Dataset Information

Pretreatment integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance in North Carolina from 2010-2016.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:We sought to define the prevalence of pretreatment integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance and assess the transmission networks of those with pretreatment INSTI resistance. DESIGN:A retrospective cohort study of HIV-positive patients with genotypic resistance testing sent to a single referral laboratory in North Carolina between 2010 and 2016. METHODS:We linked genotype and public health data for in-care HIV-positive individuals to determine the prevalence of INSTI resistance among treatment-naive (defined as those with a first genotype ?3 months after diagnosis) and treatment-experienced (defined as those with a first genotype >3 months after diagnosis) patients. We performed molecular and phylogenetic analyses to assess whether pretreatment INSTI resistance mutations represented clustered HIV transmission. RESULTS:Of 8825 individuals who contributed sequences for protease, reverse transcriptase, or INSTI genotypic resistance testing during the study period, 2784 (31%) contributed at least one sequence for INSTI resistance testing. Of these, 840 were treatment-naive individuals and 20 [2.4%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.5, 3.6%] had INSTI mutations; only two (0.2%, 95% CI: 0.02, 0.9%) had major mutations. Of 1944 treatment-experienced individuals, 9.6% (95% CI: 8.3, 11.0%) had any INSTI mutation and 7.0% (95% CI: 5.9, 8.3%) had major mutations; the prevalence of INSTI mutations among treatment-experienced patients decreased overtime (P?

SUBMITTER: Menza TW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6761699 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pretreatment integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance in North Carolina from 2010-2016.

Menza Timothy W TW Billock Rachael R Samoff Erika E Eron Joseph J JJ Dennis Ann M AM

AIDS (London, England) 20171001 16

<h4>Objective</h4>We sought to define the prevalence of pretreatment integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance and assess the transmission networks of those with pretreatment INSTI resistance.<h4>Design</h4>A retrospective cohort study of HIV-positive patients with genotypic resistance testing sent to a single referral laboratory in North Carolina between 2010 and 2016.<h4>Methods</h4>We linked genotype and public health data for in-care HIV-positive individuals to determine the pre ...[more]

PMID: 28991024

Similar Datasets

Project description:There has been no systematic review of the prevalence of transmitted integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance. We systematically searched the English-language PubMed database and GenBank to identify studies published since 2010 reporting 50 or more INSTI-naive HIV-1-infected adults undergoing integrase genotyping. We extracted data related to country, sample year, specimen type, sequencing method, and subtype. For studies with sequences in GenBank, we determined the prevalence of three categories of INSTI-associated resistance mutations: (1) nonpolymorphic INSTI-selected drug resistance mutations (DRMs) that we refer to as surveillance DRMs; (2) rarely selected nonpolymorphic INSTI-associated DRMs; and (3) common polymorphic accessory INSTI-selected DRMs. A total of 103 studies met inclusion criteria including 75 studies in GenBank containing integrase sequences from 16,481 INSTI-naive persons. The median sample year was 2013 (interquartile range: 2008-2014). The prevalence of INSTI surveillance DRMs, rarely selected DRMs, and common polymorphic accessory INSTI-selected DRMs were 0.5%, 0.8%, and 6.2%, respectively. There was no association between the presence of nonpolymorphic surveillance DRM and region, sample year, or subtype. Two surveillance DRMs, E138K and R263K occurred in 0.15% and 0.10% of naive sequences, respectively. Several lines of evidence suggested that the 0.5% prevalence of surveillance DRMs partly reflects the cumulative natural occurrence of these mutations in the absence of selective drug pressure. There was an unexplained temporal increase in the proportion of sequences with polymorphic accessory mutations. The prevalence of INSTI-associated surveillance DRMs is low even in regions where INSTIs have been a major component of antiretroviral therapy for several years. The presence of INSTI-associated surveillance DRMs in INSTI-naive persons likely results from actual cases of transmitted INSTI resistance and from a low background level reflecting the cumulative rare natural occurrence of several nonpolymorphic mutations.

Project description:In the SAILING study, dolutegravir demonstrated superior virologic efficacy compared with raltegravir in treatment-experienced, integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-naive patients with HIV-1 who harbored resistance to ≥2 antiretroviral drug classes. Significantly fewer dolutegravir-treated patients demonstrated virologic failure with treatment-emergent resistance than raltegravir-treated patients through 48 weeks. Investigator-selected background therapy (ISBT) included at least one fully active agent, selected on the basis of resistance analysis. Genotypic and phenotypic resistance testing were performed on baseline and time-of-failure samples from patients with protocol-defined virologic failure (PDVF). A post hoc analysis of SAILING (N = 715; 354 dolutegravir, 361 raltegravir) assessed efficacy in subpopulations defined by ISBT activity, resistance profiles, and treatment history. When ISBT contained only nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), PDVF occurred in 0% (0/32) of dolutegravir-treated patients and 21.9% (7/32) of raltegravir-treated patients (p = .005). In patients harboring M184 V whose ISBT contained lamivudine or emtricitabine plus a second NRTI, 0% (0/13) of dolutegravir- and 33.3% (4/12) of raltegravir-treated patients (p = .026) experienced PDVF. Among patients receiving protease inhibitor (PI)-containing ISBT, 6.0% (18/300) of dolutegravir-treated patients versus 11.8% (36/305) of raltegravir-treated patients (p = .012) experienced PDVF. Darunavir/ritonavir was part of ISBT in 130 dolutegravir-treated patients and 145 raltegravir-treated patients; 6 (4.6%) and 12 (8.3%), respectively, experienced PDVF (difference -3.7%; 95% confidence interval: -10.1% to 2.5%; p = .256). There was no or less virologic failure in treatment-experienced, INSTI-naive subjects receiving dolutegravir versus raltegravir, even when the ISBT was suboptimal or NRTI resistance was present at baseline. These findings are not explained by the use of PI/ritonavir-containing ISBT.

Dataset Information

Pretreatment integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance in North Carolina from 2010-2016.

Publications

Pretreatment integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance in North Carolina from 2010-2016.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets