Search

Background Children and adolescents living with HIV (CALHIV) face unique challenges, including poorer treatment outcomes, risk for drug-resistance mutations (HIVDRMs), and limited drug formulations. We estimated viral suppression (VS) prevalence and evaluated predictors of VS and HIVDRMs in Kenya. Methods From 2018–2020, CALHIV 1–19 years on antiretroviral therapy (ART) >6 months were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Participants underwent viral load (VL) testing; those with VL ≥1000 copies/mL had HIVDRM testing. Sociodemographic questionnaires and medical record abstraction were completed. VS prevalence (VL Results Nine hundred and sixty-nine participants were enrolled. VS prevalence was .80 (95% CI: .78–.83). Being on ART >24 months (adjusted PR [aPR]: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.06–1.41), an integrase strand transfer inhibitor–containing regimen (1.13; 1.02–1.26), and attending a level 3 health facility (1.23; 1.11–1.36) were associated with VS. Missing ≥3 doses of ART in the past month (aPR: .73; 95% CI: .58–.92), having a viremic mother with HIV (.72; .53–.98), and having 3–7 (.90; .83–.97), 8–13 (.89; .82–.97), or ≥14 (.84; .77–.92) compared with Conclusions HIV treatment programs should target interventions for pediatric patients at risk for treatment failure—namely, those with a caregiver with failed VS and those struggling with adherence.

Background Emerging HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) could jeopardize the success of standardized HIV management protocols in resource-limited settings. We characterized HIVDR among antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive and experienced participants in the African Cohort Study (AFRICOS). Methods From January 2013 to April 2019, adults with HIV-1 RNA >1000 copies/mL underwent ART history review and HIVDR testing upon enrollment at 12 clinics in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and Nigeria. We calculated resistance scores for specific drugs and tallied major mutations to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), and protease inhibitors (PIs) using Stanford HIVDB 8.8 and SmartGene IDNS software. For ART-naive participants, World Health Organization surveillance drug resistance mutations (SDRMs) were noted. Results HIVDR testing was performed on 972 participants with median age 35.7 (interquartile range [IQR] 29.7–42.7) years and median CD4 295 (IQR 148–478) cells/mm3. Among 801 ART-naive participants, the prevalence of SDRMs was 11.0%, NNRTI mutations 8.2%, NRTI mutations 4.7%, and PI mutations 0.4%. Among 171 viremic ART-experienced participants, NNRTI mutation prevalence was 83.6%, NRTI 67.8%, and PI 1.8%. There were 90 ART-experienced participants with resistance to both efavirenz and lamivudine, 33 (36.7%) of whom were still prescribed these drugs. There were 10 with resistance to both tenofovir and lamivudine, 8 (80.0%) of whom were prescribed these drugs. Conclusions Participants on failing ART regimens had a high burden of HIVDR that potentially limited the efficacy of standardized first- and second-line regimens. Management strategies that emphasize adherence counseling while delaying ART switch may promote drug resistance and should be reconsidered., From 2013–2019, pretreatment drug resistance has increased in Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, and Nigeria. Resistance was observed in most treatment-experienced participants on failing regimens, some of whom had mutations that could compromise standard first- and second-line regimen efficacy.

Introduction: Despite the success derived from antiretroviral therapy, drug resistance (DR) mutations are known to develop and are major impediments to treatment of HIV patients. Therefore, periodic assessment of HIVDR is needed to ensure continuous HAART efficacy. This study assessed the magnitude of drug resistance as well as HIV genetic variability in drug-naive and treated patients in Nigeria. Methodology: Genotypic analysis was performed by sequencing plasma specimens from 40 individuals in a cross sectional study involving 202 HIV infected patients from all the six geopolitical zones of Nigeria. Sequences were analyzed for presence of HIVDR mutation using the algorithm in Stanford HIVDR database and confirmed by IAS-USA 2009 mutation list. Phylogenetic and recombination analyses were done using PAUP V4.0 and REGA V2.0 respectively. Results: Major DR mutations were detected in the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene of 5 (33%) drug experienced and 2 (8%) na?ve patients. Most common mutations were M184V and K103N with no protease (PR) mutations detected. Thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs) and a complex multi resistance mutation Q151M were detected in 3 samples. Polymorphic substitutions were observed in both PR and RT gene. Phylogenetic analysis revealed Group M isolates of G (20), J (1), circulating recombinant forms: CRF02_AG (14), CRF-18-cpx (1), CRF06_cpx (3) and a unique AD recombinant (1). Conclusion: Our findings corroborate previous studies on circulating DR viruses in Nigeria while genetic diversity is on the increase. In view of ART scale-up, monitoring the resistance pattern and genetic diversity will aid in appropriate prevention strategies.

HIV-1 drug resistance (HIVDR) assays are important tools in clinical management of HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and surveillance of drug-resistant variants at population levels. The high cost associated with commercial assays hinders their use in resource-limited settings. We adopted and validated a low-cost in-house assay using 68 matched plasma and dried blood spot (DBS) samples with a median viral load (VL) of 58,187 copies/ml, ranging from 253 to 3,264,850 against the commercial assay ViroSeq. Results indicated that the in-house assay not only had a higher plasma genotyping rate than did ViroSeq (94% versus 78%) but also was able to genotype 89.5% (51/57) of the matched DBS samples with VLs of ≥1,000 copies/ml. The sensitivity in detecting DR mutations by the in-house assay was 98.29% (95% confidence interval [CI], 97.86 to 98.72) on plasma and 96.54 (95% CI, 95.93 to 97.15) on DBS, and the specificity was 99.97% (95% CI, 99.91 to 100.00) for both sample types compared to ViroSeq. The minor DR mutation differences detected by the in-house assay against ViroSeq did not result in clinical significance. In addition, cost analysis showed that the in-house assay could reduce the genotyping cost by about 60% for both plasma and DBS compared to ViroSeq. This field condition evaluation highlights the potential utility of a cost-effective, subtype-independent, in-house genotyping assay using both plasma and DBS specimens for HIVDR clinical monitoring and population-based surveillance in resource-limited settings.

Performances of serological parallel and serial testing algorithms were analyzed using a combination of three ELISA and three rapid tests for the confirmation of HIV infection. Each was assessed individually for their sensitivity and specificity on a blinded panel of 769 retrospective sera of known HIV status. Western blot was used as a confirmatory assay for discordant results. Subsequently, one parallel and one serial testing algorithm were assessed on a new panel of 912 HIV-positive and negative samples. Individual evaluation of the ELISAs and rapid tests indicated a sensitivity of 100% for all assays except Uni-Gold with 99.7%. The specificities ranged from 99.1% to 99.4% for rapid assays and from 97.5% to 99.1% for ELISAs. A parallel and serial testing algorithms using Enzygnost and Vironostika, and Determine followed by Uni-Gold respectively, showed 100% sensitivity and specificity. The cost for testing 912 samples was US$4.74 and US$ 1.9 per sample in parallel and serial testing respectively. Parallel or serial testing algorithm yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 100%. This alternative algorithm is reliable and reduces the occurrence of both false negatives and positives. The serial testing algorithm was more cost effective for diagnosing HIV infections in this population.