Should I start the ARV therapy already?

[brazilian]

Hey guys,

I'm new in here and I'm not sure if I'm post in the right place. Also, english is noy my first language, so, If I write anything wrong, I early apologize.

Well, I was diagnosed with HIV in february, I believe the infection occurred in march of 2013.

My CD4 count is at 580 cells/µL of blood. My Viral Load is at 48000/mL of blood. That was the first test I've maed it. I have no symthoms at all.

My question is: Should I start the antiretroviral therapy immediately or should i wait a little bit longer?

Thank you guys!

[mikealec]

if you've got no symptoms, relax and enjoy. give other guys the pleasure of your new poz status

[lower_bucks_bottom]

All of the latest studies I have seen indicate that you should start meds as soon as you can, so the answer is YES! The current meds have little or no side effects, so there is no reason not to, other then cost which might be covered.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

adding to l_b_b post and mounting evidence suggests starting ARV's immediately might allow you to get off them in a couple of years.

[jtonic]

if you've got no symptoms, relax and enjoy. give other guys the pleasure of your new poz status

Don't listen to that guy.

Listen to your doctor.

Everyone I have talked to (therapists, nurses, GP doctor, ID doctor) says you should start ARV meds as soon as you're ready.

Today's meds have almost no side effects.

[GermanFucker]

Recent studies (e.g. a new one from Italy) suggest that starting early has the most benefits. The lower your T-cell count drops and the more damage HIV is able to do to your body, the worse the long-term prognosis. Guys with severly compromised immune systems who never fully recovered their initial immune status (despite therapy) have statistically shorter live expectancy and a HIGHER likelyhood of health problems. Those who had a drop in T-cell count but fully recovered had an ALMOST normal life expectectancy / quality of life, whereas with those who started early and never let their numbers drop at all, their prognosis / life expectancy was basically IDENTICAL to someone without HIV (though more studies with higher numbers of participants seem to be necessary to validate that data).

So 500 T-cells seems like a very good point to start.

Two thoughts:

1. It is your life, i.e. your decision. It doesn't matter if someone thinks it's hot that you're infectious. Neither should you take meds because someone else talks you into it. What matters is that you yourself realize it makes sense to you, that it feels right and that once you started, you're able to adhere to your meds regime.

2. Every case is different. From what you say you seem to be a fast(ish) progressor, so you can't wait for ten, fifteen years like some other guys (slow or non-progressors). In any case you should talk to a doctor you trust. Personal experiences from other poz guys can be valuable input when it comes to assessing treatment options and avoiding pitfalls when starting meds. But the starting point for your decision process should be the opinion of a professional who knows you, not "some guy on the internet".

[rawTOP]

Read this thread…

https://breeding.zone/threads/27374-Is-early-treatment-of-HIV-really-that-much-better

adding to l_b_b post and mounting evidence suggests starting ARV's immediately might allow you to get off them in a couple of years.

Well, he didn't go on them immediately. It's been a year since infection. AND (except for that guy who had a bone marrow transfusion) no one has been cured of HIV and been able to go off their meds. Holding that promise out as a reason to go on meds seems disingenuous.

[jtonic]

So 500 T-cells seems like a very good point to start.

I'd just like to add that, ultimately, your doctor and you will decide what is the best course of action.

Also, don't read too much into T-Cell or CD4 count. People here tend to use cell count numbers as if it was a universal / absolute number. That's not the case. Everyone's immune system is different, based on age, genetic profile, lifestyle, health history, etc. My clinic has seen patients with a CD4 count of 100 who were in better health than someone the same age at 500. What matters is your trend over time.

[Guest JizzDumpWI]

Read this thread…

https://breeding.zone/threads/27374-Is-early-treatment-of-HIV-really-that-much-better

Well, he didn't go on them immediately. It's been a year since infection. AND (except for that guy who had a bone marrow transfusion) no one has been cured of HIV and been able to go off their meds. Holding that promise out as a reason to go on meds seems disingenuous.

RT, he believes his infection occurred in March of 2013. But he doesn't know. The evidence is that faster to treat the better the outcome.

I did not and am not "promising" anything so please don't tag me with words or meaning I didn't make. Reporting the current advise is not a "promise" of outcomes in any individual case. You're an intelligent talented man, so what's up with this promise BS? The going off meds concept is clearly NOT in the context of a cure - just interesting control outcomes from that protocol.

Others may read this thread and conclude there is little reason to hit it fast. Clearly he might have been better to start in February; and maybe testing more often than annually would have been a good idea. Ideally others reading this would learn.