Published in:
01-12-2020 | HIV Drug | Research
Comparison of HIV drug resistance profiles across HIV-1 subtypes A and D for patients receiving a tenofovir-based and zidovudine-based first line regimens in Uganda
Published in: AIDS Research and Therapy | Issue 1/2020
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
Resistance to antiretroviral drugs is a major challenge among Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). Mutations that arise as a result of this are diverse across the various drugs, drug classes, drug regimens and subtypes. In Uganda, there is a paucity of information on how these mutations differ among the different drug regimens and the predominant HIV-1 subtypes. The purpose of this study was to determine mutation profile differences between first-line drug regimens: TDF/3TC/EFV and AZT/3TC/EFV and HIV-1 subtypes: A and D in Uganda. The study also investigated the potential usage of rilpivirine, doravirine and etravirine in patients who failed treatment on efavirenz.
Methods
A retrospective study was conducted on 182 archived plasma samples obtained from patients who were experiencing virological failure between 2006 and 2017 at five Joint Clinical Research Center (JCRC) sites in Uganda. Sanger sequencing of the Reverse Transcriptase (RT) gene from codons 1–300 was done. Mutation scores were generated using the Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance Database. A Chi-square test was used to determine the association between drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and drug regimens or HIV-1 subtypes.
Results
The prevalence of DRMs was 84.6% among patients failing a first-line efavirenz (EFV)-based regimen. The most prevalent Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTI) mutations were M184V/I (67.3%), K219/Q/E (22.6%) and K65R (21.1%). While K103N (50.8%) and G190A/S/E/G (29.1%) were the most prevalent Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NNTRI) mutations. As expected, discriminatory DRMs such as K65R, L74I, and Y115F were noted in Tenofovir (TDF) containing regimens while the Thymidine Analogue Mutations (TAMs) L210W and T215 mutations were in Zidovudine (AZT)-based regimens. No significant difference (p = 0.336) was found for overall DRMs between HIV-1 subtypes A and D. Among the patients who had resistance to EFV, 37 (23.6%) were susceptible to newer NNRTIs such as Rilpivirine and Etravirine.
Conclusion
Accumulation of DRMs between AZT/3TC/EFV and TDF/3TC/EFV is comparable but individual mutations that confer resistance to particular drugs should be considered at virological failure. Having either HIV-1 subtype A or D is not associated with the acquisition of DRMs, therefore HIV diversity should not determine the choice of treatment. Rilpivirine, etravirine and doravirine had minimal benefits for patients who failed on efavirenz.