Safest Maximum VL?

[BlindRawFucker1]

Poz undetectable is of course, the least risky.

 

Have there been any studies on what is the safest, least risky maximum VL that you can take?

 

I read somewhere on here, that a VL as low as 380 is risky.  Anyone have other numbers?

 

I realize that everyone is different, but I was just wondering.

 

Thanks

[funpozbottom]

The numbers change as better information is available, but the last I remember reading is that under 20 is considered "undetectable". (20 is the margin of error for the machines estimating viral load.)  A VL of 50 is considered "non-transmittable". From there, risk increases as VL increases. A VL of 1,500 is considered "infectious".  Also, keep in mind that viral load can vary from day to day so actual load may be different that a test result.

[timfreo]

It's the CD4 level which is critical

[viking8x6]

This is a nearly unanswerable question because of the way studies work (by statistical sampling).  That said, here's a link to a pretty interesting study of HIV transmission rates (the overall rate of new transmissions in a community) at a bunch of sites in India with many thousands of participants: [think before following links] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4863069/

Their conclusion is that the prevalence of viral load >150 copies/mL (that was their arbitrary cutoff for "viremia") was by far the most highly correlated measure with higher transmission rates. It was a much better predictor than number of people on HAART, average viral load of people who knew they were HIV+, or viral load of people on HAART. That's the measurable fact. And now you see why I say the original question is hard to answer - the facts you can measure just don't answer the question.

[aklgaybtm]

Just... go buy a book on Probabilities!