Humphrey John M, Ali Shamim M, DeLong Allison, Novitsky Vlad, Sang Edwin, Jawed Bilal, Kemboi Emmanuel, Ngetich Celia, Goodrich Suzanne, Gardner Adrian, Hogan Joseph W, Kantor Rami
Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Department of Medicine, Moi University School of Medicine, Eldoret, Kenya.
J Int AIDS Soc. 2025 Jun;28(6):e26523. doi: 10.1002/jia2.26523.
Data on drug resistance, viral outcomes and guidelines compliance following protease inhibitor (PI)-based second-line failure in low- and middle-income countries are limited, particularly in the era of dolutegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy (ART).
We conducted a retrospective cohort study of people living with HIV (PLWH) ≥3 years old with second-line viral failure (VF, ≥1000 copies/ml) at the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare from 2011 to 2021. We assessed resistance prevalence and patterns at second-line VF, stratified by PI (atazanavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir), and examined correlations of resistance and treatment strategies with VF at 6-18 months post-genotype. Analyses employed inverse probability weighting, adjusting for calendar year, age, gender, ART duration, PI at genotyping and class-specific resistance, and considered guidelines-supported versus unsupported strategies.
Of 187 participants (median age 41 years, 54% female, 41% on atazanavir/ritonavir, 59% on lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART), 91% had any resistance (NRTI 79%, NNRTI 80%, major PI 37%, dual-class 36%, triple-class 37%). Predicted resistance to third-line options was 67% for etravirine or rilpivirine and 10% for darunavir/ritonavir. Despite higher resistance detected on atazanavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir, predicted darunavir/ritonavir resistance was similar. At median 9 months post-genotype, 95% of 173 participants with available data were on a guidelines-supported regimen (55% second-line; 45% third-line, 86% dolutegravir-based), of whom 28% had post-genotype VF. Of the 5% not on guidelines-supported regimens, 71% had post-genotype VF. Adjusted odds of VF were higher for guidelines-unsupported versus supported regimens (OR = 4.52; 95% CI 1.02-26.24), and odds of VF were 97% lower for those on third-line versus second-line (OR = 0.07; 95% CI 0.02-0.20).
We found high levels of drug resistance and early VF following PI-based second-line failure in Kenya. Treatment guidelines compliance and switches to third-line, even within guidelines recommendations, improved early viral outcomes. Findings highlight the vulnerability of PLWH with advanced ART experience and resistance profiles, and the importance of following guidelines and improving access to third-line and drug resistance testing, particularly in the new ART era.
关于中低收入国家基于蛋白酶抑制剂(PI)的二线治疗失败后的耐药性、病毒学转归及指南依从性的数据有限,尤其是在含多替拉韦的抗逆转录病毒治疗(ART)时代。
我们对2011年至2021年在学术医疗服务提供模式下年龄≥3岁且二线病毒学失败(VF,病毒载量≥1000拷贝/ml)的HIV感染者(PLWH)进行了一项回顾性队列研究。我们评估了二线VF时的耐药率及模式,按PI(阿扎那韦/利托那韦或洛匹那韦/利托那韦)进行分层,并在基因分型后6至18个月检查耐药性和治疗策略与VF的相关性。分析采用逆概率加权法,对历年、年龄、性别、ART疗程、基因分型时的PI及类别特异性耐药进行校正,并考虑指南支持与不支持的策略。
187名参与者(中位年龄41岁,54%为女性,41%接受阿扎那韦/利托那韦治疗,59%接受基于洛匹那韦/利托那韦的ART)中,91%存在任何耐药(核苷类逆转录酶抑制剂79%,非核苷类逆转录酶抑制剂80%,主要PI 37%,双类别耐药36%、三类别耐药37%)。对三线治疗方案的预测耐药率,依曲韦林或利匹韦林为67%,达芦那韦/利托那韦为10%。尽管检测到阿扎那韦/利托那韦的耐药性高于洛匹那韦/利托那韦,但预测的达芦那韦/利托那韦耐药性相似。在基因分型后中位9个月时,173名有可用数据的参与者中,95%接受了指南支持的治疗方案(二线治疗55%;三线治疗45%,86%基于多替拉韦),其中28%出现基因分型后VF。在未接受指南支持治疗方案的5%参与者中,71%出现基因分型后VF。指南不支持的治疗方案与支持的治疗方案相比,VF的校正比值更高(OR = 4.52;95%CI 1.02 - 26.24),三线治疗与二线治疗相比,VF的比值降低97%(OR = 0.07;95%CI 0.02 - 0.20)。
我们发现肯尼亚基于PI的二线治疗失败后耐药水平高且早期出现VF。遵循治疗指南并转换至三线治疗,即使在指南推荐范围内,也能改善早期病毒学转归。研究结果凸显了有丰富ART经验和耐药谱的PLWH的脆弱性,以及遵循指南和改善三线治疗及耐药检测可及性的重要性,尤其是在新的ART时代。