Role of Proviral HIV-1 DNA Genotyping for People Living with HIV (PLWH) Who Had Low-Level Viremia While Receiving Antiretroviral Therapy

Objective

To analyze the antiretroviral resistance in people living with HIV (PLWH) who developed low-level viremia (LLV) during antiretroviral therapy (ART) via sequencing of their HIV-1 proviral DNA and RNA and comparisons of their proviral DNA genotyping data with their past and synchronous RNA genotyping data.

Patients and Methods

PLWH with LLV while receiving ART for 6 months or longer from January 2020 to September 2021 were included. HIV-1 proviral DNA and RNA were extracted from white-blood cells and concentrated plasma by ultracentrifugation, respectively, and HIV-1 pol gene fragments were amplified and sequenced. The concordance in the detection of resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were examined between proviral DNA vs past RNA genotyping and proviral DNA vs synchronous RNA genotyping.

Results

Of the 150 PLWH with LLV, 117 proviral DNA pol sequences detected in 105 PLWH were successfully amplified and RAMs were present in 27.6% and the rate of RAMs conferring low-level or greater resistance to antiretrovirals examined was 17.1%. Fifty-six and 57 PLWH had results of past and synchronous RNA genotyping, respectively, for comparisons with those of proviral DNA genotyping; and the concordance rates were 76.8% and 75.4%, respectively. However, proviral DNA genotyping lost than gained partial information on antiretroviral resistance compared with past or synchronous RNA genotyping.

Conclusion

We found that the concordance between proviral DNA and past and synchronous RNA genotyping was moderate. Proviral DNA genotyping lost than gained more information on antiretroviral resistance compared with past or synchronous RNA genotyping. To optimize ART in PLWH with LLV, antiretroviral resistance profile should be interpreted in combination with proviral DNA and RNA genotyping and a comprehensive review of previous treatment history.

Low-level viremia and virologic failure among people living with HIV who received maintenance therapy with co-formulated bictegravir, emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide versus dolutegravir-based regimens

BACKGROUND

Real-world experience with low-level viremia (LLV) and its impact remain less reported among people living with HIV (PLWH) who receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) containing second-generation integrase strand transferase inhibitors (INSTIs), including dolutegravir and bictegravir.

METHODS

Virally suppressed PLWH who had achieved plasma HIV RNA load (PVL) <50 copies/mL for ≥6 months and were switched to either dolutegravir- or bictegravir-based ART were included in this retrospective cohort study. The incidence rates of developing LLV events (PVL, 50-199 copies/mL) and virologic failure (VF) (PVL ≥1000 copies/mL) were compared between the dolutegravir and bictegravir cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 623 and 862 PLWH switched to dolutegravir-based and bictegravir-based ART, respectively, were included. The incidence rates of developing LLV were 6.2 per 100 person-years of follow-up (PYFU) in the bictegravir cohort and 3.8 per 100 PYFU in the dolutegravir cohort (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-2.95, p=0.08), while the rates of VF were 0.69 per 100 PYFU and 0.95 per 100 PYFU, respectively, in the bictegravir and dolutegravir cohort (IRR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.12-3.39, p=0.34). Presence of LLV events was not associated with subsequent VF in multivariate analysis. Secondary analysis also demonstrated that resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) to nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors before switch were not associated with adverse virologic outcomes in either cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Among virally suppressed PLWH, the incidences of developing LLV or VF were similar after switch to dolutegravir- or bictegravir-based ART. Preexisting RAMs to nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors or the LLV events were not associated with subsequent VF.

Effect of antiretroviral therapy use and adherence on the risk of hyperlipidemia among HIV-infected patients, in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era

HIV-infected patients exposed to antiretroviral therapy (ART) have an increased risk for hyperlipidemia and cardiovascular disease. We performed a longitudinal, comprehensive, and population-based study to investigate the cumulative effect of different types of ART regimens on hyperlipidemia risk in the Taiwanese HIV/ART cohort. A total of 13,370 HIV-infected patients (2,674 hyperlipidemia and 10,696 non-hyperlipidemia patients) were recruited after matching for age, gender, and the first diagnosis date of HIV infection by using the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. Hyperlipidemia risk associated with cumulative ART use, ART adherence, and their combination was assessed. The matched hyperlipidemia group had a larger number of patients using ART and a higher incidence of comorbidities, specifically, respiratory disease and diabetes. Patients with high ART dosage and dose-dependent manner adherence, respectively, demonstrated an increased risk of hyperlipidemia. For single ART regimens, patients receiving nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI/NRTI)- containing regimen had the highest hyperlipidemia risk, followed by protease inhibitor (PI)- containing and non-NRTI- containing regimens. For combination ART regimens, patients receiving a NRTI/NRTI + PI regimen had the highest hyperlipidemia risk. An increased cumulative drug dose was observed in patients who received the PI, NRTI/NRTI, NRTI, and NNRTI regimens in the hyperlipidemia group, when compared to the non-hyperlipidemia group. In conclusion, ART cumulative use, adherence, and regimen may affect hyperlipidemia risk among HIV-infected patients in a dose-dependent manner.

Treatment response to unboosted atazanavir in combination with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and lamivudine in human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients who have achieved virological suppression: A therapeutic drug monitoring and pharmacogenetic study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Treatment response to switch regimens containing unboosted atazanavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)/lamivudine guided by therapeutic drug monitoring in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients is rarely investigated.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with plasma human immunodeficiency virus RNA load < 200 copies/mL switching to unboosted atazanavir plus zidovudine-lamivudine (coformulated), abacavir-lamivudine (coformulated), or TDF/lamivudine > 3 months were included for determinations of treatment response, plasma atazanavir concentrations, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms of MDR1, PXR, and UGT1A1 genes from 2010 to 2014. Treatment failure was defined as either discontinuation of atazanavir for any reason or plasma viral load ≥ 200 copies/mL within 96 weeks.

RESULTS

During the study period, 128 patients switched to unboosted atazanavir with TDF/lamivudine (TDF group) and 186 patients switched to unboosted atazanavir with two other nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (non-TDF group). There were no statistically significant differences in the distributions of single-nucleotide polymorphisms of MDR1 (2677 and 3435), PXR genotypes (63396), and UGT1A1*28 between the two groups. Recommended plasma atazanavir concentrations were achieved in 83.5% and 64.9% of the TDF group and non-TDF group, respectively (p < 0.01). After a median follow-up duration of 96.0 weeks, treatment failure occurred in 19 (14.9%) and 34 (18.3%) patients in the TDF group and non-TDF group, respectively (p = 0.60). Low-level viremia (40-200 copies/mL) before switch (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-4.01) and without therapeutic drug monitoring (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-3.73) were risk factors for treatment failure.

CONCLUSION

Switch to unboosted atazanavir with TDF/lamivudine achieves a similar treatment response to that with two other nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors in patients achieving virological suppression with the guidance of therapeutic drug monitoring.