For routine monitoring purposes, viral load testing should be performed on plasma. The viral load assays can be adapted to perform well in other compartments including cerebrospinal PLX3397 manufacturer fluid (CSF) and seminal plasma. However, routine monitoring of viral load in compartments other than plasma is not currently recommended because of undemonstrated clinical utility or practicality (IV). Testing of CSF collected from patients with neurological

disease should be considered, especially in patients with suppressed plasma viral load (III). Using sensitive testing methods in research settings, HIV-1 RNA can be detected in plasma in a large proportion of patients receiving standard ART regimens and showing a viral load stably below 50 copies/mL for many years [1-10]. This residual viraemia is not generally associated with the emergence of drug resistance or low antiretroviral drug levels in plasma [8, 11, 12], and is not responsive to short-term intensification with efavirenz, ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, enfuvirtide or raltegravir

this website [8-10]. These findings are shedding new light on the significance of low-level viraemia detected by routine viral load assays during ART, while falling short of providing clear guidance for its management in patients receiving standard ART regimens. As a consequence of technical fluctuation around the cut-off level of quantification, routine viral load assays are more likely to report low-level viraemia above 50 copies/mL in treated patients who have a level of residual viraemia just below the assay cut-off (e.g. around 30 copies/mL), as seen in some patients [8]. The detection of this residual viraemia is likely to be technically inconsistent, leading to the phenomenon of viral load ‘blips’. Viral load ‘blips’ are defined as transient rises in viral load to levels above the lower detectable limit of the assay [13]. Although currently there

is no consensus definition, in practice a blip is considered to be a single viral load measurement of 50–1000 copies/mL preceded Farnesyltransferase and followed by a measurement of fewer than 50 copies/mL. It is controversial whether blips are associated with an increased risk of virological failure, although most studies show that isolated blips are of little clinical significance [14-17]. The scenario is different, however, for patients with two or more consecutive measurements above 50 copies/mL [17] and possibly for patients with frequent blips, as these are more likely to experience virological rebound above 400 copies/mL. These patients may benefit from intervention to review expected drug potency, adherence and tolerability, and drug resistance, and modifications of therapy should be considered in line with treatment guidelines [18].