Drug resistance among patients who acquired HIV infection in a preexposure prophylaxis trial

Low clinical impact of HIV drug resistance mutations in oral pre-exposure prophylaxis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the widespread use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) in preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission, scant information on HIV drug resistance mutations (DRMs) has been gathered over the past decade. This review aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of pre-exposure prophylaxis and its two-way impact on DRM.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed studies on DRM in pre-exposure prophylaxis according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane, and SAGE databases were searched for English-language primary studies published between January 2001 and December 2023. The initial search was conducted on 9 August 2021 and was updated through 31 December 2023 to ensure the inclusion of the most recent findings. The registration number for this protocol review was CRD42022356061.

RESULTS

A total of 26,367 participants and 562 seroconversion cases across 12 studies were included in this review. The pooled prevalence estimate for all mutations was 6.47% (95% Confidence Interval-CI 3.65-9.93), while Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine-associated drug resistance mutation prevalence was 1.52% (95% CI 0.23-3.60) in the pre-exposure prophylaxis arm after enrolment. A subgroup analysis, based on the study population, showed the prevalence in the heterosexual and men who have sex with men (MSM) groups was 5.53% (95% CI 2.55-9.40) and 7.47% (95% CI 3.80-12.11), respectively. Notably, there was no significant difference in the incidence of DRM between the pre-exposure prophylaxis and placebo groups (log-OR = 0.99, 95% CI -0.20 to 2.18, I2 = 0%; p = 0.10).

DISCUSSION

Given the constrained prevalence of DRM, the World Health Organization (WHO) advocates the extensive adoption of pre-exposure prophylaxis. Our study demonstrated no increased risk of DRM with pre-exposure prophylaxis (p > 0.05), which is consistent with these settings. These findings align with the previous meta-analysis, which reported a 3.14-fold higher risk in the pre-exposure prophylaxis group than the placebo group, although the observed difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the low prevalence of DRM, pre-exposure prophylaxis did not significantly increase the risk of DRM compared to placebo. However, long-term observation is required to determine further disadvantages of extensive pre-exposure prophylaxis use. PROSPERO Number: CRD42022356061.

Pre-exposure Prophylaxis Use History in People With Antiretroviral Resistance at HIV Diagnosis: Findings From New York City HIV Surveillance and Partner Services, 2015-2022

BACKGROUND

Drug resistance may be acquired in people starting human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) during undiagnosed infection. Population-based estimates of PrEP-related resistance are lacking.

METHODS

We used New York City surveillance and partner services data to measure the effect of PrEP use (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/tenofivir alafenamide fumarate with emtricitabine) history on the baseline prevalence of M184I/V mutations in people with HIV diagnosed in 2015-2022. PrEP use was categorized as "recent" (defined as PrEP stopped ≤90 days before diagnosis), "past" (PrEP stopped >90 days before diagnosis), or "no known use." Resistance-associated mutations were determined using the Stanford algorithm. We used log binomial regression to generate the adjusted relative risk (aRR) of M184I/V by PrEP use history in people with or without acute HIV infection (AHI).

RESULTS

Of 4246 people with newly diagnosed HIV and a genotype obtained within ≤30 days of diagnosis, 560 (13%) had AHI; 136 (3%) reported recent and 124 (35%) past PrEP use; and 98 (2%) harbored M184I/V. In people with AHI, recent PrEP use was associated with a 6 times greater risk of M184I/V than no known use (aRR, 5.86 [95% confidence interval, 2.49-13.77]). Among people without AHI, the risk of M184I/V in recent users was 7 times that in people with no known use (aRR, 7.26 [95% confidence interval, 3.98-13.24]), and in past users, it was 4 times that in those with no known use (4.46 [2.15-9.24]).

CONCLUSIONS

PrEP use was strongly associated with baseline M184I/V in New York City, regardless of AHI status. Ordering a nucleic acid test when indicated after assessment of exposure, antiretroviral history, and AHI symptoms can decrease PrEP initiation in people with undetected infection.

A public health approach to monitoring HIV with resistance to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis

Background

The risk of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) failure with sufficient medication adherence is extremely low but has occurred due to transmission of a viral strain with mutations conferring resistance to PrEP components tenofovir (TDF) and emtricitabine (FTC). The extent to which such strains are circulating in the population is unknown.

Methods

We used HIV surveillance data to describe primary and overall TDF/FTC resistance and concurrent viremia among people living with HIV (PLWH). HIV genotypes conducted for clinical purposes are reported as part of HIV surveillance. We examined the prevalence of HIV strains with mutations conferring intermediate to high level resistance to TDF/FTC, defining primary resistance (predominantly K65R and M184I/V mutations) among sequences reported within 3 months of HIV diagnosis and total resistance for sequences reported at any time. We examined trends in primary resistance during 2010–2019 and total resistance among all PLWH in 2019. We also monitored resistance with viremia (≥1,000 copies/mL) at the end of 2019 among PLWH.

Results

Between 2010 and 2019, 2,172 King County residents were diagnosed with HIV; 1,557 (72%) had a genotypic resistance test within three months; three (0.2%) had primary TDF/FTC resistance with both K65R and M184I/V mutations. Adding isolated resistance for each drug resulted in 0.3% with primary TDF resistance and 0.8% with primary FTC resistance. Of 7,056 PLWH in 2019, 4,032 (57%) had genotype results, 241 (6%) had TDF/FTC resistance and 15 (0.4% of those with a genotype result) had viremia and TDF/FTC resistance.

Conclusions

Primary resistance and viremia combined with TDF/FTC resistance are uncommon in King County. Monitoring trends in TDF/FTC resistance coupled with interventions to help ensure PLWH achieve and maintain viral suppression may help ensure that PrEP failure remains rare.

Casting a Wide Net: HIV Drug Resistance Monitoring in Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Seroconverters in the Global Evaluation of Microbicide Sensitivity Project

Global Evaluation of Microbicide Sensitivity projects in 4 countries demonstrated the feasibility of establishing an HIV drug resistance monitoring program for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). These projects will provide valuable information on seroconversions in the context of PrEP use and will serve to inform Ministries of Health and policy makers on the need for long-term surveillance approaches.

Background:

Evidence of HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) in individuals using oral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) who acquire HIV is limited to clinical trials and case studies. More data are needed to understand the risk of HIVDR with oral PrEP during PrEP rollout. Mechanisms to collect these data vary, and are dependent on cost, scale of PrEP distribution, and in-country infrastructure for the identification, collection, and testing of samples from PrEP seroconverters.

Methods:

The Global Evaluation of Microbicide Sensitivity (GEMS) project, in collaboration with country stakeholders, initiated HIVDR monitoring among new HIV seroconverters with prior PrEP use in Eswatini, Kenya, South Africa, and Zimbabwe. Standalone protocols were developed to assess HIVDR among a national sample of PrEP users. In addition, HIVDR testing was incorporated into existing demonstration projects for key populations.

Lessons learned:

Countries are supportive of conducting a time-limited evaluation of HIVDR during the early stages of PrEP rollout. As PrEP rollout expands, the need for long-term HIVDR monitoring with PrEP will need to be balanced with maintaining national HIV drug resistance surveillance for pretreatment and acquired drug resistance. Laboratory capacity is a common obstacle to setting up a monitoring system.

Conclusions:

Establishing HIV resistance monitoring within PrEP programs is feasible. Approaches to drug resistance monitoring may evolve as the PrEP programs mature and expand. The methods and implementation support offered by GEMS assisted countries in developing methods to monitor for drug resistance that best fit their PrEP program needs and resources.

HIV Drug Resistance in Children and Adolescents: Always a Challenge?

Purpose of Review

With the expanded roll-out of antiretrovirals for treatment and prevention of HIV during the last decade, the emergence of HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) has become a growing challenge. This review provides an overview of the epidemiology and trajectory of HIVDR globally with an emphasis on pediatric and adolescent populations.

Recent Findings

HIVDR is associated with suboptimal virologic suppression and treatment failure, leading to an increased risk of HIV transmission to uninfected people and increased morbidity and mortality among people living with HIV. High rates of HIVDR to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors globally are expected to decline with the introduction of the integrase strand transfer inhibitors and long-acting combination regimens, while challenge remains for HIVDR to other classes of antiretroviral drugs.

Summary

We highlight several solutions including increased HIV viral load monitoring, expanded HIVDR surveillance, and adopting antiretroviral regimens with a high-resistance barrier to decrease HIVDR. Implementation studies and programmatic changes are needed to determine the best approach to prevent and combat the development of HIVDR.

Prevalence of pretreatment HIV drug resistance in key populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

WHO's 2019 report on HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) documents a high prevalence of pretreatment drug resistance (PDR) among populations initiating first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, systematic evidence on the prevalence of PDR among key populations remains limited. We performed a systematic review to characterize levels of PDR in key population groups and compared them to levels of PDR in the "general population" across different geographical regions.

METHODS

Ten electronic databases were searched for papers published until February 2019 that included predefined search terms. We included studies that reported the number of successfully tested genotypes and the number of genotypes with drug resistance mutations among antiretroviral therapy treatment naïve people, recently infected people, or people initiating first-line ART from key populations. To assess the prevalence of PDR for each key population, we pooled estimates using random-effects meta-analysis of proportions. Where possible, we computed the differences in the odds of PDR (any, and by drug class) present in each key population compared to the "general population". The I2 statistic (a measure of heterogeneity between studies) is reported.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 332 datasets (from 218 studies) and 63,111 people with successful HIVDR genotyping were included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence estimate of any PDR was high among men who have sex with men (13.0%, 95% CI 11.0 to 14.0%, I2  = 93.19), sex workers (17.0%, 95% CI 6.0 - 32.0, I2  = 87.31%) and people in prisons (18.0%, 95% CI 11.0 to 25.0, I2  = 70.18%), but less so among people who inject drugs (7.0%, 95% CI 5.0 to 10.0, I2  = 90.23). Overall, men who have sex with men were more likely to carry any PDR compared to the "general population," a finding which was statistically significant (odds ratio (OR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 - 1.46, I2 48.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

High prevalence of PDR found in key populations highlights the need to increase access to effective first-line HIV treatment. The low prevalence of nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) PDR suggests that current WHO recommendations for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) regimens will remain effective and can be scaled up to prevent new HIV infections in high-risk groups.

Same-day prescribing of daily oral pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective in reducing HIV transmission but remains underutilised globally. Same-day PrEP prescribing and medication provision is an emerging implementation approach. The experiences of the three same-day PrEP programmes support the feasibility of the approach. Key elements of safe and effective same-day PrEP programmes include the ability to order laboratory tests at the time of the clinical visit and the ability to contact patients when laboratory results are available. Same-day PrEP has the potential to alleviate the attrition seen in usual care between initial evaluation and receipt of a PrEP prescription. A widespread application of same-day prescribing will be needed to assess its effect on PrEP usage.

Drug Resistance During HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis

Clinical studies have demonstrated that use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate with or without emtricitabine as antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) can decrease the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition when medication adherence is high. However, the potential for PrEP to promote antiretroviral resistance remains an important public health consideration. We performed a search of the medical literature to identify studies that address HIV drug resistance during PrEP use. In this review, we summarize findings about emergent drug resistance during clinical trials of PrEP, case reports of seroconversions in patients adherent to PrEP, and animal studies of PrEP effectiveness against drug-resistant viral strains. We also discuss the potential utility of novel PrEP formulations for protection against drug-resistant HIV, the impact of drug resistance on HIV treatment options, and mathematical models that estimate the potential contribution of PrEP to population-level drug resistance. Evidence suggests that selection for HIV drug resistance with PrEP use is infrequent and most likely to occur when PrEP is used during undiagnosed acute HIV infection. Breakthrough infections during PrEP use with high adherence are possible, but appear to be rare. The prevalence of drug-resistant HIV strains needs to be monitored as PrEP is scaled up. However, the benefit of a decreased HIV incidence with wider PrEP use is likely to outweigh the risk of harms from possible increases in the prevalence of HIV drug resistance.

Perceptions of HIV transmission and pre-exposure prophylaxis among health care workers and community members in Rwanda

There are too many new HIV infections globally with 1.8 million persons infected in 2016 alone. Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) holds potential to decrease new infections and is synergistic with efforts currently in place to achieve an end to the AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan African, but uptake is limited. Given its novelty, assessing the beliefs and attitudes of healthcare professionals and members of the community towards HIV transmission and PrEP will be helpful to inform implementation efforts. Study was a random survey of 201 community members and 51 healthcare providers, carried out at multiple community sites in Huye district, Southern Province, Rwanda and at Kigali University Teaching Hospital (KUTH). The study findings are that there are still misconceptions about HIV in the community with some respondents believing that HIV is due to punishment from God (5.4%), poverty (3.0%), smoking cigarettes (1.0%), drinking alcohol (2.0%), punishment from ancestors (1.0%) and witchcraft (1.5%), and that its transmission is by mosquito bites (10.9%), sharing food or drinks with a HIV infected person (6.5%) or as a result of carelessness (47.8%). More than 50% of respondents from both groups had insufficient knowledge regarding PrEP, but expressed some interest in PrEP (82.6% of the respondents from the community and 86.5% of the health workers). However, some healthcare workers felt that promotion of safe sex practices (74.5%), HIV testing and treating HIV infected patients (60.8%) would work better than PrEP to decrease new HIV infections. Barriers to PrEP implementation included perceived stigma, delayed access to prevention services at the health facilities while personal-level concerns included lack of family support, reluctance to take a medication daily and fear of being perceived as having HIV. This study showed that health care workers and community members are willing to utilize PrEP in Rwanda, but many challenges exist including limited knowledge about PrEP, stigma, provider and system level service delivery barriers at health facilities among others. More studies are needed to assess ways of addressing and /or eliminating these barriers.