Direct stringency comparison of two macaque models (single-high vs. repeat-low) for mucosal HIV transmission using an identical anti-HIV chemoprophylaxis intervention

Shambavi Subbarao, Artur Ramos, Caryn Kim, Debra Adams, Michael Monsour, Sal Butera, Tom Folks, Ron A. Otten

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    20 Scopus citations

    Abstract

    Background: In our previous work, oral chemoprophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) provided partial protection in rhesus macaques against repeated low-dose (RL) intrarectal SHIV162p3 exposure. Results: Here, we make a direct comparison of these previous findings with data generated using a single high (SH)-dose challenge strategy. Methids: All 5 (100%) control macaques were infected after a SH challenge and only three of five (60%) TDF-treated macaques became infected. The remaining two TDF-treated macaques remained virus-negative and were susceptible to virus infection upon re-challenge in the absence of oral TDF. Thus, two of five (40%) TDF-treated macaques were protected by the pre-exposure chemoprophylaxis regimen. By comparison with the RL challenge system, only one of four (25%) of TDF-treated macaques were protected from infection, whereas four of four (100%) control macaques became infected using RL challenges. Conclusion: Taken together, these findings indicate that the stringency of the RL challenge model for testing antiretroviral interventions is not lower and possibly greater than that of the SH challenge model.

    Original languageEnglish (US)
    Pages (from-to)238-243
    Number of pages6
    JournalJournal of medical primatology
    Volume36
    Issue number4-5
    DOIs
    StatePublished - Aug 1 2007

    Keywords

    • HIV intervention
    • Macaque models
    • Mucosal transmission

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Animal Science and Zoology
    • veterinary(all)

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Direct stringency comparison of two macaque models (single-high vs. repeat-low) for mucosal HIV transmission using an identical anti-HIV chemoprophylaxis intervention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this