4.3 Article

Characterization of nevirapine resistance mutations in women with subtype A vs. D HIV-1 6-8 weeks after single-dose nevirapine (HIVNET 012)

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00126334-200402010-00004

关键词

HIV-1; nevirapine; drug resistance; subtype; Uganda

资金

  1. NIAID NIH HHS [U01-AI-48054, N01-AI-45200, N0I-AI-35173-417, N01-AI-35173, U01-AI-46745] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NICHD NIH HHS [R01-HD-42965-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the number and type of nevirapine (NVP) resistance mutations detected in Ugandan women with subtype A vs. D HIV-1 infection after single-dose NVP prophylaxis. Design: In the HIVNET 012 trial, a higher rate of NVP resistance (NVPR) was seen in women with subtype D than A after single-dose NVP. In this study, the number and type of NVPR mutations detected 6-8 weeks after NVP were compared in women with subtypes A vs. D. Methods: Plasma samples were available for 282 (92%) of 306 women who received NVP in HIVNET 012. Samples were analyzed with the ViroSeq HIV-1 Genotyping System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA). Subtyping was performed by phylogenetic analysis of pol region sequences. Results: Results were obtained for 279 women, including 147 with subtype A, 98 with subtype D, 6 with subtype C, and 28 with recombinant HIV-1. NVPR mutations were detected in 70 (25%) of 279 women. NVPR was more common in women with subtype D vs. A (35.7 vs. 19%, P = 0.0035). Complex patterns of NVPR mutations were detected in both subtypes. Among women with NVPR, 43% of women with subtype A and 46% of women with subtype D had greater than or equal to2 NVPR mutations. The mean number and pattern of NVPR mutations detected in women with subtypes A and D were similar. Conclusions: This study confirms a higher rate of NVPR in women with subtype D than A and further defines the pattern of NVPR mutations that emerge 6-8 weeks after single-dose NVP prophylaxis in these subtypes.

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

4.3
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