4.5 Review

CD4+T cell counts in initiation of antiretroviral therapy in HIV infected asymptomatic individuals; controversies and inconsistencies

期刊

IMMUNOLOGY LETTERS
卷 168, 期 2, 页码 279-284

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.imlet.2015.10.005

关键词

HIV; CD4+T cell; Antiretroviral therapy; AIDS

资金

  1. Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research (NMIMR), University of Ghana
  2. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The primary goal when devising strategies to define the start of therapy in HIV infected individuals is to avoid HIV disease progression and toxicity from antiretroviral therapy (ART). Intermediate goals includes, avoiding resistance by suppressing HIV replication, reducing transmission, limiting spread and diversity of HIV within the body and protecting the immune system from harm. The question of how early or late to start ART and achieve both primary and intermediate goals has dominated HIV research. The distinction between early and late treatment of HIV infection is currently a matter of CD4+ T cells count, a marker of immune status, rather than on viral load, a marker of virus replication. Discussions about respective benefits of early or delayed therapy, as well as the best CD4+ T cell threshold during the course of HIV infection at which ART is initiated remains inconclusive. Guidelines issued by various agencies, provide different initiation recommendations. This can be confusing for clinicians and policy-makers when determining the best time to initiate therapy. Optimizing ART initiation strategies are clearly complex and must be balanced between individual and broader public health needs. This review assesses available data that contributes to the debate on optimal time to initiate therapy in HIV-infected asymptomatic individuals. We also review reports on CD4+ T cell threshold to guide initiation of ART and finally discuss arguments for and against early or late initiation of ART. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. Published by Elsevier B.V. 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

4.5
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