A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine by Dr. Marina Klein and associates of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, shows that beginning the treatment of HIV/Aids early, rather than waiting until a drop in the number of important immune cells can have a positive influence on slowing the progression of the disease. The risk of death was found to be 69 to 94 percent lower in the patients that were given early treatment. When I read this, I really was taken aback.
With the exception of certain diseases for which there is no treatment, and a few others like prostrate cancer, where the slow progression of the cancer and the age of the patient must be considered, I thought early diagnosis and treatment was always what was strived for. I can not believe that the consensus on HIV/Aids has been “wait for clinical signs of disease progression before beginning treatment”.
After hearing about this study and doing a little research myself, I found that many doctors have not been going along with current treatment protocol. Many doctors have been treating their patients early and reporting anecdotally that the outcomes for their patients was favorable. These anecdotal reports were what prompted the study showing early treatment was best. There have been great strides in the treatment of HIV/Aids over the years, but fortunately some doctors were not complacent about this progress. Thanks to the common sense of these doctors who questioned current treatment recommendations, and thanks to their willingness to treat their patients as they felt best, the prognosis for this terrible disease has just improved again.
 |
Pick from dropdown:
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Will:
This is disturbing news, and news that’s difficult to believe. Doctors were waiting for the disease to progress before they administered treatment? Criminal. Incompetent. I wonder, did the study include doctors from a wide variety of management protocols: PPO, HMO, etc., or did it only include a group of private doctors? I could understand if you said that HMO doctors opted to wait. It’s been my experience that HMO’s are famous for counting beans before they administer treatment. Patient welfare is way own the list. But to completely ignore bonafide studies that call for early treatment is no less than quackery. Personally, I don’t know of any human ailment that wouldn’t benefit from early treatment, and I would think that HIV would be at the top of that list. This is not Harvard medical school talking – this is plain old horse sense.
Now, having said all of that, it used to be that a positive diagnosis for HIV couldn’t be reached until the disease manifested itself. Remember the days when they said that it took maybe as long as fifteen years before you exhibited definite HIV symptoms? Meanwhile, T-cells tanked and your immune system crashed. Early treatment in those cases was difficult to prescribe. Understandable. But now, I thought we could detect HIV within a few weeks of exposure. Is this true or not? Because if it is, any doctor caught dragging his or her feet should be prosecuted and have their medical license terminated.
I suspect that we’ll be hearing more about this subject. I certainly hope so.
Happy trails.
Swubirds last blog post..THE RIDE FROM HELL
Hi Swubird. It was more like they were saying the generally accepted procedure was not to treat until there was a certain level of clinical progress of the disease. Seems crazy to me too.
Will, I tend to share your opinion here. Many HIV positive patients are too scared to get the essential HIV treatment while the HIV still in the beginning stage. The longer they postponed the treatment, then the quicker they dealing with the “Death”!
wilsons last blog post..Do Mind About The Way You Fall Off!
Interesting Will.
Anna
Annas last blog post..The World’s Largest Easter Egg or Pysanka in Vegreville, Canada