How Much Do We Know about Drug Resistance Due to PrEP Use? Analysis of Experts' Opinion and Its Influence on the Projected Public Health Impact

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials reported that pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir and emtricitabine rarely selects for drug resistance. However, drug resistance due to PrEP is not completely understood. In daily practice, PrEP will not be used under the well-controlled conditions available in the trials, suggesting that widespread use of PrEP can result in increased drug resistance. METHODS: We surveyed expert virologists with questions about biological assumptions regarding drug resistance due to PrEP use. The influence of these assumptions on the prevalence of drug resistance and the fraction of HIV transmitted resistance was studied with a mathematical model. For comparability, 50% PrEP-coverage of and 90% per-act efficacy of PrEP in preventing HIV acquisition are assumed in all simulations. RESULTS: Virologists disagreed on the following: the time until resistance emergence (range: 20–180 days) in infected PrEP users with breakthrough HIV infections; the efficacy of PrEP against drug-resistant HIV (25%-90%); and the likelihood of resistance acquisition upon transmission (10%-75%). These differences translate into projections of 0.6%- 1% and 3.5%—6% infected individuals with detectable resistance 10 years after introducing PrEP, assuming 100% and 50% adherence, respectively. The rate of resistance emergence following breakthrough HIV infection and the rate of resistance reversion after PrEP use is discontinued, were the factors identified as most influential on the expected resistance associated with PrEP. Importantly, 17–23% infected individuals could virologically fail treatment as a result of past PrEP use or transmitted resistance to PrEP with moderate adherence. CONCLUSIONS: There is no broad consensus on quantification of key biological processes that underpin the emergence of PrEP-associated drug resistance. Despite this, the contribution of PrEP use to the prevalence of the detectable drug resistance is expected to be small. However, individuals who become infected despite the use of PrEP should be closely monitored due to higher risk of virological failure when initiating antiretroviral treatment in the future

Evolving uses of oral reverse transcriptase inhibitors in the HIV-1 epidemic: From treatment to prevention

The HIV epidemic continues unabated, with no highly effective vaccine and no cure. Each new infection has significant economic, social and human costs and prevention efforts are now as great a priority as global antiretroviral therapy (ART) scale up. Reverse transcriptase inhibitors, the first licensed class of ART, have been at the forefront of treatment and prevention of mother to child transmission over the past two decades. Now, their use in adult prevention is being

Virological responses to lamivudine or emtricitabine when combined with tenofovir and a protease inhibitor in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients in the Dutch AIDS Therapy Evaluation in the Netherlands (ATHENA) cohort

Lamivudine (3TC) and emtricitabine (FTC) are considered interchangeable in recommended tenofovir disoproxil-fumarate (TDF)-containing combination antiretroviral therapies (cARTs). This statement of equivalence has not been systematically studied. We compared the treatment responses to 3TC and FTC combined with TDF in boosted protease inhibitor (PI)-based cART for HIV-1-infected patients. An observational study in the AIDS Therapy Evaluation in the Netherlands (ATHENA) cohort was carried out between 2002 and 2013. Virological failure rates, time to HIV RNA suppression < 400 copies/mL, and time to treatment failure were analysed using multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models. Sensitivity analyses included propensity score-adjusted models. A total of 1582 ART-naïve HIV-1-infected patients initiated 3TC or FTC with TDF and ritonavir-boosted darunavir (29.6%), atazanavir (41.5%), lopinavir (27.1%) or another PI (1.8%). Week 48 virological failure rates on 3TC and FTC were comparable (8.9% and 5.6%, respectively; P = 0.208). The multivariable adjusted odds ratio of virological failure when using 3TC instead of FTC with TDF in PI-based cART was 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.79; P = 0.51]. Propensity score-adjusted models showed comparable results. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for treatment failure of 3TC compared with FTC was 1.15 (95% CI 0.58-2.27) within 240 weeks after cART initiation. The time to two consecutive HIV RNA measurements < 400 copies/mL within 48 weeks (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.78-1.16) and the time to treatment failure after suppression < 400 copies/mL (HR 0.94; 95% CI 0.36-2.50) were not significantly influenced by the use of 3TC in TDF/PI-containing cART. The virological responses were not significantly different in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected patients starting either 3TC/TDF or FTC/TDF and a ritonavir-boosted P

Preexposure prophylaxis will have a limited impact on HIV-1 drug resistance in sub-Saharan Africa: a comparison of mathematical models

Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with tenofovir and emtricitabine can prevent new HIV-1 infections, but there is a concern that use of PrEP could increase HIV drug resistance resulting in loss of treatment options. We compared standardized outcomes from three independent mathematical models simulating the impact of PrEP on HIV transmission and drug resistance in sub-Saharan African countries.All models assume that people using PrEP receive an HIV test every 3-6 months. The models vary in structure and parameter choices for PrEP coverage, effectiveness of PrEP (at different adherence levels) and the rate with which HIV drug resistance emerges and is transmitted.The models predict that the use of PrEP in conjunction with antiretroviral therapy will result in a lower prevalence of HIV than when only antiretroviral therapy is used. With or without PrEP, all models suggest that HIV drug resistance will increase over the next 20 years due to antiretroviral therapy. PrEP will increase the absolute prevalence of drug resistance in the total population by less than 0.5% and amongst infected individuals by at most 7%. Twenty years after the introduction of PrEP, the majority of drug-resistant infections is due to antiretroviral therapy (50-63% across models), whereas 40-50% will be due to transmission of drug resistance, and less than 4% to the use of PrEP.HIV drug resistance resulting from antiretroviral therapy is predicted to far exceed that resulting from PrEP. Concern over drug resistance should not be a reason to limit the use of PrEP

Geographic and temporal trends in the molecular epidemiology and genetic mechanisms of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance : an individual-patient- and sequence-level meta-analysis

Background Regional and subtype-specific mutational patterns of HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance (TDR) are essential for informing first-line antiretroviral (ARV) therapy guidelines and designing diagnostic assays for use in regions where standard genotypic resistance testing is not affordable. We sought to understand the molecular epidemiology of TDR and to identify the HIV-1 drug-resistance mutations responsible for TDR in different regions and virus subtypes. Methods and Findings We reviewed all GenBank submissions of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase sequences with or without protease and identified 287 studies published between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, with more than 25 recently or chronically infected ARV-naive individuals. These studies comprised 50,870 individuals from 111 countries. Each set of study sequences was analyzed for phylogenetic clustering and the presence of 93 surveillance drug-resistance mutations (SDRMs). The median overall TDR prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), south/southeast Asia (SSEA), upper-income Asian countries, Latin America/Caribbean, Europe, and North America was 2.8%, 2.9%, 5.6%, 7.6%, 9.4%, and 11.5%, respectively. In SSA, there was a yearly 1.09-fold (95% CI: 1.05-1.14) increase in odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up attributable to an increase in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance. The odds of NNRTI-associated TDR also increased in Latin America/Caribbean (odds ratio &#91;OR&#93; = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.25), North America (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.12-1.26), Europe (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13), and upper-income Asian countries (OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.12-1.55). In SSEA, there was no significant change in the odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92-1.02). An analysis limited to sequences with mixtures at less than 0.5% of their nucleotide positions-a proxy for recent infection-yielded trends comparable to those obtained using the complete dataset. Four NNRTI SDRMs-K101E, K103N, Y181C, and G190A-accounted for > 80% of NNRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. Sixteen nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) SDRMs accounted for > 69% of NRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. In SSA and SSEA, 89% of NNRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to nevirapine or efavirenz, whereas only 27% of NRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to zidovudine, lamivudine, tenofovir, or abacavir. Of 763 viruses with TDR in SSA and SSEA, 725 (95%) were genetically dissimilar; 38 (5%) formed 19 sequence pairs. Inherent limitations of this study are that some cohorts may not represent the broader regional population and that studies were heterogeneous with respect to duration of infection prior to sampling. Conclusions Most TDR strains in SSA and SSEA arose independently, suggesting that ARV regimens with a high genetic barrier to resistance combined with improved patient adherence may mitigate TDR increases by reducing the generation of new ARV-resistant strains. A small number of NNRTI-resistance mutations were responsible for most cases of high-level resistance, suggesting that inexpensive point-mutation assays to detect these mutations may be useful for pre-therapy screening in regions with high levels of TDR. In the context of a public health approach to ARV therapy, a reliable point-of-care genotypic resistance test could identify which patients should receive standard first-line therapy and which should receive a protease-inhibitor-containing regimen