Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

Volume 3, Number 3—September 1997

Perspective

Resistance, Remission, and Qualitative Differences in HIV Chemotherapy

Denise E. Kirschner*Comments to Author  and G.F. Webb
Author affiliations: *University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA; and †Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Main Article

Figure 4

Four treatment simulations having a common viral set-point of disease progression. The treatment starting values are as in Figure 2. For all four simulations, the treatment parameters are c1=2.0, c2=2.0, c3=.05, the resistance mutation parameter is q=10 -8, and the threshold value is V0=2.0. Remission is achieved for the two lowest viral starting values, but the other two develop resistance. The viral exponential decay rates are -1.4, -.93, -.51, and -.26, which are inversely correlated to the v

Figure 4. Four treatment simulations having a common viral set-point of disease progression. The treatment starting values are as in Figure 2. For all four simulations, the treatment parameters are c1=2.0, c2=2.0, c3=.05, the resistance mutation parameter is q=10 -8, and the threshold value is V0=2.0. Remission is achieved for the two lowest viral starting values, but the other two develop resistance. The viral exponential decay rates are -1.4, -.93, -.51, and -.26, which are inversely correlated to the viral starting values (an indication of rapid suppression of virus in the external lymphoid compartment).

Main Article

TOP