Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the virological response and to describe the resistance profiles in the case of failure after 6 months of first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV-1-infected children living in resource-limited settings. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-seven HIV-1-infected children who started two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) (mainly zidovudine/lamivudine/nevirapine) in Mali were prospectively studied. Virological failure (VF) was defined as loss to follow-up, death or HIV-1 RNA viral load (VL) of >400 copies/mL at 6 months. When VL was >50 copies/mL, a genotypic resistance test was performed. RESULTS: Among the 97 children, median age at antiretroviral initiation was 31 months and the majority were in WHO clinical (77.3%) and immunological (70.1%) stage III or IV. At month 6, 44% of children had VL > 400 copies/mL (61% VF). Among the children with detectable VL, 30/37 genotypic resistance tests were available, 8 with wild-type viruses and 22 with resistance mutations (73%): 19 M184V/I, 21 NNRTI mutations and only 3 thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs) (K70R, D67N and L210W in three distinct viruses). At failure, 6/8 children with wild-type viruses had a VL of <1000 copies/mL whereas 21/22 with resistant viruses had a VL of >1000 copies/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Under NNRTI-based regimens, early detection of VF could allow the reinforcement of adherence when VL was <1000 copies/mL, because in most of these cases no resistance mutations were detected, or a change to a protease inhibitor-based regimen if VL was >1000 copies/mL. The low frequency of TAMs suggests that most NRTIs can be used in a second-line regimen after early failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Germanaud et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: