Pre-existent NRTI and NNRTI resistance impacts on maintenance of virological suppression in HIV-1-infected patients who switch to a tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine single-tablet regimen

Clinical Impact and Cost-effectiveness of Genotype Testing at Human Immunodeficiency Virus Diagnosis in the United States

BACKGROUND

US guidelines recommend genotype testing at human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnosis ("baseline genotype") to detect transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), and protease inhibitors. With integrase strand inhibitor (INSTI)-based regimens now recommended as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), the of baseline genotypes is uncertain.

METHODS

We used the Cost-effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications model to examine the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of baseline genotype compared to no baseline genotype for people starting ART with dolutegravir (DTG) and an NRTI pair. For people with no TDR (83.8%), baseline genotype does not alter regimen selection. Among people with transmitted NRTI resistance (5.8%), baseline genotype guides NRTI selection and informs subsequent ART after adverse events (DTG AEs, 14%). Among people with transmitted NNRTI resistance (7.2%), baseline genotype influences care only for people with DTG AEs switching to NNRTI-based regimens. The 48-week virologic suppression varied (40%-92%) depending on TDR. Costs included $320/genotype and $2500-$3000/month for ART.

RESULTS

Compared to no baseline genotype, baseline genotype resulted in <1 additional undiscounted quality-adjusted life-day (QALD), cost an additional $500/person, and was not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: $420 000/quality-adjusted life-year). In univariate sensitivity analysis, clinical benefits of baseline genotype never exceeded 5 QALDs for all newly diagnosed people with HIV. Baseline genotype was cost-effective at current TDR prevalence only under unlikely conditions, eg, DTG-based regimens achieving ≤50% suppression of transmitted NRTI resistance.

CONCLUSIONS

With INSTI-based first-line regimens in the United States, baseline genotype offers minimal clinical benefit and is not cost-effective.

Risks and Benefits of Dolutegravir- and Efavirenz-Based Strategies for South African Women With HIV of Child-Bearing Potential: A Modeling Study

Background

Dolutegravir is superior to efavirenz for HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) but may be associated with an increased risk for neural tube defects (NTDs) in newborns if used by women at conception.

Objective

To project clinical outcomes of ART policies for women of child-bearing potential in South Africa.

Design

Model of 3 strategies: efavirenz for all women of child-bearing potential (EFV), dolutegravir for all women of child-bearing potential (DTG), or World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended efavirenz without contraception or dolutegravir with contraception (WHO approach).

Data Sources

Published data on NTD risks (efavirenz, 0.05%; dolutegravir, 0.67% [Tsepamo study]), 48-week ART efficacy with initiation (efavirenz, 60% to 91%; dolutegravir, 96%), and age-stratified fertility rates (2 to 139 per 1000 women).

Target Population

3.1 million South African women with HIV (aged 15 to 49 years) starting or continuing first-line ART, and their children.

Time Horizon

5 years.

Perspective

Societal.

Intervention

EFV, DTG, and WHO approach.

Outcome Measures

Deaths among women and children, sexual and pediatric HIV transmissions, and NTDs.

Results of Base-Case Analysis

Compared with EFV, DTG averted 13 700 women's deaths (0.44% decrease) and 57 700 sexual HIV transmissions, but increased total pediatric deaths by 4400 because of more NTDs. The WHO approach offered some benefits compared with EFV, averting 4900 women's deaths and 20 500 sexual transmissions while adding 300 pediatric deaths. Overall, combined deaths among women and children were lowest with DTG (358 000 deaths) compared with the WHO approach (362 800 deaths) or EFV (367 300 deaths).

Results of Sensitivity Analysis

Women's deaths averted with DTG exceeded pediatric deaths added with EFV unless dolutegravir-associated NTD risk was 1.5% or greater.

Limitation

Uncertainty in NTD risks and dolutegravir efficacy in resource-limited settings, each examined in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Although NTD risks may be higher with dolutegravir than efavirenz, dolutegravir will lead to many fewer deaths among women, as well as fewer overall HIV transmissions. These results argue against a uniform policy of avoiding dolutegravir in women of child-bearing potential.

Primary Funding Source

National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Massachusetts General Hospital; and Harvard University Center for AIDS Research.

HIV-1 genotypic drug resistance in patients with virological failure to single-tablet antiretroviral regimens in southern Taiwan

Purpose

Sparse data are available on the prevalence of resistance among HIV-1-infected patients with virological failure to a single-tablet regimen (STR). This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of HIV genotypic drug resistance in HIV-1-infected patients with virological failure to STRs in southern Taiwan.

Patients and methods

This retrospective study investigated drug resistance in patients with virological failure to STR from January 2016 to September 2017. Antiretroviral resistance mutations were defined using the 2017 International AIDS Society-USA HIV drug resistance algorithm, and drug resistance was compared using the HIVdb program of the Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance Database. Variables between resistance and non-resistance groups were compared.

Results

Thirty-nine HIV-1-infected patients with treatment failure were tested for resistance, of whom 89% were infected by men who have sex with men. Subtype B HIV-1 strains were found in 90% of the patients. Eight patients were treatment naïve and initiated STRs, while 31 patients experienced treatment failure after switching to STRs. Eighty-seven percent of the patients harbored any of four classes of resistance (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors (PIs), and integrase strand transfer inhibitors). The prevalence rates of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, PI, and integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance were 72%, 82%, 10%, and 3%, respectively. Patients with PI resistance were more likely to respond to treatment with a non-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine/efavirenz-based STR (.=0.004) and a longer duration of antiretroviral therapy (101 months [72.0-123.3] vs 11 months [7-44], P=0.007). There were no associations between different STRs and transmission risk factors, HIV subtype, duration of antiretroviral therapy, and resistance to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Conclusion

A high rate of antiretroviral drug resistance was found in the patients who failed STR treatment. The presence of PI resistance in these patients represented an inappropriate switch from a multiple tablet regimen to an STR. These findings should remind clinicians that detailed drug resistance history and close monitoring are mandatory after switching to an STR.

Antiretroviral Drugs for Treatment and Prevention of HIV Infection in Adults: 2018 Recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel

Importance

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) is the cornerstone of prevention and management of HIV infection.

Objective

To evaluate new data and treatments and incorporate this information into updated recommendations for initiating therapy, monitoring individuals starting therapy, changing regimens, and preventing HIV infection for individuals at risk.

Evidence Review

New evidence collected since the International Antiviral Society-USA 2016 recommendations via monthly PubMed and EMBASE literature searches up to April 2018; data presented at peer-reviewed scientific conferences. A volunteer panel of experts in HIV research and patient care considered these data and updated previous recommendations.

Findings

ART is recommended for virtually all HIV-infected individuals, as soon as possible after HIV diagnosis. Immediate initiation (eg, rapid start), if clinically appropriate, requires adequate staffing, specialized services, and careful selection of medical therapy. An integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI) plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is generally recommended for initial therapy, with unique patient circumstances (eg, concomitant diseases and conditions, potential for pregnancy, cost) guiding the treatment choice. CD4 cell count, HIV RNA level, genotype, and other laboratory tests for general health and co-infections are recommended at specified points before and during ART. If a regimen switch is indicated, treatment history, tolerability, adherence, and drug resistance history should first be assessed; 2 or 3 active drugs are recommended for a new regimen. HIV testing is recommended at least once for anyone who has ever been sexually active and more often for individuals at ongoing risk for infection. Preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and appropriate monitoring is recommended for individuals at risk for HIV.

Conclusions and Relevance

Advances in HIV prevention and treatment with antiretroviral drugs continue to improve clinical management and outcomes for individuals at risk for and living with HIV.