Efficacy of first-line ART regimens based on tenofovir in HIV-infected patients with pre-existing A62V mutation in reverse transcriptase

Cover Page


Cite item

Abstract

Introduction. The amino acid substitution A62V in reverse transcriptase was identified as a mutation correlated with virologic failure in patients on first-line therapy including tenofovir (TDF) and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF). A62V is a typically polymorphic mutation in HIV-1 sub-subtype A6, which is the most widespread virus variant in Russia.

Materials and methods. The European EuResist (EIDB) database was queried to form two equivalent groups of patients: group 1 ‒ patients with A62V at baseline treated with TDF or TAF on the first-line therapy, group 2 ‒ patients without A62V at baseline treated with TDF or TAF on the first-line therapy. Each group included 23 patients.

Results. There was no statistical difference between the two groups in virologic efficacy in 4, 12, and 24 weeks after the start of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and in the frequency of virologic failures.

Conclusion. This study has some limitations, and the exact role of A62V in the efficacy of the first-line ART based on tenofovir deserves further investigation.

Full Text

Introduction

The amino acid substitution A62V in reverse transcriptase is an accessory mutation associated with HIV-1 drug resistance [1, 2]. It is a part of the following multi-drug-resistant mutation complexes: the Q151M complex (A62V, V75I, F77L, F116Y and Q151M) and the T69SSS insertion complex (M41L, A62V, T69SSS, K70R and T215Y), which affect almost all nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) drugs, including the widely used lamivudine (3TC), emtricitabine (FTC) and tenofovir (TDF) [3]. Furthermore, A62V often occurs in combination with the K65R mutation, which causes drug resistance to TDF, abacavir (ABC), stavudine (d4T), didanosine (ddI) and rarely to 3TC [4]. It was shown that A62V improved the fitness of drug-resistant viruses [3, 4]. A62V is a nonpolymorphic mutation for all HIV-1 subtypes, with the exception of subtype A [3]. It is still unknown whether the pre-existing A62V mutation could influence the appearance of the main HIV-1 drug resistance mutations in first-line therapy patients. However, some authors identified A62V as one of the mutations correlated with virologic failure in patients on the first-line therapies including TDF, and highlighted the need to further study the possibility of the impact of A62V on drug resistance to TDF and tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) [5]. In countries where patients are mostly infected by non-A variants, A62V was rarely detected at baseline, prior to the initiation of the therapy [6, 7]. Furthermore, A62V in reverse transcriptase is typically a polymorphic mutation in sub-subtype A6, which is the most widespread HIV-1 variant in Russia [8, 9]. In the 2006–2022 period in Russia, A62V was detected in 39.9% of treatment-naïve patients [9].

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the first-line ART regimens using tenofovir in two groups: 1) in the group of people living with HIV (PLWH) with A62V mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase at baseline and 2) in the group of PLWH without A62V mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase at baseline.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

From EuResist Integrated DataBase (EIDB), one of the largest available databases of HIV genotypes and clinical response to ART, all available data were downloaded on March 21, 20231. There was no demographic info from the patients; all the data were completely anonymous. Ethical approval was not required in this case.

The downloaded dataset encompassed nucleotide sequences and corresponding clinical information from 151,109 patients.

Then, the first group (A62V+), the group of PLWH with A62V mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase at baseline, was formed according to the following criteria:

а) A62V mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase at baseline, prior to the initiation of first-line therapy;

  1. b) no other NRTI HIV drugs resistance mutations at baseline, prior to the initiation of first-line therapy;
  2. c) no HIV-1 drug resistance mutations to the class of the main drug on the first-line therapy (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors (PIs) or integrase inhibitors (INSTIs)) at baseline, prior to the initiation of first-line therapy;
  3. d) the first-line therapy based on NNRTI/PI/INSTI with two NRTIs as a backbone, one of which is TDF/TAF;
  4. e) being on the first-line therapy for more than 4 weeks.

Twenty-three patients from EIDB met these criteria.

The number of patients in the 2nd group (A62V−), the group of PLWH without A62V mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase at baseline, was equivalent to the A62V+ group: 23 patients. The A62V− group was formed based on random sampling and according to the following criteria:

  1. a) no A62V mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase at baseline, before starting treatment;
  2. b) no NRTI HIV drug resistance mutations at baseline, prior to the initiation of first-line therapy;
  3. c) no HIV-1 drug resistance mutations to the class of the main drug (NNRTI, PI, or INSTI) on the first-line therapy at baseline, prior to the initiation of first-line therapy;
  4. d) the first-line therapy based on NNRTI or PI or INSTI with two NRTIs as a backbone, one of which is TDF/TAF;
  5. e) being on the first-line therapy for more than 4 weeks.

Patients enrolled in the study were observed across different European centers, and none of the patients were from Russia.

For each patient, the following data were downloaded: the pol gene sequence for protease and reverse transcriptase before starting the first-line therapy and for integrase if the patient was on the first-line therapy based on INSTI; sequence date, HIV subtype, list of mutations (PR Major, PR Accessory, PR Other, NRTI, NNRTI, RT Other, INSTI), ART data (the composition of the first-line therapy, the data of the regimen start and stop) and the dynamic of viral load (VL).

The efficacy of the first-line ART was compared in two groups according to virologic response definitions in Russian and European guidelines (Table 1) [10, 11].

 

Table 1. Virologic response definitions to ART in Russian and European guidelines

Таблица 1. Определение вирусологического ответа на АРТ в российских и европейских руководствах

Guidelines

Руководство

Virologic efficacy

Вирусологическая эффективность

Virologic blip

Вирусологический всплеск

Virologic failure

Вирусологический

неуспех

in 4 weeks

через 4 нед

in 12 weeks

через 12 нед

in 24 weeks

через 24 нед

Russian guidelines

Российское руководство

VL decrease by ≥ 1 lg

Снижение ВН на ≥ 1 lg

VL < 400 copies/mL

ВН < 400 копий РНК/мл

VL < 50 copies/mL

ВН < 50 копий РНК/мл

After undetectable VL (< 50 copies/mL) an isolated rising of VL to a level of less than 200 copies/ml

После неопределяемой ВН (< 50 копий/мл) повышение ВН до уровня менее 200 копий РНК/мл

The inability to achieve VL < 50 copies/ml or after virologic suppression confirmed detectable VL > 50 copies/ml

in 24 weeks or more after ART starting

Невозможность достижения ВН < 50 копий РНК/мл, или после вирусологической супрессии подтвержденный обнаруживаемый уровень ВН > 50 копий РНК/мл через 24 нед или более после начала АРТ

European guidelines

Европейское руководство

N/a

Н.д.

N/a

Н.д.

N/a

Н.д.

After confirmed undetectable VL an isolated detectable VL level followed by a return to an undetectable level

После подтверждения неопределяемой ВН обнаруживаемый уровень ВН с последующим возвращением к неопределяемому уровню

The inability to achieve or maintain VL < 200 copies/ml

Невозможность достижения или поддержания ВН < 200 копий/мл

 

The virologic efficacy of ART in 4, 12, and 24 weeks was evaluated based on the definition outlined in the Russian guidelines. To determine the cases of virologic failure, the criteria from two guidelines were combined. VL < 50 was used as a cut-off or undetectable VL level.

The term «virologic blip» was understood as the point after the undetectable level of VL, an isolated detectable VL followed by a return to < 50 copies/mL.

Virologic failure was understood as the inability to achieve VL < 50 copies/ml or after undetectable VL confirmed detectable VL (> 50 copies/ml) in 24 weeks or more after ART starting. Initially, cases of virologic efficacy of the first-line ART in 4, 12, and 24 weeks after ART starting in two groups were identified.

The statistical analysis was conducted to compare the frequency of cases of virological efficacy in two groups at each time point.

Then, the cases of virologic failure were identified in each group. The statistical analysis was conducted to determine the difference in the frequency of virological failure in the two groups.

Statistical analysis and visualization

Statistical data analysis was performed using STATISTICA v6.0 (StatSoft Inc., USA). Presentation of quantitative data in the present study was carried out using the following descriptive statistics: sample size (N), median and interquartile interval (IQR; in the form of 25 and 75% percentiles). The statistical significance of differences between the observed parameters was assessed using Fisher’s two-tailed exact test. The level of significance (p) adopted in this study was 0.05 (or 5.0%). Visualization was performed in GraphPad Prism v5.0 (GraphPad Software Inc., USA).

Results

Each group included 23 patients (Table 2).

 

Table 2. Characteristics of the patients who participated in the study

Таблица 2. Характеристика пациентов, принявших участие в исследовании

ART first-line regimen

Схема первого ряда АРТ

A62V+

(n=23)

A62V−

(n=23)

p

3TC + TDF + DTG, n (%)

1 (4.3)

0.98

FTC + TAF + DRV, n (%)

1 (4.3)

0.98

3TC + TDF + EFV, N (%)

1 (4.3)

0.98

FTC + TDF + DRV/rtv, n (%)

1 (4.3)

2 (8.7)

0.97

FTC + TDF + RPV, n (%)

2 (8.7)

1 (4.3)

0.97

FTC + TDF + LPV/rtv, n (%)

2 (8.7)

1 (4.3)

0.97

FTC + TDF + FPV/rtv, N (%)

2 (8.7)

0.5

FTC + TDF + EFV, n (%)

7 (30.4)

12 (52.2)

0.48

FTC + TDF + DTG, n (%)

3 (13.0)

0.27

FTC + TAF + BIC, n (%)

1 (4.3)

0.98

FTC + TDF + ATV, n (%)

1 (4.3)

3 (13.0)

0.66

FTC + TAF + DRV + cob, n (%)

1 (4.3)

2 (8.7)

0.97

FTC + TDF + NVP, n (%)

1 (4.3)

0.97

FTC + TDF + RAL, n (%)

1 (4.3)

0.97

3TC + TDF + LPV/rtv, n (%)

1 (4.3)

0.97

Median [IQR] VL at baseline, log10 RNA copies/ml

Медиана [IQR] ВН на исходном уровне, log10 копий РНК/мл

5.4 [2.9–6.3]

4.6 [1.7–5.6]

0.99

Median [IQR] duration of therapy, weeks

Медиана [IQR] продолжительности терапии, нед

86.0 [46.0–152.0]

168.0 [128.0–176.0]

0.33

Subtype

Субтип

   

A6

20 (87.0)

1 (4.3)

0.001

B

19 (82.6)

0.003

G

2 (8.7)

0.5

CRF01_AE

1 (4.3)

0.98

CRF09_cpx

1 (4.3)

0.97

F

1 (4.3)

0.97

CRF02_AG

1 (4.3)

0.97

Note. TDF – tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; TAF – tenofovir alafenamide; FTC – emtricitabine; 3TC – lamivudine; DRV – darunavir; RPV – rilpivirine; LPV – lopinavir; FPV – fosamprenavir; EFV – efavirenz; DTG – dolutegravir; BIC – bictegravir; ATV – atazanavir; NVP – nevirapine; RAL – raltegravir; rtv – ritonavir; cob – cobicistat; IQR – interquartile range; VL – viral load.

Примечание. TDF – тенофовира дизопроксила фумарат; TAF – тенофовира алафенамид; FTC – эмтрицитабин; 3TC – ламивудин; DRV – дарунавир; RPV – рилпивирин; LPV – лопинавир; FPV – фосампренавир; EFV – эфавиренц; DTG – долутегравир; BIC – биктегравир; АТV – атазанавир; NVP – невирапин; RAL – ралтегравир; RTV – ритонавир; cob – кобицистат; IQR – межквартильный размах; ВН – вирусная нагрузка.

 

Most patients took FTC + TDF + EFV: 30.4% (7/23) in the 1st group and 52.2% (12/23) in the 2nd. VL at baseline was higher in the 1st group (median 5.4 log10 RNA copies/ml) than in the 2nd group (4.6 log10 RNA copies/ml). In the 1st group, the most prevalent virus variant was sub-subtype A6 (87.0%), and in the 2nd group – subtype B (82.6%). On average, patients without A62V took longer therapy (168 weeks).

The results of VL measurements in 4 ± 2, 12 ± 4, and 24 ± 4 weeks after ART initiation were analyzed. Table 3 demonstrates the results of VL measurement in patients in both groups. VL values in 4 weeks after ART start were available for 36 patients (17 – 1st group, 19 – 2nd group). All patients from the 1st group and 18/19 patients from the 2nd group experienced a decrease in VL of more than 1 log10. Only one patient (6a) in the 2nd group exhibited a ΔLog10 decrease in VL of less than 1 log10 amounting to 0.9. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.95).

 

Table 3. Results of viral load (VL) measurement

Таблица 3. Результаты измерения вирусной нагрузки (ВН)

Patient No.

Номер пациента

VL at baseline,

RNA copies/ml

ВН на исходном уровне,

копий РНК/мл

Follow-up period, months

Срок наблюдения, мес

Follow-up period, weeks

Срок наблюдения, нед

Number of VL measurements during the observation period

Число измерений ВН за период наблюдения

VL in 4 weeks, RNA copies/ml

ВН через 4 нед, копий РНК/мл

VL decrease in 4 weeks (Δ Lg)

ВН через 4 нед (Δ Log10)

VL in 12 weeks, RNA copies/ml

ВН через 12 нед, копий РНК/мл

VL in 24 weeks, RNA copies/ml

ВН через 24 нед, копий РНК/мл

A62V+

1v

4683

4

16

2

40

2v

7852

6

24

2

69 200

3v

726

5

20

2

40

4v

6520

23

92

5

40

2.2

40

5v

5817

45

180

12

5817

99

6v

6660

80

320

19

0

> 1 lg

0

130

7v

77 006

94

376

31

587

2.1

40

40

8v

157 783

2

8

2

40

9v

64 201

63

252

19

528

2.1

275

40

10v

32 200

7

28

4

315

2.0

10

10

11v

92 000

28

112

9

830

2.0

33

15

12v

49 437

130

520

37

597

1.9

40

13v

7286

15

60

5

1

3.8

130 120

14v

16 200

5

20

3

0

> 1 lg

0

15v

42 400

3

12

3

459

1.9

34

16v

12 454

2

8

2

50

17v

41 225

30

120

29

330

2.1

40

18v

211 000

27

108

7

469

2.6

6 150 000

19v

209 136

6

24

3

25

3.9

20

20v

2 080 000

58

232

15

233

3.9

38

40

21v

160 000

43

172

14

478

2.5

0

0

22v

1 740 000

61

244

11

2180

2.9

0

23v

155 707

45

180

20

1579

1.9

219

40

A62V−

1a

78 000

28

112

5

25

2a

69 000

51

204

10

390

2.2

50

25

3a

134 896

22

88

7

1413

2.0

813

129

4a

61 000

30

120

15

50

3.1

50

25

5a

67 000

40

160

14

990

1.8

50

50

6a

34 000

32

128

7

3900

0.9

50

50

7a

230 000

35

140

16

57

3.6

50

50

8a

910 000

23

92

4

3700

2.4

150

9a

398 107

20

80

6

2754

2.1

282

63

10a

360 000

49

196

10

850

2.6

25

11a

490 000

56

224

14

850

2.7

50

50

12a

425 187

7

28

2

1191

2.5

40

13a

3000

31

124

6

50

1.8

50

25

14a

9900

15

60

5

140

1.9

50

50

15a

50

77

308

13

16a

3000

50

200

11

50

1.8

50

50

17a

6600

29

116

9

50

2.1

50

50

18a

490

53

212

11

50

50

19a

14 000

17

68

4

50

50

20a

14 000

60

240

15

50

1.6

50

50

21a

26 915

3

12

4

631

1.6

65

22a

4100

33

132

8

50

1.9

25

23a

17 000

45

180

9

56

2.5

25

 

In 12 weeks, the results of VL measurements were obtained for 33 patients (17 from the 1st group, 16 from the 2nd group). In the 1st group, 14/17 patients had VL less than 400 copies/ml, in the 2nd group – 15/16. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.6).

In 24 weeks, the results of VL measurements were obtained for 36 patients (15 from the 1st group, 21 from the 2nd group). In the 1st group, 12/15 patients had VL less than 50 copies/ml, in the 2nd group – 18/21. There was no statistical difference between the two groups (p = 0.7)

The dynamics of VLs in patients in two groups for the entire follow-up periods are shown in Figure.

 

Figure. The dynamics of VLs during the follow-up period

The VL level below 50 copies/ml was defined as a cut-off. a–d (A62V+ group): apatients 1v, 2v, 3v, 4v, 5v, 6v; b – patients 7v, 8v, 9v, 10v, 11v; c – patients 12v, 13v, 14v, 15v, 16v, 17v; d – patients 18v, 19v, 20v, 21v, 22v, 23v; e–h (A62V− group): e – patients 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, 6a; f – patients 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a; g – patients 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17a; h – patients 18a, 19a, 20a, 21a, 22a, 23a.

Рисунок. Динамика ВН в период наблюдения.

Уровень ВН ниже 50 копий/мл определялся как пороговый. a–г (группа A62V+): а – пациенты 1v, 2v, 3v, 4v, 5v, 6v; б – пациенты 7v, 8v, 9v, 10v, 11v; в – пациенты 12v, 13v, 14v, 15v, 16v, 17v; г – пациенты 18v, 19v, 20v, 21v, 22v, 23v; д–з (группа А62V−): д – пациенты 1а, 2а, 3а, 4а, 5а, 6а; е – пациенты 7а, 8а, 9а, 10а, 11а; ж – пациенты 12а, 13а, 14а, 15а, 16а, 17а; з – пациенты 18а, 19а, 20а, 21а, 22а, 23а.

 

Based on the dynamics of VLs in the follow-up periods, the cases of virologic failures in the two groups were detected and analyzed.

Thus, in the A62V+ cohort, in 16 patients (1v, 3v, 4v, 6v, 7v, 8v, 10v, 11v, 13v, 14v, 15v, 16v, 19v, 20v, 21v, 22v), VL achieved an undetectable level (< 50 copies/ml). In three patients (5v, 9v, 12v), VL achieved an undetectable level followed by blips. In two patients (17v, 23v), VL achieved an undetectable level with the following confirmed VL rebound. In 2 patients (2v, 18v), VL did not achieve an undetectable level (< 50 copies/ml). Thus, in the A62V+ cohort, virologic failure was detected in 4 (2v, 17v, 18v, 23v) out of 23 patients.

In the A62V− cohort, in 19 patients (2a, 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a, 8a, 9a, 10a, 11a, 12a, 13a, 14a, 15a, 16a, 17a, 18a, 19a, 20a, 23a), VL achieved an undetectable level (< 50 copies/ml). In one patient (1a), VL achieved an undetectable level with the following unconfirmed blip. In one patient (21a), VL did not achieve an undetectable level (< 50 copies/ml). At the same time, in 12 weeks, VL decreased to 65 copies/ml, which corresponds to virologic efficacy, and there were no results of VL measurement in the subsequent observation period. This result has not been interpreted as a virologic failure. In two patients (3a, 22a), VL dropped to a lower cut-off level with the following confirmed VL rebound. Thus, in the A62V− cohort, virologic failure was detected in 2 (3a, 22a) out of 23 patients.

Multivariate logistic regression analysis in both groups did not reveal an association between virologic failure and variables such as the composition of ART, HIV-1 subtype and duration of ART.

There was no statistical difference in cases of virologic failure in the two groups (p = 0.66; Fisher’s two-tailed test).

Discussion

HIV-1 variants prevalent in Russia are different from virus variants circulating in Europe, Asia and North America [12]. Notably, the most widespread HIV-1 variant in Russia is sub-subtype A6 detected in 78.6% of cases [9]. Sub-subtype A6 has certain typical polymorphic mutations, which are associated with drug resistance: E138A and A62V in reverse transcriptase, L74I in integrase [8, 9, 13]. Earlier, we studied the influence of the pre-existing E138A mutation in reverse transcriptase on the efficacy of first-line ART regimens [14]. This study focuses on A62V in reverse transcriptase.

In earlier studies in Russia, A62V in reverse transcriptase in sub-subtype A6 was detected in 63% of cases in naïve patients and in 78% of cases among patients with antiretroviral experience [15, 16]. Although there is a current trend indicating a decrease in the frequency of A62V occurrence, its prevalence remains relatively high. Thus, in a surveillance study in Russia based on clinical samples collected from pretreatment HIV-infected patients in 2017–2019, A62V was detected in 37.1% of cases [17].

A recent study in Russia found a potential association between A62V and the virological breakthrough [18], which correlates with the findings of a previous study [5]. This is the first study where the efficacy of the first-line therapy including TDF/TAF was compared in two groups: PLWH with and without pre-existing A62V in reverse transcriptase at baseline.

In Russia, HIV genotyping before ART initiation is optional and, as a rule, is not routinely conducted [10]. Therefore, to form two groups of patients, we referred to the EIDB.

The results showed that there were no statistical differences between the two groups in virologic efficiency in 4, 12, and 24 weeks after ART initiation and in the frequency of virologic failures. However, virologic failure was observed in 4 patients in the A62V+ group and in 2 – in the A62V− group.

The main limitation of this project was the absence of virus sequencing data at the end of the first-line therapy in patients with virologic failure. Therefore, there was no possibility to assess whether the virologic failure was associated with the appearance of the main HIV drug resistance mutations associated with A62V or if it was attributable to other HIV drug resistance mutations or inadequate patient adherence. Therefore, among 4 patients with virologic failure in the A62V+ group: one patient (2v) took 3TC + TDF + EFV and three (17v, 18v, 23v) were on ART based on PI: FTC + TAF + DRV + cob, FTC + TDF + FPV/rtv and FTC + TDF + LPV/rtv, respectively. Two patients with virologic failure in the A62V− group (3a, 22a) took FTC + TDF + EFV. Therefore, efavirenz causes neuropsychiatric side effects in approximately 50% of patients [19], which can impact treatment adherence. The most common toxicities of PIs are effects on the gastrointestinal tract, in particular, diarrhea; moreover, the preferred regimen of PIs is twice a day, which could pose potential challenges for patients [20].

Another limitation of this study is that the patients in two groups were infected by different types of HIV-1: in the A62V+ group – in 87.0% (20/23) cases by sub-subtype A6, and in the A62V− group – in 82.6% (19/23) cases by subtype B. Currently, there are contradictory data about the influence of the HIV-1 subtype on pathogenesis and on the development of drug resistance. The results of certain research confirmed the hypothesis that different HIV-1 variants may have distinct clinical characteristics [21].

Furthermore, due to this being a retrospective study, VL measurement and patient follow-up were not scheduled sequentially, and only a limited number of patients could be observed at all checkpoints.

Conclusion

This is the first pilot study aimed at evaluating the efficacy of first-line ART regimens based on tenofovir in HIV-infected patients with pre-existing A62V mutation in reverse transcriptase, and the results of this study will contribute to the understanding of virologic failure risk in the presence of A62V in reverse transcriptase.

In conclusion, this study demonstrated that A62V in reverse transcriptase at baseline was not likely to reduce the efficacy of first-line regimens containing TDF or TAF. However, the role of this mutation deserves further investigation.

Funding. The research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation, grant number 23–15-00027, https://rscf.ru/project/23-15-00027/, date of agreement 15 May 2023.

Acknowledgement. The authors thank Euresist Network for providing the data from the Euresist database.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no apparent or potential conflicts of interest related to the publication of this article.

1The Euresist Integrated Database (EIDB). Available at: https://euresist.org/eidb

×

About the authors

Ekaterina N. Ozhmegova

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Author for correspondence.
Email: ozhmegova.eka@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3110-0843

PhD, Researcher at the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

Anna I. Kuznetsova

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Email: a-myznikova@list.ru

PhD, Head of the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

Aleksey V. Lebedev

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Email: lebedevalesha236@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6787-9345

PhD, Researcher at the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

Anastasia A. Antonova

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Email: anastaseika95@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9180-9846

PhD, Researcher at the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

Kristina V. Kim

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Email: kimsya99@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4150-2280

Junior Researcher at the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

Yana M. Munchak

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Email: yanka.zabavnaya@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4792-8928

Junior Researcher at the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

Alexander S. Tumanov

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Email: desep@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6221-5678

Researcher at the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

Elena V. Kazennova

National Research Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology named after the Honorary Academician N.F. Gamaleya of the Russian Ministry of Health

Email: kazennova@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7912-4270

D. Sc. (Biology), Leading Researcher at the Laboratory of Leukemia Viruses of the Department of the Institute of Virology named after. D.I. Ivanovsky

Russian Federation, Moscow

References

  1. Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance Database. Available at: http://hivdb.stanford.edu
  2. Wensing A.M., Calvez V., Ceccherini-Silberstein F., Charpentier C., Günthard H.F., Paredes R., et al. 2022 update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. Top. Antivir. Med. 2022; 30(4): 559–74.
  3. Maldonado J.O., Mansky L.M. The HIV-1 reverse transcriptase A62V mutation influences replication fidelity and viral fitness in the context of multi-drug-resistant mutations. Viruses. 2018; 10(7): 376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v10070376
  4. Svarovskaia E.S., Feng J.Y., Margot N.A., Myrick F., Goodman D., Ly J.K., et al. The A62V and S68G mutations in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase partially restore the replication defect associated with the K65R mutation. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2008; 48(4): 428–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0b013e31817bbe93
  5. Rhee S.Y., Varghese V., Holmes S.P., Van Zyl G.U., Steegen K., Boyd M.A., et al. Mutational correlates of virological failure in individuals receiving a WHO-recommended Tenofovir-containing first-line regimen: an international collaboration. EBioMedicine. 2017; 18: 225–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.024
  6. Wagner T., Zuckerman N.S., Halperin T., Chemtob D., Levy I., Elbirt D., et al. Epidemiology and transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance among treatment-naive individuals in Israel, 2010–2018. Viruses. 2021; 14(1): 71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v14010071
  7. Zhukova A., Dunn D., Gascuel O. Modeling drug resistance emergence and transmission in HIV-1 in the UK. Viruses. 2023; 15(6): 1244. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v15061244
  8. Kazennova E.V., Lapovok I.A., Laga V.Y., Vasilyev A.V., Bobkova M.R. Natural polymorphisms of HIV-1 IDU-A variant pol gene. VICh-infektsiya i immunosupressii. 2012; 4(4): 44–51. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/pjowuj (in Russian)
  9. Kirichenko A.A., Kireev D.E., Shlykova A.V., Lopatukhin A.E., Lapovok I.A., Saleeva D.V., et al. HIV-1 drug resistance in patients with virological inefficiency on ART in Russia in 2013–2021. Epidemiologiya i infektsionnye bolezni. Aktual’nye voprosy. 2021; 11(3): 53–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/epidem.2021.11.3.53-62 EDN: https://elibrary.ru/uqiuni (in Russian)
  10. Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Clinical Guidelines «HIV Infection in Adults»; 2020. Available at: http://rushiv.ru/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/KR79.pdf (in Russian)
  11. Clinicalinfo. Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Adults and Adolescents with HIV. Available at: https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/guidelines/documents/adult-adolescent-arv/guidelines-adult-adolescent-arv.pdf
  12. Bbosa N., Kaleebu P., Ssemwanga D. HIV subtype diversity worldwide. Curr. Opin. HIV AIDS. 2019; 14(3): 153–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/coh.0000000000000534
  13. Kirichenko A., Lapovok I., Baryshev P., van de Vijver D., van Kampen J.J.A., Boucher C.A.B., et al. Genetic features of HIV-1 integrase sub-subtype A6 predominant in Russia and predicted susceptibility to INSTIs. Viruses. 2020; 12(8): 838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/v12080838
  14. Kuznetsova A., Lebedev A., Gromov K., Kazennova E., Zazzi M., Incardona F., et al. Pre-existing singleton E138A mutations in the reverse transcriptase gene do not affect the efficacy of first-line ART regimens using rilpivirine in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Clin. Case Rep. 2022; 10(2): e05373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ccr3.5373
  15. Sukhanova A.L., Rudinskii N.I., Bogoslovskaya E.V., Kruglova A.I., Bashkirova L.Yu., Tsyganova G.M., et al. Polymorphism of the genome region coding for protease and reverse transcriptase in HIV type 1 subtype a variants prevailing in CIS countries. Molekulyarnaya biologiya. 2005; 39(6): 934–41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11008-005-0115-8 EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ljarmp
  16. Kolomeets A.N., Varghese V., Lemey P., Bobkova M.R., Shafer R.W. A uniquely prevalent nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutation in Russian subtype A HIV-1 viruses. Aids. 2014; 28(17): F1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/qad.0000000000000485
  17. Kirichenko A., Kireev D., Lopatukhin A., Murzakova A., Lapovok I., Saleeva D., et al. Prevalence of HIV-1 drug resistance in Eastern European and Central Asian countries. PLoS One. 2022; 17(1): e0257731. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257731
  18. Shchemelev A.N., Ostankova Yu.V., Valutite D.E., Serikova E.N., Zueva E.B., Semenov A.V., et al. Risk assessment of first-line treatment failure in untreated HIV patients in Northwestern federal district of the Russian Federation. Infektsiya i immunitet. 2023; 13(2): 302–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15789/2220-7619-RAO-2122 EDN: https://elibrary.ru/ciclmu (in Russian)
  19. Costa B., Vale N. Efavirenz: history, development and future. Biomolecules. 2022; 13(1): 88. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/biom13010088
  20. Lv Z., Chu Y., Wang Y. HIV protease inhibitors: a review of molecular selectivity and toxicity. HIV AIDS (Auckl.). 2015; 7: 95–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/hiv.S79956
  21. Salvaña E.M.T., Dungca N.T., Arevalo G., Li K., Francisco C., Penalosa C., et al. HIV-1 subtype shift in the Philippines is associated with high transmitted drug resistance, high viral loads, and fast immunologic decline. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2022; 122: 936–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2022.06.048

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
2. Figure. The dynamics of VLs during the follow-up period

Download (542KB)

Copyright (c) 2024 Ozhmegova E.N., Kuznetsova A.I., Lebedev A.V., Antonova A.A., Kim K.V., Munchak Y.M., Tumanov A.S., Kazennova E.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

СМИ зарегистрировано Федеральной службой по надзору в сфере связи, информационных технологий и массовых коммуникаций (Роскомнадзор).
Регистрационный номер и дата принятия решения о регистрации СМИ: серия ПИ № ФС77-77676 от 29.01.2020.


This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies