4 ms·
Of course the patient ultimately decides, but you are really really downplaying the risks of stem cell transplantation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article
by vore 4y ago
Of course the patient ultimately decides, but you are really really downplaying the risks of stem cell transplantation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202970/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7202970/
Based on their 2010 alloHCT volume, centers were categorized as low-volume (≤40 alloHCTs; N=42 centers, 1,900 recipients) or high-volume (>40 alloHCTs; N=41 centers, 9,637 recipients). 100-day survival was 86% (95% CI, 85–87%) in high-volume compared to 83% (95% CI, 81–85%) in low-volume centers (difference 3%; P<0.001). One-year survival was 62% (95% CI, 61–63%) and 56% (95% CI, 54–58%), respectively (difference 6%; P < 0.001).
You are literally getting a coin flip of surviving past 2 years after an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. If I was given the choice of HAART and living a mostly normal lifespan, or maybe die with a coin flip chance in 2 years, I would pick HAART, no contest.
- chimeracoder 4y ago> You are literally getting a coin flip of surviving past 2 years after an allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. If I was given the choice of HAART and living a mostly normal lifespan, or maybe die with a coin flip chance in 2 years, I would pick HAART, no contest. Not to mention that the "64 years" comparison is not the correct reference point here, because it's talking about people who were never infected with HIV in the first place, not people who have received a stem cell transplant. The stem cell transplant almost certainly reduces both your lifespan and QALS in the long term, not just the first two years. Yes, it might be worth it if you have cancer, but it's not like it suddenly makes you clinically equivalent to a person who has never had HIV!