[sci.med.aids] Being Alive Newsletter - March 91 - Part 1/2

gilbert@tce.COM (Gilbert Cornilliet) (03/14/91)

Hi there!

This is a selection of articles (mostly medical) from
the March 1991 Being Alive Newsletter.

I am one of the editors of this Newsletter.
Comments, suggestions, critics, submission of articles, etc
are welcome. My E-mail address is gilbert@tce.com.

Please share this information with your friends.

Take care.

Gilbert.

======== TABLE OF CONTENTS ========

HOPE FOR GENE THERAPY IS REAL, IF NOT YET IMMEDIATE 
MEDICAL UPDATE: JANUARY 28, 1991
A REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY ON COMPOUND Q
ADDENDUM TO A PROPHYLAXIS PROTOCOL
FOSCARNET EXPANDED ACCESS PROGRAM
L.A. PHYSICIANS AIDS FORUM: NEW TREATMENT FOR PCP 
NIH BEGINS PHASE I STUDY OF ADVANCED REVERSE TRANSCRIPTASE INHIBITORS

NEWS AND VIEWS
HIV SYSTEM OF CARE
PEOPLE WITH HIV/AIDS AND SEX
REMINDER: DOCTORS ARE NOT PERFECT

================================================================

HOPE FOR GENE THERAPY IS REAL, IF NOT YET IMMEDIATE 
by Walt Senterfitt 

According to UCLA's Dr. Steven Miles, writing in the AIDS Medical Update 
Newsletter, "these are exciting times. It will not be long in the future when 
HIV-infected individuals can look forward to a genetic therapy for their 
disease." 

Dr. Miles cautions that there is no gene therapy on the immediate horizon of 
clinical trial and use. Several major hurdles remain to be overcome. 
Nevertheless, the excitement of this normally cautious and judiciously 
pessimistic academic physician is palpable. We present a summary of his 
reviews of recent developments after some background gleaned from recent 
articles in the journals Nature, Science, and the New England Journal of 
Medicine. 

BACKGROUND 

Creation of practical therapies based on genetic or molecular manipulation of 
living cellular material has been one of the most exciting biomedical 
developments of the past decade. Recombinant DNA technology, for instance, 
has already created several agents of already proven or potential clinical 
value. 

Nobel Prize-winning discoveries in the 1980's by Drs. Thomas Cech and Sidney 
Altman that a form of RNA (known as ribozymes) can act as an enzyme, 
functioning as a sort of "molecular scissors," opened the way for RNA-based 
genetic engineering as well. These ribozymes are also being developed as 
direct therapeutic weapons against RNA viruses (including HIV). One 
application being tested in the laboratory is use of a special RNA form known 
as a "hammerhead ribozyme" to disarm any HIV particles not yet integrated 
into host cells in the body, essentially by cutting up the viral RNA into 
ineffective pieces which are then destroyed by other enzymes.) Paralleling 
this progress has been a rapid leap in the ability to decode the location and 
function of specific genes. The HIV-1 genome, for instance, though still far 
from fully understood, has been much better characterized already than any 
other virus. In addition to the three essential genes found in most 
retroviruses, HIV-1 has at least six additional genes which perform distinct 
but coordinated roles. This remarkable complexity probably underlies the 
profound and diverse pathogenicity of HIV-1, but may also be the virus's 
Achilles heel in presenting a number of specific targets for disruption. 

"Gene transfer" technology is under rapid development at the cutting edge of 
this research. The name refers to the process by which a gene manufactured or 
manipulated outside the body is then transferred into affected or other 
target cells in the body. The aims of this transfer are diverse, and 
theoretically limitless: to replace defective genes with healthy ones, to 
confer immunity against infection, to induce specific therapeutic action, 
perhaps to help rebuild a damaged immune system. 

To effect such a transfer requires a "vector," a way of getting replacement 
or therapeutic genes into host cell nuclei. The most promising current 
approach, for all diseases under study, is to use retroviruses which have 
been rendered defective. In other words, one wants a virus which will do its 
work of transferring the desired gene and then self destruct, or at least be 
incapable of reproducing itself. For HIV disease, that has meant using 
mutated or "denatured" variants of the HIV-1 itself. 

Though gene transfer is in its infancy, the rate of progress in the last two 
or three years has been astounding to most observers. NIH last year approved 
a gene transfer protocol to allow and regulate experimental applications in 
human subjects. Experiments are being planned to attempt to correct genetic 
defects underlying such diseases as cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy as 
well as to implant healthy blood-cell producing "stem cells" into the bone 
marrows of leukemia patients. 

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN HIV RESEARCH 

Dr. Miles' guarded optimism is based in part on several papers published 
within the past six months. Though all still at the "bench science" level, 
they extend our knowledge and understanding of the possible mechanisms by 
which genetic therapy may be accomplished for persons with HIV infection. 

One study presented a novel solution to one problem in establishing what's 
known as "intracellular immunity." The latter process involves genetically 
altering primary stem cells to make them immune to subsequent infection or 
incapable of "expressing" or carrying out specific gene-directed functions. 
For instance, a T helper lymphocyte might be made immune to HIV infection, or 
an already-infected one made incapable of manufacturing new virus.  

Another study demonstrated with greater specificity than ever before the 
"packaging site" in the genetic material of retroviruses, a key component of 
the mechanism necessary to "repackage" replicated viral material into new 
virus particles capable of infecting new cells. 

A third study used the results from the second to produce HIV with the 
packaging site snipped out. The authors showed that this defective virus 
particle could infect but not replicate in new cells. In a second step they 
also revised the gene responsible for forming new virus envelope (analogous 
to cell walls in bacteria) so that even if new virus was packaged by a 
failure of step one, it would still be defective and incapable of infecting 
new cells. And thirdly, they bound a neomycin-resistant gene to the defective 
HIV. Then they showed that in cell culture the genetically-engineered HIV 
could in fact "transfect" CD4 cells, transferring its deliberately dfefective 
genetic material into the host cell's DNA just like "wild" HIV does. They 
demonstrated that this process did confer resistance to further infection by 
pathogenic HIV as well as rendering the intracellular HIV incapable of 
reproduction. This study was exciting in itself, and also evokes the concrete 
possibility of introducing any number of other functional capacities into 
target cells. 

A final study showed the possibility of using other, nonretroviral vectors, 
as well as engineered defective HIV, to introduce particular RNA species 
("antisense messenger RNA" in this case) into the target cell's DNA. Those 
cells with the highest levels of antisense RNA incorporated into their 
genomes had high levels of resistance to HIV infection, although the 
protection was not complete after 29 days. 

SIGNIFICANCE AND REMAINING HURDLES 

The capacity to produce HIV virions (infectious virus particles) which 
package specific RNA species is an important discovery. These HIV virions can 
be forced to incorporate high levels of RNA which may contain antisense, 
ribozyme, or promoter- specific sequences which can act individually and in 
concert to decrease HIV replication after transfer to target cells. By using 
the HIV virions, all CD4-bearing cells can be effectively "immunized" against 
subsequent infection with HIV.  

Despite the excitement generated by these papers and the successes of their 
different approaches to the problem of genetic therapy, several major hurdles 
remain before this can be attempted in clinical practice. 

The first problem is that the specificity of the packaging- control sequence 
is only relatively good, not yet watertight against "leaks" in the system. 
More fine-tuning research is needed to impart a greater degree of safety to 
this procedure. 

A second problem involves the selection of which cells to target for 
"intracellular immunization." Current approaches use modified HIV to bind to 
all CD4-bearing cells (including T helper cells and macrophages). This could 
potentially impart high levels of resistance to CD4 cells, providing it takes 
place prior to infection of these cells with "wild" HIV. However, for persons 
already infected with HIV, this could mean relatively few CD4 cells are 
uninfected and thus able to be immunized. Ideally, other targets can be found 
for intracellular immunization. One approach finding some preliminary success 
is to use another receptor target such as CD34 which is on the stem cells 
that are precursors to all the T-lymphocytes. Perhaps the HIV virion could be 
genetically altered to bind to CD34 rather than CD4 as a point of entry, and 
then transfer to these stem cell precursors an immunity to HIV which would 
then be inherited by all their T cell offspring. Thus, HIV infected persons 
would gradually create a new set of immune lymphocytes alongside their 
infected ones. Clearly more research is needed, but preliminary results from 
other related studies have demonstrated that this process is possible. 

The final problem is the maintenance of consistently high enough levels of 
these genetically-engineered RNA species in the target cells. In other words, 
these genes have to not only reach the target cells but stay around long 
enough and in great enough numbers to effectively immunize the host cells. So 
far, the process sometimes "takes" and sometimes doesn't last. Several 
approaches are being employed in the attempt to overcome this inconsistency. 

CONCLUSION 

To quote again from Dr. Miles, "In the past, we have told patients that once 
infected, `you're infected for life.' With the advent of these genetic 
therapies, we can now provide hope for these patients. We may, in fact, be 
able to immunize patients against further effects of HIV infection. 
Theoretically, with the use of ribozymes and other specific RNA or DNA 
sequences, patients could even be rendered free of infectious HIV viral RNA 
indefinitely. This latter event is a long shot. However, given the rapid pace 
and success demonstrated to date in this field, this may not be an impossible 
feat." 

================================================================

MEDICAL UPDATE: JANUARY 28, 1991
Presented by Mark Katz, M.D. and reported by Jim Stoecker

LANCET LOOKS AT LO

For some time now, we have been reading, mainly in the New York Native, about 
the research of Dr. Lo of Washington's Armed Forces Institute. Lo discovered 
a virus-like organism in the cells of KS patients. This micro organism was 
neither a virus nor a bacterium and Lo termed his discovery Mycoplasma 
incognitus.

From this research, Lo postulated that HIV may not be the cause of AIDS, but 
rather a cofactor. The real culprit might be the mycoplasma that he was 
seeing. Last summer, Dr. Luc Montagnier, the co-discoverer of HIV, joined Lo 
in suggesting that HIV was not the sole cause of AIDS.

Now Lo's mycoplasma is receiving serious attention from the British Medical 
Research Council. A recent article in the respected British medical journal 
Lancet, entitled "Mycoplasma and AIDS - What Connection?", called for the 
further collection of data on the existence of these organisms in AIDS 
patients. The authors also called for the development of suitable animal 
models. The Lancet article concludes, "Skepticism there may be, but the 
findings of Lo and colleagues are hard to dismiss."

HIV-INFECTED CHILDREN

When an HIV-infected woman gives birth, we know that the child will be born 
with HIV antibodies. Only about a third of these children, however, are 
actually infected with HIV. It is still an open question why some are 
infected and others are not. Some postulate that genetics may be a strong 
factor.

Among the children who are HIV-infected, there are differing courses of 
disease progression. A recent article in the American Journal of the Diseases 
of Childhood reports that there appears to be a bimodal course. About 20% of 
children infected in the womb become ill soon after birth and live less than 
one year. The other 80% appear to develop AIDS at the rate of other infected 
populations. For these children, the median age for diagnosis is about 6 
years, while about a quarter remain healthy at age 10. More research is 
needed to understand the determinants of this apparent bimodal distribution.

TRANSFUSIONS AND HIV INFECTION

Blood transfusions would seem to be the most direct way to transmit HIV. The 
Annals of Internal Medicine recently included a study of 124 persons who 
received HIV-infected blood transfusions in 1984 (Note: since the development 
of the HIV antibody test in 1985, all blood donations are routinely screened 
for HIV.) 89.5% of these recipients are HIV+. The interesting fact, however, 
is that 10.5% are HIV-.

This brings up many questions about why not everyone exposed to HIV becomes 
infected. Perhaps genetics and/or environmental factors provide protection 
from HIV infection. The authors of the above study speculated that the 
quantity of the virus being transmitted is crucial. There may be a certain 
volume required for HIV infection to occur.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT OF HIV INFECTION

More and more, we are seeing studies on the psychological impact of HIV 
infection. A report in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology looked at the 
psychological adjustment of three groups of gay men. Researchers found that 
asymptomatic HIV+ men showed poorer adjustment overall than those who were 
symptomatic or uninfected. The asymptomatic HIV+ group reported more death 
anxiety, less optimism, and a greater severity of psychological distress than 
either the symptomatic HIV+ or HIV- groups. 

The authors suggest that the uncertainty of the future is the major reason 
for these results. Perhaps it is the mixed messages that asymptomatics 
receive. On the one hand are the hopes for future therapies and, on the 
other, the ever-present possibility of decline into disease before those 
hopes are realized.

CD4 ABSOLUTE NUMBERS: HELP OR TYRANNY?

No single value elicits as much anxiety in HIV-infected people as the 
absolute CD4 count. Those who are HIV+ know the fear and trembling that these 
numbers can bring on. Today, the CD4 count remains the most widely used 
surrogate marker. More and more, however, we are seeing a preference for 
using the percentage of all lymphocytes which are CD4 helper cells.

This percentage fluctuates much less widely than the absolute CD4 count. The 
count can vary in the same person from day to day. This variability is a 
source of much of the anxiety surrounding these numbers. The percentage 
offers a more stable picture of what is really going on.

As a general rule, the percentage of CD4 can be interpreted as follows:

40% Normal
30% Mild Immune Suppression
20% Moderate Immune Suppression
10% Marked Immune Suppression.

AMPLIGEN RETURNS

Ampligen has been around for some time. The early medical data was quite 
encouraging. Ampligen appeared to have both antiviral and immune-enhancing 
effects.

In 1987, widespread testing began in the US. The Ampligen used in this 
testing was packed in plastic, frozen, and then thawed by heating. Soon after 
the trials began, patients began to experience rashes and flushing. Once 
researchers switched to thawing at room temperature, the rashes disappeared. 
Not too long into the study, however, some people in the study group began to 
report the onset of opportunistic infections and the study was soon halted.

Researchers determined that Ampligen is chemically altered when packed in 
plastic. The drug is now being manufactured and then stored in glass. New 
trials are now starting up across the US. We may yet have good news to report 
about Ampligen.

DONORS NEEDED FOR PASSIVE IMMUNOTHERAPY STUDY

All 225 recipients have been selected for a local study of passive 
immunotherapy. Donors, however, are still needed. Donors must be HIV+ and 
preferably asymptomatic. The blood of potential donors is screened for 
adequate levels of anti-p24 antibodies. If you are interested in donating 
blood for this study, call Hemacare at 213.654.0565. Donors are paid and can 
donate several times a month.

ASPIRIN AS IMMUNE BOOSTER

The lowly aspirin is now being looked at for possible immune enhancing 
effects. The theory is that aspirin may increase the production of 
interferons and interleukins in the body and thus boost the T cell count. 
There have been anecdotal reports that one 325 mg tablet every other day has 
caused both CD4 counts and percentages to go up. Aspirin, however, does not 
have any antiviral properties.

Search Alliance is set to begin a study here in Los Angeles of the 
immune-enhancing effects of aspirin in people with CD4 counts above 250. We 
await further reports.

AZITHROMYCIN UPDATE

Azithromycin has been shown to be reasonably effective against toxoplasmosis. 
Pfizer, the manufacturer of the drug, is now making azithromycin available 
via a compassionate use protocol. This protocol requires that the patient has 
failed on the standard anti-toxoplasmosis medications. For more information 
about the Pfizer program, call Dr. Michael DeBruin at 203.441.5701.

DAAN HERBAL THERAPY

Oriental medicine certainly has a part to play in the fight against HIV. One 
oriental medical approach is DAAN herbal therapy, recently studied in Los 
Angeles by oriental doctors Chung and Kim, in association with USC's Dr. Mark 
Rarick.

The herbal formula used in the study consisted of eleven herbs formulated by 
Dr, Chung of Korea. Eighty-three people began the study. Most were 
asymptomatic, while some were symptomatic. The herbal formula was taken once 
a month for twelve months. Results show an overall fall in beta-2 
microglobulin. CD4 counts for symptomatics stabilized over the twelve months, 
while the counts of asymptomatics showed some rise after six months and then 
a leveling off.

It should be noted that study partcipants were not taking AZT. The Korean 
doctors believe that the way that AZT works is not compatible with the way 
that the herbs work. AZT might lessen or even hinder the effects of the 
herbal formula.

It should also be noted that about half of those who began the study did not 
complete it. Some wanted to go back on AZT. Others found the side effects 
intolerable.

Most participants experienced some side effects such as fever, rash and 
diarrhea. The Korean doctors see this as a natural purging of the infection 
and a sign of the herbs' potency and efficacy. Such side effects seemed to 
diminish over time.

Doctors Chung and Kim have now opened a store front at 8060 Melrose Ave., Los 
Angeles, to dispense DAAN herbal therapy. The phone number is 213.653.5300. 
Be aware that DAAN is not inexpensive, with the current cost a few hundred 
dollars a month.

NOTE:

Next month, Dr Mark Rarick will discuss DAAN herbal therapy at the Being 
Alive Medical Update. See page 1 for 
details.

================================================================

A REPORT TO THE COMMUNITY ON COMPOUND Q
by Robert S. Jenkins, MD, Gary P. Jacobs, MD, 
Dotsie M Anfenson, RN, and Jane Barnett, LVN

For a little over a year we have been involved in the administration and 
supervision of tricosanthin (Compound Q) in our medical practice. We use the 
Chinese product as we do not yet have access to the American product. We do 
not promote or encourage anyone to take this drug. We have made it available 
in our practice in order to study its effectiveness and to provide a 
relatively safe, medically supervised place to receive this drug which can 
cause anaphylactic reactions (severe allergic reactions associated with falls 
in blood pressure and difficulty in breathing).

Our year's experience with Q has taught us how to safely administer it, what 
premedications to give and which patients should not be given the drug. Many 
of the answers to these questions can be found in the text of this article. 
Generally, patients with fewer than one hundred T4-cells should probably not 
be infused with Q because of the risk of neurological complications 
(lethargy, stupor, seizures, coma and brain death); also anyone, even with 
more than 100 T4-cells, experiencing neurological problems (HIV Dementia, HIV 
Encephalitis) should not do Compound Q. The dose of Q we used last year will 
be increased this next year and our premedications will change. Finally, our 
data collection and dosing schedules need to be more tightly controlled to 
obtain more useful data.

We have approximately 75 patients who started or tried Compound Q this past 
year. Of the 75 patients, there are 23 on whom we have useful data. There are 
several reasons why there is not useful data on the other 50 patients. Those 
reasons include:

1 Some patients experienced severe flu-like symptoms and chose to quit.

2 Patients would become frustrated after their first set of depressed 
  T4-cells and quit the study.

3 Some attrition from people moving out of the area.

4 Some of the patients did not comply with our requests for T4-cells on a 
  regular basis and from the same laboratory.

5 We still have 38 patients taking the drug but some of them started too 
  recently to have useful information available.

The graph summarizes the useful data we have available on our patients over 
an average eight month period with the solid black bars representing T4-cells 
of patients  who did not take Q and the hatched bars representing Q patients. 
They have been categorized into five different groups depending on their 
starting T4-cells (0-99, 100-199, 200-299, 300-399 and 400-499). Total number 
of patients is 23. The non-Q patients were blindly picked from our own 
patient charts by an observer who did not know the patients T4-cell results. 
This is the only way we knew to "control" the study; we felt it unethical to 
perform a placebo controlled study with this drug.

Looking at the results, the only group to show an overall rise in T4-cells 
was the 0-99 T4-cell group. This is also the group that we had the most 
trouble with in terms of neurological problems. Also, none of the patients in 
this group had reversal of their overall immune status. A 60% increase in 
this group may only represent an increase from 30 to 48 T4-cells, not 
statistically significant.

The other groups all had overall declines in their T4-cells, and except for 
the 400-499 group, the declines in the Q group were less than the non-Q 
group. One problem with the 400-499 group is that the non-Q patients picked 
as controls showed slight increases as opposed to the Q receiving group. We 
decided to just report the data as we pulled it, as opposed to going back and 
pulling more non-Q patients in the 400-499 group to "alter our control 
group." Thus, it appears that the patients who did Q in the 400-499 group did 
worse than those people who did not take Q.

This bar graph shows averages of the whole group. Individually a few patients 
did very well with remarkable rises in T4-cells; unfortunately, these 
remarkable rises in some patients were offset by some remarkable declines in 
T4-cells in a few other patients. It does seem that some of the patients 
stabilized their T4-cells. It also seems that the patients who continued with 
Compound Q had less opportunistic infections than they might have otherwise 
had, but this is mostly speculation and it is difficult to extrapolate this 
information from a small sample size such as this. Patients also reported a 
sense of well-being and increased energy after the infusions. Some patients, 
despite falls in T4-cells, continued to take the drug  because of this sense 
of well-being. I think people need to keep in mind that the results we have 
reported with Q are as good, if not better than, as those reported with AZT 
prior to AZT's approval. On the downside, Q is more toxic and dangerous than 
AZT and should be administered carefully and under medical supervision.

Another problem we experienced was that approximately 20% of the patients 
experienced severe anaphylactic reactions and dramatic falls in blood 
pressure, difficulty in breathing, nausea, vomiting and hives. These 
reactions require immediate treatment with epinephrine and/or Benadryl, but 
none of our patients suffered any permanent effects. This is the main reason 
for doing Q in the presence of someone who knows how to treat anaphylactic 
reactions.

A more serious problem, but occurring much less frequently, is the neurologic 
sequelae: lethargy, stupor, coma, seizures and brain death. One of our 
patients died, and one other had seizures and coma from which he has 
essentially recovered. The patient who died had 140 T4-cells a month prior to 
his death and had three previous infusions of Q prior to his last infusion. 
We strongly feel that Q should be administered only by physicians who are 
willing and able to hospitalize any patient who has a serious complication 
from Q, and for medical-legal reasons, we must only take care of our own 
complications.

Our year long experience with Q raises as many questions as it answers. 
Primarily, Q did not pan out to be the panacea we had all hoped for. Our 
experience differs from San Francisco's, and the reasons for this are not 
entirely clear. We did have a smaller group, and overall the Los Angeles 
group was probably sicker than the San Francisco group.

In good conscience, we can neither advocate nor promote the use of this drug. 
We are encouraged enough to start and, we hope, complete the next phase of 
our Q experience with 45 patients over the next eight to nine months. 
(Remember this is the Chinese Q; not Genelabs Q). If any remarkable benefits 
are seen we will certainly make them public before the end of the study. We 
wish to acknowledge the brave patients who devoted their time, finances, and 
emotional energy to the project to date.

================================================================

ADDENDUM TO A PROPHYLAXIS PROTOCOL
by Robert S. Jenkins, MD and Gary P. Jacobs, MD

Since our original prophylaxis protocol was written in November 1990, there 
are four topics on which we wish to elaborate. Those four are pneumocystis 
pneumonia, toxoplasmosis, cryptosporidium and mycobacterium avium.

PNEUMOCYSTIS PNEUMONIA (PCP) PROPHYLAXIS

In November of 1990, Kaiser Los Angeles made public their data on Bactrim as 
pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis. Of 116 people in their study, there was a 
zero incidence of pneumocystis pneumonia with patients on one Bactrim DS pill 
three days a week. Pentamadine by comparison has at least a 10-15% 
breakthrough rate for PCP per year. The downside of Bactrim is that 
approximately 30% of the patients demonstrate some sort of allergic reaction; 
for this reason one might want to consider using Dapsone 100 mgs three days a 
week as PCP prophylaxis, as Dapsone overall seems to have less incidence of 
allergic reactions.

Dapsone's one drawback is that it can cause hemolytic anemia in patients who 
have a Glucose-6-Phosphate-dehydrogenase deficiency. This occurs in less than 
5% of the population, and there is a screening test one can perform to test 
for deficiency of G6PD. We are not running this test routinely as yet, but if 
anemia on Dapsone becomes a problem in our practice, we may consider running 
this test more routinely.

Our current recommendation for PCP prophylaxis is Dapsone 100 mg three times 
a week (M-W-F). If one is allergic to either Bactrim or Dapsone, one may want 
to try the other as there is not 100% crossover of allergy from one drug to 
the other. Bactrim is a sulfa compound and Dapsone is a sulfone, akin to 
cousins as opposed to brothers/sisters. We are now taking people off 
Pentamadine if they can tolerate either Dapsone or Bactrim, although some 
patients want to be "complete" in their prophylaxis and are doing both 
aerosolized Pentam and either Dapsone or Bactrim.

TOXOPLASMOSIS PROPHYLAXIS

There is controversy as to whether Bactrim or Dapsone will prophylax against 
Toxoplasmosis. Whether either one is adequate prophylaxis against 
Toxoplasmosis is not known. Using pyrimethamine as prophylaxis against 
Toxoplasmosis seems rather severe as pyrimethamine (a folate inhibitor) can 
cause decreases in one's white blood cell count and may require the use of 
leucovorin to "rescue" the white cells. Recently a trial of pyrimethamine as 
prophylaxis for Toxoplasmosis has been proposed by AMFAR. This seems to be 
rather drastic prophylaxis but might be indicated in patients with positive 
IgG or IgM antibodies to Toxoplasmosis. A formal study evaluating the 
efficacy of Bactrim or Dapsone as Toxoplasmosis prophylaxis would be welcome 
and possibly more valuable than the proposed AMFAR study of pyrimethamine.

CRYPTOSPORIDIUM PROPHYLAXIS

Since our original publication, we have treated approximately 12 patients 
with active crypotosporidium infection. In our experience, early on treatment 
with Humatin seems to be more effective against active infection whereas 
Diclazuril was much less effective. Combination of both drugs was not 
beneficial. We feel that prophylaxis should remain with Humatin 250 
milligrams, two capsules a day. We now feel that Diclazuril is not proving 
effective and that patients should use Humatin as prophylaxis against 
cryptosporidium, not Diclazuril or Clinicox. As added interest, the new 
macrolide antibiotic, Azithromycin, is being considered for treatment of 
cryptosporidium although this is purely speculation at present.

MYCOBACTERIUM AVIUM INTRACELLULARE (MAI) PROPHYLAXIS 

In our recent experience we had started a number of patients on 
Clarithromycin. Many patients started the drug as emperic therapy for "fevers 
of unknown origin" (FUO), i.e., patients without specific diagnoses for their 
daily fevers. A significant number of these people (more than 95%) have had 
dramatic improvement in well being and elimination of fevers by taking 1.5 
gms a day for 1 to 2 weeks, followed by 250 mg to 500 mg a day as long term 
maintenance. We are now recommending the use of Clarithromycin as MAI 
treatment and/or prophylaxis and not using Clofazamine as an alternative 
given that Clarithromycin is working so well. This is different from our 
previous recommendation of using either Clarithromycin or Clofazamine as MAI 
prophylaxis.

For prophylaxis in asymptomatic people, one tablet (250 milligrams) a day is 
the recommenced dosage. The cost continues to be a problem, $3-4 per tablet, 
but the money is well spent considering the rapidly progressive and virile 
nature of MAI once the infection takes control.

==============================================================================

End of Being Alive Newsletter (March 1991 - part 1/2)