4.4 Article

Lower levels of HIV-2 than HIV-1 in the female genital tract: correlates and longitudinal assessment of viral

期刊

AIDS
卷 22, 期 18, 页码 2517-2525

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e328315cdbc

关键词

Africa; cervix; women; HIV-1; HIV-2; Senegal; vagina; virus shedding

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [A137466, CA62801]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The differing magnitude of the HIV-1 and HIV-2 epidemics is likely a consequence of differing transmission rates between the two viruses. Similar to other sexually transmitted pathogens, risk of HIV-1 and HIV-2 transmission is likely associated with the presence and amount of HIV in the genital tract. Thus, understanding patterns of, and risk factors for HIV genital tract shedding is critical to effective control of HIV transmission. Methods: We evaluated HIV DNA and RNA detection in cervicovaginal specimens among 168 HIV-1 and 50 HIV-2-infected women in Senegal, West Africa. In a subset of 31 women (20 with HIV-1, 11 with HIV-2), we conducted a prospective study in which cervicovaginal specimens were taken at 3-day intervals over a 6-week period. Results: We found significantly lower rates and levels of HIV-2 RNA (58% shedding; 13% with >1000 copies/ml) in the female genital tract than HIV-1 RNA (78% shedding; 40% with >1000copies/ml) (P = 0.005 and 0.005, respectively), and shedding correlated with plasma viral load irrespective of virus type (odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval = 1.3-2.8 for each log(10) increase in HIV viral RNA). Plasma viral load, not HIV type, was the strongest predictor of genital viral load. Over 80% of closely monitored women, regardless of HIV type, had at least intermittent HIV RNA detection during every 3-day sampling over a 6-week time period. Conclusion: These data help in explaining the different transmission rates between HIV-1 and HIV-2 and may provide new insights regarding prevention. (C) 2008 Wolters Kluwer Health vertical bar Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

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

4.4
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