The Epidemiology of Transmission of Drug Resistant HIV-1
David A.M.C. van de Vijver, Annemarie M.J. Wensing, Charles A.B. Boucher
Department of Medical Microbiology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
1. Introduction
The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy has dramatically reduced morbidity and mortality among patients infected with HIV-1 (1,2). But the success of antiretroviral treatment is frequently limited by the emergence of HIV drug resistance (3-5). Importantly, drug resistant viruses can be transmitted to newly infected individuals (6-8). Transmission of drug resistant HIV is a major public health concern, as it could lead to a situation in which no effective drugs are available for the treatment of HIV.
A large number of epidemiological studies have addressed the important issue of transmission of drug resistant HIV. Unfortunately, the results of different studies are difficult to compare because of substantial dissimilarities in assay methodology, definitions used to classify drug resistance, time period in which the data were collected, and the population under study. Despite these differences, some conclusions can be made about the epidemiology and the impact of transmitted drug resistance.
This review summarizes the most important findings of epidemiological studies on transmission of drug resistant HIV. This review was limited to studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the last five years (2002-2006). To allow for comparison, we only considered studies that included the proportion of patients infected with drug resistant HIV and that reported the occurrence of transmitted resistance to a particular class of antiretrovirals. (The fusion-inhibitor enfuvirtide was not considered, as the epidemiological studies did not include the gp41 region where resistance to this drug emerges). Topics that will be discussed include the proportion of transmission of resistant strains in different parts of the world, trends over time, risk factors for acquiring drug resistant HIV, and the impact of transmitted resistance on future therapy. Special emphasis will be given to the methodological dissimilarities between the studies and the potential impact of these factors on the reported proportions of transmission of drug resistant HIV.
2. Methodological differences between epidemiological studies
2.1 Sampling strategy
A significant cause of dissimilarity among studies is whether the individuals sampled had a recent infection, were antiretroviral naïve, or were newly diagnosed patients (Table 1a).
Sampling limited to recently infected patients
Limiting the inclusion to recently infected patients has a substantial epidemiological benefit. Epidemiology defines the occurrence of disease as incident (new cases of disease during a specified period of time) or prevalent (number of diseased individuals at a particular point in time) (9). Incident patients acquired the virus recently, whereas antiretroviral naïve individuals who are chronically infected are defined as prevalent. In recently infected patients, the moment of infection can be estimated. Conversely, prevalent patients are a heterogeneous mixture of individuals who were recently infected and those who acquired the virus many years before but who did not yet receive treatment.
Tables 2a and 2b show an overview of, respectively, studies that limited the sampling to patients who recently acquired HIV (Table 2a) or studies that included antiretroviral naïve patients (Table 2b). The latter group consists of both recently and chronically infected individuals. A first remarkable observation is that the studies among recently infected individuals (Table 2a) used differential inclusion criteria as evidence for seroconversion in the recent past, ranging from 6 to 36 months. But of greater importance is the substantial dissimilarity in risk group distribution between studies including either recently or chronically infected patients. Men-having-sex-with-men (MSM) were the predominant risk group (proportion ranging between 57% and 92%) in studies of recently infected patients in Western Europe or North America (Table 2a). In the same geographical regions, MSM was also a common risk group among prevalent antiretroviral naïve patients (Table 2b). But the proportion of MSM had percentages ranging between 18% and 63%, substantially lower than in most studies of recently infected patients. An important explanation for this dissimilarity in risk group distributions between the studies in Tables 2a and 2b is that, in some European countries, patients who acquired HIV through heterosexual contact are more likely to come from regions with a history of limited access to antiretroviral drugs (10-12); amongst them, transmission of resistance will be rare. In addition, most of these patients are expected to have been infected before arrival in Europe and are therefore expected to be underrepresented among recently infected patients. Finally, it has been reported that MSM more frequently take an HIV test (13). As a consequence, they are likely to be identified earlier during the course of their infection. Therefore, studies limited to recently infected patients may not be representative of all HIV-infected patients and are likely to overestimate the true size of the problem of transmitted drug resistance.
Limiting the inclusion to recently infected individuals also has an advantage from a virological point of view, as reversion of transmitted drug resistance will be minimized. Reversion can occur because mutations conferring resistance to antiretroviral drugs commonly - but not always - result in a virus that replicates less efficiently than wild-type HIV (14,15). Thus, the drug resistant virus could be outgrown by faster-replicating revertant viruses. In addition, reversion could result in a viral sequence intermediate between the wild type and a resistance associated substitution. An important example of this phenomenon occurs at codon 215 of reverse transcriptase. Here, the resistance associated substitutions T215F and T215Y require two nucleotide mutations for reversion to wild type. But in isolates obtained from patients who had not receive antiretroviral treatment for their HIV-infection, unusual codons are frequently found that are intermediates between wild type and T215F/Y (16-19). Interestingly, viruses with a reversion at codon 215 have a decreased genetic barrier for the selection of the resistance-associated amino acid substitution T215Y (19).
Intermediates have not been reported for most other codons where resistance associated substitutions can emerge. As a consequence, reversion is expected to frequently result in a susceptible wild-type virus. In this context, it is important to note that drug resistant HIV can persist for decades by establishing a latent infection in resting memory CD4-positive cells, and perhaps other cells (15). Hence, inclusion of chronically infected antiretroviral naïve patients could underestimate the size of the problem, as resistance - still present as a latent infection - may no longer be detected due to reversion to the wild-type sequence in viral RNA isolated from plasma. Several studies have shown a remarkable persistence of particular patterns of transmitted drug resistance in plasma over time (20-23), indicating that reversion of some mutational patterns only occurs to a limited extent. In addition, a recent study (24) proposed compensatory fixation as a possible explanation for the in vivo persistence of some mutational patterns. The study reported the prolonged persistence (up to 4 years) of viruses with multiple protease mutations after treatment with protease inhibitors was stopped (treatment with RT inhibitors was continued). It was found that these viruses have partially compensated for the initial loss in replication capacity. Reversion of a single mutation therefore causes a further reduction in replication capacity and, as a consequence, the route to wild type is blocked (24). A similar phenomenon was observed in transmitted resistance (25).
Sampling extended to antiretroviral naïve and/or newly diagnosed patients
Patients recently infected with HIV are difficult to identify. But, because of the limited extent to which reversion occurs, epidemiological studies could also include patients living with HIV for a longer period of time who have not received treatment at the time they were sampled; these chronically infected antiretroviral naïve patients are easier to identify. Hence, studies also including antiretroviral naïve patients could identify a larger number of individuals during a shorter period of sampling. This is nicely illustrated by comparing the number of patients included in the studies summarized in Tables 2a and 2b; all studies with more than 500 patients also included antiretroviral naïve individuals.
But antiretroviral naïve patients can be sampled using several strategies. For instance, patients who had not been treated with antiretrovirals at the time of inclusion can be sampled (17). In addition, a resistance test can be done on a sample collected just before treatment is initiated (26). Sampling is preferably limited to newly diagnosed patients, as this approach allows a resistance test to be performed on the earliest available sample, thus minimizing reversion (27). In addition, a substantial number of countries have HIV surveillance systems that are limited to newly diagnosed patients (10-12,28,29). Using these surveillance systems, local sampling strategies can be made that allow for the identification and inclusion of individuals who are representative of the risk group distribution and geographical distribution of local HIV epidemics. Finally, newly diagnosed patients also include individuals who recently acquired HIV.
2.2 Assay methodology and definitions used to classify resistance
Genotypic assays
Both genotypic and phenotypic assays are used for resistance testing, and the strengths and weaknesses of each methodology are summarized in Table 1b. The majority of epidemiological studies have used genotypic testing (Tables 2a and 2b). Genotypic assays identify the mutations that cause amino acid substitutions associated with drug resistance (30). Importantly, most studies have used population sequencing, which fails to detect and quantify minorities of drug-resistant quasi-species below 25% (31). Using methodology that allows the quantification of minor viral populations has demonstrated that conventional population sequencing considerably underestimates the size of the problem of transmitted resistance (31,32).
Studies using genotypic assays define resistance as the presence of one or more amino acid substitutions included in the resistance guidelines published by the International AIDS Society of the United States (IAS-USA) (Tables 2a and 2b). This is an important advantage, as it facilitates the comparison of rates found between studies. But unfortunately, the IAS-USA resistance guidelines are not designed for this purpose. Indeed, the experts who wrote the guidelines indicate that the list should be used cautiously in studies of the transmission of resistance (33).
Several problems could arise when applying the IAS-USA resistance guidelines in epidemiological studies on transmission of resistance. For instance, the guidelines include polymorphic substitutions that occur naturally in HIV-1 sequences obtained from individuals without any previous drug exposure (34-36). Inclusion of these polymorphic substitutions could overestimate the size of the problem. In this respect, it is also important to discuss the distinction the IAS list makes between major and minor protease substitutions. According to the definition provided in the IAS list, major substitutions by themselves reduce drug susceptibility. Minor substitutions improve, in some cases, the replicative capacity of HIV carrying major substitutions (37), but do not by themselves have a significant effect on drug susceptibility (37,38). Most minor protease substitutions are polymorphic, as they are also common in sequences from patients who have not been exposed to antiretrovirals (36,39). Due to the polymorphic nature of most minor substitutions, studies only consider the major ones as evidence of transmission of drug resistance.
Furthermore, the IAS list may not include all relevant substitutions, as the guidelines are based on published data. Current published data rely mainly on isolates obtained from persons treated for a limited period of time with a single inhibitor. Today, therapeutic regimens are increasingly complex, and a large number of novel resistance-associated substitutions have emerged that are not currently included in the IAS list (35,36,40).
The amino acid substitutions included in the IAS-USA resistance guidelines have mostly been identified in sequences of subtype B. Interestingly, particular subtypes have different mutational patterns (41). But codons at positions with major protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance-associated substitutions are generally well-conserved across the subtypes (42). Nonetheless, some important differences in resistance pathways are found in subtype B and non-B strains. For instance, in patients failing nelfinavir, subtype B strains most frequently develop the D30N amino acid substitution, whereas other subtypes more commonly develop L90M (43,44). Similarly, upon failure to efavirenz, V106M is more frequently observed in subtype C as compared to B (45).
Finally, the IAS list is regularly updated to include novel substitutions that have been identified as relevant for drug resistance (33,38,46-53). But these updates complicate the comparison between stud
ies performed at different periods in time. In addition, the IAS list does not consistently list the same mutations. For instance, the RT amino acid substitution V118I was included in previous versions of the IAS list (48,52,53), but was omitted from the most recent update of the list (54). Importantly, the V118I substitution is found in 2-3% of subtype B sequences obtained from patients who did not take antiretroviral drugs (55). Hence, inclusion of V118I overestimates the size of the problem of transmitted resistance. Similarly, the protease V32I substitution was classified in previous versions as a minor mutation (48,52,53), but the most recent update of the list classifies this mutation as major (54).
To facilitate any comparison between studies, the methods section of reports on the epidemiology of transmission of drug resistant HIV should include the mutations considered. In addition, the frequency of the most commonly found amino acid substitutions should be listed in the results section.
Phenotypic assays
A small number of studies classified resistance using phenotypic assays (Table 3). All of these studies also defined drug resistance by means of a genotypic assay (and thus are also included in Tables 2a and 2b). A phenotypic assay measures the in vitro susceptibility of HIV to antiretrovirals. For this purpose, a recombinant virus including the protease and RT gene from the patient's plasma is created. Susceptibility to particular antiretrovirals is then calculated as the fold change in drug concentration at which 50% (IC50) of replication is suppressed, as measured by comparing the IC50 values of a reference strain and the recombinant virus (16,56).
Unfortunately, the cut-offs used in phenotypic assays for defining drug resistance are not clearly described. All studies defined phenotypic resistance using cut-offs in IC50 at 2.5 and 10 fold (57-60). But the cut-offs above which there is detectable impairment in virological response is known to vary by drug. Surprisingly, only one study used various cut-offs for different antiretrovirals based on assay precision, biological variability, and limited clinical experience (58).
Using different cut-offs had a substantial impact on the
proportion of patients in whom transmitted resistance was detected
(Table 3). All studies reported a prevalence of at least 10% when
using a cut-off of 2.5. Conversely, the size of the problem of
resistance was limited if only a fold change in IC50 above
10 was considered. Importantly, in all studies, the reported
prevalence based on phenotypic assays deviated substantially from the
result obtained using genotypic resistance (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Comparison of genotypic and phenotypic resistance tests. The bars labeled 'genotypic' represent the proportion of patients infected with a drug resistant virus according to the results of genotypic assays. Similarly, the bars >2.5 and >10 represent the proportion of transmitted phenotypic resistance using a fold-change in IC50 of, respectively, at least 2.5 or 10. The study by Grant et al. (reference 58) did not include the fold changes above 2.5, but used clinical cut-offs that varied for each drug.
3. Summary of the reported results
3.1 Epidemiology of transmitted resistance
Recently infected patients
Studies limited to recently infected patients were predominantly performed in Europe and North America (Table 2a). Interestingly, the incidence figures reported in Europe (ranging between 6.4% and 14.0%) (61-68) were generally lower than those in North America (12.3% to 23.1%) (57,58,69). The magnitude of multi-class resistance, defined as evidence of decreased susceptibility to at least two different classes of antiretrovirals, was also substantially higher in North America (about 6%) as compared to Europe (generally <2%). This indicates that the problem of transmitted resistance is more complex in North America. Furthermore, in both of these parts of the world, resistance was most frequently found for NRTIs (nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors).
The single African study, which only included recently infected individuals, found no evidence of transmitted drug resistance (70). The absence of resistance among these patients most likely reflects the limited availability of antiretrovirals in Africa.
A remarkable study from Argentina reported an incidence of 7.7% (71). The results of this study are interesting because the Argentinean ministry of health has sponsored a policy of universal access to antiretroviral drugs since 1990. It is therefore important to note that the figure reported in this South American country was lower than most estimates from Europe and North America. Genotypic resistance was primarily found for NNRTIs (non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors). In addition, transmitted multi-class resistance was not reported.
Antiretroviral naïve and newly diagnosed patients
A considerable number of studies have reported on the epidemiology of transmitted drug resistant HIV among prevalent patients who had not received antiretroviral therapy at the time they were sampled (Table 2b). These studies included antiretroviral naïve patients on almost all continents. Importantly, evidence of transmitted resistance has been observed all over the world. But a consistent finding among antiretroviral naïve patients, irrespective of where they were sampled, is that the prevalence of multi-class resistance is limited.
Studies from North America (72-76) and Western Europe (17,26,68,77-83) generally reported the highest prevalence estimates of transmitted drug resistant HIV (8-18% and 2-14%, respectively). This could be ascribed to the earlier period in time when patients were sampled in these regions. In addition, it could be due to the widespread availability of antiretroviral drugs for a substantial period of time in industrialized countries. A notable exception to the higher prevalence of transmitted resistance in North America and Western Europe is Denmark. A study from this country found evidence of transmitted resistance in only 2.1% of the included individuals (80).
An interesting observation that can be made from the results in Table 2b is that transmitted resistance in North America and Western Europe was most frequently found for NRTIs, irrespective of the years in which patients were sampled. It should be noted that one study from San Francisco (76) was an exception, reporting that transmitted NNRTI resistance was the most common. In other parts of the world, transmitted resistance was generally more homogenously distributed across the various antiretroviral drug classes. A possible explanation for this dissimilarity is that in Western Europe, the USA, and Canada, antiretrovirals were introduced well before HAART (highly active antiretroviral treatment, or the combination of the at least two different classes of anti-HIV drugs) became available in 1996. Before then, treatment of HIV consisted of a single NRTI, usually zidovudine or lamivudine. Resistance to mono-therapy with these drugs emerges rapidly (84-86) and it is thus very likely that a large number of NRTI-resistant viruses circulated at that time. Indeed, the first published case reports in the early 1990s described transmitted zidovudine resistance (6-8). HAART successfully suppresses viral replication making the emergence of resistance less likely. Therefore, in countries where treatment started at the time when HAART had become available, less drug resistant viruses are expected to circulate. This hypothesis is also supported by the observation that rates of transmitted NRTI resistance were generally highest in Europe and North America (87).
Studies performed in Africa were usually small, with sample sizes ranging between 18 and 107 patients. As could be expected based on the small scale on which antiretrovirals are available in Africa, transmission of drug resistance did not occur frequently, with estimates between 0 and 13.0%. Similarly, the mutational patterns were not complex, as resistance was always observed for only one class of antiretrovirals (59,60,88-92). Nonetheless, one study from Cameroon reported a considerable prevalence of transmitted resistance of 13.0%. But this study used a dissimilar method, as the genotyping was done using proviral DNA. In addition, the researchers analyzed at least four clones per sample. Interestingly, the researchers reported that the drug resistance-associated substitutions were, in all but one case, present as minor populations, as evidence of resistance was only observed in only one of the four clones (92). But these minor viral variants cannot be detected by the population sequencing used in other studies (31). Excluding the drug resistant mutants found as minor populations from the analysis resulted in a decrease of the prevalence of transmitted resistance from 13.0% (7/54) to 1.9% (1/54) (92).
Of particular interest were the two reports from the former Soviet Union (93,94). Since the mid-1990s, this part of the world has experienced a progressively growing epidemic, mostly limited to intravenous drug users. Importantly, Eastern Europe is the region of the world with the fastest growing HIV epidemic (29). One report, from the republic of Georgia, predominantly included intravenous drug users and found a limited prevalence of transmitted resistance of only 4% (93). The other report from Eastern Europe included patients from across the former Soviet Union (94). Surprisingly, the study found a prevalence of 17%, which is among the highest reported anywhere in the world.
In Latin America most reports that limited the inclusion to antiretroviral naïve patients came from Brazil (95-98). This country provides important information, as the Brazilian ministry of health has been sponsoring a policy of universal access to antiretroviral drugs since 1996 (98). The prevalence of transmitted resistance has had values ranging between 2.8 and 8.5% (95-98), generally lower than most reports from Europe and North America. Transmitted multi-class resistance in Brazil was only observed in a very limited fraction (at most 0.6%) of antiretroviral naïve individuals (95-98). Similarly, a study among MSM in Peru found a low prevalence of transmitted resistance of only 3.3% (99).
Two reports from Asia found that the size of the problem of transmitted resistance was limited (100,101). A study from Vietnam found a prevalence of 6.5% among 200 antiretroviral naïve individuals (100). Similarly, a Malaysian study reported evidence of transmitted resistance in only one individual among 100 antiretroviral naïve patients (101).
Comparison of recent vs. chronic infection
A small number of studies that sampled antiretroviral naïve patients also compared the proportion of resistance between recently and chronically infected individuals (Table 4) (17,72,75,83,97,99). All but one of these studies (17,72,75,83,97) found that transmission of drug resistance was most frequent among patients who recently acquired HIV. But two reports found a decreased risk for transmitted resistance among recently infected patients as compared to chronically infected individuals (76,99).
The epidemiological dissimilarity in transmitted resistance between recently and chronically infected patients is due to a complex interplay of various factors. First, the discrepancy is partially explained by the limited degree to which reversion occurs (20,22). In this context, it should be noted that revertants at codon 215 are classified as transmitted resistance. Furthermore, patients who are identified earlier during the course of their HIV-infection generally have a different risk-group distribution. As a consequence, the dissimilarity could be due to the higher prevalence of transmitted resistance in particular risk groups that are more common among patients identified earlier after seroconversion. Finally, both study groups were infected at different moments in time. The lower prevalence among chronically infected patients could therefore reflect a lower prevalence of transmitted resistance in the past.
3.2 Time trends
In this report, the comparison of transmitted resistance over time was limited to patients who were newly infected. Only these patients were considered, as transmission of resistance among chronically infected patients also reflects the risk for acquiring a resistant virus many years ago.
The results from studies that looked at trends are inconsistent, with some studies finding either a substantial increase (57,61,69) or decrease (62,65,67) over time. In addition, other studies reported a slight decrease in transmitted resistance followed by a second peak (17,58,72). The inconsistent findings could be explained by local differences. But the comparison between time periods is complicated, as many studies reported that the population under study also changed over time (61,62). Also, there was a considerable dissimilarity between studies regarding the particular time periods that were compared.
New insights in the treatment of HIV and novel drugs have been developed during the last decade (102-105). As a consequence, it can be expected that treatment has improved over time, and this could have an impact on transmitted resistance. But based on the reports published in recent years, it is not yet possible to conclude whether changes in treatment had a beneficial or detrimental impact on the size of the problem of transmitted resistance over time.
3.3 Risk factors for acquiring drug resistant HIV
Several studies have reported on the risk factors for acquiring a drug resistant virus. Importantly, studies from North America and Europe reporting on risk factors found that transmission of resistance most frequently occurred among Caucasians, as compared to other ethnic groups (26,72,74,75). This dissimilarity is most likely caused by the fact that antiretrovirals have been available for a prolonged period of time in North America and Europe, but have been less accessible in other parts of the world. As non-Caucasians are more likely to carry viruses originating from recent immigrants, they are thus less likely to carry a drug resistant virus.
An interesting observation was that viruses in which drug resistance-associated substitutions were identified were predominantly of subtype B (17,26). HIV-1 subtypes have a distinct geographical distribution, with subtype B predominating the epidemic in North America and Western Europe. Clade B accounts for only a minority of infections in Africa, where subtypes A and C predominate, and a number of other clades are also circulating at a high level (106-108). Subtype B viruses thus predominantly circulate in areas where antiretrovirals are readily available. This explains the higher prevalence of transmitted resistance among subtype B.
In summary, the comparison of reported risk factors suggests that transmission of resistance is most likely in patients originating from areas where antiretrovirals are available on a large scale. As a consequence, immigration from areas with limited access to antiretrovirals could have a profound impact on transmitted resistance.
3.4 Impact of transmitted resistance on treatment efficacy
When treatment of patients who have failed antiretroviral therapy is guided by expert interpretation of genotypic resistance, significantly improved virological outcome is achieved (109-111). These results cannot easily be extrapolated to transmitted resistance, as mutational patterns are more complex among patients failing antiretroviral treatment. For instance, contrary to transmitted resistance, HIV multi-class resistance is very common in individuals who fail treatment (3-5).
Several of the epidemiological studies discussed in this review analyzed the impact of transmitted resistance on initial antiretroviral treatment. Studies that did not use genotypic information in the initiation of treatment found that antiretroviral naïve patients infected with a drug resistant virus took a longer time to reach viral suppression after starting treatment (57,58,63). In addition, among patients who had a relapse of viremia after viral suppression, the length of time to virologic failure was shorter among individuals with transmitted resistance (57). Complete viral suppression was generally achieved in the vast majority of patients, irrespective of baseline susceptibility patterns (57,58). Nonetheless, the longer time needed to achieve complete viral suppression may permit sufficient further rounds of viral replication to select for additional drug-resistant variants (112), which could be detrimental during a later stage of treatment.
Conversely, studies in which treatment was optimized based on interpretation of resistance found that the time to virological suppression was similar irrespective of baseline susceptibility (26,67,69,109-111). Therefore, guidelines (27,105) recommend resistance testing before initiation of treatment in areas where the prevalence of transmitted resistance is unknown or greater than 5% (105) or 10% (27).
4. Conclusions and summary
The incidence and prevalence of transmitted resistance show substantial variability among studies. The dissimilarities among studies are to some extent ascribed to whether recently or chronically infected patients were sampled. Limiting the inclusion to recently infected patients has some important virological advantages (i.e., potential reversion minimized) and epidemiological advantages (i.e., duration of infection can be estimated), but particular routes of transmission seem to be over-represented. The latter is most likely due to differences in HIV testing behavior between risk groups. As a consequence, studies limited to patients that recently acquired the virus may not be representative of all HIV infections in a particular geographic region. Fortunately, transmitted drug resistant HIV persists for a considerable period. This key observation implies that epidemiological studies on transmitted resistance could also include chronically infected patients who had not received antiretroviral treatment. Notably, most patients are identified when they have entered the asymptomatic phase of AIDS.
As an example of progress in surmounting the problem of differences in study methodologies, we would like to mention the SPREAD program, which is now being implemented by the EuropeHIVResistance Network. This program has investigated transmission of resistance and its determinants across Europe. For practical reasons, the study group consisted of newly diagnosed patients. Sampling newly diagnosed individuals allowed us to obtain the earliest available sample. Importantly, patients were sampled according to a uniform strategy that enabled the identification of those who were representative for the risk group distribution and geographical distribution of the HIV epidemic in each country. Using this strategy, we identified 1083 patients from 17 European countries. A considerable proportion (22%) of the patients had laboratory evidence of recent seroconversion (<1 year) (113). We expect that the results of this large-scale systematic study will shed new light on the transmission of drug resistance in Europe.
The most important risk factor for transmitted resistance seems to be the large-scale availability of antiretrovirals in the area where infection occurred. Immigration from areas with limited or no access to antiretrovirals could therefore have a profound impact on the size of the problem of transmitted resistance (e.g., immigration from Africa to Europe). In theory, the occurrence of transmitted resistance in a risk group sampled in a particular geographical region could increase but, due to immigration, the prevalence could decrease in the population of antiretroviral naïve individuals living in the same area. Therefore, absolute numbers and the occurrence of transmitted resistance should be provided for every risk group.
The vast majority of studies used population sequencing for determining genotypic resistance. This type of genotypic assay sequencing does not allow detection of minor populations present in <25% of the sequences. Virtually all studies therefore underestimate the size of the problem of transmitted resistance. Importantly, there is a surprising lack of consensus with respect to the amino acid substitutions that are of relevance for transmitted drug resistance. Studies using different methods for classifying resistance based on genotypic assays are therefore difficult to compare. Thus, we recommend that the methods section of all epidemiological studies should include the particular amino acid substitutions that were analyzed. In addition, the frequency of the most commonly-found mutations should be listed in the results section.
Transmitted multi-class resistance is rare in all parts of the world. Nonetheless, epidemiological studies that followed patients after the start of antiretroviral treatment showed that therapy guided by resistance testing performed before the commencement of antiretrovirals has a beneficial impact on the length of time to reaching virological suppression. Resistance testing on the earliest available sample is therefore recommended in areas with a prevalence of transmitted resistance that exceeds 5-10%.
Current studies on transmission of drug resistance only consider three classes of antiretroviral drugs (NRTIs, NNRTIs, and protease inhibitors). But since 2003, the fusion inhibitor enfuvirtide is also available in clinical practice (114,115). Transmitted resistance to enfuvirtide does not presently seem to be a problem, as only two cases have been documented (116). A likely explanation for the very limited enfuvirtide resistance is that this drug is used by only a small number of patients. For example, a Dutch online database on drug utilization in the Netherlands reported that in 2005 only 89 patients used enfuvirtide, while almost 9,000 individuals used NRTIs, about 5,000 persons used NNRTIs, and more than 3,000 patients took protease inhibitors (117). Inclusion of enfuvirtide resistance in surveillance programs means that a genetically variable region of the envelope should be genotyped, and this procedure is not currently part of routine clinical practice. Therefore, this test only seems warranted if a substantial number of HIV patients start using this drug. Similarly, transmission of resistance to novel drugs such as CCR5 and integrase inhibitors should only be considered if large numbers of patients start using these drugs. Before large scale epidemiological studies are set up, pilot studies in particular risk groups could be performed to determine if any transmission of resistance to novel classes of drugs is found.
In summary, transmission of resistance has been reported in all parts of the world. The size of the problem varies between 0 and 25% and seems to be the highest in areas where antiretrovirals have been available for a long period of time. Antiretrovirals have shown to dramatically decrease morbidity and mortality among people living with HIV (1,2) and are therefore increasingly provided in many parts of world. Monitoring of transmitted resistance continues to be needed to allow a timely modification of antiretroviral treatment guidelines. Importantly, when comparing results from various studies, the differences in research methodology should be taken into account.
Acknowledgements
Funding: Virolab (www.virolab.org), which is sponsored by the European Commission (project IST-027446), and EuropeHIVResistance (www.europehivresistance.org), which is also supported by the European commission (project LSHP-CT-2006-518211)
References
[1] Jaggy C, von Overbeck J, Ledergerber B et al. Mortality in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) and the Swiss general population. Lancet 362(9387):877-878 (2003).
[2] Palella FJ, Jr., Delaney KM, Moorman AC et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 338(13):853-860 (1998).
[3] Estimating HIV-1 Drug Resistance in Antiretroviral-Treated Individuals in the United Kingdom. J Infect Dis 192(6):967-973 (2005).
[4] Richman DD, Morton SC, Wrin T et al. The prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance in the United States. AIDS 18(10):1393-1401 (2004).
[5] Tamalet C, Fantini J, Tourres C, Yahi N. Resistance of HIV-1 to multiple antiretroviral drugs in France: a 6-year survey (1997-2002) based on an analysis of over 7000 genotypes. AIDS 17(16):2383-2388 (2003).
[6] Erice A, Mayers DL, Strike DG et al. Brief report: primary infection with zidovudine-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. N Engl J Med 328(16):1163-1165 (1993).
[7] Hermans P, Sprecher S, Clumeck N. Primary infection with zidovudine-resistant HIV. N Engl J Med 329(15):1123 (1993).
[8] Masquelier B, Lemoigne E, Pellegrin I, Douard D, Sandler B, Fleury HJ. Primary infection with zidovudine-resistant HIV. N Engl J Med 329(15):1123-1124 (1993).
[9] Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology. Second ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven (1998).
[10] Public Health Agency of Canada. HIV/AIDS Epi Updates. 2003, 2006.
[11] The UK collaborative group for HIV and STI surveillance. A complex picture. HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in the United Kingdom: 2006. London: Health Protection Agency, Centre for Infections (2006).
[12] De Boer IM, Op de Coul EL, Koedijk F. D., Van Veen MG, Van Sighem AI, Van de Laar MJ. HIV and sexually transmitted infections in the Netherlands in 2005. Report number 441100024/2006. RIVM, Bilthoven (2006).
[13] Leaity S, Sherr L, Wells H et al. Repeat HIV testing: high-risk behaviour or risk reduction strategy? AIDS 14(5):547-552 (2000).
[14] Nijhuis M, Deeks S, Boucher C. Implications of antiretroviral resistance on viral fitness. Curr Opin Infect Dis 14(1):23-28 (2001).
[15] Deeks SG. Treatment of antiretroviral-drug-resistant HIV-1 infection. Lancet 362(9400):2002-2011 (2003).
[16] Wensing AMJ, Boucher CA. Worldwide transmission of drug-resistant HIV. AIDS Rev 5(3):140-155 (2003).
[17] Wensing AM, van de Vijver D, Angarano G et al. Prevalence of drug-resistant HIV-1 variants in untreated individuals in Europe: implications for clinical management. J Infect Dis 192(6):958-966 (2005).
[18] Garcia-Lerma JG, Nidtha S, Blumoff K, Weinstock H, Heneine W. Increased ability for selection of zidovudine resistance in a distinct class of wild-type HIV-1 from drug-naive persons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(24):13907-13912 (2001).
[19] Violin M, Cozzi-Lepri A, Velleca R et al. Risk of failure in patients with 215 HIV-1 revertants starting their first thymidine analog-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 18(2):227-235 (2004).
[20] Barbour JD, Hecht FM, Wrin T et al. Persistence of primary drug resistance among recently HIV-1 infected adults. AIDS 18(12):1683-1689 (2004).
[21] Neifer S, Somogyi S, Schlote F, Berg T, Poggensee G, Kuecherer C. Persistence of a sexually transmitted highly resistant HIV-1: pol quasispecies evolution over 33 months in the absence of treatment. AIDS 20(17):2231-2233 (2006).
[22] Brenner BG, Routy JP, Petrella M et al. Persistence and fitness of multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 acquired in primary infection. J Virol 76(4):1753-1761 (2002).
[23] Little SJ, Dawson K, Hellmann NS, Richman DD, Frosy SDW. Persistence of transmitted drug-resistant virus among subjects with primary HIV infection deferring antiretroviral therapy. Antivir Ther 8, S129 (2003).
[24] van Maarseveen NM, Wensing AM, Jong D et al. Persistence of HIV-1 Variants with Multiple Protease Inhibitor (PI)-Resistance Mutations in the Absence of PI Therapy Can Be Explained by Compensatory Fixation. J Infect Dis 195(3):399-409 (2007).
[25] Huigen MCDG, Albert J, Lindstrom A et al. Compensatory fixation explains long term persistence of the M41L in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase in a large transmission cluster. Antivir Ther 11, S113 (2006).
[26] Oette M, Kaiser R, Daumer M et al. Primary HIV drug resistance and efficacy of first-line antiretroviral therapy guided by resistance testing. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 41(5):573-581 (2006).
[27] Vandamme AM, Sonnerborg A, it-Khaled M et al. Updated European recommendations for the clinical use of HIV drug resistance testing. Antivir Ther 9(6):829-848 (2004).
[28] Hamers FF, Downs AM. The changing face of the HIV epidemic in western Europe: what are the implications for public health policies? Lancet 364(9428):83-94 (2004).
[29] Hamers FF, Downs AM. HIV in central and eastern Europe. Lancet 361(9362):1035-1044 (2003).
[30] De Luca A, Cingolani A, Di Giambenedetto S et al. Variable prediction of antiretroviral treatment outcome by different systems for interpreting genotypic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance. J Infect Dis 187(12):1934-1943 (2003).
[31] Metzner KJ, Rauch P, Walter H et al. Detection of minor populations of drug-resistant HIV-1 in acute seroconverters. AIDS 19(16):1819-1825 (2005).
[32] Johnson JA, Li JF, Brant A et al. Multi-drug resistant HIV-1 are transmitted more frequently than current estimates. Antivir Ther 10[S1]: S124 (2006).
[33] Johnson VA, Brun-Vezinet F, Clotet B et al. Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1: Fall 2005. Top HIV Med 13(4):125-131 (2005).
[34] Rhee SY, Fessel WJ, Zolopa AR et al. HIV-1 Protease and reverse-transcriptase mutations: correlations with antiretroviral therapy in subtype B isolates and implications for drug-resistance surveillance. J Infect Dis 192(3):456-465 (2005).
[35] Gonzales MJ, Wu TD, Taylor J et al. Extended spectrum of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase mutations in patients receiving multiple nucleoside analog inhibitors. AIDS 17(6):791-799 (2003).
[36] Wu TD, Schiffer CA, Gonzales MJ et al. Mutation patterns and structural correlates in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease following different protease inhibitor treatments. J Virol 77(8):4836-4847 (2003).
[37] Nijhuis M, Schuurman R, de Jong D et al. Increased fitness of drug resistant HIV-1 protease as a result of acquisition of compensatory mutations during suboptimal therapy. AIDS 13(17):2349-2359 (1999).
[38] Johnson VA, Brun-Vezinet F, Clotet B et al. Update of the Drug Resistance Mutations in HIV-1: 2005. Top HIV Med 13(1):51-57 (2005).
[39] Grossman Z, Vardinon N, Chemtob D et al. Genotypic variation of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase and protease: comparative analysis of clade C and clade B. AIDS 15(12):1453-1460 (2001).
[40] Chen L, Perlina A, Lee CJ. Positive selection detection in 40,000 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 sequences automatically identifies drug resistance and positive fitness mutations in HIV protease and reverse transcriptase. J Virol 78(7):3722-3732 (2004).
[41] Kantor R, Katzenstein DA, Efron B et al. Impact of HIV-1 subtype and antiretroviral therapy on protease and reverse transcriptase genotype: results of a global collaboration. PLoS Med 2(4):e112 (2005).
[42] van de Vijver DA, Wensing AM, Angarano G et al. The Calculated Genetic Barrier for Antiretroviral Drug Resistance Substitutions Is Largely Similar for Different HIV-1 Subtypes. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 41(3):352-360 (2006).
[43] Grossman Z, Paxinos EE, Averbuch D et al. Mutation D30N is not preferentially selected by Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Subtype C in the development of resistance to Nelfinavir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 48(6):2159-2165 (2004).
[44] Cane PA, de Ruiter A, Rice P, Wiselka M, Fox R, Pillay D. Resistance-associated mutations in the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 subtype c protease gene from treated and untreated patients in the United Kingdom. J Clin Microbiol 39(7):2652-2654 (2001).
[45] Brenner B, Turner D, Oliveira M et al. A V106M mutation in HIV-1 clade C viruses exposed to efavirenz confers cross-resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. AIDS 17(1):F1-F5 (2003).
[46] D'Aquila RT, Schapiro JM, Brun-Vezinet F et al. Update on drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. Top HIV Med 9(2):31-33 (2000).
[47] D'Aquila RT, Schapiro JM, Brun-Vezinet F et al. Drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. Top HIV Med 10(2):11-15 (2002).
[48] D'Aquila RT, Schapiro JM, Brun-Vezinet F et al. Drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. Top HIV Med 11(3):92-96 (2003).
[49] Hirsch MS, Conway B, D'Aquila RT et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults with HIV infection: implications for clinical management. International AIDS Society--USA Panel. JAMA 279(24):1984-1991 (1998).
[50] Hirsch MS, Brun-Vezinet F, D'Aquila RT et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection: recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA Panel. JAMA 283(18):2417-2426 (2000).
[51] Hirsch MS, Brun-Vezinet F, Clotet B et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1: 2003 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA Panel. Clin Infect Dis 37(1):113-128 (2003).
[52] Johnson VA, Brun-Vezinet F, Clotet B et al. Drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. Top HIV Med 11(6):215-221 (2003).
[53] Johnson VA, Brun-Vezinet F, Clotet B et al. Update of the Drug Resistance Mutations in HIV-1: 2004. Top HIV Med 12(4):119-124 (2004).
[54] Johnson VA, Brun-Vezinet F, Clotet B et al. Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1: Fall 2006. Top HIV Med 14(3):125-130 (2006).
[55] Rhee SY, Gonzales MJ, Kantor R, Betts BJ, Ravela J, Shafer RW. Human immunodeficiency virus reverse transcriptase and protease sequence database. Nucleic Acids Res 31(1):298-303 (2003).
[56] Tang JW, Pillay D. Transmission of HIV-1 drug resistance. J Clin Virol 30(1):1-10 (2004).
[57] Little SJ, Holte S, Routy JP et al. Antiretroviral-drug resistance among patients recently infected with HIV. N Engl J Med 347(6):385-394 (2002).
[58] Grant RM, Hecht FM, Warmerdam M et al. Time trends in primary HIV-1 drug resistance among recently infected persons. JAMA 288(2):181-188 (2002).
[59] Adje-Toure C, Bile CE, Borget MY et al. Polymorphism in protease and reverse transcriptase and phenotypic drug resistance of HIV-1 recombinant CRF02_AG isolates from patients with no prior use of antiretroviral drugs in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 34(1):111-113 (2003).
[60] Agwale SM, Zeh C, Paxinos E et al. Genotypic and phenotypic analyses of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in antiretroviral drug-naive Nigerian patients. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 22(1):22-26 (2006).
[61] Masquelier B, Bhaskaran K, Pillay D et al. Prevalence of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance and the role of resistance algorithms: data from seroconverters in the CASCADE collaboration from 1987 to 2003. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 40(5):505-511 (2005).
[62] Bezemer D, Jurriaans S, Prins M et al. Declining trend in transmission of drug-resistant HIV-1 in Amsterdam. AIDS 18(11):1571-1577 (2004).
[63] Harzic M, Pellegrin I, Deveau C et al. Genotypic drug resistance during HIV-1 primary infection in France (1996-1999): frequency and response to treatment. AIDS 16(5):793-796 (2002).
[64] Delfraissy JF. Prise en charge thérapeutique des personnes infectées par le VIH 2000. Paris: Médecine - Sciences, Flammartion 17-28 (2000).
[65] De Mendoza C., Rodriguez C, Colomina J et al. Resistance to nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors and prevalence of HIV type 1 non-B subtypes are increasing among persons with recent infection in Spain. Clin Infect Dis 41(9):1350-1354 (2005).
[66] Chaix ML, Descamps D, Harzic M et al. Stable prevalence of genotypic drug resistance mutations but increase in non-B virus among patients with primary HIV-1 infection in France. AIDS 17(18):2635-2643 (2003).
[67] Fox J, Dustan S, McClure M, Weber J, Fidler S. Transmitted drug-resistant HIV-1 in primary HIV-1 infection; incidence, evolution and impact on response to antiretroviral therapy. HIV Med 7(7):477-483 (2006).
[68] Descamps D, Chaix ML, Andre P et al. French national sentinel survey of antiretroviral drug resistance in patients with HIV-1 primary infection and in antiretroviral-naive chronically infected patients in 2001-2002. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 38(5):545-552 (2005).
[69] Shet A, Berry L, Mohri H et al. Tracking the prevalence of transmitted antiretroviral drug-resistant HIV-1: a decade of experience. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 41(4):439-446 (2006).
[70] Toni T, Masquelier B, Bonard D et al. Primary HIV-1 drug resistance in Abidjan (Cote d'Ivoire): a genotypic and phenotypic study. AIDS 16(3):488-491 (2002).
[71] Petroni A, Deluchi G, Pryluka D et al. Update on primary HIV-1 resistance in Argentina: emergence of mutations conferring high-level resistance to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in drug-naive patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 42(4):506-510 (2006).
[72] Weinstock HS, Zaidi I, Heneine W et al. The epidemiology of antiretroviral drug resistance among drug-naive HIV-1-infected persons in 10 US cities. J Infect Dis 189(12):2174-2180 (2004).
[73] Hanna GJ, Balaguera HU, Freedberg KA et al. Drug-selected resistance mutations and non-B subtypes in antiretroviral-naive adults with established human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Infect Dis 188(7):986-991 (2003).
[74] Novak RM, Chen L, MacArthur RD et al. Prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance mutations in chronically HIV-infected, treatment-naive patients: implications for routine resistance screening before initiation of antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis 40(3):468-474 (2005).
[75] Jayaraman GC, Archibald CP, Kim J et al. A population-based approach to determine the prevalence of transmitted drug-resistant HIV among recent versus established HIV infections: results from the Canadian HIV strain and drug resistance surveillance program. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 42(1):86-90 (2006).
[76] Truong HH, Grant RM, McFarland W et al. Routine surveillance for the detection of acute and recent HIV infections and transmission of antiretroviral resistance. AIDS 20(17):2193-2197 (2006).
[77] Cane P, Chrystie I, Dunn D et al. Time trends in primary resistance to HIV drugs in the United Kingdom: multicentre observational study. BMJ 331(7529):1368 (2005).
[78] Grossman Z, Lorber M, Maayan S et al. Drug-resistant HIV infection among drug-naive patients in Israel. Clin Infect Dis 40(2):294-302 (2005).
[79] Maljkovic I, Wilbe K, Solver E, Alaeus A, Leitner T. Limited transmission of drug-resistant HIV type 1 in 100 Swedish newly detected and drug-naive patients infected with subtypes A, B, C, D, G, U, and CRF01_AE. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 19(11):989-997 (2003).
[80] Jorgensen LB, Christensen MB, Gerstoft J et al. Prevalence of drug resistance mutations and non-B subtypes in newly diagnosed HIV-1 patients in Denmark. Scand J Infect Dis 35(11-12):800-807 (2003).
[81] Perez-Alvarez L, Carmona R, Munoz M et al. High incidence of non-B and recombinant HIV-1 strains in newly diagnosed patients in Galicia, Spain: study of genotypic resistance. Antivir Ther 8(4):355-360 (2003).
[82] Geretti AM, Smith M, Watson C et al. Primary antiretroviral resistance in newly diagnosed patients with established heterosexually acquired HIV-1. AIDS 16(17):2358-2360 (2002).
[83] Paraskevis D, Magiorkinis E, Katsoulidou A et al. Prevalence of resistance-associated mutations in newly diagnosed HIV-1 patients in Greece. Virus Res 112(1-2):115-122 (2005).
[84] Boucher CA, Tersmette M, Lange JM et al. Zidovudine sensitivity of human immunodeficiency viruses from high-risk, symptom-free individuals during therapy. Lancet 336(8715):585-590 (1990).
[85] Boucher CA, O'Sullivan E, Mulder JW et al. Ordered appearance of zidovudine resistance mutations during treatment of 18 human immunodeficiency virus-positive subjects. J Infect Dis 165(1):105-110 (1992).
[86] Schuurman R, Nijhuis M, van Leeuwen R et al. Rapid changes in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA load and appearance of drug-resistant virus populations in persons treated with lamivudine (3TC). J Infect Dis 171(6):1411-1419 (1995).
[87] Bowles EC, Wensing AMJ, van de Vijver DAMC, Boucher CAB, all WATCH participants. Global transmission of resistant HIV-1: geographical patterns may reflect differences in introduction and use of antiretroviral drugs. Reviews in Antiviral Therapy 4: 47 (2006).
[88] Vergne L, Diagbouga S, Kouanfack C et al. HIV-1 drug-resistance mutations among newly diagnosed patients before scaling-up programmes in Burkina Faso and Cameroon. Antivir Ther 11(5):575-579 (2006).
[89] Handema R, Terunuma H, Kasolo F et al. Prevalence of drug-resistance-associated mutations in antiretroviral drug-naive Zambians infected with subtype C HIV-1. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 19(2):151-160 (2003).
[90] Toni TD, Recordon-Pinson P, Minga A et al. Presence of key drug resistance mutations in isolates from untreated patients of Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire: ANRS 1257 study. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 19(8):713-717 (2003).
[91] Vidal N, Mulanga C, Bazepeo SE et al. HIV type 1 pol gene diversity and antiretroviral drug resistance mutations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 22(2):202-206 (2006).
[92] Koizumi Y, Ndembi N, Miyashita M et al. Emergence of antiretroviral therapy resistance-associated primary mutations among drug-naive HIV-1-infected individuals in rural western Cameroon. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 43(1):15-22 (2006).
[93] Zarandia M, Tsertsvadze T, Carr JK, Nadai Y, Sanchez JL, Nelson AK. HIV-1 genetic diversity and genotypic drug susceptibility in the Republic of Georgia. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 22(5):470-476 (2006).
[94] Vazquez de PE, Rakhmanova A, Perez-Alvarez L et al. Analysis of drug resistance-associated mutations in treatment-naive individuals infected with different genetic forms of HIV-1 circulating in countries of the former Soviet Union. J Med Virol 77(3):337-344 (2005).
[95] Rodrigues R, Scherer LC, Oliveira CM et al. Low prevalence of primary antiretroviral resistance mutations and predominance of HIV-1 clade C at polymerase gene in newly diagnosed individuals from south Brazil. Virus Res 116(1-2):201-207 (2006).
[96] Dumans AT, Soares MA, Pieniazek D et al. Prevalence of protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance mutations over time in drug-naive human immunodeficiency virus type 1-positive individuals in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46(9):3075-3079 (2002).
[97] Barreto CC, Nishyia A, Araujo LV, Ferreira JE, Busch MP, Sabino EC. Trends in antiretroviral drug resistance and clade distributions among HIV-1--infected blood donors in Sao Paulo, Brazil. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 41(3):338-341 (2006).
[98] Brindeiro RM, Diaz RS, Sabino EC et al. Brazilian Network for HIV Drug Resistance Surveillance (HIV-BResNet): a survey of chronically infected individuals. AIDS 17(7):1063-1069 (2003).
[99] Lama JR, Sanchez J, Suarez L et al. Linking HIV and antiretroviral drug resistance surveillance in Peru: a model for a third-generation HIV sentinel surveillance. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 42(4):501-505 (2006).
[100] Lan NT, Recordon-Pinson P, Hung PV et al. HIV type 1 isolates from 200 untreated individuals in Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam): ANRS 1257 Study. Large predominance of CRF01_AE and presence of major resistance mutations to antiretroviral drugs. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 19(10):925-928 (2003).
[101] Tee KK, Kamarulzaman A, Ng KP. Short communication: low prevalence of genotypic drug resistance mutations among antiretroviral-naive HIV type 1 patients in Malaysia. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 22(2):121-124 (2006).
[102] Carpenter CC, Cooper DA, Fischl MA et al. Antiretroviral therapy in adults: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel. JAMA 283(3):381-390 (2000).
[103] Yeni PG, Hammer SM, Carpenter CC et al. Antiretroviral treatment for adult HIV infection in 2002: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel. JAMA 288(2):222-235 (2002).
[104] Yeni PG, Hammer SM, Hirsch MS et al. Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2004 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA Panel. JAMA 292(2):251-265 (2004).
[105] Hammer SM, Saag MS, Schechter M et al. Treatment for adult HIV infection: 2006 recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA 296(7):827-843 (2006).
[106] Thomson MM, Perez-Alvarez L, Najera R. Molecular epidemiology of HIV-1 genetic forms and its significance for vaccine development and therapy. Lancet Infect Dis 2(8):461-471 (2002).
[107] van de Vijver D, Wensing AM, Angarano G et al. The calculated genetic barrier for antiretroviral drug resistance substitutions is largely similar for different HIV-1 subtypes. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 41(3):352-360 (2006).
[108] Peeters M, Toure-Kane C, Nkengasong JN. Genetic diversity of HIV in Africa: impact on diagnosis, treatment, vaccine development and trials. AIDS 17(18):2547-2560 (2003).
[109] Baxter JD, Mayers DL, Wentworth DN et al. A randomized study of antiretroviral management based on plasma genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing in patients failing therapy. CPCRA 046 Study Team for the Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS. AIDS 14(9):F83-F93 (2000).
[110] Clevenbergh P, Durant J, Halfon P et al. Persisting long-term benefit of genotype-guided treatment for HIV-infected patients failing HAART. The Viradapt Study: week 48 follow-up. Antivir Ther 5(1):65-70 (2000).
[111] Durant J, Clevenbergh P, Halfon P et al. Drug-resistance genotyping in HIV-1 therapy: the VIRADAPT randomised controlled trial. Lancet 353(9171):2195-2199 (1999).
[112] Little SJ, Richman DD. Drug resistance among patients recently infected with HIV. N Engl J Med 347(23):1889-1890 (2002).
[113] Wensing AM, Vercauteren J, van de Vijver DA et al. First representative prospective surveillance data on HIV baseline drug resistance from 17 countries in Europe; the SPREAD programme. Reviews in Antiviral Therapy 2:18 (2006).
[114] Lalezari JP, Henry K, O'Hearn M et al. Enfuvirtide, an HIV-1 fusion inhibitor, for drug-resistant HIV infection in North and South America. N Engl J Med 348(22):2175-2185 (2003).
[115] Lazzarin A, Clotet B, Cooper D et al. Efficacy of enfuvirtide in patients infected with drug-resistant HIV-1 in Europe and Australia. N Engl J Med 348(22):2186-2195 (2003).
[116] Peuchant O, Capdepont S RJ, et al. Primary resistance to enfuvirtide in recently infected, antiretroviral-naive patients, ANRS CO3 Aquitaine cohort. Antivir Ther 11, S108 (2006).
[117] GIP College voor zorgverzekeringen. GIPdatabank. Accessed April 2, 2007.
[118] Dobbs T, Kennedy S, Pau CP, McDougal JS, Parekh BS. Performance characteristics of the immunoglobulin G-capture BED-enzyme immunoassay, an assay to detect recent human immunodeficiency virus type 1 seroconversion. J Clin Microbiol 42(6):2623-2628 (2004).
[119] Parekh BS, Kennedy MS, Dobbs T et al. Quantitative detection of increasing HIV type 1 antibodies after seroconversion: a simple assay for detecting recent HIV infection and estimating incidence. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 18(4):295-307 (2002).
[120] Kothe D, Byers RH, Caudill SP et al. Performance characteristics of a new less sensitive HIV-1 enzyme immunoassay for use in estimating HIV seroincidence. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 33(5):625-634 (2003).
[121] Janssen RS, Satten GA, Stramer SL et al. New testing strategy to detect early HIV-1 infection for use in incidence estimates and for clinical and prevention purposes. JAMA 280(1):42-48 (1998).
Copyright © 2005-2006 LANSLLC All rights reserved | Disclaimer/Privacy | SITE MAP
