Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Moderate levels of preantiretroviral therapy drug resistance in a generalized epidemic

time for better first-line ART?

van Zyl, Gert U.a,b; Grobbelaar, Cornelis J.c; Claassen, Mathildab; Bock, Peterd; Preiser, Wolfganga,b

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0000000000001629

Background: The WHO-recommended first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) as a fixed dose combination (FDC) of efavirenz (EFV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) with lamivudine (3TC) or emtricitabine (FTC) has been preferred in the large scale unprecedented ART roll out in Southern Africa. Models and recent reports suggest that pre-ART HIV drug resistance (PDR) is increasing with high treatment coverage.

Method: We therefore investigated PDR and any local transmission clusters in a setting where high treatment coverage was further enhanced by universal test and treat (UTT). Surveillance drug resistance mutations (SDRMs) were identified with an in-house PCR and population sequencing method and calibrated population resistance (CPR) tool.

Results: Of 60 patients, six (10%) had an SDRM mutation: five (8.3%) had nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase (NNRT) mutations, one had an nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor mutation and none had protease inhibitor (PI) mutations. Phylogenetic analysis revealed no large transmission clusters.

Conclusion: An increase to the current moderate PDR levels and the better tolerability and durability, may support a recent drive to avail FDC integrase strand transfer inhibitor (ISTI)-based regimens as the new preferred first-line ART in the Southern African region for individual benefit and to contribute to limiting transmission of infection and drug resistant virus.

aDivision of Medical Virology, South African Medical Research Council Collaborating Centre TygHIVLab, Stellenbosch University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Cape Town

bNational Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Business Unit

cANOVA Health Institute, Johannesburg

dDepartment of Paediatrics and Child Health, Desmond Tutu TB Centre, Stellenbosch University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Cape Town, South Africa.

Correspondence to Gert U. van Zyl, MBChB, MMed, FCPath(SA), PhD, Division of Medical Virology, Stellenbosch University, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences and National Health Laboratory Service, Tygerberg Business Unit, Cape Town, South Africa. Tel: +2721 938 9691; fax: +2721 938 9361; e-mail:

Received 13 June, 2017

Revised 16 August, 2017

Accepted 17 August, 2017

Back to Top | Article Outline


Antiretroviral therapy (ART) consisting of the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), efavirenz, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate combined with lamivudine or emtricitabine is a WHO recommended choice for first-line ART [1] and have become the mainstay of the large-scale rollout of ART in the Southern African region. The WHO has formulated criteria for determining levels of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) recommending the inclusion of asymptomatic and recently diagnosed individuals under 25 years of age [2] in an attempt to detect resistant viral strains before reversion to levels undetectable by population sequencing. However, this approach is logistically challenging. Testing at the time of commencing first-line ART is more commonly performed [3], referred to as pre-ART drug resistance (PDR). As not all patients presenting for first-line ART initiation are truly ART naive, PDR is a combination of detectable TDR and other effects, including undisclosed ART exposure, both programmatically important. PDR should be distinguished from WHO-defined TDR surveillance [3–5]. Nevertheless, in a universal test and treat setting a large proportion of patients presenting for first-time ART may be recently infected, likely providing a good estimate of TDR.

Models predict that TDR would increase with higher therapy coverage and a longer time since therapy scale-up [6]. Routine viral load monitoring to identify patients experiencing ART failure, could limit TDR by early identification of patients who require interventions to achieve viral load suppression before they could infect others [7]. Conversely, delayed therapy switches of patients failing ART may contribute to an increase in TDR [8]. Uniform surveillance for drug resistance is based on a list of surveillance drug resistance mutations (SDRM), which excludes subtype-associated polymorphisms [9]. Recently, an increase in PDR has been described in South Africa [10,11]. An increase of PDR against NNRTI has also recently been reported from the larger Sub-Saharan African region, the Caribbean/Latin America, United States, and upper-income Asian countries, whereas levels remained stable at moderate levels in Europe [12–15].

The Cape Winelands Health District has an antenatal clinic HIV prevalence of 15.0% [16]. The public sector rollout of ART started in 2004, with the study clinic currently providing approximately 800 individuals with ART. Current national guidelines recommend a first-line regimen of a fixed-dose combination of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz. In the area surrounding the clinic, ART coverage has been enhanced further through a community randomized trial implementing universal test and treat since January 2014 which aims to reduce transmission by limiting infectivity of infected individuals [17,18]. The extent to which high local treatment coverage would limit transmission may, however, be dependent on the role of acutely infected individuals, not yet on ART, and whether sexual networks include a large proportion of individuals from low ART coverage settings outside of the intervention community [19–21].

We, therefore, investigated PDR at a primary healthcare clinic in the Drakenstein subdistrict, Cape Winelands District, in an area with high-ART coverage, and assessed whether transmission was locally clustered or part of a large regional epidemic, and whether there was evidence of clusters of TDR.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Sequential patients referred for ART initiation after testing HIV-positive in the surrounding community or at the clinic and who provided informed consent were included. Patients with a self-reported history of previous ART were excluded. The study was approved by the Stellenbosch University Health Research Ethics Committee (N15/09/079).

HIV viral load testing was performed in the regional state laboratory using the COBAS AmpliPrep/COBAS TaqMan HIV-1 Test, v2.0 (Roche Molecular Diagnostics, Pleasanton, California, USA).

Genotypic HIV drug-resistance testing was performed by an in-house population sequencing assay covering amino acids in protease 1–99 and reverse transcriptase 1–262 [22]. Drug resistance was identified with the Stanford database calibrated population resistance tool [23] using the 2009 SDRM list [9] and HIV-1 subtype with the REGA HIV-1 Subtyping Tool Version 3.0 [24].

Samples were coded for anonymized phylogenetic analysis to detect clusters as follows: subtype; sex; age category (16–24, 25–30, 31–40, and 41–60); SDRM; number (if more than one sequence with the same coding characteristics); coding fields were separated by underscores.

A phylogenetic tree was constructed in Geneious 9.1.5 using a Tamara Neighbor Joining Tree algorithm (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Back to Top | Article Outline


In total, 64 patients who presented for ART initiation at the study clinic between 6 June 2016 and 10 January 2017 were recruited. Median CD4+ cell count was 337 (interquartile range: 181–474) cells/μl. Genotyping was unsuccessful in four of 64 patients, three of which had HIV viral loads less than 100 copies/ml and one that had a viral load of 130 copies/ml, leaving 60 for analysis. These four individuals were diagnosed as infected by two positive rapid HIV antibody tests, the individual with a viral load of 130 copies/ml in addition confirmed with a fourth generation serological assay. In the latter, history excluded prior ART suggesting a likely natural controller, whereas clinical history suggested possible undisclosed prior ART in two of the other individuals. Of the 60 patients included, 31 (52%) were women; overall mean age was 34 years, 38 for female and 29 for male patients. In total, 58 samples (97%) were classified as HIV-1 subtype C and two (3%) as CD recombinants circulating recombinant form (CRF)10.

For 59 patients, loci sequenced included all SDRM (including protease positons 1–99 and at least reverse transcriptase 1–239); for one patient only a partial sequence was obtained (protease 1–99 and reverse transcriptase 47–262), which included all NNRTI, protease inhibitor (PI), and nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor SDRM except M41L. Details of SDRM detected are provided in Table 1. In summary, six of 60 patients (10%) had an SDRM. None had any PI-associated SDRM, five of 60 (8.3%) NNRTI SDRM, and one of 60 (1.7%) NRTI SDRM; GenBank accession numbers MF285802–MF285860).

Table 1

Table 1

From an anonymized neighbor joining tree (Fig. 1) there are neither large transmission clusters, nor linkage among cases with PDR. When analysed using the Los Alamos database, sequences mapped to other sequences across the Southern African region (49% closest match was in South Africa; 25% Zambia; 12% Botswana; and 14% other, mostly in Sub-Sahara Africa). Two participants, ‘C_F_25–30_none’ and ‘C_M_41–60_none’, shared almost identical sequences and could represent sexual partners linked by a recent transmission event; other sequences belonging to clusters of 2–3 participant sequences could represent less recent or indirect transmission events.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Similar to a recent national surveillance study of HIV drug resistance [25], we found a prevalence of 10% PDR, with mutations affecting NNRTI sensitivity the most prevalent. Similarly, an increase in NNRTI–PDR has been observed in Latin America and the United States [14]. K103N, found in five of six cases with any PDR, has been observed in 55% of patients from lower middle income countries with any drug resistance mutation [26]. Although the PDR prevalence is not above the 15% WHO threshold warranting an alternative first-line ART regimen, any PDR, even when present as minor variants, may increase the chance of ART failure [27].

Our study was limited by performing population sequencing in patients who may have been infected for years, therefore, the levels of PDR were likely underestimated. Also, some patients may not have disclosed previous exposure to ART. A strength of the study was that participants were enrolled at a primary healthcare site, limiting referral bias.

There was neither evidence of clusters of TDR nor large transmission clusters. Sequences were overall very diverse, mapping to many different other HIV-1 subtype C sequences from the region. Considering this, it is unclear to what extent the high regional ART coverage has effectively limited local transmission clusters, while clearly not impacting on transmissions from outside the region.

Moderate levels of PDR may impact on ART success and, therefore, influence choice of first-line ART. However, other considerations may be just as important for choosing the best first-line regimen. Ideally high durability regimens should be used as first line: good tolerability and low toxicity could improve adherence and quality of life of treated individuals, and high genetic barriers to resistance limit TDR. The availability of fixed-dose generic formulations and their cost are pivotal in resource-limited settings. High regimen effectiveness and durability could result in programmatic cost savings as these regimens may require less frequent viral load monitoring and less frequent switches to less tolerable second-line regimens.

Based on these considerations there are efforts to obtain integrase inhibitors, especially high genetic barrier dolutegravir, for first-line ART in Southern Africa, with Botswana first to implement dolutegravir-based regimens as preferred first line for patients newly initiated on ART [28]. When applied in a large-scale rollout, this may not only increase individual therapy success but also reduce onward transmission and TDR. More durable, effective, and better tolerable first-line regimens could curb the HIV epidemic, especially if the overall cost of treatment (which includes program management, individual care, and treatment monitoring) could be reduced to allow sustainability of treatment programs in regions with a high prevalence and generalized HIV epidemics.

Back to Top | Article Outline


Research assistance support: Kirsten Veldsman, Mary Grace Katusiime.

The article was funded by South African MRC Collaborating Centre (TygHIVLab) and NHLS Research Trust.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. World Health Organization. WHO | Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection. WHO. 2016. [Accessed 25 July 2016]
2. Bennett DE, Myatt M, Bertagnolio S, Sutherland D, Gilks CF. Recommendations for surveillance of transmitted HIV drug resistance in countries scaling up antiretroviral treatment. Antivir Ther 2008; 13 (suppl 2):25–36.
3. Gupta RK, Jordan MR, Sultan BJ, Hill A, Davis DH, Gregson J, et al. Global trends in antiretroviral resistance in treatment-naive individuals with HIV after rollout of antiretroviral treatment in resource-limited settings: a global collaborative study and meta-regression analysis. Lancet 2012; 380:1250–1258.
4. Kasang C, Kalluvya S, Majinge C, Stich A, Bodem J, Kongola G, et al. HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) in antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients in Tanzania not eligible for WHO threshold HIVDR survey is dramatically high. PLoS One 2011; 6:e23091.
5. Parikh UM, Kiepiela P, Ganesh S, Gomez K, Horn S, Eskay K, et al. MTN-009 Protocol Team. Prevalence of HIV-1 drug resistance among women screening for HIV prevention trials in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa (MTN-009). PLoS One 2013; 8:e59787.
6. Vardavas R, Blower S. The emergence of HIV transmitted resistance in Botswana: ‘when will the WHO detection threshold be exceeded?’. PLoS One 2007; 2:e152.
7. Phillips AN, Pillay D, Garnett G, Bennett D, Vitoria M, Cambiano V, Lundgren J. Effect on transmission of HIV-1 resistance of timing of implementation of viral load monitoring to determine switches from first to second-line antiretroviral regimens in resource-limited settings. AIDS 2011; 25:843–850.
8. Hoare A, Kerr SJ, Ruxrungtham K, Ananworanich J, Law MG, Cooper DA, et al. Hidden drug resistant HIV to emerge in the era of universal treatment access in Southeast Asia. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10981.
9. Bennett DE, Camacho RJ, Otelea D, Kuritzkes DR, Fleury H, Kiuchi M, et al. Drug resistance mutations for surveillance of transmitted HIV-1 drug-resistance: 2009 update. PLoS One 2009; 4:e4724.
10. Steegen K, Carmona S, Bronze M, Papathanasopoulos MA, van Zyl G, Goedhals D, et al. Moderate levels of pre-treatment HIV-1 antiretroviral drug resistance detected in the first South African national survey. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0166305.
11. Manasa J, Danaviah S, Lessells R, Elshareef M, Tanser F, Wilkinson E, et al. Increasing HIV-1 drug resistance between 2010 and 2012 in adults participating in population-based HIV surveillance in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2016; 32:763–769.
12. Chung MH, Silverman R, Beck IA, Yatich N, Dross S, McKernan-Mullin J, et al. Increasing HIV-1 pretreatment drug resistance among antiretroviral-naïve adults initiating treatment between 2006 and 2014 in Nairobi, Kenya. AIDS 2016; 30:1680–1682.
13. Boerma RS, Sigaloff KC, Akanmu AS, Inzaule S, Boele van Hensbroek M, Rinke de Wit TF, Calis JC. Alarming increase in pretreatment HIV drug resistance in children living in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72:365–371.
14. Rhee SY, Blanco JL, Jordan MR, Taylor J, Lemey P, Varghese V, et al. Geographic and temporal trends in the molecular epidemiology and genetic mechanisms of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance: an individual-patient and sequence-level meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2015; 12:e1001810.
15. Avila-Ríos S, García-Morales C, Matías-Florentino M, Tapia-Trejo D, Hernández-Álvarez BF, Moreira-López SE, et al. HIV drug resistance in antiretroviral treatment-naïve individuals in the largest public hospital in Nicaragua, 2011-2015. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0164156.
16. National Department of Health of South Africa. The 2013 National Antenatal Sentinel HIV Prevalence Survey South Africa. [Accessed 12 May 2017]
17. Tanser F, Bärnighausen T, Grapsa E, Zaidi J, Newell ML. High coverage of ART associated with decline in risk of HIV acquisition in rural KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Science 2013; 339:966–971.
18. Cohen MS, Chen YQ, McCauley M, Gamble T, Hosseinipour MC, Kumarasamy N, et al. HPTN 052 Study Team. Antiretroviral therapy for the prevention of HIV-1 transmission. N Engl J Med 2016; 375:830–839.
19. Andrews JR, Wood R, Bekker LG, Middelkoop K, Walensky RP. Projecting the benefits of antiretroviral therapy for HIV prevention: the impact of population mobility and linkage to care. J Infect Dis 2012; 206:543–551.
20. Little SJ. Treatment of acute HIV infection and the potential role of acutely HIV-infected persons in cure studies. Top Antivir Med 2016; 23:156–160.
21. Powers KA, Ghani AC, Miller WC, Hoffman IF, Pettifor AE, Kamanga G, et al. The role of acute and early HIV infection in the spread of HIV and implications for transmission prevention strategies in Lilongwe, Malawi: a modelling study. Lancet 2011; 378:256–268.
22. Van Zyl GU, Liu TF, Claassen M, Engelbrecht S, de Oliveira T, Preiser W, et al. Trends in genotypic HIV-1 antiretroviral resistance between 2006 and 2012 in South African patients receiving first and second-line antiretroviral treatment regimens. PLoS One 2013; 8:e67188.
23. Gifford RJ, Liu TF, Rhee SY, Kiuchi M, Hue S, Pillay D, Shafer RW. The calibrated population resistance tool: standardized genotypic estimation of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance. Bioinformatics 2009; 25:1197–1198.
24. Pineda-Peña AC, Faria NR, Imbrechts S, Libin P, Abecasis AB, Deforche K, et al. Automated subtyping of HIV-1 genetic sequences for clinical and surveillance purposes: performance evaluation of the new REGA version 3 and seven other tools. Infect Genet Evol 2013; 19:337–348.
25. Steegen K, Bronze M, Papathanasopoulos MA, van Zyl G, Goedhals D, Variava E, et al. HIV-1 antiretroviral drug resistance patterns in patients failing NNRTI-based treatment: results from a national survey in South Africa. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72:210–219.
26. Rhee SY, Jordan MR, Raizes E, Chua A, Parkin N, Kantor R, et al. HIV-1 drug resistance mutations: potential applications for point-of-care genotypic resistance testing. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0145772.
27. Li JZ, Paredes R, Ribaudo HJ, Svarovskaia ES, Kozal MJ, Hullsiek KH, et al. Relationship between minority nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations, adherence, and the risk of virologic failure. AIDS 2012; 26:185–192.
28. Venter WD. A complex but exciting future: new options for second-line antiretroviral therapy. Curr Trop Med Reports 2017; 4:6–10.

antiretroviral therapy coverage; first-line antiretroviral therapy; HIV; nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance; nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance; pretreatment drug resistance; transmission cluster

Copyright © 2017 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.