|
Basic Characteristics of Mutations
|
|
Mutation Site
|
G140S |
|
Mutation Site Sentence
|
Among the 3 Triumeq users with virological failure, one developed drug resistance to DTG, elvitegravir, and raltegravir (E138K, G140S, Q148H). |
|
Mutation Level
|
Amino acid level |
|
Mutation Type
|
Nonsynonymous substitution |
|
Gene/Protein/Region
|
IN |
|
Standardized Encoding Gene
|
gag-pol:155348
|
|
Genotype/Subtype
|
HIV-1 |
|
Viral Reference
|
-
|
|
Functional Impact and Mechanisms
|
|
Disease
|
HIV Infections
|
|
Immune
|
- |
|
Target Gene
|
-
|
|
Clinical and Epidemiological Correlations
|
|
Clinical Information
|
Y |
|
Treatment
|
INSTIs |
|
Location
|
Taiwan(China) |
|
Literature Information
|
|
PMID
|
30122963
|
|
Title
|
HIV-1 genotypic drug resistance in patients with virological failure to single-tablet antiretroviral regimens in southern Taiwan
|
|
Author
|
Tsai HC,Chen IT,Lee SS,Chen YS
|
|
Journal
|
Infection and drug resistance
|
|
Journal Info
|
2018 Aug 3;11:1061-1071
|
|
Abstract
|
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 naive 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.
|
|
Sequence Data
|
-
|
|
|