Aside

What Does Undetectable Viral Load Mean?

Hey there Guys,

Today I received an important article that I thought was vital to share.

Recently there has been many questions poised about success of effective treatment of HIV when it comes to counts of viral load. As I mentioned in my video “What does viral load mean?” I discussed how viral load is a measure of the quantity of HIV virus able to be detected in blood. One question that has never fully been answered is if virus in not capable of being detected in blood does that mean it’s equally as low in other body fluids such as semen.

A recent study in Boston has show that even in people with undetectable viral load in their blood, one quarter did have detectable viral load in their semen. As noted at Edge On The Net:

“Although the potential prevention benefits are compelling, this study demonstrates that even achieving an undetectable viral load in your or your partner’s blood doesn’t necessarily prevent HIV from being transmitted during sex.”

Also noted in the study was that having a sexual infection at the same time increased the risk of having detectable viral load in semen.

Importantly, the study findings show a very strong association with detectable HIV in semen and having a current sexually transmitted infection (STI). Six of the eight men whose HIV were undetectable in blood but detectable in semen had a urethral STI. After adjusting for other factors the researchers concluded that men who had an STI and/or urethritis were 29 times more likely to have viral discordancy.

So what does this mean?

For me this study highlights two important issues.

Firstly we can not rely on the previously held belief that non detectable viral load of blood can be extrapolated to equally low levels of HIV in semen. We need to acknowledge the value of safe sex even when people are on effective treatment for HIV infection. Safe sex can also reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of other sexual infections which can increase the viral count in semen but also the risk of infection with HIV in examples like Chlamydia or Gonorrhoea in the throat.

For sero-discordant partners it’s important to understand these potential risks and to make decisions based upon the latest information.

The study also highlights the importance of regular sexual health check-ups. Early diagnosis of sexual infections leads to early treatment and reduction in further risk of other infections.

This very fact was highlighted to me recently with a patient who saw me with anal pain. Despite practising safe sex with his regular partner what was thought to be haemorrhoids ended out being anal Chlamydia. Through careful discussion we were able to establish that perhaps even with condom usage, insertion of fingers may have lead to infection. Thankfully the treatment was very straight forward and he is back in vibrant health.

Treatment for Chlamydia is simple and straight forward, treatment for HIV secondary to Chlamydia infection is not.

If you have any symptoms such as sore throat, anal pain or discomfort when passing urine it’s important not to discount the potential for a sexual infection. Be sure to talk with your doctor and get tested.

Even when symptom free the current recommendations for sexual check-ups are once a year, or every six months (or sooner) if you have had more than 5 partners in a year, picked up off the internet or attended a sex on premise venue. Be open with your doctor about the sex you have had as it will guide testing i.e. throat swabs if you have had oral sex, and anal swabs if you have had fingers, toys or cocks in your ass.

I have certainly found this study to be an eye opener.

Do you have any thoughts or questions? Feel free to leave a comment below or send me an email.

Yours in good health.

Dr George

,

Geoff Honnor says:

Good question George – I guess my point is that the study didn’t answer it. It’s highly likely that the average of 200 copies detected in the Fenway guys wouldn’t be enough…..but, we don’t know. And given that what we do know about the facilitative role of STIs in HIV transmission is solely in relation to untreated HIV, the mystery endures for the time being.

That being the case, the point I took issue with was the study authors’ advice around safe sex: “It would be prudent to advise sexually active HIV-infected MSM to use condoms and other risk-reduction strategies throughout all stages of HIV disease regardless of HIV treatment status.” I don’t think the findings mesh with that level of alert – sure, if they’d actually determined infectiousness.

I think there’s a risk that kind of advice gets ‘heard” by gaypoz guys as a behaviour controlling device, in the same way that ‘superinfection” warnings got heard in the late 90′s. And it’ss instructive that the readers of Poz magazine seem to share that view.
http://www.poz.com/articles/hiv_semen_transmission_761_22190.shtml

Ken Mayer is actually visiting us here at ACON on Thursday (I’m Director HIV/Sexual Health Programs here) so I’ll let you know how Round II goes :)

Hey there Geoff,

I was just reading the comments to the Poz mag article you posted and 100% with many of the authors. Please don’t at any point think I was trying to reinforce the idea that safe sex is an obligation only for people living with HIV.
As I have always said it takes two people to fuck. If someone offers me bareback sex I simply view that as an offer and I feel safe and confident to counter with the fact I prefer to use condoms.
Sadly the most common time I hear an offer of bare back is from someone who says “i’m HIV neg, are you neg to”? It makes me so freaking frustrated.
We all need to take responsibility for our actions…

Karl Marking says:

GREAT discussion! I was just trying to figure out what the import was behind so many men posting “undetectable viral load” in profiles online (whether for dating or sex) so I thank you for this discussion as I found it very helpful.

In the response from Geoff Honner – the quote he cites begins “It would be prudent to advise…” I think that’s a fairly innocuous remark. It is always ‘prudent’ when one is concerned in any way about contracting any infection or virus to engage in safer sex practices. I don’t perceive that as a value or judgment statement. It is just – prudent. And to George’s April 17 reply – yes, it is so frustrating and yes, we all need to take responsibility for our actions. . . and that is across all things in life – not just our sexual practices or proclivities. Information, responsible informed decisions, and accountability – those to me are the core of most things – even sex. Thanks again for this!!

Geoff Honnor says:

“There was a statement made some time ago that as long as there is no sexual infections and the viral count as undetectable via effective treatment that the risk of infecting other was very low. This study shows that this is not the case.”

Hmmm… I’m not sure it shows that, George. The findings are certainly interesting but variation in blood/semen VL isn’t ‘ new’ and there’s no evidence that any of these guys would have been able to infect anyone with HIV on semen VL copies. In fact looking at the average number of copies recorded, it seems less rather than more likely.

Ken Mayer the co-Director at the Fenway Institute was on a Panel with me on Sunday here in Sydney at a Microbicides Conference PrEP Satellite event. We had a lively discussion about the Fenway 101…. : ) I certainly wouldn’t see VL-based risk reduction as zero risk – even without STI coinfection. As you say, informed choice is the go.

Hey Geoff,
That would have been a very interesting conference indeed! So can you tell us, what was the outcome of your discussion.
I would have thought that having virus in semen would increase the risk of infection i.e. non detectable viral load in blood doesn’t mean there is no virus in semen. Just wondering what your thoughts are.
I understand that it would be likely the VL of semen would be lower then someone not on treatment but how low is low enough to prevent infection?
George

Mike D Boston USA says:

Dr. George,
I also read this article a few days ago and was hoping to hear your views on it. Thanks for commenting on it.
I see guys post on web-sites that thier viral load is undetectable now while being HIV positive. After reading this study and your comments, I am assuming that this really makes no difference in the risk of getting HIV when having sex with these guys. The risk is still there (at least 25%) in these undetectable men. Only “safe sex” is the only way to go when having sex with these men. A HIV positive man saying he is undetectable is giving his sex partner or hookup false hope of being safe.
Thanks,
Mike D
Boston MA USA

Hey there Mike,

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that someone posting that their viral load is undetectable is doing just that. It’s up to you how to interpret that risk and what it means to you. Even if someone told me their viral load was low I would still choose to have safe sex.
Just because someone offers sex without a condom doesn’t mean you have to accept the offer. Everything is up for negotiation.
Most important I feel for those in sore-discordant relationships, in other words when one partner is positive and the other negative. There was a statement made some time ago that as long as there is no sexual infections and the viral count as undetectable via effective treatment that the risk of infecting other was very low. This study shows that this is not the case