Pre-existent NRTI and NNRTI resistance impacts on maintenance of virological suppression in HIV-1-infected patients who switch to a tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine single-tablet regimen.

Objectives: To evaluate the maintenance of virological suppression (VS) in antiretroviral-treated HIV-1-suppressed patients switching to a tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine (TDF/FTC/RPV) single-tablet regimen, by considering pre-existent resistance (pRes). Methods: pRes was evaluated according to resistance on all previous plasma genotypic resistance tests. Probability and predictors of virological rebound (VR) were evaluated. Results: Three hundred and nine patients were analysed; 5.8% of them showed resistance to both NRTIs and NNRTIs, while 12.6% showed resistance to only one of these drug classes. By 72 weeks, the probability of VR was 11.3%. A higher probability of VR was found in the following groups: (i) patients with NRTI + NNRTI pRes compared with those harbouring NRTI or NNRTI pRes and with those without reverse transcriptase inhibitor pRes (39.2% versus 11.5% versus 9.4%, P < 0.0001); (ii) patients with a virus with full/intermediate resistance to both tenofovir/emtricitabine and rilpivirine compared with those having a virus with full/intermediate resistance to tenofovir/emtricitabine or rilpivirine and those having a virus fully susceptible to TDF/FTC/RPV (36.4% versus 17.8% versus 9.7%, P < 0.001); and (iii) patients with pre-therapy viraemia >500 000 copies/mL compared with those with lower viraemia levels (>500 000: 16.0%; 100 000-500 000: 9.3%; <100 000 copies/mL: 4.8%, P = 0.009). pRes and pre-therapy viraemia >500 000 copies/mL were independent predictors of VR by multivariable Cox regression. Conclusions: TDF/FTC/RPV as a treatment simplification strategy shows a very high rate of VS maintenance. The presence of pRes to both NRTIs and NNRTIs and a pre-therapy viraemia >500 000 copies/mL are associated with an increased risk of VR, highlighting the need for an accurate selection of patients before simplification.

HIV-1 integrase genotyping is reliable and reproducible for routine clinical detection of integrase resistance mutations even in patients with low-level viraemia.

OBJECTIVES: Integrase drug resistance monitoring deserves attention because of the increasing number of patients being treated with integrase strand-transfer inhibitors. Therefore, we evaluated the integrase genotyping success rate at low-level viraemia (LLV, 51-1000 copies/mL) and resistance in raltegravir-failing patients. METHODS: An integrase genotypic resistance test (GRT) was performed on 1734 HIV-1 samples collected during 2006-13. Genotyping success rate was determined according to the following viraemia levels: 51-500, 501-1000, 1001-10 000, 10 001-100 000 and >100 000 copies/mL. The reproducibility of integrase GRT was evaluated in 41 plasma samples processed in duplicate in two reference centres. The relationship between LLV and resistance prevalence was evaluated in a subset of 120 raltegravir-failing patients. RESULTS: Overall, the integrase genotyping success rate was 95.7%. For viraemia levels 51-500 and 501-1000 copies/mL, the rate of success was 82.1% and 94.0%, respectively. GRT was reproducible, producing sequences with a high similarity and an equal resistance profile regardless of the sequencing centre or viraemia level. Resistance was detected both at LLV and at viraemia >1000 copies/mL (51-500 copies/mL = 18.2%; 501-1000 = 37.5%; 1001-10 000 = 53.7%; 10 001-100 000 = 30.0%; and >100 000 = 30.8%). At viraemia ≤500 copies/mL, Q148H/K/R and N155H had the same prevalence (9.1%), while the Y143C/H/R was completely absent. At early genotyping (within 3 months of raltegravir treatment), Q148H/K/R and N155H mutations were detected regardless of the viraemia level, while Y143C/H/R was observed only in samples with viraemia >1000 copies/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings prove the reliability of HIV-1 integrase genotyping and reinforce the concept that this assay may be useful in the management of failures even at LLV.