Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Because of the paucity of plasma HIV RNA viral load (VL) tests in resource-poor settings, the CD4(+) T cell count is often used as the sole laboratory marker to evaluate the effectiveness of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in HIV-infected patients. In untreated patients, the level of activated T cells is positively correlated with VL and represents a prognostic marker of HIV infection. However, little is known about its value to predict early drug failure, taking into account the relatively high non-specific immune activation background observed in many resource-limited tropical countries. We assessed the use of immune activation markers (expression of CD38 and/or human leucocyte antigen-DR on CD8(+) lymphocytes) to predict virological response to ART in a cohort of HIV-1 infected patients in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire. Correlations between VL, absolute CD4(+) T cell counts and immune activation levels were examined in 111 HIV patient samples at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of therapy. The percentage of CD38(+) CD8(+) T cells appeared to be the best correlate of VL. In contrast, changes in CD4(+) T cell counts provided a poor correlate of virological response to ART. Unfortunately, CD38(+) CD8(+) percentages lacked specificity for the determination of early virological drug failure and did not appear to be reliable surrogates of RNA viral load. CD38(+) CD8(+) T cell percentages may, rather, provide a sensitive estimate of the overall immune recovery, and be a useful extra laboratory parameter to CD4 counts that would contribute to improve the clinical management of HIV-infected people when VL testing facilities are lacking.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ondoa et al. (2005) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: