HIV diversity and drug resistance from plasma and non-plasma analytes in a large treatment programme in western Kenya.

INTRODUCTION: Antiretroviral resistance leads to treatment failure and resistance transmission. Resistance data in western Kenya are limited. Collection of non-plasma analytes may provide additional resistance information. METHODS: We assessed HIV diversity using the REGA tool, transmitted resistance by the WHO mutation list and acquired resistance upon first-line failure by the IAS-USA mutation list, at the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH), a major treatment programme in western Kenya. Plasma and four non-plasma analytes, dried blood-spots (DBS), dried plasma-spots (DPS), ViveST(TM)-plasma (STP) and ViveST-blood (STB), were compared to identify diversity and evaluate sequence concordance. RESULTS: Among 122 patients, 62 were treatment-naïve and 60 treatment-experienced; 61% were female, median age 35 years, median CD4 182 cells/µL, median viral-load 4.6 log10 copies/mL. One hundred and ninety-six sequences were available for 107/122 (88%) patients, 58/62 (94%) treatment-naïve and 49/60 (82%) treated; 100/122 (82%) plasma, 37/78 (47%) attempted DBS, 16/45 (36%) attempted DPS, 14/44 (32%) attempted STP from fresh plasma and 23/34 (68%) from frozen plasma, and 5/42 (12%) attempted STB. Plasma and DBS genotyping success increased at higher VL and shorter shipment-to-genotyping time. Main subtypes were A (62%), D (15%) and C (6%). Transmitted resistance was found in 1.8% of plasma sequences, and 7% combining analytes. Plasma resistance mutations were identified in 91% of treated patients, 76% NRTI, 91% NNRTI; 76% dual-class; 60% with intermediate-high predicted resistance to future treatment options; with novel mutation co-occurrence patterns. Nearly 88% of plasma mutations were identified in DBS, 89% in DPS and 94% in STP. Of 23 discordant mutations, 92% in plasma and 60% in non-plasma analytes were mixtures. Mean whole-sequence discordance from frozen plasma reference was 1.1% for plasma-DBS, 1.2% plasma-DPS, 2.0% plasma-STP and 2.3% plasma-STB. Of 23 plasma-STP discordances, one mutation was identified in plasma and 22 in STP (p<0.05). Discordance was inversely significantly related to VL for DBS. CONCLUSIONS: In a large treatment programme in western Kenya, we report high HIV-1 subtype diversity; low plasma transmitted resistance, increasing when multiple analytes were combined; and high-acquired resistance with unique mutation patterns. Resistance surveillance may be augmented by using non-plasma analytes for lower-cost genotyping in resource-limited settings.

Misclassification of first-line antiretroviral treatment failure based on immunological monitoring of HIV infection in resource-limited settings.

BACKGROUND: The monitoring of patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection who are treated with antiretroviral medications in resource-limited settings is typically performed by use of clinical and immunological criteria. The early identification of first-line antiretroviral treatment failure is critical to prevent morbidity, mortality, and drug resistance. Misclassification of failure may result in premature switching to second-line therapy. METHODS: Adult patients in western Kenya had their viral loads (VLs) determined if they had adhered to first-line therapy for >6 months and were suspected of experiencing immunological failure (ie, their CD4 cell count decreased by 25% in 6 months). Misclassification of treatment failure was defined as a 25% decrease in CD4 cell count with a VL of <400 copies/mL. Logistic and tree regressions examined relationships between VL and 4 variables: CD4 T cell count (hereafter CD4 cell count), percentage of T cells expressing CD4 (hereafter CD4 cell percentage), percentage decrease in the CD4 T cell count (hereafter CD4 cell count percent decrease), and percentage decrease in the percentage of T cells expressing CD4 (hereafter CD4% percent decrease). RESULTS: There were 149 patients who were treated for 23 months; they were identified as having a 25% decrease in CD4 cell count (from 375 to 216 cells/microL) and a CD4% percent decrease (from 19% to 15%); of these 149 patients, 86 (58%) were misclassified as having experienced treatment failure. Of 42 patients who had a 50% decrease in CD4 cell count, 18 (43%) were misclassified. In multivariate logistic regression, misclassification odds were associated with a higher CD4 cell count, a shorter duration of therapy, and a smaller CD4% percent decrease. By combining these variables, we may be able to improve our ability to predict treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS: Immunological monitoring as a sole indicator of virological failure would lead to a premature switch to valuable second-line regimens for 58% of patients who experience a 25% decrease in CD4 cell count and for 43% patients who experience a 50% decrease in CD4 cell count, and therefore this type of monitoring should be reevaluated. Selective virological monitoring and the addition of indicators like trends CD4% percent decrease and duration of therapy may systematically improve the identification of treatment failure. VL testing is now mandatory for patients suspected of experiencing first-line treatment failure within the Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) in western Kenya, and should be considered in all resource-limited settings.