Despite the success of antiretroviral therapy in controlling HIV replication, latent viral reservoirs persist, presenting a major barrier to a cure. Current treatment approaches that aim to reactivate latent virus and eliminate infected cells, termed “shock and kill,” hold promise but have yet to demonstrate meaningful reservoir reduction in vivo. In this study, we explored combining ciapavir, a Smac mimetic latency-reversing agent, with adeno-associated virus–delivered (AAV-delivered) eCD4-Ig to treat antiretroviral therapy–suppressed, SHIV-infected rhesus macaques. We could demonstrate that a Smac mimetic can induce modest reactivation of the latent SHIV reservoir, as evidenced by transient increases in plasma viremia. However, while AAV-expressed eCD4-Ig conferred partial protection against intrarectal SHIV challenge in uninfected animals, neither eCD4-Ig nor ciapavir reduced the viral reservoir in SHIV-infected rhesus macaques, as determined by total SHIV DNA and a 5-target intact provirus detection assay. Animals treated with the combination showed no significant differences in viral rebound kinetics post–analytical treatment interruption compared with controls. Additionally, repeated ciapavir dosing resulted in adverse effects in some animals, suggesting potential toxicity with repeat administration. These findings highlight the challenges in reducing viral reservoirs using this shock-and-kill approach, particularly in SHIV-infected models, and suggest that further optimization of both latency-reversing agent and immune-mediated clearance strategies is required.
Lars Pache, John K. Bui, Lindsay M. Klouser, Christine M. Fennessey, Alexander C. Noyola, Teresa Einhaus, Haiying Zhu, Laurence Stensland, Isai Leguizamo, Abubakarr A. Koroma, Peter Teriete, W.L. William Chang, Ollivier Hyrien, Natasha N. Duggan, Dominik Heimann, Ailyn C. Pérez-Osorio, Katharine J. Bar, Nicholas D.P. Cosford, Brandon F. Keele, Dennis J. Hartigan-O’Connor, Michael Farzan, Matthew R. Gardner, Keith R. Jerome, Sumit K. Chanda, Hans-Peter Kiem, Christopher W. Peterson
Usage data is cumulative from March 2026 through July 2026.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 1,839 | 0 |
| 469 | 0 | |
| Figure | 1,069 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 199 | 0 |
| Citation downloads | 117 | 0 |
| Totals | 3,693 | 0 |
| Total Views | 3,693 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.