Back

Worrisome Emergence of Pan-INSTI Resistance: A Systematic Scoping Review of Dolutegravir Resistance in INSTI-naive Patients Post-Therapy Failure

Arora, S.; Raman, N.; Anilkumar, A.; Ashta, K.; Kisenjang, N.; Mohan, C.

2025-02-02 hiv aids
10.1101/2025.02.01.25320414 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionDolutegravir (DTG), a second-generation integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), is widely used in HIV treatment, especially in low-resource settings. Despite its proven efficacy, concerns about DTG resistance mutations (DRMs) have emerged in patients failing dual NRTI + DTG-based ART regimens. This review examines the patterns and frequencies of these DRMs in INSTI-naive patients. MethodsA systematic scoping review was conducted, synthesizing data from 21 studies (2013-2024) involving 59 INSTI-naive persons living with HIV-1 (PLH) who experienced virological failure (VF) on dual NRTI + DTG-based ART. Data extraction was undertaken by two independent reviewers, and key information included ART history, DRM profiles, duration of DTG-based ART, and viral load at failure. A qualitative synthesis identified common resistance patterns, geographic distributions, and HIV subtype correlations. ResultsThe most prevalent DRMs were G118R (42.4%) and R263K (38.9%). G118R, when combined with T66I and E138K, was associated with high-level resistance and pan-INSTI resistance. R263K, frequently occurring alone or with minor mutations, also conferred modest resistance. Resistance patterns varied by HIV subtype, with non-B subtypes showing higher frequencies of G118R and Q148HRK mutations, while R263K predominated in subtype B. ConclusionEmerging DTG resistance in INSTI-naive patients, particularly in resource-limited settings, is a cause for concern. G118R and R263K were the most prevalent mutations, with the former leading to pan-INSTI resistance. These findings stress the importance of monitoring resistance patterns, especially in non-HIV-B subtypes, to optimize ART strategies.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.