Dataset Information

Accumulation of integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance mutations confers high-level resistance to dolutegravir in non-B subtype HIV-1 strains from patients failing raltegravir in Uganda.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Increasing first-line treatment failures in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have led to increased use of integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) such as dolutegravir. However, HIV-1 susceptibility to INSTIs in LMICs, especially with previous raltegravir exposure, is poorly understood due to infrequent reporting of INSTI failures and testing for INSTI drug resistance mutations (DRMs).

Methods

A total of 51 non-subtype B HIV-1 infected patients failing third-line (raltegravir-based) therapy in Uganda were initially selected for the study. DRMs were detected using Sanger and deep sequencing. HIV integrase genes of 13 patients were cloned and replication capacities (RCs) and phenotypic susceptibilities to dolutegravir, raltegravir and elvitegravir were determined with TZM-bl cells. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to determine cross-resistance between INSTIs.

Results

INSTI DRMs were detected in 47% of patients. HIV integrase-recombinant virus carrying one primary INSTI DRM (N155H or Y143R/S) was susceptible to dolutegravir but highly resistant to raltegravir and elvitegravir (>50-fold change). Two patients, one with E138A/G140A/Q148R/G163R and one with E138K/G140A/S147G/Q148K, displayed the highest reported resistance to raltegravir, elvitegravir and even dolutegravir. The former multi-DRM virus had WT RC whereas the latter had lower RCs than WT.

Conclusions

In HIV-1 subtype A- and D-infected patients failing raltegravir and harbouring INSTI DRMs, there is high-level resistance to elvitegravir and raltegravir. More routine monitoring of INSTI treatment may be advised in LMICs, considering that multiple INSTI DRMs may have accumulated during prolonged exposure to raltegravir during virological failure, leading to high-level INSTI resistance, including dolutegravir resistance.

SUBMITTER: Ndashimye E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7662175 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.