4.7 Article

In Vitro Resistance Profile of the Candidate HIV-1 Microbicide Drug Dapivirine

期刊

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
卷 56, 期 2, 页码 751-756

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.05821-11

关键词

-

资金

  1. International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM), Rockville, MD
  2. Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Antiretroviral-based microbicides may offer a means to reduce the sexual transmission of HIV-1. Suboptimal use of a microbicide may, however, lead to the development of drug resistance in users that are already, or become, infected with HIV-1. In such cases, the efficacy of treatments may be compromised since the same (or similar) antiretrovirals used in treatments are being developed as microbicides. To help predict which drug resistance mutations may develop in the context of suboptimal use, HIV-1 primary isolates of different subtypes and different baseline resistance profiles were used to infect primary cells in vitro in the presence of increasing suboptimal concentrations of the two candidate microbicide antiretrovirals dapivirine (DAP) and tenofovir (TFV) alone or in combination. Infections were ongoing for 25 weeks, after which reverse transcriptase genotypes were determined and scrutinized for the presence of any clinically recognized reverse transcriptase drug resistance mutations. Results indicated that suboptimal concentrations of DAP alone facilitated the emergence of common nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations, while suboptimal concentrations of DAP plus TFV gave rise to fewer mutations. Suboptimal concentrations of TFV alone did not frequently result in the development of resistance mutations. Sensitivity evaluations for stavudine (d4T), nevirapine (NVP), and lamivudine (3TC) revealed that the selection of resistance as a consequence of suboptimal concentrations of DAP may compromise the potential for NVP to be used in treatment, a finding of potential relevance in developing countries.

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