Guest guest Posted December 11, 2006 Report Share Posted December 11, 2006 If I recall correctly off the top of my head, the ESPRIT trials began in the mid '90s. I can only conclude that there was no earth-shaking breakthrough from the use of IL-2 since we have not heard anything of note about it after a full ten years of study. Am I right in concluding that it inflates the number and percentage of cd4s, but they are in fact inert and inactive? I strongly suspect that if there were a noticeable advantage, in terms of either morbidity or mortality, associated with IL-2, it would have been widely reported by now. The silence on the subject leads me to think that nothing conclusive has been learned from the trial. --- Barrow wrote: > That's really all I can share right now, but there > will be more > coming soon. > > There is little interest in IL-2 at this point. > Perhaps if the > Esprit trial produces evidence of long term benefit, > that will be > reconsidered. I'll be very happy if some long term > benefit is shown > in a large population. To date, this has not been > observed. > > > > > ______________ > > Want to start your own business? > > Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. > > http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index > > Barrow > pozbod@... > > > > test'; " > ________________________________________________________________________________\ ____ Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 12, 2006 Report Share Posted December 12, 2006 It is a rather staggering silence, certainly, benefits have not been so striking that the trial would have to be ended early, but perhaps some small benefit will be tortured from the data by a hard working statistician. Chiron's abandonment of the trial would seem to be telling, though. It is not correct to say that the T cells are " inert or inactive " post IL-2 therapy, but they don't seem to have correct proliferative responses to pathogens. IL-7 does produce normal proliferative responses, and that's why there is so much more interest in this agent, at the moment. If your a T cell size queen, take IL-2. GIves you numbers you'll be proud of. No evidence it will improve your health, though, at least at this point. > If I recall correctly off the top of my head, the > ESPRIT trials began in the mid '90s. I can only > conclude that there was no earth-shaking breakthrough > from the use of IL-2 since we have not heard anything > of note about it after a full ten years of study. Am > I right in concluding that it inflates the number and > percentage of cd4s, but they are in fact inert and > inactive? I strongly suspect that if there were a > noticeable advantage, in terms of either morbidity or > mortality, associated with IL-2, it would have been > widely reported by now. The silence on the subject > leads me to think that nothing conclusive has been > learned from the trial. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.