4.8 Article

Decay dynamics of HIV-1 depend on the inhibited stages of the viral life cycle

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0711372105

关键词

highly active antiretroviral therapy; integrase inhibitor; viral decay; viral dynamics; raltegravir

资金

  1. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [AI51178, R01 AI051178, R01 AI065960, R01 AI043222, AI43222, R37 AI051178, AI 065960] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The time to suppression of HIV-1 viremia to below the limit of detection of standard clinical assays is an important prognostic indicator for patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). Recent clinical trials of the integrase inhibitor raltegravir have demonstrated more rapid viral decay than previously seen with reverse transcriptase (RT) or protease inhibitor-based regimens. Because of the therapeutic importance of drugs that target different steps in the virus life cycle, it is imperative to consider whether viral dynamics are affected by the stage of the viral life cycle at which an antiretroviral drug acts. We use a mathematical model to investigate the effects of various drug classes on the dynamics of HIV-1 decay and show that the stage at which a drug acts affects the dynamics of viral decay. We find that the drug class acting latest in the viral life cycle dictates the dynamics of HIV-1 decay. In general, we find that the later in the life cycle an inhibitor acts, the more rapid the decay in viremia, and we illustrate this by comparing the effect of RT and integrase inhibitors on viral dynamics. We conclude that the rapid decay observed in patients on integrase-inhibitor-containing regimens is not necessarily an indication of greater drug efficacy but rather an expected consequence of the fact that this drug acts later in the life cycle. We propose that clinically observed viral decay rates for HAART regimens should be evaluated in the context of the drug classes that are represented.

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

4.8
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