4.7 Article

Differential decay of intact and defective proviral DNA in HIV-1-infected individuals on suppressive antiretroviral therapy

期刊

JCI INSIGHT
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL INVESTIGATION INC
DOI: 10.1172/jci.insight.132997

关键词

-

资金

  1. Delaney AIDS Research Enterprise
  2. UCSF/Gladstone Institute of Virology & Immunology CFAR
  3. CFAR Network of Integrated Systems
  4. amfAR Institute for HIV Cure Research
  5. I4C Collaboratory
  6. Beat-HIV Collaboratory
  7. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  8. Gilead Sciences
  9. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND. The relative stabilities of the intact and defective HIV genomes over time during effective antiretroviral therapy (ART) have not been fully characterized. METHODS. We used the intact proviral DNA assay (IPDA) to estimate the rate of change of intact and defective proviruses in HIV-infected adults on ART. We used linear spline models with a knot at seven years and a random intercept and slope up to the knot. We estimated the influence of covariates on rates of change. RESULTS. We studied 81 individuals for a median of 7.3 (IQR 5.9-9.6) years. Intact genomes declined more rapidly from initial suppression through seven years (15.7% per year decline; 95% CI -22.8%, -8.0%) and more slowly after seven years (3.6% per year; 95% CI -8.1%, +1.1%). The estimated half-life of the reservoir was 4.0 years (95% CI 2.7-8.3) until year seven and 18.7 years (95% CI 8.2-infinite) thereafter. There was substantial variability between individuals in the rate of decline until year seven. Intact provirus declined more rapidly than defective provirus (P < 0.001) and showed a faster decline in individuals with higher CD4(+) T cell nadirs. CONCLUSION. The biology of the replication-competent (intact) reservoir differs from that of the replication-incompetent (non-intact) pool of proviruses. The IPDA will likely be informative when investigating the impact of interventions targeting the reservoir.

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