4.6 Article

Impact of circulating resistance-associated mutations on HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) efficacy: Modeling from antiretroviral resistance cohort analysis (ARCA) national database

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL VIROLOGY
Volume 83, Issue -, Pages 48-53

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcv.2016.08.293

Keywords

HIV; PrEP; Resistance-associated mutations; MSM

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: PrEP with FTC/TDF has shown great efficacy in preventing new HIV infections but issues remain (low adherence, high costs, toxicity and resistance development). No data are available about the impact of circulating Resistance-Associated Mutations (RAMs) on its efficacy. Objectives: describe the prevalence of FTC and/or TDF-related RAMs in Italian HIV-infected population and their potential impact on PrEP efficacy. Study design: ARCA is a national database that collects data about RAMs and epidemiological correlates from sites throughout Italy; it was queried about the prevalence of these RAMs in the last decade. PrEP efficacy was adjusted for a dynamic score based on RAMs prevalence. Absolute and relative risk increases (ARI and RRI) and number needed to harm (NNH) were calculated after this score. Results: the query retrieved 3579 HAART-naive and 5781 experienced subjects. Resistance to TDF is low and more common among naive MSM in the area of Milan (where it topped to 14.3%), without other significant differences. If good adherence is not attained, RRI for receptive anal sex increases by 16% (in naive) and 93.4% (in experienced MSM). NNH is largely above 10000 except for having receptive anal sex with a HAART-experienced MSM on a failing treatment (970). Conclusions: according to this model, PrEP may be introduced in Italy without general concerns, but efficacy may be partly reduced in young MSM having sex in Rome and Milan. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available