T Nguyen1, D B Fofana2, M P Lê3, C Charpentier4, G Peytavin3, M Wirden1, S Lambert-Niclot2, N Desire1, M Grude5, L Morand-Joubert2, P Flandre5, C Katlama6, D Descamps4, V Calvez1, E Todesco1, A G Marcelin1. 1. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (iPLESP), AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Laboratoire de virologie, F-75013 Paris, France. 2. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (iPLESP), AP-HP, Hôpital Saint-Antoine, Laboratoire de virologie, F-75012 Paris, France. 3. IAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, AP-HP, Département de Pharmaco-Toxicologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France. 4. IAME, UMR 1137, INSERM, Université Paris Diderot, Sorbonne Paris Cité, AP-HP, Laboratoire de Virologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Paris, France. 5. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (iPLESP), F-75013 Paris, France. 6. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique (iPLESP), AP-HP, Hôpital Pitié-Salpêtrière, Service de maladies infectieuses, F-75013 Paris, France.
Abstract
Background: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended by international guidelines as first-line therapy in antiretroviral-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Objectives: This study aimed at evaluating the prevalence at failure of INSTI-resistant variants and the impact of baseline minority resistant variants (MiRVs) on the virological response to an INSTI-based regimen. Methods: Samples at failure of 134 patients failing a raltegravir-containing (n = 65), an elvitegravir-containing (n = 20) or a dolutegravir-containing (n = 49) regimen were sequenced by Sanger sequencing and ultra-deep sequencing (UDS). Baseline samples of patients with virological failure (VF) (n = 34) and of those with virological success (VS) (n = 31) under INSTI treatment were sequenced by UDS. Data were analysed using the SmartGene platform, and resistance was interpreted according to the ANRS algorithm version 27. Results: At failure, the prevalence of at least one INSTI-resistant variant was 39.6% by Sanger sequencing and 57.5% by UDS, changing the interpretation of resistance in 17/134 (13%) patients. Among 53 patients harbouring at least one resistance mutation detected by both techniques, the most dominant INSTI resistance mutations were N155H (45%), Q148H/K/R (23%), T97A (19%) and Y143C (11%). There was no difference in prevalence of baseline MiRVs between patients with VF and those with VS. MiRVs found at baseline in patients with VF were not detected at failure either in majority or minority mutations. Conclusions: UDS is more sensitive than Sanger sequencing at detecting INSTI MiRVs at treatment failure. The presence of MiRVs at failure could be important to the decision to switch to other INSTIs. However, there was no association between the presence of baseline MiRVs and the response to INSTI-based therapies in our study.
Background: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended by international guidelines as first-line therapy in antiretroviral-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infectedpatients. Objectives: This study aimed at evaluating the prevalence at failure of INSTI-resistant variants and the impact of baseline minority resistant variants (MiRVs) on the virological response to an INSTI-based regimen. Methods: Samples at failure of 134 patients failing a raltegravir-containing (n = 65), an elvitegravir-containing (n = 20) or a dolutegravir-containing (n = 49) regimen were sequenced by Sanger sequencing and ultra-deep sequencing (UDS). Baseline samples of patients with virological failure (VF) (n = 34) and of those with virological success (VS) (n = 31) under INSTI treatment were sequenced by UDS. Data were analysed using the SmartGene platform, and resistance was interpreted according to the ANRS algorithm version 27. Results: At failure, the prevalence of at least one INSTI-resistant variant was 39.6% by Sanger sequencing and 57.5% by UDS, changing the interpretation of resistance in 17/134 (13%) patients. Among 53 patients harbouring at least one resistance mutation detected by both techniques, the most dominant INSTI resistance mutations were N155H (45%), Q148H/K/R (23%), T97A (19%) and Y143C (11%). There was no difference in prevalence of baseline MiRVs between patients with VF and those with VS. MiRVs found at baseline in patients with VF were not detected at failure either in majority or minority mutations. Conclusions: UDS is more sensitive than Sanger sequencing at detecting INSTI MiRVs at treatment failure. The presence of MiRVs at failure could be important to the decision to switch to other INSTIs. However, there was no association between the presence of baseline MiRVs and the response to INSTI-based therapies in our study.
Authors: Jessica M Fogel; David Bonsall; Vanessa Cummings; Rory Bowden; Tanya Golubchik; Mariateresa de Cesare; Ethan A Wilson; Theresa Gamble; Carlos Del Rio; D Scott Batey; Kenneth H Mayer; Jason E Farley; James P Hughes; Robert H Remien; Chris Beyrer; Christophe Fraser; Susan H Eshleman Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-12-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Philip L Tzou; Soo-Yon Rhee; Diane Descamps; Dana S Clutter; Bradley Hare; Orna Mor; Maxime Grude; Neil Parkin; Michael R Jordan; Silvia Bertagnolio; Jonathan M Schapiro; P Richard Harrigan; Anna Maria Geretti; Anne-Geneviève Marcelin; Robert W Shafer Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Anna Maria Geretti; Jose Luis Blanco; Anne Genevieve Marcelin; Carlo Federico Perno; Hans Jurgen Stellbrink; Dan Turner; Tuba Zengin Journal: Infect Dis Ther Date: 2022-08-01
Authors: Philip L Tzou; Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond; Santiago Avila-Rios; Susan P Holmes; Rami Kantor; Robert W Shafer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jean L Mbisa; Juan Ledesma; Peter Kirwan; David F Bibby; Carmen Manso; Andrew Skingsley; Gary Murphy; Alison Brown; David T Dunn; Valerie Delpech; Anna Maria Geretti Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2020-11-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Alina Kirichenko; Ilya Lapovok; Pavel Baryshev; David A M C van de Vijver; Jeroen J A van Kampen; Charles A B Boucher; Dimitrios Paraskevis; Dmitry Kireev Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-07-31 Impact factor: 5.048
Authors: Ronit R Dalmat; Negar Makhsous; Gregory G Pepper; Amalia Magaret; Keith R Jerome; Anna Wald; Alexander L Greninger Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-11-27 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Keylie M Gibson; Margaret C Steiner; Uzma Rentia; Matthew L Bendall; Marcos Pérez-Losada; Keith A Crandall Journal: Viruses Date: 2020-07-14 Impact factor: 5.048