METHODS AND FINDINGS: We reviewed all GenBank submissions of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase sequences with or without protease and identified 287 studies published between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2013, with more than 25 recently or chronically infected ARV-naïve individuals. These studies comprised 50,870 individuals from 111 countries. Each set of study sequences was analyzed for phylogenetic clustering and the presence of 93 surveillance drug-resistance mutations (SDRMs). The median overall TDR prevalence in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), south/southeast Asia (SSEA), upper-income Asian countries, Latin America/Caribbean, Europe, and North America was 2.8%, 2.9%, 5.6%, 7.6%, 9.4%, and 11.5%, respectively. In SSA, there was a yearly 1.09-fold (95% CI: 1.05-1.14) increase in odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up attributable to an increase in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance. The odds of NNRTI-associated TDR also increased in Latin America/Caribbean (odds ratio [OR] = 1.16; 95% CI: 1.06-1.25), North America (OR = 1.19; 95% CI: 1.12-1.26), Europe (OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01-1.13), and upper-income Asian countries (OR = 1.33; 95% CI: 1.12-1.55). In SSEA, there was no significant change in the odds of TDR since national ARV scale-up (OR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.92-1.02). An analysis limited to sequences with mixtures at less than 0.5% of their nucleotide positions—a proxy for recent infection—yielded trends comparable to those obtained using the complete dataset. Four NNRTI SDRMs—K101E, K103N, Y181C, and G190A—accounted for >80% of NNRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. Sixteen nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) SDRMs accounted for >69% of NRTI-associated TDR in all regions and subtypes. In SSA and SSEA, 89% of NNRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to nevirapine or efavirenz, whereas only 27% of NRTI SDRMs were associated with high-level resistance to zidovudine, lamivudine, tenofovir, or abacavir. Of 763 viruses with TDR in SSA and SSEA, 725 (95%) were genetically dissimilar; 38 (5%) formed 19 sequence pairs. Inherent limitations of this study are that some cohorts may not represent the broader regional population and that studies were heterogeneous with respect to duration of infection prior to sampling.
CONCLUSIONS: Most TDR strains in SSA and SSEA arose independently, suggesting that ARV regimens with a high genetic barrier to resistance combined with improved patient adherence may mitigate TDR increases by reducing the generation of new ARV-resistant strains. A small number of NNRTI-resistance mutations were responsible for most cases of high-level resistance, suggesting that inexpensive point-mutation assays to detect these mutations may be useful for pre-therapy screening in regions with high levels of TDR. In the context of a public health approach to ARV therapy, a reliable point-of-care genotypic resistance test could identify which patients should receive standard first-line therapy and which should receive a protease-inhibitor-containing regimen.
METHODS: We included patients from a multicentre longitudinal cohort (recruited between May 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2019) with active SLE (SLEDAI-2K ≥6) coinciding with an abnormality in at least one of 13 routine laboratory tests, at a visit designated as baseline. At 12 months, we analysed associations between thresholds of improvement in individual laboratory test results, measured as continuous variables, and five clinical outcomes using logistic regression. Primary outcomes were damage accrual and lupus low disease activity state (LLDAS), and secondary outcomes were modified SLE responder index (mSRI), physician global assessment (PGA) improvement of at least 0·3, and flare.
FINDINGS: We included 1525 patients (1415 [93%] women and 110 [7%] men, 1328 [87%] Asian ethnicity) in separate subsets for each laboratory test. The strongest associations with LLDAS and damage protection were seen with improvements in proteinuria (complete response: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 62·48, 95% CI 18·79-208·31 for LLDAS, OR 0·22, 95% CI 0·10-0·49 for damage accrual), albumin (complete response: adjusted OR 6·46, 95% CI 2·20-18·98 for LLDAS, OR 0·42, 95% CI 0·20-1·22 for damage accrual), haemoglobin (complete response: adjusted OR 1·97, 95% CI 1·09-3·53 for LLDAS, OR 0·33, 95% CI 0·15-0·71 for damage accrual), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (complete response: adjusted OR 1·71, 95% CI 1·10-2·67 for LLDAS, OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·30-0·94 for damage accrual), and platelets (complete response: adjusted OR 4·82, 95% CI 1·54-15·07 for LLDAS, OR 0·49, 95% CI 0·20-1·19 for damage accrual). Improvement in serological tests were mainly associated with PGA and mSRI. White cell and lymphocyte count improvements were least predictive.
INTERPRETATION: Improvements in several routine laboratory tests correspond with clinical outcomes in SLE over 12 months. Tests with the strongest associations were discrepant with laboratory tests included in current trial endpoints, and associations were observed across a range of improvement thresholds including incomplete resolution. These findings suggest the need to revise the use of laboratory test results in SLE trial endpoints.
FUNDING: Abbvie.
METHODOLOGY: This prospective observational study recruited kidney transplant recipients from August 2019 through April 2021 at the University of Malaya Medical Centre. Blood tests for lymphocyte subsets were taken at pre-transplant, 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months post-transplantation. At transplantation, recipients received either basiliximab, low-dose thymoglobulin (cumulative dose: 1.5 mg/kg), or standard-dose thymoglobulin (cumulative dose: 5 mg/kg).
RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were recruited: 38.5% received basiliximab (15 of 39), 15.4% received low-dose thymoglobulin (6 of 39), and 46.2% received standard-dose thymoglobulin (18 of 39). Absolute lymphocyte counts 1 week post-transplantation were 1.5 ± 0.84 × 109/L for basiliximab, 0.7 ± 0.57 × 109/L for low-dose thymoglobulin, and 0.1 ± 0.08 × 109/L for standard-dose thymoglobulin (P < .001). The CD4+ and CD8+ counts were severely depleted in the standard-dose thymoglobulin group, with a statistically significant differenceup to 6 months post-transplantation. In the low-dose thymoglobulin group, the CD4+ and CD8+ counts were depleted at 1 week post-transplantation and recovered at 1 month post-transplantation. There was no difference in allograft function and incidence of allograft rejection across groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The effects on lymphocyte counts, CD4+ and CD8+, vary depending on the type and dose of induction immunosuppression. This could be a guiding tool in managing immunosuppression post-transplantation depending on the patient's immunologic risk.