"AIDS Treatment News" online * New Issue #302 (searchable/indexed)

Wolfgang Resch wresch at email.unc.edu
Thu Oct 22 11:30:57 EST 1998



On 21 Oct 1998 johnburgin at worldnet.att.net wrote:

snip
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Dosage changed in 1989, quite a bit before PIs came along.
> 
> Similar results were found in a US study comparing zidovudine with
> placebo in primary HIV infection  (n=28).[46] At 48 weeks, patients
> who had taken 1000 mg of zidovudine per day for 24 weeks had
> higher CD4+ cell counts (median, 0.70x 109/L) than the placebo group
> (median, 0.36x109/L)  (P=.02).     46. Holodniy M, Niu M, Bethel J, et
> al. A pilot study to evaluate the efficacy of zidovudine (ZDV) vs
>  placebo in primary HIV infection (DATRI 002). Presented at XI
> International Conference on AIDS;  July 8, 1996; Vancouver, British
> Columbia. 
> Oh, do I still have to keep digging up data, that you will refute
> again that proves, once more, that I was correct when I stated that
> higher dosages of monotherapy AZT had been used, RECENTLY?  Is this
> one recent enough?  It certainly appears to have passed your timeline
> of 1989.  jb
> 
snip

ok, let me see if i get that straight. you claim that
	(A) AZT does not help HIV+ people
	(B) AZT is harmfull and causes AIDS.

but at the same time, you cite a study that shows an at least transient
positive effect on people during primary HIV infection  just to dispute
when AZT dosage was changed ? doesn't that strike you a weired ?
wolfgang

p.s. I suspect the key word here is "primary infection". the initial
viremia results in much higher plasma titers (RT-PCR) than the chronic
viral titers. for clinical benefits, you want to hit the virus harder than
in normal therapy. i don't know the exact date the dosage was changed, but
i think chronically infected patients received the lower dosage discussed
here since the early 90s. so find some more studies to back your beliefs
(they are not opinions).
wolfgang




More information about the Immuno mailing list