|
   |
|
ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
|
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 42
| Issue : 1 | Page : 31-37 |
| |
Virological outcome and frequency of low-level viremia in patients receiving generic dolutegravir-containing regimen at a large tertiary care clinic in Western India
Atul K Patel1, Ketan K Patel1, Sanjay Pujari2, Jagdish K Patel3, Ambuj Kumar4
1 Infectious Diseases Clinic, “VEDANTA” Institute of Medical Sciences, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
2 Department of Infectious Diseases, Institute of Infectious Diseases, Pune, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Pathology, Adit Diagnostics and Molecular Laboratory, “VEDANTA” Institute of Medical Sciences, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
4 Department of Internal Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
| Date of Submission | 17-May-2020 |
| Date of Acceptance | 27-Jul-2020 |
| Date of Web Publication | 03-May-2021 |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Atul K Patel
Infectious Diseases Clinic, “VEDANTA” Institute of Medical Sciences, Navarangpura, Ahmedabad - 380 009, Gujarat
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/ijstd.IJSTD_34_20
 Abstract | | |
Background: Dolutegravir (DTG) is widely used for the management of naïve and treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. Low-level viremia (LLV) is common in patients receiving nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor- and protease inhibitor-containing regimens. However, the incidence of LLV associated with DTG-containing regimen is not well known. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the virological response associated with DTG-containing regimens and explored frequencies of LLV and risk factors for the same. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of HIV-infected patients receiving generic DTG-containing regimen from February 2017 to July 2019. All adult patients (≥18 years), who completed at least the first follow-up after initiating treatment, were included in this study. LLV was defined as plasma viral load between 20 and 200 copies/ml. Results: A total of 597 patients started DTG-containing regimen during the study period, of which 522 patients met the inclusion criteria. The study patients were categorized into five groups: naïve (n = 86), first-line failure (n = 32), second-line failure (n = 53), switch (n = 325), and HIV-2 (n = 26). Complete virological suppression at 6, 12, and 18 months was achieved in 78.5%, 81.1%, and 70.9% of the patients, respectively. Furthermore, 17.9%, 12.9%, and 23.3% of the patients had LLV at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively. Persistent LLV was found in 2.9% of the patients. Overall, DTG was well tolerated and was discontinued in only three patients due to neuropsychiatric side effects. Conclusion: DTG is well tolerated and effective in suppressing HIV across all antiretroviral treatment categories. The rate of persistent LLV is low in DTG-containing therapy.
Keywords: Antiretroviral therapy, dolutegravir, generic dolutegravir, India, low-level viremia
How to cite this article:
Patel AK, Patel KK, Pujari S, Patel JK, Kumar A. Virological outcome and frequency of low-level viremia in patients receiving generic dolutegravir-containing regimen at a large tertiary care clinic in Western India. Indian J Sex Transm Dis 2021;42:31-7 |
How to cite this URL:
Patel AK, Patel KK, Pujari S, Patel JK, Kumar A. Virological outcome and frequency of low-level viremia in patients receiving generic dolutegravir-containing regimen at a large tertiary care clinic in Western India. Indian J Sex Transm Dis [serial online] 2021 [cited 2023 Nov 29];42:31-7. Available from: https://ijstd.org/text.asp?2021/42/1/31/315387 |
| Introduction | |  |
Dolutegravir (DTG)-containing regimen is universally recommended for the management of HIV-infected patients by all current clinical practice guidelines. The efficacy of DTG has been evaluated in multiple clinical trials for the management of naïve as well as treatment-experienced patients with viral suppression rates varying between 71% and 88%.[1],[2],p3],[4],[5] A real-world study from Italy reported a treatment failure rate of 5.4% in a cohort of patients receiving DTG-containing treatment.[6] Two-drug combination therapy which consists of DTG in combination with lamivudine (3TC) had similar efficacy as the triple-drug combination for the treatment of HIV infection.[7] Apart from recommended first-line therapy, DTG is also widely used in patients failing first- and second-line antiretroviral treatment (ART) in India.[8] DTG containing regimen has several advantages compared to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) containing ART regimen, which includes, lower cost, small pill size, ease of administration (once a day), potency with a high genetic barrier and better tolerated with a favorable side effect profile. All these factors are also associated with better treatment adherence. Patients receiving stable atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r)- or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-containing regimen are offered a switch to DTG-containing regimen to simplify ART regimen in India.[8]
Treatment failure is defined as two consecutive viral load (VL) >200 performed at 6–8 weeks' intervals by the US Department of Health and Human Services treatment guideline. On the other hand, the WHO uses a cutoff of 1000 copies/ml to define treatment failure. Many patients receiving ART experience either transient or persistent low-level viremia (LLV), which may be defined as HIV-1 RNA detection at a level ranging from 20 to a few hundred copies/ml. Approximately 20% of the patients receiving suppressive ART can have a transient detectable virus which may become undetectable with the continuation of the same ART, defined as a “blip.”[9] Clinical significance and treatment of such transient LLV is not well understood and controversial.[10] Findings from several studies show that LLV may not have an impact on the overall treatment efficacy. However, results from other studies recognize persistent and progressive LLV as a marker of future treatment failure.[11],[12],[13] Other potential significant consequences of LLV could be the risk of emergence of drug resistance and persistent immune activation and inflammation.[14],[15] A large cohort study from South Africa reported the LLV incidence of 13.59% in patients receiving first-line ART and 13.94% in patients receiving PI/r-containing second-line ART.[16] Other studies have reported higher frequencies of LLV in PI/r-containing regimen compared to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimen.[17] Evidence on frequency of LLV in patients receiving DTG-containing regimen is sparse. Accordingly, the goal of this is to describe the virological outcome and incidence of LLV in patients receiving DTG-containing ART.
Objectives
The primary objective of our study was to determine the virological outcome and incidence of LLV associated with the use of DTG-containing regimen. The secondary objectives were (i) to assess the associated possible risk factors for LLV, (ii) effectiveness of DTG in achieving virological suppression in first- and second-line failure patients, and (iii) maintaining virological suppression in switch patients.
| Methods | | |
We performed a retrospective cohort study of HIV-infected patients receiving DTG-containing regimens between February 2017 and July 2019 at a large tertiary care outpatient clinic in the western region of India. All adult patients (≥18 years) receiving DTG-containing ART, who completed at least the first follow-up with CD4 and/or VL assessment at 3 or 6 months, were eligible for inclusion.
NRTI selection: Treatment naïve patients received tenofovir disoproxylfumerate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) or tenofovir alafinamide/emtricitabine (TAF/FTC). All switch patients continued to receive the same NRTI as their previous regimen. NRTI selection was based upon previous NRTI exposures and it's associated toxicities for patients with first and secondline treatment failure.
Patient assessment
The VL testing was performed at 3 and 6 months followed by every 6 months after initiation of ART for all treatment-naïve patients and patients failing first- and second-line ART. The VL assessment in virologically suppressed switch patients was performed every 6 months. Only CD4 cell counts were assessed for all HIV-2 patients. Routine blood and biochemical testing for renal function and lipid profile was performed every 6 months. CD4 testing was not routinely performed for patients with CD4 >350/mm3 with suppressed VL. Physical examination and any symptoms were recorded. Clinical assessment and treatment adherence counseling were part standard of care and performed at every visit for all patients. Treatment adherence was assessed by patient self-report at each follow-up visit.
Laboratory methods
Plasma VL (pVL) monitoring was performed on ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid plasma samples using Roche Cobas AmpliPrep/Cobas TaqMan HIV-1 version 2.0 (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Pleasanton, CA, USA) fully automated real-time polymerase chain reaction with lower limit of detection at <20 copies/ml and quantification range of 20–10,000,000 copies/mL. HIV VL testing was performed three times a week in the laboratory, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Positive results below the lower limit of quantitation of 20 copies/mL were reported as “detected, <20 copies/mL.” Target not detected is reported when the machine did not detect a target from a plasma sample.
Outcome definitions
Patients with pVL either <20 copies/ml or target not detected were classified as treatment responders. Patients with isolated low-level VL between 20 and 200 copies/ml which preceded or followed by virologic suppression were classified as transient LLV. Patients with a VL of 201–1000 were classified as high-level viremia (HLV). Patients with two consecutive VL >1000 were classified as treatment failure. Patients with two or more consecutive VL between 20 and 200 were classified as persistent LLV.
Statistical methods
Patient and treatment characteristics were summarized as mean and standard deviation for continuous variables and as rates for categorical variables. The unadjusted and adjusted associations between categorical variables were assessed using the binary logistic regression and summarized as odds ratio along with 95% confidence intervals. The difference in continuous variables across compared groups was assessed using one-way ANOVA and summarized as mean difference along with 95% confidence intervals. To adjust for multiple comparisons, Bonferroni correction was applied. The statistical significance was set at 5% for all comparisons. All data analysis was performed using the IBM SPSS statistical analysis software (IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp.)
| Results | | |
A total of 597 patients were initiated on DTG-containing regimen during the study period, of which 522 patients met the predetermined inclusion criteria. Seventy-five patients were excluded from the analysis, of which 50 patients did not complete the first virological evaluation, 22 were lost to follow-up after initiating ART, and 3 patients discontinued DTG due to neuropsychiatric adverse drug reactions. The flow diagram depicting the patient selection process is shown in [Figure 1]. The baseline demographic features are shown in [Table 1]. Patients initiated on DTG-containing ART were categorized into five groups of treatment naïve (n = 86), first-line failure (n = 32), second-line failure (n = 53), switch (n = 325), and HIV-2 (n = 26). Switch category includes patients who were switched from PI/r ATV/r: n = 102, LPV/r: n = 118, efavirenz (EFV): n = 59, and raltegravir (RAL): n = 45. Two patients with NRTI intolerance were switched to DTG + PI/r. TDF/FTC (67.8%) was the most common background NRTI used in DTG-containing regimen followed by zidovudine (AZT)/3TC (7.5%), NRTI + PI/r (6.3%), TAF/FTC (6.3%), AZT/TDF/FTC (4.6%), PI/r (2.9%), and abacavir (ABC)/3TC (4.2%).
[Figure 2] and [Figure 3] describe virological response with number of patients with VL <20, LLV, HLV, and patients with VL >1000 at each time point in all patients [Figure 2] and various DTG categories [Figure 3]. Overall, 78.5% of the patients achieved fully suppressed pVL at 6 months, 17.9% had LLV, and 2.5% had HLV [Figure 2]. The majority of the patients (97.1%) who had LLV and HLV had transient viremia, while 2.9% had persistent LLV. As illustrated in [Figure 2], the proportion of patients with LLV in the naïve, first-line failure, and second-line failure groups was similar. In the switch category [Figure 2], 58 (19.3%) and 23 (7.7%) patients had baseline LLV and HLV, respectively, at the time of switch. A repeat VL assessment at 3 months showed that 39 (50.6%) patients who had detectable virus (LLV and HLV) at baseline achieved complete viral suppression and 31 (40.3%) continued to have LLV. At 6 months, 83.1% of the patients achieved complete suppression which was maintained at 12-month follow-up. In the current study, CD4 response is difficult to determine as CD4 testing was not routinely performed in patients with suppressed VL with CD4 count more than 350/cmm. CD4 count response at different time intervals is shown in [Figure 4].
The findings from the logistic regression analysis (unadjusted and adjusted for age, gender, weight, baseline VL [>100,000 copies/ml], and background treatment) did not show a statistically significant association between incidence of persistent LLV viremia and ART categories, for example, naïve, first-line failure, second-line failure, and switch patients [Table 2]. | Table 2: Unadjusted and adjusted (adjusted for age, gender, weight, background treatment, and viral load at baseline) logistic regression analysis of association between antiretroviral treatment type and viremia
Click here to view |
Overall, DTG was well tolerated except in three patients where DTG was discontinued due to neuropsychiatric side effects. No significant clinical events were observed during follow-up in patients receiving DTG-containing treatment.
| Discussion | | |
The findings from a real-world observational study showed that DTG-containing ART regimen is well tolerated with only 0.57% treatment discontinuation due to neuropsychiatric adverse drug reactions and is associated with virological suppression in the majority (78.5%) of the patients at 6 months which is comparable to previously published DTG studies.[1],[2],[3],[5] Complete viral suppression reported at 6 months in different DTG ART categories was 76.7% in treatment-naïve, 57.1% in first-line failure, 59.5% in second-line failure, and 83.1% in switch patients. Previous treatment failure and ART exposure had no impact on virological response to DTG-containing therapy in the treatment-experienced patients in our study, despite the fact that 30.2% of the patients received recycled previous background regimen (TDF/FTC) while 24.5% and 9.4% of the patients received TDF/FTC/darunavir (DRV)/r and DRV/r and 13.2% received AZT/TDF/FTC as a background regimen. Results from previous and our real-life studies substantiate that DTG-containing treatment is robust and effective in patients who experienced and failed previous NNRTI and PI/r-containing ART treatment.[5] None of the previous studies have described the incidence of LLV in patients receiving DTG-containing regimen. The results from our study showed that overall 17.9%, 12.9%, 23.3%, and 26.9% of the patients at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months had LLV. The incidence of LLV at 6 months was 14.4% in switch patients, 32.4% in second-line failure patients, 28.6% in first-line failure patients, and 21.7% in naïve patients. The majority of the patients (97.1%) with LLV had transient LLV, while 2.9% of the patients receiving DTG-containing regimen had a persistent LLV. Palmer et al. described residual viremia with low-level replication (1–10 copies/ml) in patients who achieved virologic suppression of <50 copies/ml.[18] Transient detectable viremia on ART is seen in up to 20% of the patients receiving suppressive ART and 4%–10% experience persistent low-level detectable viremia.[9],[15],[19] Results from the Gemini sudy presented by Mark underwood and colleagues at the 2019 IAS conference reported low level viremia in 14% of patients receiving DTG/3TC and DTG/TDF/FTC arm and persistent LLV was found in 2% of patients in DTG/3TC arm while 1% in DTG/TDF/FTC arm.[20] A higher percentage of patients in our study with transient and persistent LLV are likely to be associated with heterogeneous study population with 16.3% of the patients with first- and second-line treatment failure with high baseline VL and high possibility of harboring baseline NRTI mutations. Other studies with DTG-containing ART reported four patients who had a brief LLV while receiving two-drug combination treatment DTG plus lamivudine, and another study had only one patient with LLV at week 24.[21],[22] Another DTG study comparing ABC/3TC/DTG with TDF/FTC/EFV in treatment-naïve patients reported that 74.36% of the patients who failed treatment in DTG arm had LLV (pVL <200 copies/ml).[23]
The impact of LLV on clinical outcomes remains debatable, especially in patients with LLV between 50 and 200 copies/ml. The study favors a low risk of future virologic failure in patients with transient LLV,[14],[24] while persistent LLV is associated with future virological failure in other studies.[11],[17],[25] Bernal et al. reported clinical progression and death in patients who are keeping LLV between 200 and 499 copies/ml.[13] A recent study by Fleming et al. supported the future risk of treatment failure in patients with VL between 200 and 500 copies/ml and reported a higher risk of treatment failure in treatment-experienced patients with VL between 50 and 200 copies/ml.[26] Immune activation is another negative health consequence reported in patients keeping LLV.[27] A study from Geretti et al. describes that LLV (50–400 copies/ml) occurred in 25.5% of the patients during the 1st year on ART, and LLV is less likely to occur in patients receiving NRTI plus NNRTI-containing therapy compared to other regimens including triple NRTI.[17] Calcagno et al. reported that patients receiving both NNRTI-containing and RAL-containing regimens had the highest prevalence of target not detected as compared to PI/r-containing regimen.[11] Our study had a heterogeneous group of patients, including treatment naïve, and treatment-experienced patients showed an overall similar incidence of transient LLV compared to study from Geretti et al. with treatment-naïve populations.[17] Very high baseline VL, shorter duration of ART, and presence of baseline resistance mutation are identified as important risk factors for LLV in a French study in addition to antiretroviral agents used for the treatment and missing dosages.[17],[28] In our cohort, logistic regression analysis did not show an association between baseline VL, previous treatment failure, and background regimen on persistent detectable viremia. In the current study, patients had a high mean VL of 5.55 log10 and 5.54 log10, respectively, in the categories of the first- and second-line failure groups. Despite this late diagnosis in the treatment-experienced patients, virological suppression and LLV are comparable to naïve and switch category patients. Self-reported adherence in our study is relied upon as virological outcome is at par with previous findings.[2],[3],[4],[5] In our cohort, VL test was carried out by fully automated AmpliPrep/TaqMan system assay, and this can result in a twofold increase in the patients experiencing LLV who were suppressed with <50 copies/ml.[29] Preexisting resistant drug mutation for NRTIs and PIs in our patients in the first- and second-line failure groups might also be contributing to higher transient LLV in the current study. Generic drug used in this cohort may not be a reason for LLV in our cohort as nearly 80% of the patients achieved viral suppression at 6 months of treatment, which is matching with previous DTG studies. The key limitations of our study include observations from a single-center study. Furthermore, the follow-up duration varied across the patient population, thereby affecting the long-term outcomes which are needed for assessment of persistent LLV. However, these above mentioned limitations are always associated with observational studies and are reflective of a real-world setting.
| Conclusion | | |
Overall, our real-life retrospective study supports the use of DTG-containing regimen to treat HIV-infected patients across all ART categories: treatment-naïve, first- and second-line treatment failure, and switching regimens in patients receiving suppressive ART regimens with good virological suppression. DTG is better tolerated with very few discontinuation rates due to adverse drug reactions. Clinicians should carefully monitor patients for LLV, especially persistent LLV, for future treatment failure.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge Tan Ban Hock, an infectious diseases consultant at the National University of Singapore, for manuscript review and suggestions.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
Sanjay Pujari received speaker fees from Emcure Pharmaceuticals company and the rest of the authors disclose no conflict of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Raffi F, Jaeger H, Quiros-Roldan E, Albrecht H, Belonosova E, Gatell JM, et al. Once-daily dolutegravir versus twice-daily raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (SPRING-2 study): 96 week results from a randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2013;13:927-35.  |
| 2. | Cahn P, Pozniak AL, Mingrone H, Shuldyakov A, Brites C, Andrade-Villanueva JF, et al. Dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-experienced, integrase-inhibitor-naive adults with HIV: Week 48 results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SAILING study. Lancet 2013;382:700-8. |
| 3. | Molina JM, Clotet B, van Lunzen J, Lazzarin A, Cavassini M, Henry K, et al. Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study. Lancet HIV 2015;2:e127-36. |
| 4. | Walmsley SL, Antela A, Clumeck N, Duiculescu D, Eberhard A, Gutiérrez F, et al. Dolutegravir plus abacavir-lamivudine for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1807-18. |
| 5. | Aboud M, Kaplan R, Lombaard J, Zhang F, Hidalgo JA, Mamedova E, et al. Dolutegravir versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir both with dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy in adults with HIV-1 infection in whom first-line therapy has failed (DAWNING): An open-label, non-inferiority, Phase 3b trial. Lancet Infect Dis 2019;19:253-64. |
| 6. | d'Arminio Monforte A, Cozzi-Lepri A, Di Biagio A, Marchetti G, Lo Caputo S, Rusconi S, et al. Durability of first-line regimens including integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs): Data from a real-life setting. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019;74:1363-7. |
| 7. | Nyaku AN, Zheng L, Gulick RM, Olefsky M, Berzins B, Wallis CL, et al. Dolutegravir plus lamivudine for initial treatment of HIV-1-infected participants with HIV-1 RNA<500 000 copies/mL: Week 48 outcomes from ACTG 5353. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019;74:1376-80. |
| 8. | Kumarasamy N, Prabhu S, Chandrasekaran E, Poongulali S, Pradeep A, Chitra D, et al. Safety, tolerability, and efficacy of generic dolutegravir-containing antiretroviral therapy regimens Among South Indian human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis 2019;68:1048-51. |
| 9. | Cohen C. Low-level viremia in HIV-1 infection: Consequences and implications for switching to a new regimen. HIV Clin Trials 2009;10:116-24. |
| 10. | Hofstra LM, Mudrikova T, Stam AJ, Otto S, Tesselaar K, Nijhuis M, et al. Residual viremia is preceding viral blips and persistent low-level viremia in treated HIV-1 patients. PLoS One 2014;9:e110749. |
| 11. | Calcagno A, Motta I, Ghisetti V, Lo Re S, Allice T, Marinaro L, et al. HIV-1 very low level viremia is associated with virological failure in highly active antiretroviral treatment-treated patients. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2015;31:999-1008. |
| 12. | Helou E, Shenoi S, Kyriakides T, Landry ML, Kozal M, Barakat LA. Characterizing Patients with very-low-level HIV viremia: A community-based study. J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care 2017;16:261-6. |
| 13. | Bernal E, Gómez JM, Jarrín I, Cano A, Muñoz A, Alcaraz A, et al. Low-level viremia is associated with clinical progression in HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral treatment. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2018;78:329-37. |
| 14. | Antiretroviral Therapy Cohort Collaboration (ART-CC), Vandenhende MA, Ingle S, May M, Chene G, Zangerle R, et al. Impact of low-level viremia on clinical and virological outcomes in treated HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS 2015;29:373-83. |
| 15. | Taiwo B, Gallien S, Aga E, Ribaudo H, Haubrich R, Kuritzkes DR, et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance in HIV-1-infected patients experiencing persistent low-level viremia during first-line therapy. J Infect Dis 2011;204:515-20. |
| 16. | Hermans LE, Moorhouse M, Carmona S, Grobbee DE, Hofstra LM, Richman DD, et al. Effect of HIV-1 low-level viraemia during antiretroviral therapy on treatment outcomes in WHO-guided South African treatment programmes: A multicentre cohort study. Lancet Infect Dis 2018;18:188-97. |
| 17. | Geretti AM, Smith C, Haberl A, Garcia-Diaz A, Nebbia G, Johnson M, et al. Determinants of virological failure after successful viral load suppression in first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy. Antivir Ther 2008;13:927-36. |
| 18. | Palmer S, Maldarelli F, Wiegand A, Bernstein B, Hanna GJ, Brun SC, et al. Low-level viremia persists for at least 7 years in patients on suppressive antiretroviral therapy. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2008;105:3879-84. |
| 19. | Greub G, Cozzi-Lepri A, Ledergerber B, Staszewski S, Perrin L, Miller V, et al. Intermittent and sustained low-level HIV viral rebound in patients receiving potent antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2002;16:1967-9. |
| 20. | Underwood RW, Horton J, Man C, Sievers J, Urbaityte R, Wynne B, et al. Dolutegravir (DTG) Plus Lamivudine (3TC) versus DTG Plus Tenofovir/Emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) Fixed-Dose Combination in the GEMINI Studies-Viral Load Rebound Including 'Blips' through 48 Weeks. [MOPEB231]. Mexico City, Mexico: Presented at 10 th International AIDS society conference; 2019. |
| 21. | Taiwo BO, Marconi VC, Berzins B, Moser CB, Nyaku AN, Fichtenbaum CJ, et al. Dolutegravir plus lamivudine maintains human immunodeficiency virus-1 suppression through week 48 in a pilot randomized trial. Clin Infect Dis 2018;66:1794-7. |
| 22. | Blanco JL, Rojas J, Paredes R, Negredo E, Mallolas J, Casadella M, et al. Dolutegravir-based maintenance monotherapy versus dual therapy with lamivudine: A planned 24 week analysis of the DOLAM randomized clinical trial. J Antimicrob Chemother 2018;73:1965-71. |
| 23. | Walmsley S, Baumgarten A, Berenguer J, Felizarta F, Florence E, Khuong-Josses MA, et al. Brief report: Dolutegravir plus abacavir/lamivudine for the treatment of hiv-1 infection in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients: Week 96 and week 144 results from the SINGLE randomized clinical trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2015;70:515-9. |
| 24. | García-Gascó P, Maida I, Blanco F, Barreiro P, Martín-Carbonero L, Vispo E, et al. Episodes of low-level viral rebound in HIV-infected patients on antiretroviral therapy: Frequency, predictors and outcome. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008;61:699-704. |
| 25. | Laprise C, de Pokomandy A, Baril JG, Dufresne S, Trottier H. Virologic failure following persistent low-level viremia in a cohort of HIV-positive patients: Results from 12 years of observation. Clin Infect Dis 2013;57:1489-96. |
| 26. | Fleming J, Mathews WC, Rutstein RM, Aberg J, Somboonwit C, Cheever LW, et al. Low-level viremia and virologic failure in persons with HIV infection treated with antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 2019;33:2005-12. |
| 27. | Mavigner M, Delobel P, Cazabat M, Dubois M, L'faqihi-Olive FE, Raymond S, et al. HIV-1 residual viremia correlates with persistent T-cell activation in poor immunological responders to combination antiretroviral therapy. PLoS One 2009;4:e7658. |
| 28. | Wirden M, Todesco E, Valantin MA, Lambert-Niclot S, Simon A, Calin R, et al. Low-level HIV-1 viraemia in patients on HAART: Risk factors and management in clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015;70:2347-53. |
| 29. | Lima V, Harrigan R, Montaner JS. Increased reporting of detectable plasma HIV-1 RNA levels at the critical threshold of 50 copies per milliliter with the Taqman assay in comparison to the Amplicor assay. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009;51:3-6. |
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
[Table 1], [Table 2]
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Influencing factors and adverse outcomes of different virologic rebound states in antiretroviral treated HIV/AIDS patients |
|
| Defu Yuan, Mingma Li, Ying Zhou, Lingen Shi, Jing Lu, Gengfeng Fu, Bei Wang | | Journal of Virus Eradication. 2023; : 100320 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Efficacy, Convenience, Safety and Durability of DTG-Based Antiretroviral Therapies: Evidence from a Prospective Study by the Italian MaSTER Cohort |
|
| Paolo Fusco, Paola Nasta, Eugenia Quiros-Roldan, Alice Tondinelli, Cecilia Costa, Chiara Fornabaio, Nicola Mazzini, Mattia Prosperi, Carlo Torti, Giampiero Carosi | | Viruses. 2023; 15(4): 924 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Adherence, Effectiveness and Safety of Dolutegravir Based Antiretroviral Regimens among HIV Infected Children and Adolescents in Tanzania |
|
| Ritah F. Mutagonda, Hamu J. Mlyuka, Betty A. Maganda, Appolinary A. R. Kamuhabwa | | Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (JIAPAC). 2022; 21: 2325958222 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
