Doctors Cure Baby Born With HIV For First Time
Editor's ChoiceMain Category: HIV / AIDS
Also Included In: Pediatrics / Children's Health
Article Date: 04 Mar 2013 - 1:00 PST
Ad For Health Professionals
Doctors Cure Baby Born With HIV For First Time
| Patient / Public: | ![]() |
|
| Healthcare Prof: | ![]() |
4 (7 votes) |
| Article opinions: | 5 posts |
A baby who received antiretroviral therapy within 30 hours of birth has been cured, researchers from Johns Hopkins Children's Center, the University of Mississippi Medical Center and the University of Massachusetts Medical School reported at the 20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) in Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Treating an HIV+ infant (or one with suspected HIV infection) in such a way so soon after birth is not common.
A functional cure means there is a lack of detectable viral replication in the absence of ongoing retroviral therapy. The patient, now 2½ years old, has not been on any HIV medications and has no sign of functioning virus.
This is the first case of a "functional cure" in an HIV-positive infant, the researchers announced. They say their finding could help pave the way towards the elimination of HIV infection in children.
Lead author, Deborah Persaud, M.D., a virologist at Johns Hopkins Children's Center, and Katherine Luzuriaga, M.D., an immunologist at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, headed a team of laboratory scientists. Hannah Gay, M.D., a pediatric HIV specialist at the University of Mississippi Medical Center administered the treatment to the infant.
Prompt administration of ART probably led to the baby's cure
After receiving aggressive antiretroviral therapy (ART) within thirty hours of being born, the infant underwent remission of HIV infection. The team believe that the prompt administration of ART probably led to the baby's cure by stopping the formation of difficult-to-treat viral reservoirs - dormant cells which are responsible for reigniting the infection in the majority of HIV patients soon after they stop therapy.Dr. Persaud said:
"Prompt antiviral therapy in newborns that begins within days of exposure may help infants clear the virus and achieve long-term remission without lifelong treatment by preventing such viral hideouts from forming in the first place."
The authors believe this is exactly what happened to the infant they described in their report. The infant, who is now "functionally cured" - has achieved and maintained long-term viral remission without lifelong treatment and standard clinical tests found no evidence of HIV replication in the blood.

Dr. Deborah Persaud, a virologist at the Johns Hopkins' Children's Center, administered the treatment.
Image from: Johns Hopkins Medicine.
The infant patient was born to a mother who was HIV-positive. Combination antiretroviral treatment was administered 30 hours after birth. A series of staggered tests showed that the viral presence in the infant's blood diminished; by the time the baby was 29 days old HIV was undetectable. Antivirals were administered until the baby was 18 months old, "at which point the baby was lost to follow-up for a while" - effectively, treatment stopped.
Ten months after treatment had been discontinued, the patient underwent a series of blood tests. Dr. Gay had expected so see high viral loads in the baby. However, according to all the tests, the child was HIV free. Dr. Gay suspected there may have been an error in the laboratory and ordered further tests - they all came back negative.
Standard practice for high-risk newborns involves administering a combination of antivirals at prophylactic doses to prevent infection for six weeks. Therapeutic doses are then started if HIV infection is diagnosed.
In the case of this infant, aggressive antiretroviral treatment started much earlier. The investigators say that current practice may change after very early ART was shown to raise the likelihood of a "functional cure".
The researchers explained that "natural viral suppression without treatment is an exceedingly rare phenomenon observed in less than half a percent of HIV-infected adults, known as 'elite controllers', whose immune systems are able to rein in viral replication and keep the virus at clinically undetectable levels."
Scientists have been trying to find a way of helping all patients with HIV achieve elite-controller status. Prompt ART administered to newborns may provide just that, the researchers explained.
There is not enough data to recommend a change to current practice when treating high-risk infants, the researchers emphasized. However, this latest infant's case provides compelling evidence to start proof-of-principle studies in all high-risk newborns.
Dr. Persaud said "Our next step is to find out if this is a highly unusual response to very early antiretroviral therapy or something we can actually replicate in other high-risk newborns."
So far, just one case of a sterilizing cure has been reported, the investigators pointed out. This occurred with Timothy Brown, a middle-aged man who was HIV-positive and also had leukemia - he was treated with a bone marrow transplant. The donor's bone marrow cells had a rare genetic mutation of white blood cells that can make some people resistant to HIV. This benefit was transferred to Mr. Brown. It is not possible to successfully provide such treatment to the 33 million people globally who are currently estimated to be HIV-positive.
Dr. Luzuriaga said:
"Complete viral eradication on a large scale is our long-term goal but, for now, remains out of reach, and our best chance may come from aggressive, timely and precisely targeted use of antiviral therapies in high-risk newborns as a way to achieve functional cure."
The New York Times mentioned that some experts who were not involved in the study said they were not completely convinced that the infant had really been infected with HIV. If there was no infection, this would simply be a case of prevention, which has already been achieved in babies born to HIV-positive mothers.
Dr. Persaud and team are certain the baby had been infected. During the child's first month of life there were five positive tests, four for viral RNA and one for DNA. As soon as the treatment commenced, viral blood levels dropped in the pattern typical of infected patients.
The primary goal for babies, the researchers stressed, continues to be the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV "despite the promise this approach holds for infected newborns."
Dr. Gay said "Prevention really is the best cure, and we already have proven strategies that can prevent 98 percent of newborn infections by identifying and treating HIV-positive pregnant women."
The study was funded by the NIH (National Institutes of Health) and amfAR (the Foundation for AIDS Research).
Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
Deborah Persaud, H Gay, C Ziemniak, YH Chen, M Piatak, T-W Chun, M Strain, D Richman, and K Luzuriaga
20th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
MLA
20 May. 2013. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257138.php>
APA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/257138.php.
Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.
Visitor Opinions (latest shown first)
HIV-Negative AIDS?
posted by nonhivaids? on 9 Mar 2013 at 7:36 pmI was once HIV+. I now remain HIV-. I still have AIDS (though I am ICD-coded "C.F.S." since HIV+ is a prerequisite for an "AIDS" diagnosis in the USA).
"NON HIV AIDS" is the name of my illness.
My case goes up through the White House, NIH, CDC, WHO, to the United Nations. I recently testified on a federal-level in Washington, DC, and have been published 12 times on 4 continents.
Showing signs of hope - HIV cure
posted by childrensdisability.org on 5 Mar 2013 at 7:40 pmThis gives hope to all of those faced with a lifetime of illness. Let us all have hope.
happy but confused
posted by Bontle on 5 Mar 2013 at 6:49 ami personally do appreciate the good work that shows light and hope for future AIDS FREE generation.
what's confusing me now is weather it's true the child had HIV a virus that causes AIDS.
To my knowledge,every child born to a positive mother is refered to as an'exposed infant' until the infant is tested HIV positive just post exposure.Researches shows that every exposed infant caries HIV antibodies of the mother until the age of 18/12 old. Then thereafter if the child tests Reactive for HIV, it's then that the child is 'definitively' HIV POSITIVE. What confusing me is, why was the child put on Antiretrovirals in the first place? Again what justification can we lay down to say the child had HIV?
I would like to know if at 6/52 the child was offered the first DNA test to show he/she is HIV reactive or we are just hoping that because the mother has HIV then the child 'MUST BE' HIV reactive.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, we appreciate the hard work you are doing.
Bontle.
Where is the Proof?
posted by ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION (AHRP) on 5 Mar 2013 at 5:50 amThe New York Times front page article, "In Medical First, Baby With HIV Is Reported Cured," in its sub-heading acknowledges, "SOME SKEPTICISM VOICED".
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/04/health/for-first-time-baby-cured-of-hiv-doctors-say.html?ref=science
Furthermore, the Times report states: "doctors announced...that a baby had been cured of an HIV infection for the first time...."
but the report notes that the claimed "cure" has not been confirmed, published, or even peer reviewed.
Indeed, The Times notes that "Dr. Persaud and other researchers spoke in advance of a presentation of the findings at a Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections."
"If the report is confirmed, the child born in Mississippi would be only the second well-documented case of a cure in the world."
Well documented?
Unless independently verifiable documented evidence is presented for confirmation, this story appears to be propaganda.
The announcement is calculated to persuade health policy officials to divert scarce healthcare dollars for expensive AIDS drug cocktails to be forced on newborn babies born to poor, uninformed young women.
The Times quotes Dr. Deborah Persaud of Johns Hopkins stating: "It's proof of principle that we can cure HIV infection if we can replicate this case."
Proof in principle is NOT proof of cure!
"Some outside experts, who have not yet heard all the details, said they needed convincing that the baby had truly been infected. If not, this would be a case of prevention, something already done for babies born to infected mothers."
Dr. Daniel R. Kuritzkes, chief of infectious diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston is quoted stating: “The one uncertainty is really definitive evidence that the child was indeed infected.”
The Times reports: "The mother arrived at a rural hospital in the fall of 2010 already in labor and gave birth prematurely. She had not seen a doctor during the pregnancy and did not know she had H.I.V. When a test showed the mother might be infected, the hospital transferred the baby to the University of Mississippi Medical Center, where it arrived at about 30 hours old."
"Typically a newborn with an infected mother would be given one or two drugs as a prophylactic measure. But Dr. Gay said that based on her experience, she almost immediately used a three-drug regimen aimed at treatment, not prophylaxis, not even waiting for the test results confirming infection. "
"Without test results confirming infection..." Does this not constitute medical malpractice?
"Virus levels rapidly declined with treatment and were undetectable by the time the baby was a month old. That remained the case until the baby was 18 months old, after which the mother stopped coming to the hospital and stopped giving the drugs.When the mother and child returned five months later, Dr. Gay expected to see high viral loads in the baby. But the tests were negative. "
"Suspecting a laboratory error, she ordered more tests. “To my greater surprise, all of these came back negative,” Dr. Gay said. "
"There have been scattered cases reported in the past, including one in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1995, of babies clearing the virus, even without treatment. "
The Times report suggests the tenuous reliability of the announced "miracle"
"One hypothesis is that the drugs killed off the virus before it could establish a hidden reservoir in the baby. One reason people cannot be cured now is that the virus hides in a dormant state, out of reach of existing drugs. When drug therapy is stopped, the virus can emerge from hiding."
"In the United States, transmission from mother to child is rare — several experts said there are only about 200 cases a year or even fewer — because infected mothers are generally treated during their pregnancies. "
"Dr. Bryson, who was not involved in the Mississippi work, said she was certain the baby had been infected and called the finding “one of the most exciting things I’ve heard in a long time.”
Does any of this sound like proven scientific findings???
By Monday afternoon the story was no longer on the Times' website front page .
Vera Sharav
certified General and Tumor Surgery
posted by Marek on 5 Mar 2013 at 2:27 amI am glad to have an opportunity to read on your experience with HIV . Congratulation. former resident Department of Surgery Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases NYC.U
Add Your Opinion On This Article
'Doctors Cure Baby Born With HIV For First Time'Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.
If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.
All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)
Contact Our News Editors
For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.
![]()
Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:
Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.




