T M Rossouw1, M Nieuwoudt2, J Manasa3,4, G Malherbe1, R J Lessells4,5, S Pillay4, S Danaviah4, P Mahasha1, G van Dyk1, T de Oliveira4,6,7. 1. Department of Immunology, Institute for Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 2. South African Department of Science and Technology/National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. 3. Department of Infectious Diseases, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 4. Africa Centre Population Health, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. 5. Department of Clinical Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 6. Research Department of Infection, University College London, London, UK. 7. School of Laboratory Medicine and Medical Sciences, Nelson R. Mandela School of Medicine, College of Health Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Urban and rural HIV treatment programmes face different challenges in the long-term management of patients. There are few studies comparing drug resistance profiles in patients accessing treatment through these programmes. The aim of this study was to perform such a comparison. METHODS: HIV drug resistance data and associated treatment and monitoring information for adult patients failing first-line therapy in an urban and a rural programme were collected. Data were curated and managed in SATuRN RegaDB before statistical analysis using Microsoft Excel 2013 and stata Ver14, in which clinical parameters, resistance profiles and predicted treatment responses were compared. RESULTS: Data for 595 patients were analysed: 492 patients from a rural setting and 103 patients from an urban setting. The urban group had lower CD4 counts at treatment initiation than the rural group (98 vs. 126 cells/μL, respectively; P = 0.05), had more viral load measurements performed per year (median 3 vs. 1.4, respectively; P < 0.01) and were more likely to have no drug resistance mutations detected (35.9% vs. 11.2%, respectively; P < 0.01). Patients in the rural group were more likely to have been on first-line treatment for a longer period, to have failed for longer, and to have thymidine analogue mutations. Notwithstanding these differences, the two groups had comparable predicted responses to the standard second-line regimen, based on the genotypic susceptibility score. Mutations accumulated in a sigmoidal fashion over failure duration. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency and patterns of drug resistance, as well the intensity of virological monitoring, in adults with first-line therapy failure differed between the urban and rural sites. Despite these differences, based on the genotypic susceptibility scores, the majority of patients across the two sites would be expected to respond well to the standard second-line regimen.
OBJECTIVES: Urban and rural HIV treatment programmes face different challenges in the long-term management of patients. There are few studies comparing drug resistance profiles in patients accessing treatment through these programmes. The aim of this study was to perform such a comparison. METHODS: HIV drug resistance data and associated treatment and monitoring information for adult patients failing first-line therapy in an urban and a rural programme were collected. Data were curated and managed in SATuRN RegaDB before statistical analysis using Microsoft Excel 2013 and stata Ver14, in which clinical parameters, resistance profiles and predicted treatment responses were compared. RESULTS: Data for 595 patients were analysed: 492 patients from a rural setting and 103 patients from an urban setting. The urban group had lower CD4 counts at treatment initiation than the rural group (98 vs. 126 cells/μL, respectively; P = 0.05), had more viral load measurements performed per year (median 3 vs. 1.4, respectively; P < 0.01) and were more likely to have no drug resistance mutations detected (35.9% vs. 11.2%, respectively; P < 0.01). Patients in the rural group were more likely to have been on first-line treatment for a longer period, to have failed for longer, and to have thymidine analogue mutations. Notwithstanding these differences, the two groups had comparable predicted responses to the standard second-line regimen, based on the genotypic susceptibility score. Mutations accumulated in a sigmoidal fashion over failure duration. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency and patterns of drug resistance, as well the intensity of virological monitoring, in adults with first-line therapy failure differed between the urban and rural sites. Despite these differences, based on the genotypic susceptibility scores, the majority of patients across the two sites would be expected to respond well to the standard second-line regimen.
Authors: Yinfeng Zhang; Mariya V Sivay; Sarah E Hudelson; William Clarke; Autumn Breaud; Jing Wang; Estelle Piwowar-Manning; Yaw Agyei; Jessica M Fogel; Erica L Hamilton; Amanda Selin; Catherine MacPhail; Kathleen Kahn; Francesc Xavier Gómez-Olivé; James P Hughes; Audrey Pettifor; Susan H Eshleman Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Karl W Le Roux; Emily C Davis; Charles Benjamin Gaunt; Catherine Young; Maryann Koussa; Carl Harris; Mary Jane Rotheram-Borus Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Jaysingh Brijkumar; Johnathan A Edwards; Brent A Johnson; Claudia Ordonez; Henry Sunpath; Mitch Lee; Mathew R Dudgeon; Lydia Rautman; Selvan Pillay; Pravi Moodley; Y V Sun; José Castillo-Mancilla; Jonathan Z Li; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Mohamed Y S Moosa; Vincent Charles Marconi Journal: HIV Med Date: 2022-01-12 Impact factor: 3.094
Authors: Lucie Abeler-Dörner; Mary K Grabowski; Andrew Rambaut; Deenan Pillay; Christophe Fraser Journal: Curr Opin HIV AIDS Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 4.283
Authors: Elizabeth M Etta; Lufuno Mavhandu; Cecile Manhaeve; Keanan McGonigle; Patrick Jackson; David Rekosh; Marie-Louise Hammarskjold; Pascal O Bessong; Denis M Tebit Journal: AIDS Res Ther Date: 2017-07-27 Impact factor: 2.250
Authors: Julie Kadima; Elizabeth Patterson; Margaret Mburu; Cinthia Blat; Margaret Nyanduko; Elizabeth Anne Bukusi; Craig Cohen; Patrick Oyaro; Lisa Abuogi Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: John Gregson; Pontiano Kaleebu; Vincent C Marconi; Cloete van Vuuren; Nicaise Ndembi; Raph L Hamers; Phyllis Kanki; Christopher J Hoffmann; Shahin Lockman; Deenan Pillay; Tulio de Oliveira; Nathan Clumeck; Gillian Hunt; Bernhard Kerschberger; Robert W Shafer; Chunfu Yang; Elliot Raizes; Rami Kantor; Ravindra K Gupta Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 25.071