Accumulation of integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance mutations confers high-level resistance to dolutegravir in non-B subtype HIV-1 strains from patients failing raltegravir in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Increasing first-line treatment failures in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have led to increased use of integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) such as dolutegravir. However, HIV-1 susceptibility to INSTIs in LMICs, especially with previous raltegravir exposure, is poorly understood due to infrequent reporting of INSTI failures and testing for INSTI drug resistance mutations (DRMs). METHODS: A total of 51 non-subtype B HIV-1 infected patients failing third-line (raltegravir-based) therapy in Uganda were initially selected for the study. DRMs were detected using Sanger and deep sequencing. HIV integrase genes of 13 patients were cloned and replication capacities (RCs) and phenotypic susceptibilities to dolutegravir, raltegravir and elvitegravir were determined with TZM-bl cells. Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to determine cross-resistance between INSTIs. RESULTS: INSTI DRMs were detected in 47% of patients. HIV integrase-recombinant virus carrying one primary INSTI DRM (N155H or Y143R/S) was susceptible to dolutegravir but highly resistant to raltegravir and elvitegravir (>50-fold change). Two patients, one with E138A/G140A/Q148R/G163R and one with E138K/G140A/S147G/Q148K, displayed the highest reported resistance to raltegravir, elvitegravir and even dolutegravir. The former multi-DRM virus had WT RC whereas the latter had lower RCs than WT. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-1 subtype A- and D-infected patients failing raltegravir and harbouring INSTI DRMs, there is high-level resistance to elvitegravir and raltegravir. More routine monitoring of INSTI treatment may be advised in LMICs, considering that multiple INSTI DRMs may have accumulated during prolonged exposure to raltegravir during virological failure, leading to high-level INSTI resistance, including dolutegravir resistance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".