Point-of-Care Tenofovir Urine Testing for the Prediction of Treatment Failure and Drug Resistance During Initial Treatment for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) Infection.

BACKGROUND: Viral rebound during antiretroviral treatment (ART) is most often driven by suboptimal adherence in the absence of drug resistance. We assessed the diagnostic performance of point-of-care (POC) tenofovir (TFV) detection in urine for the prediction of viral rebound and drug resistance during ART. METHODS: We performed a nested case-control study within the ADVANCE randomized clinical trial (NCT03122262) in Johannesburg, South Africa. Adults with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and newly initiating ART were randomized to receive either dolutegravir or efavirenz, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or alafenamide, and emtricitabine. All participants with rebound ≥200 copies/mL between 24 and 96 weeks of follow-up were selected as cases and matched to controls with virological suppression <50 copies/mL. Rapid POC urine-TFV detection was performed retrospectively. RESULTS: We included 281 samples from 198 participants. Urine-TFV was detectable in 30.7% (70/228) of cases and in 100% (53/53) of controls. Undetectable urine-TFV predicted rebound with a sensitivity of 69% [95% confidence interval {CI}: 63-75] and specificity of 100% [93-100]. In cases with virological failure and sequencing data (n = 42), NRTI drug resistance was detected in 50% (10/20) of cases with detectable urine-TFV versus in 8.3% (2/24) of cases with undetectable urine-TFV. Detectable urine-TFV predicted NRTI resistance (odds ratio [OR] 10.4 [1.8-114.4] P = .005) with a sensitivity of 83% [52-98] and specificity of 69% [50-84]. CONCLUSIONS: POC objective adherence testing using a urine-TFV test predicted viral rebound with high specificity. In participants with rebound, urine-TFV testing predicted the selection of drug resistance. Objective adherence testing may be used to rapidly provide insight into adherence, suppression, and drug resistance during ART.

Brief Report: Discrepancies Between Self-Reported Adherence and a Biomarker of Adherence in Real-World Settings.

BACKGROUND: Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is only effective in preventing new HIV infections when taken consistently. In clinical practice, asking a patient about their adherence (self-report) is the predominant method of assessing adherence to PrEP. Although inexpensive and noninvasive, self-report is subject to social desirability and recall biases. Several clinical trials demonstrate a discrepancy between self-reported adherence and biomarker-based recent adherence. Less is known about the accuracy of self-report in real-world clinical settings. This brief report addresses this knowledge gap and describes the concordance between self-reported adherence and biomarker-based adherence in real-world clinical settings. METHODS: A liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry urine test for tenofovir was developed and used clinically to detect recent nonadherence (no dose in at least 48 hours) for each individual. Two clinics' standard operating procedures recommend utilization of the urine-based adherence test for patients who self-report that they are not struggling with adherence. Those who self-report struggling with adherence receive enhanced adherence support without the need for additional testing. The number of results indicating recent nonadherence from these 2 clinics were analyzed to assess the concordance between self-reported adherence and biomarker-based adherence. RESULTS: Across 2 clinics, 3987 tests were conducted from patients self-reporting as "adherent," and 564 [14.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 13.1% to 15.2%] demonstrated recent nonadherence with the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry test. At clinic #1 in Florida, 3200 tests were conducted, and 465 (14.5%; 95% CI: 13.3% to 15.8%) demonstrated recent nonadherence. At clinic #2 in Texas, 787 tests were conducted, and 99 (12.6%; 95% CI: 10.4% to 14.9%) demonstrated recent nonadherence. CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of biomarker-based adherence monitoring at these 2 clinics resulted in 564 additional patients receiving enhanced adherence support who otherwise would not have been identified as nonadherent to their prescribed PrEP regimen. These findings suggest that objective adherence monitoring can be used clinically to enable providers to identify nonadherent patients and allocate support services accordingly.