Last data update: Apr 18, 2025. (Total: 49119 publications since 2009)
Records 1-4 (of 4 Records) |
Query Trace: Parikh UM[original query] |
---|
Trends in Pretreatment HIV-1 Drug Resistance in Antiretroviral Therapy-naive Adults in South Africa, 2000-2016: A Pooled Sequence Analysis.
Chimukangara B , Lessells RJ , Rhee SY , Giandhari J , Kharsany ABM , Naidoo K , Lewis L , Cawood C , Khanyile D , Ayalew KA , Diallo K , Samuel R , Hunt G , Vandormael A , Stray-Pedersen B , Gordon M , Makadzange T , Kiepiela P , Ramjee G , Ledwaba J , Kalimashe M , Morris L , Parikh UM , Mellors JW , Shafer RW , Katzenstein D , Moodley P , Gupta RK , Pillay D , Abdool Karim SS , de Oliveira T . EClinicalMedicine 2019 9 26-34 ![]() Background: South Africa has the largest public antiretroviral therapy (ART) programme in the world. We assessed temporal trends in pretreatment HIV-1 drug resistance (PDR) in ART-naïve adults from South Africa. Methods: We included datasets from studies conducted between 2000 and 2016, with HIV-1 pol sequences from more than ten ART-naïve adults. We analysed sequences for the presence of 101 drug resistance mutations. We pooled sequences by sampling year and performed a sequence-level analysis using a generalized linear mixed model, including the dataset as a random effect. Findings: We identified 38 datasets, and retrieved 6880 HIV-1 pol sequences for analysis. The pooled annual prevalence of PDR remained below 5% until 2009, then increased to a peak of 11·9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 9·2-15·0) in 2015. The pooled annual prevalence of non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) PDR remained below 5% until 2011, then increased to 10.0% (95% CI 8.4–11.8) by 2014. Between 2000 and 2016, there was a 1.18-fold (95% CI 1.13–1.23) annual increase in NNRTI PDR (p < 0.001), and a 1.10-fold (95% CI 1.05–1.16) annual increase in nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor PDR (p = 0.001). Interpretation: Increasing PDR in South Africa presents a threat to the efforts to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic. These findings support the recent decision to modify the standard first-line ART regimen, but also highlights the need for broader public health action to prevent the further emergence and transmission of drug-resistant HIV. Source of Funding: This research project was funded by the South African Medical Research Council (MRC) with funds from National Treasury under its Economic Competitiveness and Support Package. Disclaimer: The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of CDC. |
MTN-017: A rectal phase 2 extended safety and acceptability study of tenofovir reduced-glycerin 1% gel
Cranston RD , Lama JR , Richardson BA , Carballo-Dieguez A , Kunjara Na Ayudhya RP , Liu K , Patterson KB , Leu CS , Galaska B , Jacobson CE , Parikh UM , Marzinke MA , Hendrix CW , Johnson S , Piper JM , Grossman C , Ho KS , Lucas J , Pickett J , Bekker LG , Chariyalertsak S , Chitwarakorn A , Gonzales P , Holtz TH , Liu AY , Mayer KH , Zorrilla C , Schwartz JL , Rooney J , McGowan I . Clin Infect Dis 2016 64 (5) 614-620 BACKGROUND: HIV disproportionately affects men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women (TGW). Safe and acceptable topical HIV prevention methods that target the rectum are needed. METHODS: MTN-017 was a Phase 2, three-period, randomized sequence, open-label, expanded safety and acceptability crossover study comparing rectally applied reduced-glycerin (RG) 1% tenofovir (TFV) and oral emtricitabine/TFV disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF). In each 8-week study period participants were randomized to RG-TFV rectal gel daily; or RG-TFV rectal gel before and after receptive anal intercourse (RAI) (or at least twice weekly in the event of no RAI); or daily oral FTC/TDF. RESULTS: MSM and TGW (n=195) were enrolled from 8 sites in the United States, Thailand, Peru, and South Africa with mean age of 31.1 years (range 18-64). There were no differences in Grade 2 or higher adverse event rates in participants using daily gel (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR): 1.09, p=0.59) or RAI gel (IRR: 0.90, p=0.51) compared to FTC/TDF. High adherence (≥80% of prescribed doses as assessed by unused product return and SMS reports) was less likely in the daily gel regimen (Odds Ratio (OR): 0.35, p<0.001) and participants reported less likelihood of future daily gel use for HIV protection compared to FTC/TDF (OR: 0.38, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rectal application of RG TFV gel was safe in MSM and TGW. Adherence and product use likelihood were similar for the intermittent gel and daily oral FTC/TDF regimens, but lower for the daily gel regimen. |
Postexposure protection of macaques from vaginal SHIV infection by topical integrase inhibitors
Dobard C , Sharma S , Parikh UM , West R , Taylor A , Martin A , Pau CP , Hanson DL , Lipscomb J , Smith J , Novembre F , Hazuda D , Garcia-Lerma JG , Heneine W . Sci Transl Med 2014 6 (227) 227ra35 Coitally delivered microbicide gels containing antiretroviral drugs are important for HIV prevention. However, to date, microbicides have contained entry or reverse transcriptase inhibitors that block early steps in virus infection and thus need to be given as a preexposure dose that interferes with sexual practices and may limit compliance. Integrase inhibitors block late steps after virus infection and therefore are more suitable for post-coital dosing. We first determined the kinetics of strand transfer in vitro and confirmed that integration begins about 6 hours after infection. We then used a repeat-challenge macaque model to assess efficacy of vaginal gels containing integrase strand transfer inhibitors when applied before or after simian/human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) challenge. We showed that gel containing the strand transfer inhibitor L-870812 protected two of three macaques when applied 30 min before SHIV challenge. We next evaluated the efficacy of 1% raltegravir gel and demonstrated its ability to protect macaques when applied 3 hours after SHIV exposure (five of six protected; P < 0.05, Fisher's exact test). Breakthrough infections showed no evidence of drug resistance in plasma or vaginal secretions despite continued gel dosing after infection. We documented rapid vaginal absorption reflecting a short pharmacological lag time and noted that vaginal, but not plasma, virus load was substantially reduced in the breakthrough infection after raltegravir gel treatment. We provide a proof of concept that topically applied integrase inhibitors protect against vaginal SHIV infection when administered shortly before or 3 hours after virus exposure. |
Complete protection from repeated vaginal simian-human immunodeficiency virus exposures in macaques by a topical gel containing tenofovir alone or with emtricitabine
Parikh UM , Dobard C , Sharma S , Cong ME , Jia H , Martin A , Pau CP , Hanson DL , Guenthner P , Smith J , Kersh E , Garcia-Lerma JG , Novembre FJ , Otten R , Folks T , Heneine W . J Virol 2009 83 (20) 10358-65 New-generation gels that deliver potent antiretroviral drugs against HIV-1 have renewed hopes in topical prophylaxis as a prevention strategy. Previous preclinical research in monkey models suggested that high concentrations and drug combinations are needed for high efficacy. We evaluated two long-acting reverse transcriptase inhibitors, tenofovir and emtricitabine (FTC), using a twice-weekly repeat-challenge macaque model and showed that a pre-exposure vaginal application of gel with 1% tenofovir alone or in combination with 5% FTC both fully protected macaques from a total of 20 exposures to SHIVSF162p3. FTC and TFV were detected in plasma 30 minutes after vaginal application suggesting rapid absorption. FTC was more frequently detected than TFV and showed higher levels reflecting the 5-fold higher concentration of this drug relative to TFV. Two of 12 repeatedly exposed but protected macaques showed limited T-cell priming which did not induce resistance to infection when macaques were re-challenged. Thus, single drugs with durable antiviral activity can provide highly effective topical prophylaxis and overcome the need for non-coital use or for drug combinations which are more complex and costly to formulate and approve. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Apr 18, 2025
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure