Reduced CCR5 expression among Uganda HIV controllers.

BACKGROUND: Several mechanisms including reduced CCR5 expression, protective HLA, viral restriction factors, broadly neutralizing antibodies, and more efficient T-cell responses, have been reported to account for HIV control among HIV controllers. However, no one mechanism universally accounts for HIV control among all controllers. In this study we determined whether reduced CCR5 expression accounts for HIV control among Ugandan HIV controllers. We determined CCR5 expression among Ugandan HIV controllers compared with treated HIV non-controllers through ex-vivo characterization of CD4 + T cells isolated from archived PBMCs collected from the two distinct groups. RESULTS: The percentage of CCR5 + CD4 + T cells was similar between HIV controllers and treated HIV non-controllers (ECs vs. NCs, P = 0.6010; VCs vs. NCs, P = 0.0702) but T cells from controllers had significantly reduced CCR5 expression on their cell surface (ECs vs. NCs, P = 0.0210; VCs vs. NCs, P = 0.0312). Furthermore, we identified rs1799987 SNP among a subset of HIV controllers, a mutation previously reported to reduce CCR5 expression. In stark contrast, we identified the rs41469351 SNP to be common among HIV non-controllers. This SNP has previously been shown to be associated with increased perinatal HIV transmission, vaginal shedding of HIV-infected cells and increased risk of death. CONCLUSION: CCR5 has a non-redundant role in HIV control among Ugandan HIV controllers. HIV controllers maintain high CD4 + T cells despite being ART naïve partly because their CD4 + T cells have significantly reduced CCR5 densities.

Variations in Trim5α and Cyclophilin A genes among HIV-1 elite controllers and non controllers in Uganda: a laboratory-based cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Tripartite Motif Containing 5 alpha (TRIM5α), a restriction factor produced ubiquitously in cells and tissues of the body plays an important role in the immune response against HIV. TRIM5α targets the HIV capsid for proteosomal destruction. Cyclophilin A, an intracellular protein has also been reported to influence HIV infectivity in a cell-specific manner. Accordingly, variations in TRIM5α and Cyclophilin A genes have been documented to influence HIV-1 disease progression. However, these variations have not been documented among Elite controllers in Uganda and whether they play a role in viral suppression remains largely undocumented. Our study focused on identifying the variations in TRIM5α and Cyclophilin A genes among HIV-1 Elite controllers and non-controllers in Uganda. RESULTS: From the sequence analysis, the rs10838525 G > A mutation in exon 2 of TRIM5α was only found among elite controllers (30%) while the rs3824949 in the 5'UTR was seen among 25% of the non-controllers. In the Cyclophilin A promoter, rs6850 was seen among 62.5% of the non-controllers and only among 10% elite controllers. Furthermore, rs17860048 in the Cyclophillin A promoter was predominantly seen among elite controllers (30%) and 12.5% non-controllers. From gene expression analysis, we noted that the respective genes were generally elevated among elite controllers, however, this difference was not statistically significant (TRIM5α p = 0.6095; Cyclophilin A p = 0.6389). CONCLUSION: Variations in TRIM5α and Cyclophillin A promoter may influence HIV viral suppression. The rs10838525 SNP in TRIM5α may contribute to viral suppression among HIV-1 elite controllers. The rs6850 in the cyclophillin A gene may be responsible for HIV-1 rapid progression among HIV-1 non-controllers. These SNPs should be investigated mechanistically to determine their precise role in HIV-1 viral suppression.

Comparison of HIV drug resistance profiles across HIV-1 subtypes A and D for patients receiving a tenofovir-based and zidovudine-based first line regimens in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Resistance to antiretroviral drugs is a major challenge among Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) positive patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART). Mutations that arise as a result of this are diverse across the various drugs, drug classes, drug regimens and subtypes. In Uganda, there is a paucity of information on how these mutations differ among the different drug regimens and the predominant HIV-1 subtypes. The purpose of this study was to determine mutation profile differences between first-line drug regimens: TDF/3TC/EFV and AZT/3TC/EFV and HIV-1 subtypes: A and D in Uganda. The study also investigated the potential usage of rilpivirine, doravirine and etravirine in patients who failed treatment on efavirenz. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 182 archived plasma samples obtained from patients who were experiencing virological failure between 2006 and 2017 at five Joint Clinical Research Center (JCRC) sites in Uganda. Sanger sequencing of the Reverse Transcriptase (RT) gene from codons 1-300 was done. Mutation scores were generated using the Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance Database. A Chi-square test was used to determine the association between drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and drug regimens or HIV-1 subtypes. RESULTS: The prevalence of DRMs was 84.6% among patients failing a first-line efavirenz (EFV)-based regimen. The most prevalent Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTI) mutations were M184V/I (67.3%), K219/Q/E (22.6%) and K65R (21.1%). While K103N (50.8%) and G190A/S/E/G (29.1%) were the most prevalent Non-Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NNTRI) mutations. As expected, discriminatory DRMs such as K65R, L74I, and Y115F were noted in Tenofovir (TDF) containing regimens while the Thymidine Analogue Mutations (TAMs) L210W and T215 mutations were in Zidovudine (AZT)-based regimens. No significant difference (p = 0.336) was found for overall DRMs between HIV-1 subtypes A and D. Among the patients who had resistance to EFV, 37 (23.6%) were susceptible to newer NNRTIs such as Rilpivirine and Etravirine. CONCLUSION: Accumulation of DRMs between AZT/3TC/EFV and TDF/3TC/EFV is comparable but individual mutations that confer resistance to particular drugs should be considered at virological failure. Having either HIV-1 subtype A or D is not associated with the acquisition of DRMs, therefore HIV diversity should not determine the choice of treatment. Rilpivirine, etravirine and doravirine had minimal benefits for patients who failed on efavirenz.

Absence of HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations Supports the Use of Dolutegravir in Uganda.

To screen for drug resistance and possible treatment with Dolutegravir (DTG) in treatment-naive patients and those experiencing virologic failure during first-, second-, and third-line combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) in Uganda. Samples from 417 patients in Uganda were analyzed for predicted drug resistance upon failing a first- (N = 158), second- (N = 121), or third-line [all 51 involving Raltegravir (RAL)] treatment regimen. HIV-1 pol gene was amplified and sequenced from plasma samples. Drug susceptibility was interpreted using the Stanford HIV database algorithm and SCUEAL was used for HIV-1 subtyping. Frequency of resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (95%) and non-NRTI (NNRTI, 96%) was high in first-line treatment failures. Despite lack of NNRTI-based treatment for years, NNRTI resistance remained stable in 55% of patients failing second-line or third-line treatment, and was also at 10% in treatment-naive Ugandans. DTG resistance (n = 366) was not observed in treatment-naive individuals or individuals failing first- and second-line cART, and only found in two patients failing third-line cART, while 47% of the latter had RAL- and Elvitegravir-resistant HIV-1. Secondary mutations associated with DTG resistance were found in 2%-10% of patients failing third-line cART. Of 14 drugs currently available for cART in Uganda, resistance was readily observed to all antiretroviral drugs (except for DTG) in Ugandan patients failing first-, second-, or even third-line treatment regimens. The high NNRTI resistance in first-line treatment in Uganda even among treatment-naive patients calls for the use of DTG to reach the UNAIDS 90:90:90 goals.

Sensitive detection of HIV-1 resistance to Zidovudine and impact on treatment outcomes in low- to middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Thymidine analogs, namely AZT (Zidovudine or Retrovir™) and d4T (Stavudine or Zerit™) are antiretroviral drugs still employed in over 75% of first line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) in Kampala, Uganda despite aversion to prescribing these drugs for cART in high income countries due in part to adverse events. For this study, we explored how the continued use of these thymidine analogs in cART could impact emergence of drug resistance and impact on future treatment success in Uganda, a low-income country. METHODS: We examined the drug resistance genotypes by Sanger sequencing of 262 HIV-infected patients failing a first line combined antiretroviral treatment containing either AZT or d4T, which represents approximately 5% of the patients at the Joint Clinical Research Center receiving a AZT or d4T containing treatment. Next generation sequencing (DEEPGEN™HIV) and multiplex oligonucleotide ligation assays (AfriPOLA) were then performed on a subset of patient samples to detect low frequency drug resistant mutations. CD4 cell counts, viral RNA loads, and treatment changes were analyzed in a cohort of treatment success and failures. RESULTS: Over 80% of patients failing first line AZT/d4T-containing cART had predicted drug resistance to 3TC (Lamivudine) and non-nucleoside RT inhibitors (NNRTIs) in the treatment regimen but only 45% had resistance AZT/d4T associated resistance mutations (TAMs). TAMs were however detected at low frequency within the patients HIV quasispecies (1-20%) in 21 of 34 individuals who were failing first-line AZT-containing cART and lacked TAMs by Sanger. Due to lack of TAMs by Sanger, AZT was typically maintained in second-line therapies and these patients had a low frequency of subsequent virologic success. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that continued use of AZT and d4T in first-line treatment in low-to-middle income countries may lead to misdiagnosis of HIV-1 drug resistance and possibly enhance a succession of second- and third-line treatment failures.