Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    164

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    I?m directing this topic to the more research-competent and mathematically-gifted folks on this board. I?m wondering if anyone has any idea what percentage of people who know they are positive yet don?t take meds are also long-term non-progressors (LTNP). I think this might be useful because, practically speaking, LTNPs can be pulled only from this group of people. Once you begin taking treatment, if you don?t get sick credit is given to the drugs, never to the patient. That means you won t ever be counted as an LTNP once you begin the meds, and the vast majority of people who know they are poz are strongly encouraged to begin taking them right away.

    Therefore the likelihood of someone being an LTNP would not be calculated by comparing the number of known LTNPs against everyone who is HIV+ (thus yielding a low figure) but against the relatively small number of people who know their status yet choose not to take meds (thus giving a much higher figure). Is this a reasonable line of thought? Are the figures needed to do this even available? I imagine they re not, but I m curious nonetheless.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    164

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    I?m afraid in my hurry to put my first post up I may not have made myself as clear as I wanted. What I?m getting at is that we occasionally read reports that say something such as ?X percent of HIV-infected individuals are long-term, non-progressors,? and the percentage is usually witheringly small. But I suspect that this figure is arrived at by comparing the total number of LTNPs to the total number of HIV+ people in a given population. If one were to compare the number of LTNPs to the number of people who know they are poz and don?t take meds?undoubtedly a much, much smaller number?the percentage would be greater and more relevant.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,815

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    The fact that only about 55% of those in need of treating are actually receiving it (as of 2003) argues to me that there are a lot more people who should be on these drugs but aren t. I m guessing then too that this means non-sick people who simply have lab abnormalities which put them in this need-for-treatment group. But they re not sick and could have been that way for a long time.

    I think there are a lot more of these elite controllers than they want to admit.

    Chris
    Co-moderator

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    57

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)


    I ve read that 3% of the estimated 1 million people in the US with HIV and/or AIDS are believed to be LTNPs. This would make approximately 30,000 LTNPs.

    I ve also read that approximately 1/3 of the 1 million do not know their HIV positive status. This would leave approximately 666,000 who do know they are HIV+.

    I have also read that approximately 300,000 take HAART, which leaves 366,000 who know their status but don t take HAART (either they are not on meds yet or decline them). 366,000/30,000 equals between 8% and 10% of those not on HAART and are believed to be LTNPs (not taking into account if any of the estimated people who do not know they are HIV+ are LTNPs).

    Where did I get these figures? I can t find the references but will keep looking and confirm the estimates!!!!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    174

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    I wasn t aware that the orthodoxy made the distinction of "LTPN based on weather or not someone has or has not been on HIV meds.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    57

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)


    After conducting some Internet searches, I did not find any credible research on LTNPs. A loose definition I found is HIV+s who survive 8 years or more with CD4s of more than 500, with no opportunistic infections and no HAART.

    Whether the orthodox says there are 1% or 3% of HIV+s that are LTNP, I believe it is a worthless estimation as we will never know how many people who ve started HAART would have been LTNPs.

    VAX Primer: Understanding Long-term Nonprogressors
    "Researchers estimate that 1% of all people who are HIV infected are long-term nonprogressors."
    http://www.iavireport.org/vax/primers/vaxprimer28.asp

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    164

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    Todd,

    Yes, by definition you can t be a LTNP if you ve taken the meds. Here s one definition: LTNPs are individuals who have been HIV-infected for 7 [this figure varies, some say 10] or more years and who have stable CD4+ T cell counts of 600 or more cells per cubic millimeter of blood, have no HIV-related diseases, and have had no previous antiretroviral therapy.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    349

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    awalt10, the most recent figure I saw was from a Johns Hopkins document posted on this site, giving 268,000 people taking the meds. The most recent CDC estimate of the number of HIV+ individuals in the USA gives 1.1 million. It s also pertinent that this number has hovered around the one million mark for a couple of decades. Deaths have been under the 20,000 mark over the past few years. So we have the great majority of individuals who don t take the medicines and who aren t progressing to AIDS. Far from being atypical, the "elite controllers" or LTNPs are in the majority.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    164

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    satyagrahamonkey,

    That s kind of the point I was trying to make (but I m afraid I did so poorly). I m no mathematician but it appears that it might be possible to demonstrate this by the numbers.

    Also, since doctors have for years encouraged HIV+ people to go on meds right away who knows how many people who were treated with the "Hit hard, hit early" protocol might actually have been LTNPs if they had avoided the meds? Remember, once you take the meds you are, by definition, not counted as an LTNP no matter how long you live or how healthy you remain. Any benefit is chalked up to the drugs.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    57

    Default The likelihood of being an LTNP (ame-g3416)

    satyagrahamonkey and gilderNYC:

    My poor math skills aside, I withdraw my computations as they are based on bogus assumptions

Similar Threads

  1. In case you are still wondering about LTNP or starting ARVs
    By StarZ in forum General Discussion of HIV/AIDS
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 29th, 2009, 07:22 PM
  2. LTNP's (ame-g1617)
    By msn_Dan in forum [archive] General
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 09:34 PM
  3. Scientists Study Three Proteins in LTNP? (ame-g157)
    By msn_DissidentSaint in forum [archive] General
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2004, 09:23 AM
  4. LTNP and Prednisone (ame-g226)
    By msn_MrChristopher in forum [archive] General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 18th, 2003, 03:34 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •