Kappes J C, Saag M S, Shaw G M, Hahn B H, Chopra P, Chen S, Emini E A, McFarland R, Yang L C, Piatak M
Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, USA.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995 Oct 1;10(2):139-49. doi: 10.1097/00042560-199510020-00005.
To assess the utility of quantitative competitive-polymerase chain reaction (QC-PCR) measurements of plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA and other viral load markers for assessment of antiretroviral therapy, we used archived cryopreserved specimens from a randomized controlled clinical trial of 135 patients (CD4+ T cell count < or = 500/mm3), comparing zidovudine (500 mg/day) versus the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor L-697, 661 (50, 300, or 1,000 mg daily). We evaluated treatment-associated changes in plasma viral load by standard and immune complex-dissociated (ICD) HIV-1 p24 antigen assays, and, in a representative subset of patients (n = 46), by QC-PCR determination of virion-associated HIV-1 RNA. At baseline, HIV-1 RNA was quantifiable by QC-PCR in all patients tested (100%), whereas standard and ICD HIV-1 p24 antigen tests were positive (> or = 30 pg/ml) in 42% and 56%, respectively. All viral load parameters showed significant decreases from baseline within 1 week of initiation of zidovudine, as measured by standard p24 antigen assay, ICD p24 assay, and QC-PCR. At 1 week, patients treated with either 300 or 1,000 mg/day of L-697,661 showed significant decreases from baseline in plasma standard and ICD p24 antigen and QC-PCR-determined HIV-1 RNA levels. Whereas viral load decreases seen with zidovudine were sustained for the duration of treatment, plasma viral markers often returned to pretreatment levels despite ongoing L-697,661 treatment, with evidence of the emergence of drug-resistant virus. Whereas standard p24, ICD p24, and viral RNA levels changed similarly in response to treatment, the superior sensitivity and available dynamic range of plasma viral RNA assays like QC-PCR analysis provide an advantage for clinical monitoring of plasma viral load, allowing tracking of treatment-related changes even in patients with earlier stage disease and lower levels of viral load.
为评估血浆中人类免疫缺陷病毒1型(HIV-1)RNA的定量竞争性聚合酶链反应(QC-PCR)测量值及其他病毒载量标志物在评估抗逆转录病毒疗法中的效用,我们使用了来自一项135例患者(CD4+T细胞计数≤500/mm³)随机对照临床试验的存档冷冻保存标本,比较齐多夫定(500mg/天)与非核苷类逆转录酶抑制剂L-697,661(每日50、300或1000mg)。我们通过标准和免疫复合物解离(ICD)HIV-1 p24抗原检测评估血浆病毒载量的治疗相关变化,并在一组有代表性的患者亚组(n = 46)中,通过QC-PCR测定病毒体相关的HIV-1 RNA来进行评估。在基线时,通过QC-PCR在所有检测患者(100%)中均可定量HIV-1 RNA,而标准和ICD HIV-1 p24抗原检测分别在42%和56%的患者中呈阳性(≥30pg/ml)。通过标准p24抗原检测、ICD p24检测和QC-PCR测量,所有病毒载量参数在开始齐多夫定治疗1周内均显示从基线显著下降。在1周时,接受每日300或1000mg L-697,661治疗的患者,其血浆标准和ICD p24抗原以及QC-PCR测定的HIV-1 RNA水平较基线均显著下降。虽然齐多夫定治疗期间病毒载量下降持续整个治疗过程,但尽管持续使用L-697,661治疗,血浆病毒标志物常恢复到治疗前水平,并有耐药病毒出现的证据。虽然标准p24、ICD p24和病毒RNA水平对治疗的反应相似,但像QC-PCR分析这样的血浆病毒RNA检测具有更高的灵敏度和可用的动态范围,为临床监测血浆病毒载量提供了优势,即使在疾病早期且病毒载量较低的患者中也能追踪治疗相关变化。