Wan-Lin Yang1, Roger Kouyos1, Alexandra U Scherrer1, Jürg Böni2, Cyril Shah2, Sabine Yerly3, Thomas Klimkait4, Vincent Aubert5, Hansjakob Furrer6, Manuel Battegay7, Matthias Cavassini8, Enos Bernasconi9, Pietro Vernazza10, Leonhard Held11, Bruno Ledergerber1, Huldrych F Günthard1. 1. Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Zurich. 2. Swiss National Center for Retroviruses, Institute of Medical Virology. 3. Laboratory of Virology, Division of Infectious Diseases, Geneva University Hospital. 4. Department of Biomedicine-Petersplatz, University of Basel. 5. Division of Immunology and Allergy. 6. Department of Infectious Diseases, Berne University Hospital and University of Berne. 7. Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Basel. 8. Division of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Lausanne. 9. Division of Infectious Diseases, Regional Hospital Lugano. 10. Division of Infectious Diseases, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, Switzerland. 11. Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transmitted human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV) drug resistance (TDR) mutations are transmitted from nonresponding patients (defined as patients with no initial response to treatment and those with an initial response for whom treatment later failed) or from patients who are naive to treatment. Although the prevalence of drug resistance in patients who are not responding to treatment has declined in developed countries, the prevalence of TDR mutations has not. Mechanisms causing this paradox are poorly explored. METHODS: We included recently infected, treatment-naive patients with genotypic resistance tests performed ≤ 1 year after infection and before 2013. Potential risk factors for TDR mutations were analyzed using logistic regression. The association between the prevalence of TDR mutations and population viral load (PVL) among treated patients during 1997-2011 was estimated with Poisson regression for all TDR mutations and individually for the most frequent resistance mutations against each drug class (ie, M184V/L90M/K103N). RESULTS: We included 2421 recently infected, treatment-naive patients and 5399 patients with no response to treatment. The prevalence of TDR mutations fluctuated considerably over time. Two opposing developments could explain these fluctuations: generally continuous increases in the prevalence of TDR mutations (odds ratio, 1.13; P = .010), punctuated by sharp decreases in the prevalence when new drug classes were introduced. Overall, the prevalence of TDR mutations increased with decreasing PVL (rate ratio [RR], 0.91 per 1000 decrease in PVL; P = .033). Additionally, we observed that the transmitted high-fitness-cost mutation M184V was positively associated with the PVL of nonresponding patients carrying M184V (RR, 1.50 per 100 increase in PVL; P < .001). Such association was absent for K103N (RR, 1.00 per 100 increase in PVL; P = .99) and negative for L90M (RR, 0.75 per 100 increase in PVL; P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of antiretroviral drug resistance is temporarily reduced by the introduction of new drug classes and driven by nonresponding and treatment-naive patients. These findings suggest a continuous need for new drugs, early detection/treatment of HIV-1 infection.
BACKGROUND: Transmitted human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV) drug resistance (TDR) mutations are transmitted from nonresponding patients (defined as patients with no initial response to treatment and those with an initial response for whom treatment later failed) or from patients who are naive to treatment. Although the prevalence of drug resistance in patients who are not responding to treatment has declined in developed countries, the prevalence of TDR mutations has not. Mechanisms causing this paradox are poorly explored. METHODS: We included recently infected, treatment-naive patients with genotypic resistance tests performed ≤ 1 year after infection and before 2013. Potential risk factors for TDR mutations were analyzed using logistic regression. The association between the prevalence of TDR mutations and population viral load (PVL) among treated patients during 1997-2011 was estimated with Poisson regression for all TDR mutations and individually for the most frequent resistance mutations against each drug class (ie, M184V/L90M/K103N). RESULTS: We included 2421 recently infected, treatment-naive patients and 5399 patients with no response to treatment. The prevalence of TDR mutations fluctuated considerably over time. Two opposing developments could explain these fluctuations: generally continuous increases in the prevalence of TDR mutations (odds ratio, 1.13; P = .010), punctuated by sharp decreases in the prevalence when new drug classes were introduced. Overall, the prevalence of TDR mutations increased with decreasing PVL (rate ratio [RR], 0.91 per 1000 decrease in PVL; P = .033). Additionally, we observed that the transmitted high-fitness-cost mutation M184V was positively associated with the PVL of nonresponding patients carrying M184V (RR, 1.50 per 100 increase in PVL; P < .001). Such association was absent for K103N (RR, 1.00 per 100 increase in PVL; P = .99) and negative for L90M (RR, 0.75 per 100 increase in PVL; P = .022). CONCLUSIONS: Transmission of antiretroviral drug resistance is temporarily reduced by the introduction of new drug classes and driven by nonresponding and treatment-naive patients. These findings suggest a continuous need for new drugs, early detection/treatment of HIV-1 infection.
Authors: Huldrych F Günthard; Michael S Saag; Constance A Benson; Carlos del Rio; Joseph J Eron; Joel E Gallant; Jennifer F Hoy; Michael J Mugavero; Paul E Sax; Melanie A Thompson; Rajesh T Gandhi; Raphael J Landovitz; Davey M Smith; Donna M Jacobsen; Paul A Volberding Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter Rusert; Roger D Kouyos; Claus Kadelka; Hanna Ebner; Merle Schanz; Michael Huber; Dominique L Braun; Nathanael Hozé; Alexandra Scherrer; Carsten Magnus; Jacqueline Weber; Therese Uhr; Valentina Cippa; Christian W Thorball; Herbert Kuster; Matthias Cavassini; Enos Bernasconi; Matthias Hoffmann; Alexandra Calmy; Manuel Battegay; Andri Rauch; Sabine Yerly; Vincent Aubert; Thomas Klimkait; Jürg Böni; Jacques Fellay; Roland R Regoes; Huldrych F Günthard; Alexandra Trkola Journal: Nat Med Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Sara Lodi; Huldrych F Günthard; John Gill; Andrew N Phillips; David Dunn; Quang Vu; Reed Siemieniuk; Federico Garcia; Roger Logan; Sophie Jose; Heiner C Bucher; Alexandra U Scherrer; Peter Reiss; Ard van Sighem; T Sonia Boender; Kholoud Porter; Richard Gilson; Dimitrios Paraskevis; Metallidis Simeon; Georgia Vourli; Santiago Moreno; Inmaculada Jarrin; Caroline Sabin; Miguel A Hernán Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 3.771
Authors: Huyen Nguyen; Benjamin Hampel; David Garcia Nuñez; Manuel Battegay; Anna Hachfeld; Enos Bernasconi; Alexandra Calmy; Matthias Cavassini; Pietro Vernazza; Jacques Fellay; Hannes Rudolph; Michael Huber; Karoline Leuzinger; Matthieu Perreau; Alexandra Scherrer; Alban Nicolas Ramette; Sabine Yerly; Huldrych F Günthard; Roger D Kouyos; Katharina Kusejko Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 20.999