Modern HIV May Be Slightly Less Virulent, Laboratory Study SuggestsOctober 16, 2005 A laboratory study comparing recent (2002-2003) vs. early (1986-1989) untreated HIV found that the recent virus reproduced somewhat less well, and appeared more sensitive to two antiretrovirals tested (3TC and TAK-779, a CCR5 antagonist no longer being developed as a drug). The authors suggested that "this 'attenuation' could be the consequence of serial bottlenecks during transmission and result in adaptation of HIV-1 to the human host.1" CommentIt is common for infectious diseases to become less severe after they have been in a population for a long time. One mechanism is that bacteria or viruses that kill people or animals too quickly have less time to spread, so greater virulence is a selective disadvantage. At the same time, the individuals more resistant to the disease are more likely to survive and reproduce. The new study1 shows the first evidence that such attenuation of HIV (with the virus becoming less able to reproduce, and also less able to be transmitted) appears to have occurred. Other evidence suggests that when an animal population has long been infected by a retrovirus, the virus may be present with a high viral load, but the animal does not get sick -- while the same virus kills animals in other species where it is not native.2 This seems to be how populations adopt to retroviruses (there are no human examples, as HIV was the first retrovirus found to infect humans). Of course no one wants to wait centuries for the HIV epidemic to control itself this way. This animal observation supports the belief that there could be two very different kinds of immune-based treatment -- helping the immune system suppress HIV and reduce viral load (much like antiretroviral drugs do), vs. preventing human responses to the virus that cause the symptomatic illness (this kind of treatment might not suppress viral load, and might even allow it to increase). There has long been some interest in "immune suppressive therapy," reducing immune responses to HIV infection that may do more harm than good in some patients. The problem today is that little research has been done on immune-based treatment of any sort. We do not have a good understanding of what immune responses are needed to control HIV -- and while a handful of people have used immune-suppressive drugs like prednisone to treat HIV infection, these drugs were not developed or formally tested for that purpose, and little is known about whether, when, or how to do this safely. (Note: immune-based therapy was not discussed in 1) The immune system includes many different mechanisms; it should not be thought of as just more or less (as the phrase "boosting" the immune system wrongly implies). The practical importance of getting this picture right is that immune-based therapy that acts against HIV is not the opposite of immune-suppressive therapy. In the future, both kinds might be used -- even together in the same patient at the same time. References
Copyright 2005 by John S. James. Permission granted for noncommercial reproduction, provided that our address and phone number are included if more than short quotations are used.
This article was provided by AIDS Treatment News. It is a part of the publication AIDS Treatment News. |
|