Associations between baseline characteristics, CD4 cell count response and virological failure on first-line efavirenz + tenofovir + emtricitabine for HIV

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate associations between baseline characteristics and CD4 cell count response on first-line antiretroviral therapy and risk of virological failure (VF) with or without drug resistance. Methods: We conducted an analysis of UK Collaborative HIV Cohort data linked to the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database. Inclusion criteria were viral sequence showing no resistance prior to initiation of first-line efavirenz + tenofovir disoproxil fumarate + emtricitabine and virological suppression within 6 months. Outcomes of VF (≥200 copies/mL) with or without drug resistance were assessed using a competing risks approach fitted jointly with a model for CD4 cell count recovery. Hazard ratios for each VF outcome were estimated for baseline CD4 cell count and viral load and characteristics of CD4 cell count response using latent variables on a standard normal scale. Results: A total of 3640 people were included with 338 VF events; corresponding viral sequences were available in 134 with ≥1 resistance mutation in 36. VF with resistance was associated with lower baseline CD4 (0.30, 0.09-0.62), lower CD4 recovery (0.04, 0.00-0.17) and higher CD4 variability (4.40, 1.22-12.68). A different pattern of associations was observed for VF without resistance, but the strength of these results was less consistent across sensitivity analyses. Cumulative incidence of VF with resistance was estimated to be <2% at 3 years for baseline CD4 ≥350 cells/μL. Conclusion: Lower baseline CD4 cell count and suboptimal CD4 recovery are associated with VF with drug resistance. People with low CD4 cell count before ART or with suboptimal CD4 recovery on treatment should be a priority for regimens with high genetic barrier to resistance

An association between K65R and HIV-1 subtype C viruses in patients treated with multiple NRTIs

Objectives: HIV-1 subtype C might have a greater propensity to develop K65R mutations in patients with virological failure compared with other subtypes. However, the strong association between viral subtype and confounding factors such as exposure groups and ethnicity affects the calculation of this propensity. We exploited the diversity of viral subtypes within the UK to undertake a direct comparative analysis. Patients and methods: We analysed only sequences with major IAS-defined mutations from patients with virological failure. Prevalence of K65R was related to subtype and exposure to the NRTIs that primarily select for this mutation (tenofovir, abacavir, didanosine and stavudine). A multivariate logistic regression model quantified the effect of subtype on the prevalence of K65R, adjusting for previous and current exposure to all four specified drugs. Results: Subtype B patients ( n  =   3410) were mostly MSM (78%) and those with subtype C ( n  =   810) were mostly heterosexual (82%). K65R was detected in 7.8% of subtype B patients compared with 14.2% of subtype C patients. The subtype difference in K65R prevalence was observed irrespective of NRTI exposure and K65R was frequently selected by abacavir, didanosine and stavudine in patients with no previous exposure to tenofovir. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that K65R was significantly more common in subtype C viruses (adjusted OR = 2.02, 95% CI = 1.55-2.62, P  <   0.001). Conclusions: Patients with subtype C HIV-1 have approximately double the frequency of K65R in our database compared with other subtypes. The exact clinical implications of this finding need to be further elucidated