E-Mail 'HIV treatment really IS prevention, but...' To A Friend

* Required Field

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.

E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

This post was published on 19/05/11 in Science.

Send this post to a friend Send this post to a friend


You can follow the comments on this post via this RSS feed.

Tags: , , , .

  1. Comment by Roger, 19/05/11, 03:53:

    To partially answer your first question: there were 65 critical events in the delayed arm versus 40 in the immediate arm. Critical means infection or death (unclear what kind of infection). The trial used a composite value to determined individual benefit of starting ART early and the DSMB said teh benefit were obvious.

    I have no answer to the second question, but I have a view which is that it could indeed be a zero sum game but not a negative one!

  2. Comment by nb, 24/05/11, 04:28:

    interesting post as usual. nice to hear a voice of someone capable of pondering the evidence as it is without adding spin. this is great news for sure but the distance between the population level dynamics of hiv transmission and medicating individuals is a long way indeed. my question has to do with medication adherence. as you scale up treatment it seems to me that the issue of medication adherence becomes quite profound. how good are populations at taking their meds and what level of adherence would need to be achieved and maintained for years to avoid the adherence variability from contributing to viral load variability which in turn could feed new infections…seems to me that with a low efficiency virus like hiv that is sustained by big diffuse networks that any any HIV prevention intervention must battle against merely adding noise to the network, which risks creating chaotic change exploited by the virus…

Comments are closed at this time.