Rossouw T M, Nieuwoudt M, Manasa J, Malherbe G, Lessells R J, Pillay S, Danaviah S, Mahasha P, van Dyk G, de Oliveira T
Department of Immunology, Institute for Cellular and Molecular Medicine, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
South African Department of Science and Technology/National Research Foundation Centre of Excellence in Epidemiological Modelling and Analysis (SACEMA), Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
HIV Med. 2017 Feb;18(2):104-114. doi: 10.1111/hiv.12400. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
Urban and rural HIV treatment programmes face different challenges in the long-term management of patients. There are few studies comparing drug resistance profiles in patients accessing treatment through these programmes. The aim of this study was to perform such a comparison.
HIV drug resistance data and associated treatment and monitoring information for adult patients failing first-line therapy in an urban and a rural programme were collected. Data were curated and managed in SATuRN RegaDB before statistical analysis using Microsoft Excel 2013 and stata Ver14, in which clinical parameters, resistance profiles and predicted treatment responses were compared.
Data for 595 patients were analysed: 492 patients from a rural setting and 103 patients from an urban setting. The urban group had lower CD4 counts at treatment initiation than the rural group (98 vs. 126 cells/μL, respectively; P = 0.05), had more viral load measurements performed per year (median 3 vs. 1.4, respectively; P < 0.01) and were more likely to have no drug resistance mutations detected (35.9% vs. 11.2%, respectively; P < 0.01). Patients in the rural group were more likely to have been on first-line treatment for a longer period, to have failed for longer, and to have thymidine analogue mutations. Notwithstanding these differences, the two groups had comparable predicted responses to the standard second-line regimen, based on the genotypic susceptibility score. Mutations accumulated in a sigmoidal fashion over failure duration.
The frequency and patterns of drug resistance, as well the intensity of virological monitoring, in adults with first-line therapy failure differed between the urban and rural sites. Despite these differences, based on the genotypic susceptibility scores, the majority of patients across the two sites would be expected to respond well to the standard second-line regimen.
城市和农村的艾滋病治疗项目在患者的长期管理上面临不同挑战。比较通过这些项目接受治疗的患者耐药谱的研究较少。本研究旨在进行这样的比较。
收集了城市和农村项目中一线治疗失败的成年患者的艾滋病耐药数据以及相关治疗和监测信息。在使用Microsoft Excel 2013和stata Ver14进行统计分析之前,数据在SATuRN RegaDB中进行整理和管理,比较了临床参数、耐药谱和预测的治疗反应。
分析了595例患者的数据:492例来自农村地区,103例来自城市地区。城市组治疗开始时的CD4细胞计数低于农村组(分别为98个/μL和126个/μL;P = 0.05),每年进行的病毒载量检测更多(中位数分别为3次和1.4次;P < 0.01),且未检测到耐药突变的可能性更大(分别为35.9%和11.2%;P < 0.01)。农村组患者更有可能接受一线治疗的时间更长、治疗失败的时间更长,并且有胸苷类似物突变。尽管存在这些差异,但根据基因型易感性评分,两组对标准二线治疗方案的预测反应相当。耐药突变在治疗失败期间呈S形累积。
城市和农村地区一线治疗失败的成人患者的耐药频率和模式以及病毒学监测强度有所不同。尽管存在这些差异,但根据基因型易感性评分,预计两个地区的大多数患者对标准二线治疗方案反应良好。