| Literature DB >> 28160504 |
Ruth L Goodall1, David T Dunn1, Peter Nkurunziza2, Lincoln Mugarura3, Theresa Pattery4, Paula Munderi3, Cissy Kityo3, Charles Gilks5, Pontiano Kaleebu3, Deenan Pillay6,7, Ravindra K Gupta6,7.
Abstract
Background: Lack of viral load monitoring of ART is known to be associated with slower switch from a failing regimen and thereby higher prevalence of MDR HIV-1. Many countries have continued to use thymidine analogue drugs despite recommendations to use tenofovir in combination with a cytosine analogue and NNRTI as first-line ART. The effect of accumulated thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs) on phenotypic resistance over time has been poorly characterized in the African setting. Patients and methods: A retrospective analysis of individuals with ongoing viral failure between weeks 48 and 96 in the NORA (Nevirapine OR Abacavir) study was conducted. We analysed 36 genotype pairs from weeks 48 and 96 of first-line ART (14 treated with zidovudine/lamivudine/nevirapine and 22 treated with zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir). Phenotypic drug resistance was assessed using the Antivirogram assay (v. 2.5.01, Janssen Diagnostics).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28160504 PMCID: PMC5400089 DOI: 10.1093/jac/dkw583
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother ISSN: 0305-7453 Impact factor: 5.790
Figure 1Flow diagram of participants and samples genotyped and phenotyped. ABC, abacavir; NVP, nevirapine; LTFU, lost to follow-up; VL, viral load.
Figure 2Scatter plot depicting week 48 versus week 96 viral load by treatment group in patients with paired genotypes (n = 36). ABC, abacavir; NVP, nevirapine.
Prevalence of TAMs and M184V in patients with paired genotypes (n = 36) at weeks 48 and 96, by treatment arm
| ABC ( | NVP ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| week 48 | week 96 | week 48 | week 96 | |||||
| % | % | % | % | |||||
| Mutation | ||||||||
| 184V | 22 | 100 | 22 | 100 | 12 | 86 | 13 | 93 |
| 41L | 2 | 9 | 8 | 36 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 29 |
| 67N | 9 | 41 | 15 | 68 | 5 | 36 | 6 | 43 |
| 70R | 9 | 41 | 14 | 64 | 2 | 14 | 4 | 29 |
| 210W | 0 | 0 | 7 | 32 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 36 |
| 215F | 3 | 14 | 7 | 32 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 36 |
| 215Y | 3 | 14 | 9 | 41 | 2 | 14 | 5 | 36 |
| 219QE | 4 | 18 | 11 | 50 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 29 |
| No. of TAMs | ||||||||
| 0 | 9 | 41 | 3 | 14 | 8 | 57 | 3 | 21 |
| 1 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 14 | 1 | 7 |
| 2 | 6 | 27 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 14 | 3 | 21 |
| 3 | 4 | 18 | 4 | 18 | 2 | 14 | 2 | 14 |
| ≥4 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 36 |
ABC, abacavir; NVP, nevirapine.
Figure 3Drug susceptibility of patient-derived virus isolates to abacavir, zidovudine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (modelled as FCs relative to a reference isolate) by treatment group in patients with paired phenotypes (n = 16). ABC, abacavir; NVP, nevirapine; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; ZDV, zidovudine.