Trends of Transmitted and Acquired Drug Resistance in Europe From 1981 to 2019: A Comparison Between the Populations of Late Presenters and Non-late Presenters.

BACKGROUND

The increased use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) has decreased mortality and morbidity of HIV-1 infected people but increasing levels of HIV drug resistance threatens the success of ART regimens. Conversely, late presentation can impact treatment outcomes, health costs, and potential transmission of HIV.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the patterns of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) and acquired drug resistance (ADR) in HIV-1 infected patients followed in Europe, to compare its patterns in late presenters (LP) vs non-late presenters (NLP), and to analyze the most prevalent drug resistance mutations among HIV-1 subtypes.

METHODS

Our study included clinical, socio-demographic, and genotypic information from 26,973 HIV-1 infected patients from the EuResist Integrated Database (EIDB) between 1981 and 2019.

RESULTS

Among the 26,973 HIV-1 infected patients in the analysis, 11,581 (42.9%) were ART-naïve patients and 15,392 (57.1%) were ART-experienced. The median age was 37 (IQR: 27.0-45.0) years old and 72.6% were males. The main transmission route was through heterosexual contact (34.9%) and 81.7% of patients originated from Western Europe. 71.9% of patients were infected by subtype B and 54.8% of patients were classified as LP. The overall prevalence of TDR was 12.8% and presented an overall decreasing trend ( for trend < 0.001), the ADR prevalence was 68.5% also with a decreasing trend ( for trend < 0.001). For LP and NLP, the TDR prevalence was 12.3 and 12.6%, respectively, while for ADR, 69.9 and 68.2%, respectively. The most prevalent TDR drug resistance mutations, in both LP and NLP, were K103N/S, T215rev, T215FY, M184I/V, M41I/L, M46I/L, and L90M.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that the overall TDR (12.8%) and ADR (68.5%) presented decreasing trends during the study time period. For LP, the overall TDR was slightly lower than for NLP (12.3 vs 12.6%, respectively); while this pattern was opposite for ADR (LP slightly higher than NLP). We suggest that these differences, in the case of TDR, can be related to the dynamics of fixation of drug resistance mutations; and in the case of ADR with the more frequent therapeutic failure in LPs.