago

The trick is that there are many sources of stem cells, some controversial, some most definitely not.

For instance: baby teeth[1]; amniotic fluid[2]; embryos[3]; fetuses[4]; and others. There are even "pluripotent"[5] cells which have similar attributes, which have even been created from skin cells.

"Stem Cell Research must be allowed": of course. Blanket bans are ignorant of the sources, and are effectively idiotic in the extreme. But which do you allow? And do you allow researchers to pay people for them? (note that this could mean abortions become profitable, if amniotic fluid / similar cells are allowed) And how do you get them? They're also still effectively human genetic experimentation - some people will never approve of that.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#cite_ref-60

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Amniotic

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Embryonic

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Fetal

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell#Induced_pluripotent

checoivan2• 16 years ago

Indeed. It would help not calling them by a generic "Stem Cell research" name . Yes, some cell sources fall in the grey, almost black part of the line, but there are other being completely safe and out of ethical concerns. For example, discarded Placentas are full of them and doctors throw them away anyways.

sukuriant• 16 years ago

Don't forget about adult stem cells, too. Those do count.

Jem• 16 years ago

What about human milk? I know I have read articles about breast milk/colostrum containing stem cells. Would this be an easier source than those mentioned in the wikipedia page? Of course, you still have the problem of finding lactating women willing to donate their milk in the name of science...

(Disclaimer: I know nothing about stem cells. I merely have an interest in the science of breast milk as a nursing mother. :) )

dantheman• 16 years ago

I agree with you, but if IRCC it's about funding. People have problems funding stem cell research when the cells come from certain places. I don't agree with them at all, but I can understand their point.

sliverstorm• 16 years ago

The difficulty with using HIV as your use-case argument is last I checked, most religious organizations considered HIV to be God's scourge on homosexuals.

e.g. they are not particularly worried about getting rid of it.

(I'm not just being snarky or sarcastic)

chrisb• 16 years ago

This is certainly not true with mainstream Christianity in the UK, although sadly some loud voices can be heard agreeing with what you say.

As just one example, Christian Aid, a large UK charity which works to end poverty and injustice around the world clearly states that HIV is a virus, not a moral issue: http://www.christianaid.org.uk/resources/policy/HIV_AIDS.asp...

fdghfdgh• 16 years ago

If we need to get rid of religion first, so be it. Win-win.

joshuacc• 16 years ago

Perhaps, if by "most religious organizations" you mean "a great number of fundamentalist-leaning Christian sects." But that is very different from "most religious people" or even "most Christians."

For example, approximately 50% of Christians are Catholics, which definitely doesn't teach that. The same holds true for Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and other mainstream Christian groups.

See Catholic Charities: http://www.caritas.org/activities/hiv_aids/sinethemba_a_cari...

See this official Vatican statement on AIDS: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2003/doc...

Luc• 16 years ago

Archbishop Leonard, the Catholic Primate of Belgium, considers the AIDS epidemic not at all a punishment from God, but 'a sort of intrinsic justice' for actions like promiscuity.

What a wonderful doctrine, huh...

JCThoughtscream• 16 years ago

If this doesn't turn out to be overblown sensationalism, then the team behind this (actual!) cure probably deserves a Nobel for their efforts and results.

rms3• 16 years ago

It's real, but not practical. The risk of death during a transplant like this is as high as 10%, because it involves completely knocking out the immune system.

Dilpil• 16 years ago

I think most AIDS patients would gladly take that 10% chance.

nopassrecover• 16 years ago

Presumably that risk could be mitigated with improved processes (vacuum room?). If I read correctly, this was extreme application of an existing technique (chemotherapy).

Admittedly this is pretty intense, but so are treatments for cancer. Let's hope this leads to improved and safer treatments in the future.

bhickey• 16 years ago

I suspect that the mortality rate would be much lower amongst patients being treated for HIV. Bone marrow transplants as a therapy for leukemia requires killing the existing cells with radiation. This is completely sensible -- you've got some cancerous cells, so nuke everything and start over from the beginning.

Confounding the mortality stats is the fact that individuals undergoing treatment are very sick from the start. We might see better survival rates amongst comparatively healthy people.

In this case, you don't necessarily need a clean slate. "All" you need is a population of cells generating HIV resistant T-cells. AIDS manifests in individuals with extremely low T-cell counts. If a population of CD4 mutants could take hold within a larger population, it might be enough to prevent AIDS and bring viral titers low enough to eliminate transmission.

Nevertheless, I agree -- it's hardly practical, but it may be a beachhead.

rms3• 16 years ago

They don't deserve a Nobel because the idea has been obvious in medicine for years. They just got very lucky in being able to deliver a confirmed CCR5 delta 32+ bone marrow transplant to someone with HIV in a medically responsible way.

Curing HIV is an incredible thing to have accomplished but the confirmation of a successful surgery from 3 years ago doesn't advance the bounds of scientific knowledge as much as it was might seem when you see a story like this in the news.

maxharris• 16 years ago

> They don't deserve a Nobel because the idea has been obvious in medicine for years.

What's your science background/what's your degree in? This really wasn't obvious. It was an open question as to whether or not other cells that were latently infected could produce a new infection via the other co-receptor (CXCR4).

> They just got very lucky

To characterize their hard work as luck is unjust. Yes, patients don't always survive bone marrow transplants, and this patient is indeed lucky to have survived. But the dilligent effort of his physicians is deliberate! Remember that they had to screen a lot of potential donors (61, I believe) to find someone with enough HLA similarity and a homozygous CCR5delta32 genotype. You can call this luck, but it's really just hard and dilligent work. Out of a pool of around 60 million people (worldwide) homozygous for CCR5delta32, you can find someone with enough matching allotypes. (You do know that you don't need all of the allotypes to match, right? That increases the probablity right there. In some cases, a little imperfect matching is a good thing, because the resulting graft-vs-host effect can act against the cancer you're trying to treat. Doctors have been using this effect since the 80s.)

zackattack• 16 years ago

Time to short CHD!

Just kidding. Or am I?

Stem cell transplant has cured HIV infection, say doctors

Related Stories