4.6 Article

Viral blip dynamics during highly active antiretroviral therapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF VIROLOGY
Volume 77, Issue 22, Pages 12165-12172

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/JVI.77.22.12165-12172.2003

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. NCRR NIH HHS [RR06555, M01-RR00102, R01 RR006555, M01 RR000102] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R37 AI028433, AI28433, R01 AI028433, U01 AI041534, AI41534] Funding Source: Medline
  3. PHS HHS [A142848, 1A141387] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although intermittent episodes of low-level viremia are often observed in well-suppressed highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART)-treated patients, the timing and amplitude of viral blips have never been examined in detail. We analyze here the dynamics of viral blips, i.e., plasma VL measurements of >50 copies/ml, in 123 HAART-treated patients monitored for a mean of 2.6 years (range, 5 months to 5:3 years). The mean (+/- the standard deviation) blip frequency was 0.09 +/- 0.11/sample, with about one-third of patients showing no viral blips. The mean viral blip amplitude was 158 +/- 132 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA copies/ml. Analysis of the blip frequency and amplitude distributions suggest that two blips less than 22 days apart have a significant chance of being part of the same episode of viremia. The data are consistent with a hypothetical model in which each episode of viremia consists of a phase of VL rise, followed by two-phase exponential decay. Thus, the term viral blip may be a misnomer, since viral replication appears to be occurring over an extended period. Neither the frequency nor the amplitude of viral blips increases with longer periods of observation, but the frequency is inversely correlated with the CD4(+)-T-cell count at the start of therapy, suggesting that host-specific factors but not treatment fatigue are determinants of blip frequency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available