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 medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article 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 Cell Biology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Molecular and Cell 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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Long-term nonprogressor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:12, 22 January 2016 (UTC)