OBJECTIVE: Characterize failure and resistance above and below guidelines-recommended 1000 copies/ml virologic threshold, upon second-line failure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Kenyan adults on lopinavir/ritonavir-based second-line were enrolled at AMPATH (Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare). Charts were reviewed for demographic/clinical characteristics and CD4/viral load were obtained. Participants with detectable viral load had a second visit and pol genotyping was attempted in both visits. Accumulated resistance was defined as mutations in the second, not the first visit. Low-level viremia (LLV) was detectable viral load less than 1000 copies/ml. Failure and resistance associations were evaluated using logistic and Poisson regression, Fisher Exact and t-tests. RESULTS: Of 394 participants (median age 42, 60% women, median 1.9 years on second-line) 48% had detectable viral load; 21% had viral load more than 1000 copies/ml, associated with younger age, tuberculosis treatment, shorter time on second-line, lower CD4count/percentage, longer first-line treatment interruption and pregnancy. In 105 sequences from the first visit (35 with LLV), 79% had resistance (57% dual-class, 7% triple-class; 46% with intermediate-to-high-level resistance to ≥1 future drug option). LLV was associated with more overall and NRTI-associated mutations and with predicted resistance to more next-regimen drugs. In 48 second-visit sequences (after median 55 days; IQR 28-33), 40% accumulated resistance and LLV was associated with more mutation accumulation. CONCLUSION: High resistance upon second-line failure exists at levels above and below guideline-recommended virologic-failure threshold, impacting future treatment options. Optimization of care should include increased viral load monitoring, resistance testing and third-line ART access, and consideration of lowering the virologic failure threshold, though this demands further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: Characterize failure and resistance above and below guidelines-recommended 1000 copies/ml virologic threshold, upon second-line failure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Kenyan adults on lopinavir/ritonavir-based second-line were enrolled at AMPATH (Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare). Charts were reviewed for demographic/clinical characteristics and CD4/viral load were obtained. Participants with detectable viral load had a second visit and pol genotyping was attempted in both visits. Accumulated resistance was defined as mutations in the second, not the first visit. Low-level viremia (LLV) was detectable viral load less than 1000 copies/ml. Failure and resistance associations were evaluated using logistic and Poisson regression, Fisher Exact and t-tests. RESULTS: Of 394 participants (median age 42, 60% women, median 1.9 years on second-line) 48% had detectable viral load; 21% had viral load more than 1000 copies/ml, associated with younger age, tuberculosis treatment, shorter time on second-line, lower CD4count/percentage, longer first-line treatment interruption and pregnancy. In 105 sequences from the first visit (35 with LLV), 79% had resistance (57% dual-class, 7% triple-class; 46% with intermediate-to-high-level resistance to ≥1 future drug option). LLV was associated with more overall and NRTI-associated mutations and with predicted resistance to more next-regimen drugs. In 48 second-visit sequences (after median 55 days; IQR 28-33), 40% accumulated resistance and LLV was associated with more mutation accumulation. CONCLUSION: High resistance upon second-line failure exists at levels above and below guideline-recommended virologic-failure threshold, impacting future treatment options. Optimization of care should include increased viral load monitoring, resistance testing and third-line ART access, and consideration of lowering the virologic failure threshold, though this demands further investigation.
Authors: Tristan J Barber; Linda Harrison; David Asboe; Ian Williams; Stuart Kirk; Richard Gilson; Loveleen Bansi; Deenan Pillay; David Dunn Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Kara Wools-Kaloustian; Silvester Kimaiyo; Lameck Diero; Abraham Siika; John Sidle; Constantin T Yiannoutsos; Beverly Musick; Robert Einterz; Kenneth H Fife; William M Tierney Journal: AIDS Date: 2006-01-02 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Allison K Delong; Mingham Wu; Diane Bennett; Neil Parkin; Zhijin Wu; Joseph W Hogan; Rami Kantor Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: K Steegen; M Bronze; M A Papathanasopoulos; G van Zyl; D Goedhals; C Van Vuuren; W Macleod; I Sanne; W S Stevens; S C Carmona Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Sarah Palmer; Mary Kearney; Frank Maldarelli; Elias K Halvas; Christian J Bixby; Holly Bazmi; Diane Rock; Judith Falloon; Richard T Davey; Robin L Dewar; Julia A Metcalf; Scott Hammer; John W Mellors; John M Coffin Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: M A Boyd; N Kumarasamy; C L Moore; C Nwizu; M H Losso; L Mohapi; A Martin; S Kerr; A H Sohn; H Teppler; O Van de Steen; J-M Molina; S Emery; D A Cooper Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-06-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William K Maina; Andrea A Kim; George W Rutherford; Malayah Harper; Boniface O K'Oyugi; Shahnaaz Sharif; George Kichamu; Nicholas M Muraguri; Willis Akhwale; Kevin M De Cock Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2014-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Jennifer A Brown; Herbert A Mbunkah; Thabo I Lejone; Isaac Ringera; Molisana Cheleboi; Thomas Klimkait; Karin J Metzner; Huldrych F Günthard; Niklaus D Labhardt; Roger D Kouyos; Nadine Tschumi Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.835