Frequent Cross-Resistance to Dapivirine in HIV-1 Subtype C-Infected Individuals after First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy Failure in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT A vaginal ring containing dapivirine (DPV) has shown moderate protective efficacy against HIV-1 acquisition, but the activity of DPV against efavirenz (EFV)- and nevirapine (NVP)-resistant viruses that could be transmitted is not well defined. We investigated DPV cross-resistance of subtype C HIV-1 from individuals on failing NVP- or EFV-containing antiretroviral therapy (ART) in South Africa. Plasma samples were obtained from individuals with >10,000 copies of HIV RNA/ml and with HIV-1 containing at least one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRTI) mutation. Susceptibility to NVP, EFV, and DPV in TZM-bl cells was determined for recombinant HIV-1LAIcontaining bulk-amplified, plasma-derived, full-length reverse transcriptase sequences. Fold change (FC) values were calculated compared with a composite 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) from 12 recombinant subtype C HIV-1LAIplasma-derived viruses from treatment-naive individuals in South Africa. A total of 25/100 (25%) samples showed >500-FCs to DPV compared to treatment-naive samples with IC50s exceeding the maximum DPV concentration tested (132 ng/ml). A total of 66/100 (66%) samples displayed 3- to 306-FCs, with a median IC50of 17.6 ng/ml. Only 9/100 (9%) samples were susceptible to DPV (FC < 3). Mutations L100I and K103N were significantly more frequent in samples with >500-fold resistance to DPV compared to samples with a ≤500-fold resistance. A total of 91% of samples with NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 from individuals on failing first-line ART in South Africa exhibited ≥3-fold cross-resistance to DPV. This level of resistance exceeds expected plasma concentrations, but very high genital tract DPV concentrations from DPV ring use could block viral replication. It is critically important to assess the frequency of transmitted and selected DPV resistance in individuals using the DPV ring.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".