Talk:Long-term nonprogressor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Medical genetics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force.
 
WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Is anyone actively watching or maintaining this article?.[edit]

Whilst it is a good effort and I in no way mean to be critical of the previous contributors, there are some pretty fundamental (but very common) errors in it – such as:

  • 1 in 100 people are long-term nonprogessors – not only do the citations not support that statement; but conventional wisdom puts the number far higher that that (even allowing for the fact that the number of long-term nonprogressors in any chosen cohort will, the longer you choose to observe the cohort, decrease dramatically).
  • elite controllers are a subset of this group – not only do the citations not support that statement; but elite controllers are defined purely on their continued ability to control viral replication (measured by viral load) for at least one year after infection, whereas long-term nonprogressors are defined purely on their ability to maintain immune function (measured by CD4 cell count > 500 cells/mm3) over an extended period of time (7,8,10, 12 years or more - depending on which research you are reading). Whilst there may be intersects between the two groups, one is not a subset of the other and both can exist independently of the other.
  • It fails to mention well-understood basics like: young age combined with a naturally high CD4+ count, at the time of infection, are the lead characteristics in many long-term nonprogressors .. and that given long enough, they too will cease to be long-term nonprogressors - because nonprogression is actually a misnomer and should more correctly be labelled slower (than expected) progression.
  • as I read the article, statements like “it is currently not known why long-term nonprogressors and elite controllers do not progress to AIDS“ wrongly gives the impression that long-term nonprogressors and elite controllers never develop AIDS, which is certainly isn't true – most will, given long enough without treatment.
  • given that elite controllers are mentioned, viral (or viremic) controllers (of which elite controllers are a subset) should probably be mentioned too.

If no-one wants to take on the task of correcting this in a rewrite, I will try to come up with a major revision over the course of the next week or two – so here is your chance to raise any objections.

Also, elite controllers currently redirects to this article; but if elite controllers aren't a subset of long-term nonprogressors, should they be dealt with by the same article? I am not saying that they shouldn't; but if they are, it probably shouldn't be in an article with a leader that reads 'long-term nonprogressors'. Any suggestions what would could be more appropriate?

Finally:

  1. if anyone is interested, my sandbox has some very rough ideas that I threw together last night. They are a long way off being even a structured draft, but they give an idea of the sort of direction I would foresee. Comments and ideas are welcome.
  2. would anyone like to volunteer as a knowledgeable set of second (or more) set of eyes to comment on my drafts when I am close to the final product?

Finn (talk) 10:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I got this article started a while back. No objection to any of your changes. All seem like excellent improvements to me. Bryan Hopping T 23:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another question and I could be wrong. But in the article it says that long-term nonprogressors have sometimes lived 30 years without showing any symptoms. This seems a little curious to me seeing that HIV was discovered less than 30 years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.241.234 (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Successful cure for HIV?[edit]

Various facts from [1] should probably be mentioned in he article. Thue | talk 13:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)