4.6 Article

Effects of Maraviroc and Efavirenz on Markers of Immune Activation and Inflammation and Associations with CD4+ Cell Rises in HIV-Infected Patients

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 5, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013188

关键词

-

资金

  1. Pfizer, Inc.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Maraviroc treatment for HIV-1 infected patients results in larger CD4(+) T cell rises than are attributable to its antiviral activity alone. We investigated whether this is due to modulation of T cell activation and inflammation. Methods and Findings: Thirty maraviroc-treated patients from the Maraviroc versus Efavirenz Regimens as Initial Therapy (MERIT) study were randomly selected from among those who had CCR5-tropic (R5) HIV on screening and achieved undetectable HIV RNA (<50 copies/mL) by Week 48. Efavirenz-treated controls were matched for baseline characteristics to the maraviroc-treated patients selected for this substudy. Changes in immune activation and inflammation markers were examined for associations with CD4(+) T cell changes. Maraviroc treatment tended to result in more rapid decreases in CD38 expression on CD4(+) T cells and in plasma D-dimer concentrations than did treatment with efavirenz. The proportion of patients with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein >2 mg/mL increased from 45% to 66% in the efavirenz arm, but remained constant in the maraviroc arm (P = 0.033). Decreases in CD38 expression on CD8(+) T cells were correlated with CD4(+) T cell rises for maraviroc treatment (r = 20.4, P = 0.048), but not for treatment with efavirenz. Conclusions: Maraviroc-treated patients had earlier, modest decreases in certain markers of immune activation and inflammation, although in this small study, many of the differences were not statistically significant. Levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein remained constant in the maraviroc arm and increased in the efavirenz arm. Decreases in immune activation correlated with increased CD4(+) T cell gains.

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

4.6
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