4.7 Review

HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitors: a review of current drugs, recent advances and drug resistance

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106343

关键词

HIV-1; Integrase inhibitor; Antiretroviral therapy

资金

  1. Poliomyelitis Research Foundation
  2. UKZN College of Health Sciences
  3. National Research Funding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antiretroviral therapy is crucial in controlling the HIV epidemic, with integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) becoming more common. INSTIs have a higher genetic barrier to resistance, with DTG showing even higher resistance barriers and CAB being used as the first long-acting agent in HIV-1 treatment.
Antiretroviral therapy has been imperative in controlling the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epi-demic. Most low-and middle-income countries have used nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NR-TIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and protease inhibitors extensively in the treatment of HIV. However, integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are becoming more common. Since their identification as a promising therapeutic drug, significant progress has been made that has led to the approval of five INSTIs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), i.e. dolutegravir (DTG), raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir (EVG), bictegravir (BIC) and cabotegravir (CAB). INSTIs have been shown to effectively halt HIV-1 replication and are commended for having a higher genetic barrier to resistance compared with NRTIs and NNRTIs. More interestingly, DTG has shown a higher genetic barrier to re-sistance compared with RAL and EVG, and CAB is being used as the first long-acting agent in HIV-1 treatment. Considering the increasing interest in INSTIs for HIV-1 treatment, we focus our review on the retroviral integrase, development of INSTIs and their mode of action. We also discuss each of the INSTI drugs, including potential drug resistance and known side effects. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据