MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2888611404 · doi:10.1093/infdis/jiy437

Reply to Achieng and Riedel

2018· letter· en· W2888611404 sur OpenAlexaff
Hanh Thi Pham, Mark E Goring, Thibault Mésplède

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Journal of Infectious Diseases · 2018
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor—We thank Achieng and Riedel for taking interest in our recent characterization of the S230R drug resistance substitution found in patients treated with dolutegravir (DTG) monotherapy [1, 2]. They reported the case of a patient who lived with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) for more than 20 years and developed multidrug resistance against protease, nucleos(t)idic, and non-nucleosidic reverse transcriptase inhibitors (PI/N(t)RTI/NNRTIs). Treatment initiation with raltegravir (RAL) in combination with a boosted PI plus 2 NRTIs in 2009 was followed by an initial clinical response. However, a switch to a significantly more fragile RAL/ lamivudine (3TC)/ abacavir (ABC) regimen for reasons of renal impairment expectedly led to yet another treatment failure and, likely, to the development of drug resistance mutations in the integrase region of the pol gene (although integrase genotyping was not reported). Further treatment changes included the replacement of azidothymidine + etravirine with the 2 previously prescribed NRTIs, ABC/3TC, in combination with DTG. It should be noted that this combination, in fact, represented a DTG functional monotherapy. Given previous failure with RAL-based therapy, at the time DTG was initiated, the patient resembled participants to the VIKING trials who had also failed previous treatment with RAL and developed documented RAL resistance mutations [3, 4]. Additionally, previous DTG monotherapy trials have demonstrated that prior exposure to other integrase inhibitors (INIs), such as RAL or elvitegravir (EVG), even in the absence of failure with the same, was sufficient to decrease the efficacy of DTG monotherapy and to favor the development of drug resistance mutations [5, 6]. For these reasons, the DOMONO trial excluded previous use of other INIs [2, 7, 8]. The patient reported by Achieng and Riedel unsurprisingly witnessed the development of major INSTI resistance substitutions at G140, Q148, and E138, which are identical to those found in the VIKING participants who experienced treatment failure [3]. Notably, the VIKING trial also examined doubling the daily dose (BID) of DTG and demonstrated that this latter formulation is preferable for INI-experienced individuals [4]. Such DTG BID dosing was not reported for the patient in question. In fact, given the burden of evidence from these trials, it could be appropriate to consider modifying official guidelines to include DTG BID dosing for all individuals previously exposed to RAL/EVG, at least until viral loads are persistently controlled. In addition, we are aware that individuals can tolerate daily dosing of up to 300 mg DTG without any obvious adverse event. In the absence of alternative therapeutic options, the use of such high dose of DTG should be investigated for salvage therapy. Although this case report originated from Kenya, it is important to note that similar patients can be found in high-income countries, including Canada [9]. Historically, some patients who used toxic and suboptimal first-line antiretroviral drug treatments died with multidrug-resistant viremia. The necessity for polypharmacy, together with the development of age-related diseases, including kidney disorders such as observed in Achieng and Riedel’s patient, considerably complicates the management of HIV infection. We note that Achieng and Riedel’s report supports our previous statements that DTG should be used as a first-line INI, rather than using RAL or EVG that display lower genetic barriers against resistance, and can compromise the entire class of INIs [10, 11]. In this regard, it is important to emphasize that the integrase substitutions T97A, E138K, G140S and Q148R are likely to compromise the activity of the newly developed INIs bictegravir and cabotegravir [12, 13]. If circumstances permit, salvage therapy through compassionate access to new compounds such as doravirine, MK-8591, or capsid inhibitors, which have been reported to have high efficacy in the early stage of clinical trials, should be sought [14–16]. This will only be beneficial in concert with adherence support interventions, as mentioned by the authors. Community-based programs supporting drug adherence and HIV care engagement are vital. It is also important to caution that the effective application of DTG in resource-limited settings will be hampered in the absence of strong genotyping programs. As unfortunately exemplified by this case report, special attention and support should be directed at addressing the critical issue of drug resistance management in resource-limited settings, especially at early stages of the intervention. Physicians also need to be alerted to the high prevalence of HIV-2 resistance to multiple drug classes, particularly in most low- and middle-income countries, where treatment with the core NNRTIs has been used as first-line therapy [17]. Furthermore, we need a better understanding of the distribution of HIV-2 multiple drug resistance, as well as more studies on the efficacy of DTG against HIV non-B subtypes harboring major drug resistance mutations. Finally, we also agree with Achieng and Riedel that we need to act swiftly to implement low-cost regimens containing DTG before more patients start using RAL under suboptimal circumstances. This will also preserve the option of employing RAL in the future, when the side effects of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions might disqualify aging patients from further DTG use. Potential conflicts of interest. All authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,108
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,037

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,049
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0070,005
Communication savante0,0070,006
Science ouverte0,0030,004
Intégrité de la recherche0,1080,070
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0100,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,010
Tête enseignante GPT0,256
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentnon

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Journal of Infectious DiseasesMême sujetHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentTravaux en français237 207