Doctors in Mississippi had a remarkable event occur Sunday when they discovered a baby that had contracted HIV at birth had no sign of the
deadly virus. Dr. Hannah Gay from the
University of Mississippi Medical Center said, “We have perhaps inadvertently but
in fact cured the child.” This is the first case in history of a baby being
cured of HIV.
This case is special in many ways. The mother had no prior knowledge of having
HIV while pregnant so she did not receive the usual prenatal care that reduces
the chances of infection in the child.
Due to the child’s high infection risk, doctors treated the infant only
30 hours after birth with three aggressive retroactive drugs to attack the HIV
virus. This is a drastic measure that had never been taken before on someone so
young. Usually there is a six-month
waiting period before the use of retroactive drugs to see if the child had
contracted the virus or just held antibodies from the infected mother at birth.
In this particular case, the doctors
kept the child on treatment and tested weekly for the virus. On three occasions
the infant tested positive for the virus however, after 29 days of treatment
the child had no sign of the virus. For 18 months they continued treatment but
unfortunately the mother started missing appointments until nearly a month and
a half later. Expecting the treatment to
have failed and the child to have tremendous growth in the infection the
scientists were baffled to find no trace of HIV. At first doctors’ speculations were that they
were treating a child that had not been infected; but after numerous testing
and help partnering with Johns Hopkins University they concluded that the child
did in fact carry the virus. Scientists believe that the aggressive actions
taken at only hours old prevented the growth a replication of HIV. After two
and a half years the child still has no sign of the virus and no longer
requires medicine. Doctors are still hopeful that the virus stays gone and that
replication of this treatment can be implemented.
Every year more than 300,000 children are infected with HIV.
If this is not a one in a million occurrence and future research shows that
this is an effective treatment, thousands of lives can be saved each year.
Dr. Hannah Gay still gives the infant check-ups ever month
and said, "I just check for the virus and keep praying that is stays gone."
References:
Pollack, A. McNeil Jr., D. (2013). In medical first, a baby
with HIV is deemed cured.
Retrieved
March 5, 2013 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/health/for-first-time-baby-cured-of-hiv-doctors-say.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Castellano, A. (2013). Mississippi baby born with HIV
“functionally cured.” Doctors
say.
Retrieved March 5, 2013 from
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/mississippi-baby-born-hiv-functionally-cured-doctors/story?id=18645410
This is a good post. I do have some questions, however. You mention that this is the first time that an infant seemingly has been cured of HIV. Do we have any data/evidence of adults being cured? Was it through the same process of heavy doses of antiviral medication?
ReplyDeleteAnd the last part of the big paragraph was a bit confusing. Do you mean that the doctors are saying that the child had not been infected when? They knew the child had HIV right after birth, so this is a bit unclear.
Make sure to name sources right in the paragraphs where used....I can't tell which one is used in which paragraph above.
I am familiar with this case from watching the news and I wonder: is that mother fit? Here's why I ask: knowing that her child had HIV 30 hours after birth, and having all of that care to help the child be treated, what happened that would make her miss important appointments for that child's health? Did anyone contact CPS or another agency to ensure that the mother had the child treated?
ReplyDeleteI think it's crazy on the one hand that through the mother's neglect in treatment *and* prepregnancy care (to get HIV tested in the first place), a child was both born with HIV and has been cured. Through this mother's neglect, scientists were able to create a unique scenario to understand HIV in children. Here's my question after that long-winded response: since it was better for "science" to have this information, was the mother's neglect justified?