HIV viral load: the myth of the undetectable?

There is a wealth of data supporting the use of viral load measurements to monitor therapy. Indeed, clinical drug trial endpoints routinely include the proportion of patients with a plasma viral load reduction of greater than 0.5 log(10), or greater than 1 log(10). Since a higher viral load reflects increased amounts of virus replication, it would seem desirable to reduce this replication as far as possible, so that the goal of therapy has become one of viral undetectability in plasma. However, virological suppression to undetectable levels is not an absolute determinant of outcome because recent observational cohort data suggest that any significant reduction of viral load is associated with clinical benefit. There are also technical problems when attempting to measure undetectability, with lower limits of detection of 400 or 50 RNA copies/ml of plasma being driven more by the performance of commercial assays than by any inherent cut-off value with proven prognostic significance. Furthermore, the obsession with undetectability has created the concept of the 'viral blip', or 'intermittent viraemia' commonly defined as a single viral load measurement of between 50 and 400 copies/ml, preceded and followed by consistent measurements of less than 50 copies/ml, in a patient receiving therapy. Such blips should be considered in the context of frequent transient changes in viral load which occur below the lower limit of detection by existing laboratory assays. In my view, there remains a misunderstanding about the importance ascribed to these relatively minor changes in lower detection limits, when considered against the background of virus within the body as a whole. I also consider other possible uses of HIV-1 quantification in clinical practice, such as identifying the inherent potency of antiviral regimens.