Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology IAMM  | About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback |  Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Ahead of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions  
Users Online: 46 Official Publication of Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists 
  Search
 
 ~ Next article
 ~ Previous article 
 ~ Table of Contents
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~Related articles
 ~  Article in PDF (54 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
 ~  Abstract
 ~  Viral Markers
 ~  Quantitative vir...
 ~  Plasma HIV RNA load
 ~  Plasma HIV RNA l...
 ~  Target level of ...
 ~  Minimal decrease...
 ~  Change in HIV RN...
 ~  Suggested freque...
 ~  Serum p24 antibody
 ~  Syncytium induci...
 ~  Surrogate Markers
 ~  Non-Specific Markers
 ~  Percentage of CD...
 ~  CD 8 cell count
 ~  Multitest, delay...
 ~  Phenotypic marke...
 ~  Neopterin
 ~  Beta 2-microglob...
 ~  Other Markers
 ~  Soluble receptor...
 ~  Soluble Interleu...
 ~  Summary
 ~  References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed10692    
    Printed273    
    Emailed14    
    PDF Downloaded678    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2004  |  Volume : 22  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 7-15
 

Laboratory markers associated with progression of HIV infection


Department of Microbiology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana - 141 001, Punjab, India

Correspondence Address:
Department of Microbiology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana - 141 001, Punjab, India

 ~ Abstract 

Infection with HIV may develop to AIDS at different rates in different individuals, with a spectrum varying from rapid progression to long term non-progression. The variable course of HIV-1 infection causes emotional trauma for the infected person and complicates the design and interpretation of therapeutic trials because of unrecognized differences in prognosis. Thus it is essential to have tests which can accurately assess the stage of infection in an individual, as well as predict its course and monitor its progression. These laboratory tests are very valuable during the period of clinical latency and subsequently supplement various clinical parameters.

How to cite this article:
Gupta V, Gupta S. Laboratory markers associated with progression of HIV infection. Indian J Med Microbiol 2004;22:7-15


How to cite this URL:
Gupta V, Gupta S. Laboratory markers associated with progression of HIV infection. Indian J Med Microbiol [serial online] 2004 [cited 2014 Oct 21];22:7-15. Available from: http://www.ijmm.org/text.asp?2004/22/1/7/8055


Although the median interval between HIV-1 infection and the development of the Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) in adults is 10 to 11 years,[1] some infected persons rapidly progress to AIDS in less than 5 years.[2] Still others remain asymptomatic without evidence of immunologic decline for more than 6 years.[3] The biological basis of this variability is unknown, but differences in viral strains, host immune responses,[4] and exposure to microbial[5] or environmental cofactors, probably contribute. Clinicians, dealing with symptomatic HIV infected patients, draw on a number of indicators of immunologic function that are associated with an increased probability of disease progression. These laboratory tests are very valuable during the period of clinical latency and subsequently supplement various clinical parameters. Response to antiretroviral therapy is also monitored using these prognostic tests.[6] Identification of laboratory tests that help predict progression to AIDS in people infected with HIV is desirable because of the implications for both clinical management and counselling of the patient.[7]
Many clinical and laboratory markers have been used to estimate prognosis in patients with HIV-1 infection.[8] Markers of AIDS development include HIV related symptoms,[9],[10] depletion of CD4+ T cells,[11] cutaneous anergy,[9],[12] elevated serum b2-microglobulin (b2-m) and neopterin levels,[11] HIV-1 p24 (core) antigenaemia,[13],[14] and syncytium inducing HIV-1 phenotype.[15] None of these markers are ideal; all have limitations in sensitivity, specificity, or predictive power. The single best predictor of AIDS onset identified thus far, is the percentage or absolute number of circulating CD4+ T cells,[11] but less variable and earlier markers of risk for AIDS are needed.[16]
Assays used in monitoring HIV infected individuals have relied predominantly on detecting the effects of HIV on the immune system rather than directly measuring HIV load.[17] There is importance of both immune deficits (decreased number of CD4 + T cells) and immune stimulation (increased levels of neopterin, b2-m, soluble IL-2 receptors and IgA) in predicting prognosis. The levels of soluble IL-2 receptors reflect the activation of T cells and the number of CD8 + T cells reflect the stimulation of that population. The level of IgA reflects B cell activation and that of b2-m reflects lymphoid activity more generally.[11] Recently, data on the high viral turnover in HIV infection at all stages of disease and the value of viral load measurements in antiretroviral drug trials have led to the use of markers that directly measure viral load or other viral characteristics in clinical practice.[18],[19]
The CD4 cell count, plasma viral load and other markers should not be used alone in deciding patient care, nor is it advisable to base decisions on a single test result. The patient's clinical condition must be taken into account in selecting which tests to perform, how often to perform them and the significance of abnormal results.[17] Laboratory markers can be classified[6] into : 1) Viral markers, 2) Surrogate markers, and 3) Non-specific markers.

 ~ Viral Markers Top

Many viral assays [including DNA polymerase chain reaction (PCR), p24 antigen tests and HIV isolation] detect but do not quantify the virus, and are therefore usually used in diagnostic situations.[17]

 ~ Quantitative viral load assays Top

Quantitative assays used in clinical trials are based either on HIV isolation or genome detection.

 ~ Plasma HIV RNA load Top

Plasma viral load (HIV RNA) quantification is presently considered the most representative and sensitive laboratory test for monitoring progression of HIV infection and response to antiretroviral therapy. [6],[17],[20] Active replication of virus occurs in all clinical stages of infection. It is possible to detect and quantify virus through out the course of HIV infection. The viral load usually ranges between 102 and 107 HIV RNA copies/mL in untreated individuals though it may be lower in those on treatment. The techniques available for quantifying viral RNA are quantitative RNA-PCR, branched DNA (bDNA) assay and nucleic acid sequence based amplification (NASBA). The RNA-PCR assay can detect as few as 40 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter and is positive in >98% of patients. The bDNA assay can detect as few as 500 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter and is positive in >90% of patients. Measurement of levels of HIV RNA over time have been of great value in delineating the relationship between levels of virus and rates of disease progression, the rates of viral turnover, the relationship between immune system activation and viral replication, and the time to development of antiviral drug resistance. While p24 antigen capture assays reflect changes in total viral burden over an extended period, the HIV RNA assays allow an evaluation of the changes in viral burden that occur over a matter of hours. Measurements of HIV RNA levels should be made approximately every six months and more frequently in a setting where changes are made in anti-retroviral therapy.
Plasma HIV RNA levels are more than 10 fold lower in long term non-progressors (mean value 70,000 copies/mL) than in individuals with progressive disease (mean value 1,000,000 copies/mL). A viral load of >100,000 copies/mL by bDNA assay with in six months of seroconversion increases the risk of progression to AIDS with in 5 years by more than 10 fold. Persistently detectable viraemia and high base line levels carry a poor prognosis, while risk of progression is low at copy numbers <10,000/mL. Viral load measurements can be performed at all stages of HIV disease, and high viral load correlates with a lower baseline CD4 cell counts, quicker decline in CD4 cell counts and faster disease progression.[16],[21],[22] Viral load measurements can provide prognostic information about time to AIDS and death, and is independent of the CD4 cell count.
Viral loads regress rapidly with antiretroviral therapy and can be used to monitor it. While precise guidelines have yet to be established, a level of HIV RNA of >20,000 copies per milliliter is felt by many experts to be an indication for antiretroviral therapy. Viral load is the test of choice in deciding when to start or change anti-retroviral therapy, or assessing the relative effect of different regimens.[18],[23] Monotherapy with zidovudine reduces HIV RNA levels by about 0.7 log, compared with nucleoside combination (~1.5 log) and protease inhibitor -nucleoside combination (~2.0 log). Significant reductions are associated with clinical benefit. A number of issues still need to be considered, including choice of assay, cost, quality control, testing strategies and acceptable post therapy levels of viral load. Some interim recommendations for viral load assays are given in [Table - 1].
[Table - 1] : Interim recommendations for viral load assays[18]

 ~ Plasma HIV RNA level that suggests initiation of treatment: Top

More than 5000-10000 copies/mL and a CD4 cell count or clinical status suggestive of progression.

 ~ Target level of HIV RNA after initiating treatment: Top

Undetectable; < 5000 copies/mL is an acceptable target.

 ~ Minimal decrease in HIV RNA indicative of antiviral activity: Top

>0.5 log decrease

 ~ Change in HIV RNA that suggests drug treatment failure: Top

Return to (or within 0.3 to 0.5 log of) pretreatment value, or a significant rise (0.7-1.0 log) from the treatment nadir

 ~ Suggested frequency of HIV RNA measurement: Top



  • At baseline: 2 measurements, 2-4 weeks apart

  • Every 3 to 4 months or in conjunction with CD4 cell counts

  • Shorter intervals when critical decision points are closer


Serum p24 antigen
HIV antigen detection tests were made available commercially in 1986 for detection of HIV antigen in serum, plasma and CSF using EIA technology.[24],[25],[26],[27] It detects the viral protein p24 in the blood of HIV infected individuals, where it exists either as free antigen or complexed to anti p24 antibodies. Overall, approximately 30% of the individuals with HIV infection have detectable levels of free p24 antigen. The sensitivity increases to up to 50%, when samples are treated with a weak acid to dissociate antigen antibody complexes prior to assay. Serum immune complex dissociated (ICD) p24 antigenaemia was also associated with AIDS development, but only in univariate analysis. ICD p24 antigenaemia was a less sensitive marker than plasma HIV-1 RNA; only 36% of samples from persons developing AIDS have detectable serum ICD p24 antigen within the first year of infection compared with 73% for HIV-1 RNA. In addition, ICD p24 antigen could not discriminate persons at risk for a significant decline in the CD4 + T cell count from those in whom CD4 + T cell counts remained stable.[16] p24 antigen may be detectable transiently during primary HIV infection and again after years of HIV infection often in association with clinical or laboratory evidence of immunodeficiency.[28] HIV antigenaemia occur during window period, in newborn and during late disease when the patient is usually symptomatic. Antigen detection indicates active HIV infection as opposed to past exposure to HIV proteins, diagnosis of HIV infection prior to antibody seroconversion and has prognostic significance. Throughout the course of HIV infection an equilibrium appears to exist between p24 antigen and anti p24 antibodies. During the first few weeks of infection, before an immune response develops, there is brisk rise in p24 antigen levels. After the development of anti p24 antibodies these levels decline. Late in the course of infection, when circulating levels of free virus are high, p24 antigen levels also increase. The sensitivity of the test improves with clinical progression of disease showing 4% positivity in asymptomatic patients, 56% in AIDS related complex patients and 70% in AIDS patients.[29]
Studies during primary HIV infection have shown that subjects with higher concentrations of p24 antigen tend to have higher plasma HIV titres.[30] Several studies have shown a greater likelihood of progression to AIDS for HIV infected subjects who are positive for serum p24 antigen.[28],[31],[32] Though precise significance of p24 antigenaemia is unclear, it has been shown that for a group of asymptomatic HIV infected patients having similar CD4 + T cell counts, those with detectable levels of p24 antigen, are three times more likely on an average to show progression to AIDS, over a period of 3 years, than those in whom p24 antigen levels cannot be detected. Among HIV antigen positive, asymptomatic, antibody positive homosexual males, 23.9% progressed to AIDS over a 21 month period, compared with 1.3% of HIV antigen negative, asymptomatic, antibody positive homosexual males.[29] In the San Francisco cohort study,[33] p24 antigen levels was shown to correlate with disease progression, with 59% of p24 antigen positive patients progressing to AIDS over three years compared to 15% of patients who were p24 antigen negative. In this study, rising level of circulating p24 antigen preceded a fall in the percentage of CD4 cells.
In addition, multiple clinical trials have demonstrated that patients receiving anti-retroviral therapy show a decline in their circulating levels of p24 antigen. Some workers have advocated the use of this assay for monitoring the effectiveness of such treatment but the validity of this assay has yet to be established.
Until the availability of tests of HIV load, p24 antigen assay was the main assay available. The antigen is poorly quantifiable, may not be detectable in many individuals, and does not change very well with anti-retroviral therapy. It has a limited role in diagnosis and is not considered as a useful prognostic marker.[6]

 ~ Serum p24 antibody Top

Antibodies to HIV p24 antigen begin to appear within several weeks of acute infection.[34] Once present, p24 antibodies tend to persist unless levels of p24 antigen rise during periods of active viral replication. The level of p24 antibody declines because of formation of circulating immune complexes with p24 antigen and depression of immune function. Thus a drop in the titre of p24 antibody predicts an increased viral load, and an increased rate of disease progression to AIDS. This is not routinely measured in clinical practice.
Assays for qualitative viral change


 ~ Syncytium inducing strains Top

Some HIV strains may form syncytia, or giant cells, in certain continuous cultured cell lines. Syncytium inducing (SI) strains are more likely than non syncytium inducing (NSI) strains to be seen at end stage infection, and are associated with increased viral load, a blunted CD4 cell response to antiretroviral therapy, more rapid decline in CD4 cell counts, drug resistance and progressive clinical deterioration. Not all AIDS patients develop SI strains, but a switch from NSI to SI isolates may predict clinical deterioration.[35],[36] This assay is expensive and is restricted to laboratories with HIV isolation facilities.

 ~ Surrogate Markers Top

Virus specific markers
HIV specific antibodies have also been used as markers of progression.[6],[37] Though they are not considered particularly sensitive. Decline in, or absence of antibodies to various HIV antigens including p24, p17, gp120, gp 41 and nef gene product have been used as surrogate markers in the past. Diagnostic potential of HIV-I nef gene derived protein also attracted attention, as antibodies to it are found in 54% of known HIV infected individuals. Antibodies to nef encoded protein can be detected before the appearance of antibodies directed against viral structural proteins. In addition, absence or disappearance or intermittent presence of nef specific antibodies have been related to unfavorable outcome in individual infected with HIV-1. Nef specific antibodies have been evaluated by Western Blot (WB) technique with a recombinant p27 nef. It would be premature to consider anti p27 nef as a useful marker in HIV Infection.

 ~ Non-Specific Markers Top

Cellular Markers / Markers of immune function
CD4 cell count
A number of non HIV specific cellular markers, have been used for staging, monitoring progression of HIV infection and assessing response to therapy but the most commonly used cellular marker is the CD4 lymphocyte count. CD4 is one of the several glycoproteins termed “cluster of differentiation (CD) antigens,” expressed on the surface of lymphocytes. Some of these antigens can be used to classify lymphocytes into subpopulations that correlate with their function (e.g. CD3 is expressed on all T cell and CD4 and CD8 on T helper and T cytotoxic lymphocytes, respectively). CD4 count can be measured by flow cytometry, microsphere assay, and Enzyme immunoassay (EIA). Antibodies to these antigens allow a rapid and accurate measurement by flow cytometry of the number of cells expressing each antigen. CD4 also serves as a receptor for HIV, and cells expressing this protein usually decline in number with progressive HIV infection. The number of cells that express the CD4 antigen is therefore a useful guide to the pathological effects of HIV on the immune system. Its decline is the hallmark of HIV infection and the rate of loss in each person is unique. Patients with an initial diagnosis of HIV infection should have CD4 + T cell measurements performed approximately every six months and more frequently if a declining trend is noted.
CD4 cell count is extremely important in staging of HIV infection and a revised classification of the centre for disease control (CDC), Atlanta, USA (1993) divides HIV positive persons into three CD4 count categories: 1) >500/mL; 2) 200-499/mL, 3) <200/mL (along with 3 parallel clinical stages A, B, and C). A low CD4 count (less than 10%), a number less than 100/mL and a low CD4/CD8 ratio (<0.2) are highly predictive for death from AIDS-related complications. Many studies of HIV infection have shown a relation between a low CD4 count and the subsequent development of AIDS.[11],[31],[32] Other studies have shown that subjects with low CD4 counts are at risk of specific AIDS related illnesses such as Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia.[38],[39] The introduction of prophylaxis against various opportunistic infections is based primarily on the CD4 cell count; when to begin antiretroviral therapy is based on both CD4 cell count and viral load estimations. Patients with CD4 + T cell counts below 200/mL are at high risk of infection with Pneumocystis carinii while patients with CD4 + T cell counts below 100/mL are at high risk of infection with Cytomegalovirus and the Mycobacterium avium-intracellulare complex.
The clinical benefit of anti-retroviral drugs is not well indicated by CD4 counts (unlike viral RNA load) and it is less effective in monitoring therapy. Antiretroviral therapy is generally indicated when the CD4 + T cell count falls below 500/µL. Pneumocystis carinii prophylaxis should start when the CD4 cell count is less than 200-250/mL. Once the count has fallen below 50/mL, there is probably little benefit in continuing to monitor it unless a rise is expected with the introduction of new anti-retroviral drugs. All effective forms of antiretroviral therapy to date have been associated with at least a transient increase in either CD4 + T cell count or CD4 proportion. Use of zidovudine in symptom free HIV infected subjects with CD4 counts below 0.5 x 109/litre has been reported to slow the rate of progression to AIDS or advanced AIDS related complex.[40] In the Los Angeles Multicentre AIDS cohort study,[11] HIV infected patients with CD4 cell counts of 350-500/mL had a rate of progression to AIDS in two years of 8%, while for those with CD4 counts of 250-350/mL, the rate was 24%, and 50% if the CD4 cell count was below 250/mL. Because of its prognostic significance, a CD4 cell count below 250/mL is now included as an AIDS defining condition by the CDC.
Though CD4 cell count is widely used by clinicians it is a crude predictor of progression and is expensive to perform. A single abnormal result is not usually a sufficient reason to introduce or change treatment as there are many physiological variables which may affect the count, including the time of day the sample is collected, concurrent infections, and recent exercise.[41] It is much more important to follow CD4 cell counts serially and to observe emerging trends.

 ~ Percentage of CD4 cells Top

Despite the good correlation between clinical progression and absolute CD4 cell count, there are some limiting factors. The total number of CD4 cells in any one sample is influenced by specimen handling, age of the patient, time of sampling (low counts in early morning), use of pharmacological agents and the presence of infection. Hence some clinicians place more value on the percentage of CD4 cells in the total lymphocyte count as a marker of immune function. Several studies have shown that this is a more accurate predictor of progression to AIDS.[33]
In general a CD4 cell count of 200/mL is roughly equivalent to 20% of the lymphocyte count. The normal range for CD4 cell values vary between laboratories but they are around 500-1300/mL for the absolute count and 38%-65% for the percentage. Clinical decisions should not be based on a single CD4 cell count but rather on the trend over two to three counts. While most physicians rely on CD4 cell numbers, and the CD4 cell count varies unexpectedly, or the clinical stage does not correlate with the CD4 cell count, then the CD4 percentage and its variation overtime should be monitored.

 ~ CD 8 cell count Top

It is not as useful as the CD4 cell count in most circumstances, usually remaining elevated for many years after infection. However, in advanced immune deficiency (CD4 cell count <200/mL), a marked decline in the CD8 cell count indicates a poor prognosis. Again the trend in CD8 cell count is of greater value than a single determination.[17],[34]

 ~ Multitest, delayed type hypersensitivity (DTH) skin test Top

It is the semiquantitative measurement of immune function. This is a practical and simple way to assess the degree of HIV induced damage.[17],[34] Lack of response (anergy) is associated with poorer prognosis.
In vivo DTH skin testing, by means of the Multitest device (Pasteur Merieux, Lyon), provides a quantitative measure of the host's cell mediated immune function (both T cell and monocyte/macrophage function). Testing involves the placement of a panel of seven purified recall antigens epidermally on the volar aspect of forearm, with the diameter of induration of each reaction measured 48 hrs. later. Reactions over 2 mm in diameter are considered positive and the average total diameter of all positive reactions in the normal man is 20mm and in normal woman is around 14 mm. Failure to respond to any antigen (Multitest score of 0) is termed anergy and is an indicator of poor cell mediated immune function. Although published data are few, a poor Multitest score (below 5 mm) appears to have prognostic value independent of CD4 cell count or percentage.
Multitest DTH skin testing is not routinely used in HIV clinics partly due to the inconvenience of a return visit after 48 hrs. and partly due to a paucity of data demonstrating benefit over and above the CD4 cell count or percentage. It appears to have an increasing role, however, in determining when to start antiretroviral therapy and in recruitment for early intervention trials.
The use of HIV antigens such as recombinant gp 160 in a DTH skin testing panel is presently being investigated and may prove a more specific marker of immune response to HIV.

 ~ Phenotypic markers of lymphocyte activation Top

These include an increase in indicators of immune activation on T lymphocytes like CD38, HLA-DR, IL-2R, CD45RO and markers of apoptosis (e.g. Fas). A flow cytometer with at least >2 colour analysis facility is a necessary requirement for these markers.[6]
Soluble Markers


 ~ Neopterin Top

Neopterin (6-D-erythrotrihydroxypropylpterin) is a low molecular weight compound derived from an intermediate product of the denovo biosynthesis of tetrahydrobiopterin from guanosine triphosphate (GTP).[6],[20],[34],[37] It is produced by activated monocytes and B cells. It is an early marker of HIV infection. The levels rise further on progression from pre AIDS to clinical AIDS. Since it is a nonspecific marker besides HIV infection, high neopterin levels may be found in numerous viral infections, inflammatory disorders, collagen vascular diseases and in advanced stages of certain malignancies, atypical phenylketonuria and in patients receiving immunostimulant therapy. Neopterin assay can be done by RIA or ELISA.
Since neopterin levels are stimulated by HIV infection, measurement of neopterin levels can be useful in monitoring progression and evaluating antiviral therapy. Like b2-m, serum or urine levels of neopterin are highest in patients with advanced HIV disease and in asymptomatic patients higher levels are associated with increased progression to AIDS that is independent of CD4+ T cell count .
Serum and urinary neopterin levels have been shown in several studies to be elevated in patients with HIV infection and to correlate well with prognosis.[42],[43],[44] Further more, the combination of CD4 + T cell and neopterin measurements is a better indicator of prognosis than either used alone.[44] In the San Francisco cohort study,[33] patients with neopterin levels below 12nmol/L, between 12 and 17nmol/L and above 17nmol/L, had three years rates of progression to AIDS of 10%, 20% and 45% respectively.
[TAG:2]Beta 2-microglobulin[/TAG:2]
b2-m is an 11 kDa protein that is expressed on surface of most nucleated cells. It forms a heterodimer with class I major histocompatibility complex molecules present on the surface of most nucleated cells and exhibits amino acid homology with the constant region of immunoglobulin.[6],[20],[34],[37] Free b2-m can be measured in both serum and urine levels of b2-m correlate with the degree of progression of HIV disease. It spikes in acute infection, declines and then rises during the infection. Levels of b2-m are elevated in a variety of conditions characterized by lymphocyte activation and/or lymphocyte destruction; e.g. lymphoproliferative syndromes, auto immune diseases, viral infections and in patients with renal diseases. Elevated levels are also seen in certain HIV high risk groups such as haemophiliacs and drug abusers. High levels of b2-m have also been reported in tuberculosis, cytomegalovirus infection and lymphomas which may be present in the late stage of HIV infection making it important to interpret the data on serum b2-m levels in the clinical context. It can be measured in serum or plasma by using RIA or competitive ELISA based tests. b2-m measurement has several advantages as a laboratory assay to help determine prognosis. By contrast with CD4 cell counts which require special procedures for specimen handling and processing, b2-m can be measured with a serological assay and equipment available in many laboratories.[7]
Several studies have shown that high concentrations of b2-m in people with HIV infection are predictors of AIDS.[31],[45],[46] Hofmann et al[45] found that higher b2-m concentrations predicted subsequent decline in CD4 counts. This finding suggests that changes in b2-m occur sooner after HIV seroconversion than changes in CD4 count. It is independent of its inverse relationship to CD 4+ T cell count. In a study,[20] 34% of patients with b2-m level of >3.8 µg /mL went on to develop AIDS over a 3 year period, compared to only 7% of patients with a level of <2.9 µg/mL. In the San Francisco cohort strudies,[33] patients with b2-m levels below 3mg/L, between 3.0 and 5.0 mg/L and above 5mg/L had three years rate of progression to AIDS of 12%, 33% and 69% respectively. b2-m levels appear to be a marker of disease progression independent of CD4 cell count, p24 antigenaemia and zidovudine therapy.[7] Levels of b2-m have been shown to decrease in a dose dependent fashion in patients treated with zidovudine.

 ~ Other Markers Top

Other surrogate makers of immune function, such as soluble interleukin-2 receptor levels, serum IgA levels and serum cytokine levels have been studied.[34] However, their predictive value is less than that of the markers already described. Other potentially promising immunologic prognostic markers include percentage of CD38+,CD4+ cells and CD4 +, CD29 “bright” memory cells.[47]
Serum IgA levels
Generally elevated in HIV infected persons. Serum IgA can be measured by simple immunodiffusion method using reference anti IgA.[48]
Serum cytokine levels

 ~ Soluble receptors for TNF a and acid labile endogenous IFN Top

While each of these quantities may have some value as a marker of disease activity, they have not been evaluated as carefully as the parameters discussed above and at present do not play a major role in laboratory monitoring of patients with HIV-I infection.[20],[34]

 ~ Soluble Interleukin -2- receptor levels Top

Levels are generally elevated in AIDS and data suggest a good correlation with the disease stage as indicated by CD4 + T cell level.[49] Assay can be done by EIA which uses standard anti - IL2 receptor capture antibody and a peroxidase coupled secondary anti soluble IL2 receptor antibody.

 ~ Summary Top

Plasma HIV RNA load, though most representative and sensitive laboratory test for progression of HIV infection which respond to antiretroviral therapy, is not practical in monitoring progression of HIV because of cost, quality control issues, testing strategies and acceptable post therapy levels of viral load.
In practice, the clinician should use at least two markers to monitor disease progression. CD4 cell count, CD4 cell percentage of the total lymphocyte count and b2-m levels are collectively the best markers of the risk of disease progression. Recent findings[18] indicate that the progression to AIDS can be best predicated by measuring the level of T4 subset in combination with serum neopterin level, followed in descending order by b2-m, IgA and IL-2 receptors. However, these indirect predictors are of little value if direct tests for HIV antigen or antibody show a negative test result. The clinical disease spectrum, the risk of opportunistic infections, and the decision to start antiretroviral therapy and antimicrobial chemoprophylaxis are all dependent on the stage of disease as indicated by these surrogate markers. In addition, the response to antiretroviral therapy is often reflected in improvement in surrogate markers.[50],[51] 

 ~ References Top

1.Munoz A, Wang MC, Bass S, Taylor JM, Kingsley LA, et al. Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) free time after human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) seroconversion in homosexual men. Am J Epidemiol 1989;130:530-539.  Back to cited text no. 1    
2.Phair J, Jacobson L, Detels R, Rinaldo C, Saah A, et al. Acquired immune deficiency syndrome occurring within 5 years of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. The multicenter AIDS cohort study. J AIDS 1992;5:490-496.  Back to cited text no. 2    
3.Sheppard HW, Lang W, Ascher MS, Vittinghoff E, Winkelstein W. The characteristics of non progressors: long term HIV-1 infection with stable CD4+ T cell levels. AIDS 1993;7:1159-1166.  Back to cited text no. 3    
4.Kaslow RA, Duquesnoy R, VanRaden M, Kingsley L, Marrari M, et al. A1, Cw7, B8, DR3 HLA antigen combination associated with rapid decline of T helper lymphocytes in HIV-1 infection. A report from multicenter AIDS cohort study. Lancet 1990;335:927-930.  Back to cited text no. 4    
5.Webster A, Lee CA, Cook DG, Grundy JE, Emery VC, et al. Cytomegalovirus infection and progression towards AIDS in haemophiliacs with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Lancet 1989;2:63-66.  Back to cited text no. 5    
6.Dar L, Singh YGK. Laboratory tests for monitoring stage and progression of HIV infection. In HIV testing manual by NICD and NACO 1999:114-125.  Back to cited text no. 6    
7.Lifson AR, Hessol NA, Buchbinder SP, O' Malley PM, Barnhart L, et al. Serum [2]microglobulin and prediction of progression to AIDS in HIV infection. Lancet 1992;339:1436-1440.  Back to cited text no. 7    
8.Tsoukas CM, Bernard NF. Markers predicting progression of human immunodeficiency virus related disease. Clin Microbial Rev 1994;7:14-28.  Back to cited text no. 8    
9.Redfield RR, Wright DC, Tramont EC. The walter reed staging classification for HTLV-III/LAV infection. N Engl J Med 1986;314:131-132.  Back to cited text no. 9    
10.Phair J, Munoz A, Detels R, Kaslow R, Rinaldo C, et al. The risk of pneumocystis carinii pneumonia among men infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Multicenter AIDS cohort study group. N Engl J Med 1990;332:161-165.  Back to cited text no. 10    
11.Fahey JL, Taylor JMG, Detels R, Hofmann B, Melmed RBS, et al. The prognostic value of cellular and serologic markers in infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med 1990;322:166-172.  Back to cited text no. 11    
12.Blatt SP, Hendrix CW, Butzin CA, Freeman TM, Ward WW, et al. Delayed type hypersensitivity skin testing predicts progression to AIDS in HIV infected patients. Ann Intern Med 1993;119:177-184.  Back to cited text no. 12    
13.Allain JP, Laurian Y, Paul DA, Verroust F, Leuther M, et al. Long term evaluation of HIV antigen and antibodies to p24 and gp 41 in patients with hemophilia. Potential clinical importance. N Engl J Med 1987;317:1114-1121.  Back to cited text no. 13    
14.de Wolf, Goudsmit J, Paul DA, Lange JM, Hooijkaas C, et al. Risk of AIDS related complex and AIDS in homosexual men with persistent HIV antigenaemia Br Med J 1987;295:569-572.  Back to cited text no. 14    
15.Koot M, Keet IPM, Vos AHV, de Goede REY, Roos MTL, et al. Prognostic value of HIV-I syncytium inducing phenotype for rate of CD4+ cell depletion and progression to AIDS. Ann Intern Med 1993;118:681-688.  Back to cited text no. 15    
16.Mellors JW, Kingsley LA, Rinaldo CR, Todd JA, Hoo BS, et al. Quantitation of HIV-1 RNA in plasma predicts outcome after seroconversion. Ann Intern Med 1995;122:573-579.  Back to cited text no. 16    
17.Dwyer DE, Adelstein S, Cunningham AL, Dowton DN, Merigan TC. The laboratory in monitoring HIV infection. Part 4.3 In Managing HIV, 1st ed. Graeme Stewart ed. (Australasian medical publishing company Ltd.) 1997;59-61.  Back to cited text no. 17    
18.Saag MS, Holodniy M, Kuritzkes DR, et al. HIV viral load markers in clinical practice. Nature Med 1996;2:625-629.  Back to cited text no. 18    
19.Volberding PA. HIV quantification: clinical applications (editorial). Lancet 1996;347:71-73.  Back to cited text no. 19    
20.Fauci As, Lane HC. HIV disease: AIDS and related disorders. Chapter 308, In: Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 14th ed. Fauci, Braunwald, Isselbacher, Wilson, Martin, Kaspar, Hauser, Longo. Eds. (MC Graw Hill, New York) 1998:1816-1818.  Back to cited text no. 20    
21.Holodniy M, Katzenstein DA, lsraelski DM, Merigan TC. Reduction in plasma human immunodeficiency virus ribonucleic acid following dideoxynucleoside therapy as determined by the polymerase chain reaction. J Clin Invest 1991;88:1755-1759.  Back to cited text no. 21    
22.Mellors JW, Rinaldo CR, Gupta P, et al. Prognosis in HIV-I infection predicted by the quantity of virus in plasma. Science 1996;272:1167-1170.  Back to cited text no. 22    
23.Katzenstein DA, Winters M, Bubp J, et al. Quantitation of human immunodeficiency virus by culture and polymerse chain reaction in response to didanosine after long-term therapy with zidovudine. J Infect Dis 1994;169:416-419.  Back to cited text no. 23    
24.Arora B. Reteroviridae Chapter 64. In: Text book of Microbiology. 1st ed. DR Arora. Ed. (CBS publishers, New Delhi) 1999:493-495.  Back to cited text no. 24    
25.Seth P. Laboratory diagnosis of HIV infection. In: current concepts of microbial infection in immunocompromised host. Proceeding of Indo-US CME, Dec' 28th 1996;35-36.  Back to cited text no. 25    
26.Jackson JB, Henry H, Balfour JR. Practical diagnostic testing for human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Microbial Rev 1998;1:124-138.  Back to cited text no. 26    
27.Goudsmit J, Dewolf F, Paul DA, Epstein LG, Lange JMA, et al. Expression of human immunodeficiency virus antigen (HIV-Ag) in serum and cerebrospinal fluid during acute and chronic infection. Lancet 1986;2:177-180.  Back to cited text no. 27    
28.Pedersen C, Nielsen CM, Vestergaard BF, Gerstoft J, Krogsgaard K, Nielsen JO. Temporal relation of antigenemia and loss of antibodies to core antigens to development of clinical disease in HIV infection. Br Med J 1987;295:567-569.  Back to cited text no. 28    
29.Kenny C, Parkin J, Undershill G, Shah N, Burnell B, et al. HIV antigen testing. Lancet 1987;1:565-566.  Back to cited text no. 29    
30.Daar ES, Moudgil T, Meyer RD, Ho DD. Transient high levels of viremia in patients with primary human immunodeficiency virus type-1 infection. N Engl J Med 1991;324:961-964.  Back to cited text no. 30    
31.Moss AR, Bacchetti P, Osmond D, Krampf W, Chaisson RE, et al. Seropositivity for HIV and the development of AIDS or AIDS related condition: three year follow up of the San Francisco General Hospital cohort. Br Med J 1988;296:745-750.  Back to cited text no. 31    
32.Eyster ME, Ballard JO, Gail MH, Drummond JE, Goedert JJ, et al. Predictive markers for the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) in hemophiliacs: persistence of p24 antigen and low T4 cell count. Ann Intern Med 1989;110:963-969.  Back to cited text no. 32    
33.Burcham J, Marmor M, Dubin N, Tindall B, Cooper DA, et al. CD4 percentage is the best predictor of development of AIDS in a cohort of HIV infected homosexual men. AIDS 1991;5:365-372.  Back to cited text no. 33    
34.Quin JW, Benson EM. It is HIV: Immediate and long term plans. Chapter 24, In : Could it be HIV? 2nd ed. Stewart G. Ed. (Australasian medical publishing company Ltd.) 1994:66-69.  Back to cited text no. 34    
35.Tersmette M, Schuitemaker H. Virulent HIV stains? AIDS 1993; 7: 1123-1125.  Back to cited text no. 35    
36.Kozal MJ, Sharer RW, Winters MA, et al. HIV-1 syncytium inducing phenotype, virus burden, codon 215 reverse transcriptase mutation and CD4 cell decline in zidovudine treated patients. J AIDS 1994;7:832-838.  Back to cited text no. 36    
37.Laboratory diagnosis of HIV infection (NICD- AIDS) DGHS 1992;1:1-2.  Back to cited text no. 37    
38.Phair J, Munoz A, Detels R, Kaslow R, Rinaldo C, et al. The risk of Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia among men infected with human immunodeficiency virus type-1. N Engl J Med 1990;322:161-165.  Back to cited text no. 38    
39.Centers for disease control guidelines for prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia for persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus MMWR 1989;38(S-5):1-9.  Back to cited text no. 39    
40.Volberding PA, Lagakos SW, Koch MA, Pettinelli C, Myers MW, et al. Zidovudine in asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus infection: a controlled trail in persons with fewer than 500 CD4 + cells per cubic millimeter. N Engl J Med 1990;322:941-949.  Back to cited text no. 40    
41.Malone JL, Simms TE, Gray GC, Wagner KF, Burge JR, et al. Sources of variability in repeated T-helper lymphocyte counts from human immunodeficiency virus type-1 infected patients: total lymphocyte count fluctuations and diurnal cycle are important. J AIDS 1990;3:144-151.  Back to cited text no. 41    
42.Fuchs D, Hausen A, Reibnegger G, Werner ER, Dierich MP, et al. Neopterin as a marker for activated cell medicated immunity: application in HIV infection Immunol Today 1988;9:150-155.  Back to cited text no. 42    
43.Ziegler I, Rokos H. Pteridines and the immune response. J Immunol Immunopharm 1986;6:169-177.  Back to cited text no. 43    
44.Melmed RN, Taylor JM, Detels R, Bozorgmehri M, Fahey JL. Serum neopterin changes in HIV infected subjects: indicator of significant pathology, CD4 T cell change and the development of AIDS. J AIDS 1989;2:70-76.  Back to cited text no. 44    
45.Hofmann B, Wang Y, Cumberland WG, Detels R, Bozorgmehri M, et al. Serum 2-m level increases in HIV infection: relation to seroconversion, CD4 T cell fall and prognosis. AIDS 1990;4:207-214.  Back to cited text no. 45    
46.Anderson RE, Lang W, Shiboski S, Royce R, Jewell N, et al. Use of 2-m level and CD4 lymphocyte count to predict development of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:73-77.  Back to cited text no. 46    
47.Easterbrook P. Surrogate markers in HIV infection. Venerology 1993;6:126.  Back to cited text no. 47    
48.Rai A, Kumari S. Current trends in the laboratory diagnosis of HIV infection. Trans Assoc AIDS and other Infect 1990;8:34-43.  Back to cited text no. 48    
49.Prince HE, Kleinman S, Williams AE. Soluble IL-2 receptor levels in blood donors seropositive for HIV. J Immunol 1988;140:1139-1141.  Back to cited text no. 49    
50.Bass HZ, Hardy D, Mitsuyasu RT, et al. The effect of zidovudine treatment on serum neopterin and 2-m levels in mildly symptomatic HIV type 1 seropositive individuals. J AIDS 1992;5:215-221.  Back to cited text no. 50    
51.Fischl MA, Richman DD, Hansen N, Collier AC, Carey JT, et al. The safety and efficacy of zidovudine (AZT) in the treatment of subjects with mildly symptomatic human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV) infection. A double blind placebo controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 1990;112:727-737.  Back to cited text no. 51    
Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

© 2004 - Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published by Medknow

Online since April 2001, new site since 1st August '04