The celebratory "game-changer" that the whole world experienced last week of a
Mississippi baby girl born with HIV who had been cured might have been a bit
premature. It seems the news spread quickly through media outlets around the
world before it was actually presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in Atlanta.
According to Mark Siedner from the Wall Street Journal,
researchers who presented the case on March 4 stated that a baby girl,
born in Mississippi to a woman with HIV, was found with HIV in her
blood shortly after birth.
Care providers quickly started the
infant on a full set of three HIV medicines (typically, only one or two
are used in exposed babies to prevent infection).
"The medicines were continued for 18 months, after which mother and child
went missing from care. When they returned after almost five months
without medicines, no evidence of active HIV infection was found in the
child. The medical team performed an exhaustive array of tests to try to
confirm the prior presence of HIV and its subsequent eradication, and
to rule out rare forms of resistance to HIV infection."
Was the baby infected with HIV and, thus, cured?To
many of the researchers at the conference, the answer is "no." It seems
more likely that her treatment prevented her, after exposure to HIV,
from being infected. The reason we give medicines to both pregnant women
and their newborns is precisely to prevent HIV exposures in children
from becoming established infections, an intervention that can decrease
the rate of transmission from about 30% to less than 1% in optimal
conditions.
Mark Siedner: About That Baby Who Was 'Cured' of HIV
- WSJ
0