OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with persistent low-level viraemia (LLV) in HIV-infected patients under suppressive antiretroviral therapy and to assess the virological outcome of these patients. METHODS: LLV was defined as at least two HIV-1 RNA values between 20 and 50 copies/mL during 1 year of follow-up. We compared patients with all values <20 copies/mL (LLV-) and patients with LLV (LLV+). The 'blip ratio' was defined as (number of HIV-1 RNA values >50 copies/mL)/(number of HIV-1 RNA determinations) before study inclusion. RESULTS: Among the 656 patients included, 5.8% were in group LLV+. CDC stage B/C at study inclusion and a higher blip ratio before the study period were the only factors independently associated with LLV. During the 1 year follow-up, the proportion of patients experiencing virological failure was not different between the LLV- and LLV+ groups, and 40% of patients shifted from LLV+ to LLV- status. CONCLUSIONS: LLV was infrequent in our series and the follow-up did not evidence a higher rate of virological failure than in fully suppressed patients. LLV seems to be a transient phenomenon that might be driven by residual ongoing viral replication and/or viral release and/or accuracy of viral load assay at lower values.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to identify factors associated with persistent low-level viraemia (LLV) in HIV-infectedpatients under suppressive antiretroviral therapy and to assess the virological outcome of these patients. METHODS: LLV was defined as at least two HIV-1 RNA values between 20 and 50 copies/mL during 1 year of follow-up. We compared patients with all values <20 copies/mL (LLV-) and patients with LLV (LLV+). The 'blip ratio' was defined as (number of HIV-1 RNA values >50 copies/mL)/(number of HIV-1 RNA determinations) before study inclusion. RESULTS: Among the 656 patients included, 5.8% were in group LLV+. CDC stage B/C at study inclusion and a higher blip ratio before the study period were the only factors independently associated with LLV. During the 1 year follow-up, the proportion of patients experiencing virological failure was not different between the LLV- and LLV+ groups, and 40% of patients shifted from LLV+ to LLV- status. CONCLUSIONS: LLV was infrequent in our series and the follow-up did not evidence a higher rate of virological failure than in fully suppressed patients. LLV seems to be a transient phenomenon that might be driven by residual ongoing viral replication and/or viral release and/or accuracy of viral load assay at lower values.
Authors: Luke C Swenson; Jeong Eun Min; Conan K Woods; Eric Cai; Jonathan Z Li; Julio S G Montaner; P Richard Harrigan; Alejandro Gonzalez-Serna Journal: AIDS Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Marta Álvarez Estévez; Natalia Chueca Porcuna; Vicente Guillot Suay; Alejandro Peña Monge; Fernando García García; Leopoldo Muñoz Medina; David Vinuesa García; Jorge Parra Ruiz; Jose Hernández-Quero; Federico García García Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jennifer S Lee; Stephen R Cole; David B Richardson; Dirk P Dittmer; William C Miller; Richard D Moore; Mari Kitahata; Christopher Mathews; Kenneth Mayer; Elvin Geng; Chad J Achenbach; Joseph J Eron Journal: AIDS Date: 2017-09-10 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: J Saison; T Ferry; J Demaret; D Maucort Boulch; F Venet; T Perpoint; F Ader; V Icard; C Chidiac; G Monneret Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Silvia Baroncelli; Maria Franca Pirillo; Clementina Maria Galluzzo; Anna Degli Antoni; Nicoletta Ladisa; Daniela Francisci; Gabriella d'Ettorre; Daniela Segala; Angela Vivarelli; Federica Sozio; Oscar Cirioni; Liliana Elena Weimer; Vincenzo Fragola; Giustino Parruti; Marco Floridia Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Patrick Ryscavage; Sean Kelly; Jonathan Z Li; P Richard Harrigan; Babafemi Taiwo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-04-14 Impact factor: 5.191