Villabona-Arenas Christian Julian, Eymard-Duvernay Sabrina, Aghokeng Avelin, Guichet Emilande, Toure-Kane Coumba, Bado Guillaume, Koulla-Shiro Sinata, Delaporte Eric, Ciaffi Laura, Peeters Martine
1 Unité mixte Internationale Recherches Translationnelles sur le VIH et les Maladies Infectieuses (TransVIH-MI, UMI 233 IRD/U1175 Inserm), Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), Université de Montpellier , Montpellier, France .
2 Laboratoire d'Informatique, de Robotique et de Microélectronique de Montpellier (LIRMM), Institut de Biologie Computationnelle (IBC), Université de Montpellier , Montpellier, France .
AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2018 Jun;34(6):477-480. doi: 10.1089/AID.2017.0290. Epub 2018 Apr 23.
Second-line therapy randomized trials with lopinavir/ritonavir question the value of resistance testing to guide nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) selection. In this study, we investigated the association between baseline drug resistance and treatment outcome after 104 weeks of second-line therapy with NRTIs and either darunavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir in West-central Africa. We did an observational analysis of data from 387 individuals in a randomized, open-label 2LADY trial in Burkina Faso, Cameroon, and Senegal. We modeled the association between RTI drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and virological failure (VF) (viral load [VL] <50 copies/mL) at week 104 using logistic regressions. Covariates included baseline VL and CD4 count, demographic, and adherence data. Overall, 193 (49.9%), 150 (38.8%), and 44 (11.4%) individuals had, respectively, low/none (genotypic susceptibility score [GSS] <1), intermediate (GSS = 1), and high predicted NRTI activity (GSS >1) in their prescribed second-line regimen. The average number of DRMs by drug class, the proportion of individuals by GSS category, and the duration of first-line therapy were not associated with VF (p > .05). High VL at switch was the only consistent prognostic factor for VF after multivariate adjustment (p < .01). Suboptimal adherence, high predicted RTI activity, or low NRTI mutations were associated with VF (p < .05) when using higher end points for VF or in the intention-to-treat analysis. In conclusion, the use of RTIs with predicted reduced activity does not impair second-line protease inhibitor-based therapy. Therefore, HIV care in resource-limited settings should prioritize strategies to improve adherence and targeted VL testing over drug resistance testing for selecting NRTIs during a protease-based second-line switch.
洛匹那韦/利托那韦的二线治疗随机试验对耐药性检测以指导核苷类逆转录酶抑制剂(NRTI)选择的价值提出了质疑。在本研究中,我们调查了在非洲中西部接受NRTIs与达芦那韦/利托那韦或洛匹那韦/利托那韦进行104周二线治疗后,基线耐药性与治疗结果之间的关联。我们对布基纳法索、喀麦隆和塞内加尔一项随机、开放标签的2LADY试验中387名个体的数据进行了观察性分析。我们使用逻辑回归对第104周时RTI耐药性突变(DRM)与病毒学失败(VF)(病毒载量[VL]<50拷贝/mL)之间的关联进行建模。协变量包括基线VL和CD4计数、人口统计学和依从性数据。总体而言,193名(49.9%)、150名(38.8%)和44名(11.4%)个体在其规定的二线治疗方案中分别具有低/无(基因型易感性评分[GSS]<1)、中度(GSS = 1)和高预测NRTI活性(GSS>1)。按药物类别划分的DRM平均数量、按GSS类别划分的个体比例以及一线治疗持续时间与VF均无关联(p>.05)。转换时的高VL是多变量调整后VF唯一一致的预后因素(p<.01)。当使用更高的VF终点或在意向性分析中时,依从性欠佳、高预测RTI活性或低NRTI突变与VF相关(p<.05)。总之,使用预测活性降低的RTIs不会损害基于蛋白酶抑制剂的二线治疗。因此,在资源有限的环境中,HIV护理应优先考虑改善依从性的策略以及在基于蛋白酶的二线转换期间选择NRTIs时进行有针对性的VL检测而非耐药性检测。