OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to define viral kinetics after initiation of raltegravir (RAL)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: ART-naive patients received RAL, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and emtricitabine for 72 weeks. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA were measured by ultrasensitive and single-copy assays, and first (d1)-, second (d2)-, and, third (d3)-phase decay rates were estimated by mixed-effects models. Decay data were compared to historical estimates for efavirenz (EFV)- and ritonavir/lopinavir (LPV/r)-based regimens. RESULTS: Bi- and tri-exponential models for ultrasensitive assay (n = 38) and single-copy assay (n = 8) data, respectively, provided the best fits over 8 and 72 weeks. The median d1 with ultrasensitive data was 0.563/day (interquartile range [IQR], 0.501-0.610/day), significantly slower than d1 for EFV-based regimens [P < .001]). The median duration of d1 was 15.1 days, transitioning to d2 at an HIV-1 RNA of 91 copies/mL, indicating a longer duration of d1 and a d2 transition at lower viremia levels than with EFV. Median patient-specific decay estimates with the single-copy assay were 0.607/day (IQR, 0.582-0.653) for d1, 0.070/day (IQR, 0.042-0.079) for d2, and 0.0016/day (IQR, 0.0005-0.0022) for d3; the median d1 duration was 16.1 days, transitioning to d2 at 69 copies/mL. d3 transition occurred at 110 days, at 2.6 copies/mL, similar to values for LPV/r-based regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Models using single-copy assay data revealed 3 phases of decay with RAL-containing ART, with a longer duration of first-phase decay consistent with RAL-mediated blockade of productive infection from preintegration complexes.
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to define viral kinetics after initiation of raltegravir (RAL)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: ART-naive patients received RAL, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and emtricitabine for 72 weeks. Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA were measured by ultrasensitive and single-copy assays, and first (d1)-, second (d2)-, and, third (d3)-phase decay rates were estimated by mixed-effects models. Decay data were compared to historical estimates for efavirenz (EFV)- and ritonavir/lopinavir (LPV/r)-based regimens. RESULTS: Bi- and tri-exponential models for ultrasensitive assay (n = 38) and single-copy assay (n = 8) data, respectively, provided the best fits over 8 and 72 weeks. The median d1 with ultrasensitive data was 0.563/day (interquartile range [IQR], 0.501-0.610/day), significantly slower than d1 for EFV-based regimens [P < .001]). The median duration of d1 was 15.1 days, transitioning to d2 at an HIV-1 RNA of 91 copies/mL, indicating a longer duration of d1 and a d2 transition at lower viremia levels than with EFV. Median patient-specific decay estimates with the single-copy assay were 0.607/day (IQR, 0.582-0.653) for d1, 0.070/day (IQR, 0.042-0.079) for d2, and 0.0016/day (IQR, 0.0005-0.0022) for d3; the median d1 duration was 16.1 days, transitioning to d2 at 69 copies/mL. d3 transition occurred at 110 days, at 2.6 copies/mL, similar to values for LPV/r-based regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Models using single-copy assay data revealed 3 phases of decay with RAL-containing ART, with a longer duration of first-phase decay consistent with RAL-mediated blockade of productive infection from preintegration complexes.
Authors: Richard H Haubrich; Sharon A Riddler; Heather Ribaudo; Gregory Direnzo; Karin L Klingman; Kevin W Garren; David L Butcher; James F Rooney; Diane V Havlir; John W Mellors Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-11-28 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: D J Hazuda; P Felock; M Witmer; A Wolfe; K Stillmock; J A Grobler; A Espeseth; L Gabryelski; W Schleif; C Blau; M D Miller Journal: Science Date: 2000-01-28 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: B Ramratnam; J E Mittler; L Zhang; D Boden; A Hurley; F Fang; C A Macken; A S Perelson; M Markowitz; D D Ho Journal: Nat Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Hiroyu Hatano; Timothy L Hayes; Viktor Dahl; Elizabeth Sinclair; Tzong-Hae Lee; Rebecca Hoh; Harry Lampiris; Peter W Hunt; Sarah Palmer; Joseph M McCune; Jeffrey N Martin; Michael P Busch; Barbara L Shacklett; Steven G Deeks Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2011-04-01 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Ahmad R Sedaghat; Jason B Dinoso; Lin Shen; Claus O Wilke; Robert F Siliciano Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2008-03-24 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J B Dinoso; S Y Kim; A M Wiegand; S E Palmer; S J Gange; L Cranmer; A O'Shea; M Callender; A Spivak; T Brennan; M F Kearney; M A Proschan; J M Mican; C A Rehm; J M Coffin; J W Mellors; R F Siliciano; F Maldarelli Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2009-05-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Rajesh T Gandhi; Lu Zheng; Ronald J Bosch; Ellen S Chan; David M Margolis; Sarah Read; Beatrice Kallungal; Sarah Palmer; Kathy Medvik; Michael M Lederman; Nadia Alatrakchi; Jeffrey M Jacobson; Ann Wiegand; Mary Kearney; John M Coffin; John W Mellors; Joseph J Eron Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Melissa A Tosiano; Jana L Jacobs; Kathleen A Shutt; Joshua C Cyktor; John W Mellors Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jason Gillman; Patrick Janulis; Roy Gulick; Carole L Wallis; Baiba Berzins; Roger Bedimo; Kimberly Smith; Michael Aboud; Babafemi Taiwo Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Nicholas T Funderburg; Dihua Xu; Martin P Playford; Aditya A Joshi; Adriana Andrade; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Michael M Lederman; Nehal N Mehta Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2016-10-14
Authors: Rima Kulkarni; Rebecca Hluhanich; Damian M McColl; Michael D Miller; Kirsten L White Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 5.191