4.7 Article

Magnitude of Virologic Blips Is Associated With a Higher Risk for Virologic Rebound in HIV-Infected Individuals: A Recurrent Events Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 205, 期 8, 页码 1230-1238

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/infdis/jis104

关键词

-

资金

  1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
  2. Canadian HIV Trials Network
  3. Ontario HIV Treatment Network
  4. Fonds de recherche en sante du Quebec
  5. National Institute of Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health [1DP1DA026182]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The importance of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) blip magnitude on virologic rebound has been raised in clinical guidelines relating to viral load assays. Methods. Antiretroviral-naive individuals initiating combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) after 1 January 2000 and achieving virologic suppression were studied. Negative binomial models were used to identify blip correlates. Recurrent event models were used to determine the association between blips and rebound by incorporating multiple periods of virologic suppression per individual. Results. 3550 participants (82% male; median age, 40 years) were included. In a multivariable negative binomial regression model, the Amplicor assay was associated with a lower blip rate than branched DNA (rate ratio, 0.69; P < .01), controlling for age, sex, region, baseline HIV-1 RNA and CD4 count, AIDS-defining illnesses, year of cART initiation, cART type, and HIV-1 RNA testing frequency. In a multivariable recurrent event model controlling for age, sex, intravenous drug use, cART start year, cART type, assay type, and HIV-1 RNA testing frequency, blips of 500-999 copies/mL were associated with virologic rebound (hazard ratio, 2.70; P = .002), whereas blips of 50-499 were not. Conclusions. HIV-1 RNA assay was an important determinant of blip rates and should be considered in clinical guidelines. Blips >= 500 copies/mL were associated with increased rebound risk.

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