4.7 Article

T-cell changes after a short-term exposure to maraviroc in HIV-infected patients are related to antiviral activity

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 64, 期 4, 页码 417-423

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2011.12.017

关键词

HIV; Maraviroc; CCR5 antagonist; CD4-positive T-lymphocytes; Viral tropism

资金

  1. Redes Telematicas de Investigacion Cooperativa en Salud [RETICS] [RD06/0006/0021]
  2. Fondo de Investigacion Sanitaria [PI06/0915]
  3. Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias [CP08/00172]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Analyze the short-term immunological effect directly attributable to MRV without interference of other drugs. Methods: MRV group included experienced HIV-infected patients undergoing an 8-day MRV monotherapy. A comparison population included naive HIV-infected patients starting combined antiretroviral therapy (cART group). Absolute CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cells and T-lymphocyte subsets were determined at day 0 and 8. Results: Fifty-nine patients who underwent MRV monotherapy and 28 naive patients were analyzed. Forty-one patients in the MRV group experienced a significant viral load decrease (MRV positive subgroup). Virological response and CD4(+) T-cell change were comparable in the MRV positive and cART groups. CD8(+) T-cell increase in the MRV positive subgroup showed a trend toward superiority when compared with the cART group. T-lymphocyte subset changes showed a similar profile in the MRV positive and cART groups with a differential effect in the TemRA cells related to MRV. No immunological effect (absolute lymphocyte counts or subsets) was observed in patients without virological response to MRV. Conclusions: MRV produced CD4(+) and CD8(+) T-cell gains related to antiviral activity and comparable or even superior in terms of CD8(+) T-cells to naive patients starting cART. No immunological effect occurred in subjects without virological response to MRV. (C) 2012 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据