
==== Front
J Antimicrob Chemother
J Antimicrob Chemother
jac
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
0305-7453
1460-2091
Oxford University Press UK

39028674
10.1093/jac/dkae189
dkae189
Original Research
AcademicSubjects/MED00740
AcademicSubjects/MED00290
AcademicSubjects/MED00230
HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance in newly diagnosed individuals in Italy over the period 2015–21
Fabeni Lavinia Laboratory of Virology, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Armenia Daniele Departmental Faculty, UniCamillus, Saint Camillus International University of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy

Abbate Isabella Laboratory of Virology, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Gagliardini Roberta Clinical and Research Infectious Diseases Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Mazzotta Valentina Clinical and Research Infectious Diseases Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Bertoli Ada Laboratory of Virology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Gennari William Molecular Microbiology and Virology Unit, Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathological Anatomy, Policlinic of Modena, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy

Forbici Federica Laboratory of Virology, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Berno Giulia Laboratory of Virology, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Piermatteo Lorenzo Department of Biology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Borghi Vanni Department of Infectious Diseases, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Policlinico of Modena, Modena, Italy

Pinnetti Carmela Clinical and Research Infectious Diseases Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6944-0686
Vergori Alessandra Clinical and Research Infectious Diseases Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Mondi Annalisa Clinical and Research Infectious Diseases Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Parruti Giustino Infectious Diseases Unit, Pescara General Hospital, Pescara, Italy

Di Sora Fiorella Unit of Clinical Immunology, San Giovanni Addolorata Hospital, Rome, Italy

Iannetta Marco Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Lichtner Miriam Infectious Diseases Unit, Santa Maria Goretti Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Polo Pontino, Latina, Italy
Sant'Andrea Hospital, Clinical Infectious Diseases, Rome, Italy

Latini Alessandra Sexually Transmitted Infection/Human Immunodeficiency Virus Unit, San Gallicano Dermatological Institute IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Mussini Cristina Department of Infectious Diseases, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, Policlinico of Modena, Modena, Italy

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1452-0333
Sarmati Loredana Department of Infectious Diseases, University Hospital Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Perno Carlo Federico Microbiology and Diagnostic Immunology Unit, Department of Diagnostic and Laboratory Medicine, Bambino Gesú Children's Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8182-5896
Girardi Enrico Scientific Direction, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Antinori Andrea Clinical and Research Infectious Diseases Department, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Ceccherini-Silberstein Francesca Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

Maggi Fabrizio Laboratory of Virology, National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Lazzaro Spallanzani IRCCS, Rome, Italy

Santoro Maria Mercedes Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy

The Italian HIV Drug Resistance Group Ceccherini-Silberstein F
Bellocchi M C
Carioti L
Santoro M M
Andreoni M
Iannetta M
Bertoli A
Sarmati L
Malagnino V
Teti E
Armenia D
Antinori A
Baldini F
Bellagamba R
Berno G
Camici M
Cicalini S
De Zottis F
Esvan R
Fabeni L
Forbici F
Fusto M
Gagliardini R
Gebremeskel S
Gili F
Girardi E
Grilli E
Grisetti S
Mastrorosa I
Mazzotta V
Mondi A
Orchi N
Ottou S
Pinnetti C
Pittalis S
Pizzi D
Plazzi M
Vergori A
Buonomini A R
Giuliani M
Latini A
Pacifici A
Perno C F
Belvisi V
Del Borgo C
Carraro A
Lichtner M
Marocco R
Borghi V
Mussini C
Gennari W

Corresponding author. E-mail: lavinia.fabeni@inmi.it
Lavinia Fabeni and Daniele Armenia contributed equally to this work.

9 2024
19 7 2024
19 7 2024
79 9 21522162
10 4 2024
22 5 2024
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy.
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background

Transmitted drug resistance (TDR) is still a critical aspect for the management of individuals living with HIV-1. Thus, its evaluation is crucial to optimize HIV care.

Methods

Overall, 2386 HIV-1 protease/reverse transcriptase and 1831 integrase sequences from drug-naïve individuals diagnosed in north and central Italy between 2015 and 2021 were analysed. TDR was evaluated over time. Phylogeny was generated by maximum likelihood. Factors associated with TDR were evaluated by logistic regression.

Results

Individuals were mainly male (79.1%) and Italian (56.2%), with a median (IQR) age of 38 (30–48). Non-B infected individuals accounted for 44.6% (N = 1065) of the overall population and increased over time (2015–2021, from 42.1% to 51.0%, P = 0.002). TDR prevalence to any class was 8.0% (B subtype 9.5% versus non-B subtypes 6.1%, P = 0.002) and remained almost constant over time. Overall, 300 transmission clusters (TCs) involving 1155 (48.4%) individuals were identified, with a similar proportion in B and non-infected individuals (49.7% versus 46.8%, P = 0.148). A similar prevalence of TDR among individuals in TCs and those out of TCs was found (8.2% versus 7.8%, P = 0.707).

By multivariable analysis, subtypes A, F, and CFR02_AG were negatively associated with TDR. No other factors, including being part of TCs, were significantly associated with TDR.

Conclusions

Between 2015 and 2021, TDR prevalence in Italy was 8% and remained almost stable over time. Resistant strains were found circulating regardless of being in TCs, but less likely in non-B subtypes. These results highlight the importance of a continuous surveillance of newly diagnosed individuals for evidence of TDR to inform clinical practice.

AVIRALIA Foundation 10.13039/100016726
==== Body
pmcBackground

HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance (TDR) is still a clinical and public health issue today because it can compromise the response to antiretroviral therapy (ART) at the individual and population level.1–3 As a result, testing for TDR in reverse transcriptase and protease in newly diagnosed people with HIV (PHW) is recommended by European and American guidelines as a part of the initial clinical assessment.4,5

The estimates of TDR rates vary substantially over time and by country.6–9 The TDR rate between 2014 and 2019 was reported to be stable at around 8%–10% in Europe6 and at around 14%–18% in the USA.7,8 TDR has been most detected in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and non-NRTIs (NNRTIs), while a lower prevalence is usually reported for TDR in protease inhibitors (PIs).2,6,7,9 So far, TDR is still rare for integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTI),2,8,10 and therefore integrase genotyping before ART initiation is not recommended unless there is suspicion of transmitted INSTI resistance or if there is a history of pre-exposure prophylaxis with cabotegravir.5 However, there has been an increased use of INSTIs thus, surveillance programmes to monitor TDR to this drug class are needed.

HIV subtype is another virologic factor that should be taken into consideration when a newly diagnosed individual enters into care.4,5 In this regard, constant monitoring of the circulation of HIV subtypes worldwide is required due to the challenges they present to diagnosis, phylogenetic reconstruction, treatment and vaccine development. The global geographical subtype distribution of HIV-1 is evolving over time and there has been a notable increase in newly emerging circulating recombinant forms (CRFs).11,12 In several western European countries (including Italy) in which an increase in non-B subtypes and CRFs has been reported, different frequencies of TDR have been observed over time according to subtypes and risk factors.13–20

In this scenario, several studies have highlighted the important role of transmission clusters (TCs) in TDR spread and subtype circulation.13,20–24 To date, the phylogenetic analysis represents one of the most important tools to better describe and monitor local HIV-1 epidemics, by correlating the genetic relationship of the viruses with information on demographics, transmission mode, new infections and drug resistance.25,26

For these considerations, this study aimed to evaluate TDR in protease, reverse transcriptase and integrase among newly diagnosed individuals followed in several clinical centres in north/central Italy from 2015 to 2021, according to subtypes and TCs.

Methods

Study population

Between 2015 and 2021, plasma samples from 2386 adult newly diagnosed PHW, naïve to ART, attending different counselling and testing centres in the Italian regions of Lazio and Emilia-Romagna, were tested for antiretroviral drug resistance genotyping according to routine clinical practice. All clinical and virological information used in this study was collected within 8 weeks after the initial HIV-1 diagnosis (range of weeks after HIV-1 diagnosis, 0–8).

Ethics

This study was approved by the ethics committee of Tor Vergata Hospital (Ethics Approval No. 238/16, 14 December 2016) and L. Spallanzani National Institute for Infectious Diseases, IRCCS (Ethics Approval No. 38, 30 October 2003; Ethics Approval No. 80, 13 July 2016). The research was conducted on anonymous samples in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and the Italian Ministry of Health. All information, including virological and clinical data, was recorded in an anonymized database.

HIV-1 genotyping and subtyping

For all individuals HIV-1 pol (containing the full-length protease, the first 335 reverse transcriptase codons and, if available, the full-length integrase) sequences were available at the time of diagnosis [median time (IQR) from diagnosis, 9 (2–29) days]. HIV-1 pol genotyping was performed on plasma samples through Sanger technology, as previously described.27,28 All samples were processed immediately on arrival in clinical laboratories. Subtypes were determined through phylogenetic analyses as previously described.29

Evaluation of TDR and genotypic susceptibility score

Resistance was evaluated as TDR and genotypic susceptibility score (GSS) through HIVdb algorithm version 9.5.0 (https://hivdb.stanford.edu/). TDR was evaluated overall and over time by considering the surveillance list of mutations used in the Stanford database.30–32 HIV-1 strains were defined as resistant if carrying at least one TDR mutation.

GSS was evaluated for all the drugs used in clinical practice and all the first-line regimens recommended by guidelines.4,5 In particular, the proportion of individuals harbouring a fully susceptible strain for each drug and each regimen combination was evaluated. We followed Stanford HIV DB recommendations to re-categorize Stanford resistance interpretation into two-level categorization (susceptible versus resistant, https://hivdb.stanford.edu/page/release-notes/#hivalg). Specifically, a strain was considered susceptible when the algorithm score was equal to or less than two.

Transmission cluster analysis

TCs were first deduced by the NJ method using all the 2386 pol sequences obtained by routine clinical practice in the period 2015–21. Only clusters with a bootstrap value >90% and an average genetic distance <0.015 were selected. The robustness of the TCs was further tested using the maximum likelihood (ML) method. The ML tree was inferred with the general time-reversible nucleotide substitution model (GTR) with gamma distribution among site rate heterogeneity, a proportion of invariable sites (GTR + I+Γ5),33 and 1000 bootstrap replicates by using MEGA 6 software.34 The GTR + I + Γ model was considered the best one by the MEGA 6 model test, as it showed the lowest Bayesian information criterion score. TCs were divided into small TCs (2–3 sequences, STCs), medium TCs (4–9 sequences, MTCs) and large TCs (≥10 sequences, LTCs).

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis was performed on the overall population and by stratifying for HIV-1 B and non-B subtype groups. Results were presented by frequency (%) or median (first and third quartiles) for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. Comparisons between HIV-1 B and non-B subtype groups were conducted using the Mann–Whitney test for continuous variables and the chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables, as appropriate. Potential differences in the prevalence of TDR and HIV-1 subtypes (B versus non-B) between 2015 and 2021 were evaluated by the chi-squared test for trend. Factors associated with TDR were evaluated by uni-multivariable logistic regression analysis, using as confounders gender, age, subtype, risk factor, nationality, year of diagnosis and sequencing, viraemia and CD4 count at sequencing, state of infection (recent or not) and to be part of a TC. Regarding genotypic susceptibility per each drug and first-line regimen, to compare the proportion of individuals with susceptible GSS according to subtype (B versus non-B), chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests were used as appropriate. The Benjamini–Hochberg method was used to correct for multiple testing at a false discovery rate of 0.05. For all statistical tests, the level of significance for the evaluation of two-sided P values was set at ≤0.05. All the analyses were performed using the SPSS (v.23) for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) software.

Sequence data

HIV-1 pol sequences from this study have been submitted to GenBank and may be accessed by the accession numbers listed in Table S1 (available as Supplementary data at JAC Online).

Results

Individuals’ characteristics

A total of 2386 PHW newly diagnosed from 2015 to 2021 were included (Table 1). Most of these individuals (1887, 79.1%) were male, Italian (1341, 56.2%) and men who have sex with other men (MSM; 826, 34.6%). Recent infections accounted for 20.5% of the individuals for whom state of infection was available. More than half (N = 1321, 55.4%) of the individuals were infected with a B subtype, followed by CRF02_AG (195, 8.2%), F1 (148, 6.2%), A [139, 5.8%, classified as follows: A1 (126, 5.3%), A3 (5, 0.2%), A6 (8, 0.3%)], and C (139, 5.8%). The remaining individuals (444, 18.6%) were infected with other pure subtypes or CRFs. An increase in the proportion of newly diagnosed PHW with non-B subtype was found over the period 2015–2021 (from 42.1% in 2015% to 51.0% in 2021, P = 0.002) (Figure 1a). Among Italian individuals the proportion of non-B subtypes increased after 2017 (from 33.5% in the period 2015–2017 to 41.7% during 2018–2021, P = 0.003) (Figure 1b).

Figure 1. Evaluation of HIV-1 B and non-B subtype prevalence in newly diagnosed individuals over time in the overall population (a) and in Italians (b). Chi-squared test for the trend was used to evaluate potential differences in the prevalence of B and non-B subtypes over the years 2015–2021. Pvalues in the figure are referred to the evaluation of potential differences during the periods 2015–2017 and 2018–2021.

Table 1. Individuals’ characteristics

Characteristics	Overall (N = 2386)	B (N = 1321)	Non-B (N = 1065)	P valuea	
Gender, n (%)				<0.001	
Male	1887 (79.1)	1121 (84.9)	766 (71.9)	
Female	443 (15.6)	125 (12.0)	280 (26.7)	
Unknown	56 (5.3)	75 (3.1)	19 (1.4)	
Geographic area, n (%)				<0.001	
Italy	1341 (56.2)	852 (64.5)	489 (45.9)	
Africa	187 (7.8)	19 (1.4)	168 (15.8)	
Europe	173 (7.3)	109 (8.3)	64 (6.0)	
America	43 (1.8)	21 (1.6)	22 (2.1)	
Asia/Oceania	151 (6.3)	60 (4.5)	91 (8.5)	
Unknown	491 (20.6)	260 (19.7)	231 (21.7)	
Risk factor, n (%)				<0.001	
MSM	826 (34.6)	556 (42.1)	270 (25.4)	
Heterosexual	573 (24.0)	254 (19.2)	319 (30.0)	
IDU	82 (3.4)	55 (4.2)	27 (2.5)	
Sexual	193 (8.1)	90 (6.8)	103 (9.7)	
Other	10 (0.4)	5 (0.4)	5 (0.5)	
Unknown	702 (29.4)	361 (27.3)	341 (32.0)	
Age (years), median (IQR)	38 (30–48)	39 (31–49)	37 (29–45)	<0.001	
CD4 cell count (cells/mm3), median (IQR) (N = 2337)	297 (115–500)	294 (101–501)	304 (125–500)	0.554	
Viral load (log10 copies/mL), median (IQR) (N = 2263)	5.0 (4.4–5.6)	4.9 (4.4–5.5)	5.1 (4.5–5.7)	<0.001	
Year of diagnosis, median (IQR) (N = 2325)	2017 (2016–2019)	2017 (2015–2019)	2017 (2016–2019)	<0.001	
Year of GRT, median (IQR)	2017 (2016–2019)	2017 (2016–2019)	2017 (2016–2019)	0.003	
State of infection, n (%)b				0.303	
Chronic	817 (34.2)	462 (35)	355 (33.3)	
Recent	488 (20.5)	279 (21.1)	209 (19.6)	
Unknown	1081 (45.3)	580 (43.9)	501 (47.0)	
TDR, n (%)					
Overall	191 (8.0)	126 (9.5)	65 (6.1)	0.002	
PI	30 (1.3)	22 (1.7)	8 (0.8)	0.046	
NRTI	62 (2.6)	46 (3.5)	16 (1.5)	0.003	
NNRTI	114 (4.8)	72 (5.5)	42 (3.9)	0.086	
INSTIc	6 (0.3)	4 (0.2)	2 (0.5)	0.415	
Involvement in TC, n (%)					
In cluster	1155 (48.4)	657 (49.7)	498 (46.8)	0.148	
Out of cluster	1231 (51.6)	664 (50.3)	567 (53.2)		
Type of TC, n (%)d				<0.001	
Small TC (2–3 sequences)	448 (18.8)	294 (22.3)	154 (14.5)	
Medium TC (4–9 sequences)	430 (18.0)	264 (20.0)	166 (15.6)	
Large TC (≥10 sequences)	277 (11.6)	99 (7.5)	178 (16.7)	
GRT, genotypic resistance test; IDU, injection drug user; INSTI, integrase strand transfer inhibitor; MSM, men who have sex with other men; NNRTI, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor; NRTI, nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitor; PI, protease inhibitor; TCs, transmission clusters; TDR, transmitted drug resistance.

aBy χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate (qualitative variables), and Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney test (quantitative variables).

bIndividuals were defined as recently infected by: (i) clinical/laboratory signs of primary HIV infection (HIV-1 RNA levels >10 000 copies/mL and negative or indeterminate HIV-1 antibody test); (ii) a documented negative HIV-1 test performed within 6 months before the HIV-1 diagnosis; and (iii) an antibody avidity index ≤0.80 (test performed only in clinically AIDS free individuals).17

cAnalysis performed on the 1831 integrase sequences available.

dAnalysis performed by considering the 1155 individuals involved in the TCs.

An increase over time of newly diagnosed PHW with non-B subtype was found overall and within the Italian population (Figure 1). In particular, in the overall population the proportion of non-B subtypes increased from 41.7% during 2015–2017 to 48.5% between 2018 and 2021 (P = 0.001, Figure 1a). In the same way, among Italian individuals the proportion of non-B subtypes increased from 33.5% to 41.7% (P = 0.003) (Figure 1b).

Regarding risk factors, while individuals infected with B subtype were predominantly MSM (556, 42.1%), non-B subtype-infected individuals mainly reported heterosexual contact (319, 30.0%) (Table 1).

Prevalence and temporal trend of transmitted drug resistance

Overall, 191 (8.0%) individuals carried a TDR virus in the period 2015–2021; most of them showed a single resistance mutation (N = 159, 83.2%). TDR was higher in B subtype-infected individuals than in those infected with non-B subtypes (9.5% versus 6.1%, P = 0.002; Table 1).

Analysing the TDR temporal trend, no significant changes in the prevalence of TDR to any class were found between 2015 and 2021 (2015–2021: 6.4%–8.8%, P = 0.181) (Figure 2a). The same situation was found when the specific drug classes were considered (Figure 2a). Similarly, no significant changes in TDR prevalence were found by stratifying for HIV-1 subtype (B subtype, 2015–2021, 8.6%–10.0%, P = 0.427; non-B subtypes, 2015–2021, 3.4%–7.7%, P = 0.133; Figure 2b and c).

Figure 2. Prevalence of TDR in Italian PHW, diagnosed in the period 2015–2021, according to calendar year and drug classes. (a) Prevalence of TDR over time in the overall population. (b) Prevalence of TDR over time in individuals infected with the HIV-1 B subtype. (c) Prevalence of TDR over time in individuals infected with HIV-1 non-B subtypes. TDR was evaluated by considering the surveillance list of mutations used in HIVdb.31–33 The P values were calculated using the chi-squared test for trend.

GSS was also estimated per each drug and first-line regimen used in clinical practice (Figure 3). Overall, most ARVs showed a genotypic full activity in at least 95% of individuals; nevirapine and rilpivirine were the only exceptions showing a proportion of full activity in 93.6% and in 90.1% of individuals, respectively. Similarly, first-line regimens (except for regimens based on efevirenz or rilpivirine) showed a genotypic full activity in at least 95% of individuals regardless of subtype (Figure 3a and b). A difference in the proportion of susceptibility according to subtype was found for the first-generation INSTIs with a lower susceptibility in non-B infected individuals compared to B infected (B versus non-B: EVG, 99.0% versus 96.5, P = 0.017; RAL: 99.0% versus 96.7%, P = 0.017, Figure 3a).

Figure 3. Genotypic susceptibility to antiretrovirals among HIV-1 B and non-B subtype in newly diagnosed individuals. (a) Proportion of individuals harbouring fully susceptible virus per each ARV. (b) Proportion of individuals harbouring fully susceptible virus per each first-line regimen used in clinical practice.4,5 The dotted line indicates a proportion of 95%.

Transmission clusters and their role in TDR

Overall, we identified 300 TCs, involving 1155 of the 2386 newly diagnosed individuals analysed (48.4%), with a similar proportion in newly diagnosed individuals with B subtype and those with non-B subtypes (49.7% versus 46.8%, P = 0.148). Most of the individuals were native (65.5%), with a median (IQR) age of 38 (30–47), and MSM (38.7%). Their median (IQR) CD4 cell count was 325 (129–532) cells/mm3, while their viraemia was 5.1 (4.5–5.7) log10 copies/mL. The characteristics of these 1155 individuals involved in TCs were similar regardless of subtype (data not shown).

Looking at resistance, among the 300 TCs found, 43 (including 240 individuals) involved at least one subject with TDR (95 individuals, corresponding to 49.7% of the entire TDR population). Specifically, 18 TCs (41.9%) included only one patient with TDR, 18 (41.9%) were entirely composed of individuals with TDR, while the remaining seven (16.3%) included more than one individual with TDR.

By evaluating the characteristics of the 240 individuals involved in these 43 TCs according to HIV-1 subtype, compared to individuals infected with non-B subtypes, those infected with B subtype were mostly men, had a higher CD4 cell count and a lower viral load, were diagnosed in more recent years, were involved mainly in small and medium TCs, and were more likely infected with viruses harbouring TDR (Table S2).

Prevalence of TDR mutations in the overall population and in the TCs

The prevalence of TDR mutations in the overall population and in the TCs according to drug classes and subtypes is shown in Figure 4. Analysing resistance in HIV-1 B subtype-infected individuals, 3.5% of them (46/1321) harboured mutations associated with resistance to NRTIs; of note, 1.7% of these individuals (22/1321) were involved in TCs. The NRTI mutation M41L had the highest prevalence in the overall B subtype-infected population (1.9%: individuals involved in TCs, 1.2%; individuals not included in TCs, 0.7%), followed by T215S (1.1%: 0.6% and 0.5%) and L210W (0.6%: 0.4% and 0.2%). Interestingly, in non-B subtype-infected individuals NRTI mutations accounted only for 1.5% of the overall population; 0.9% of these mutations (10/1065) were found in TCs. M184V accounted for 0.2% out of TCs in B subtype and 0.6% in non-B subtypes (in TCs, 0.4%; out of TCs, 0.2%).

Figure 4. Prevalence of drug resistance mutations in HIV-1 B (a) and non-B subtypes (b) according to drug classes and presence or not in TCs. Surveillance mutations are reported that used HIVdb31–33 present in at least two individuals for PI and RTI and in at least one individual for INSTI. Each bar is divided according to (i) the presence of drug resistance mutations in clusters (in white) and (ii) the presence of drug resistance mutations out of clusters (in black).

Concerning NNRTI resistance, 5.4% (72/1321) and 3.9% (42/1065) of the B and non-B subtype-infected individuals carried at least one mutation to this class, respectively. Of note, 2.6% of B (34/1321) and 1.8% of non-B (19/1065) subtype-infected individuals were involved in TCs. In both B and non-B subtype groups, the most prevalent NNRTI mutations (either in individuals included or in those non-included in TCs) were K103N (B subtype, 3.7%; non-B subtype, 2.0%) and K101E (1.0%; 1.2%), followed by G190A (0.5% both). Of note, the mutations V106I and E138A, not reported in the surveillance list but considered in the GSS estimation, were found with a considerable frequency (3.5% and 7.0%, respectively; Table S3). In the overall B and non-B subtype groups, mutations associated with resistance to PIs were observed with a prevalence of 1.6% (0.8% in both individuals involved in TCs and not included in TCs) and 0.8% (0.4% in both TCs and out of TCs); I85V was the most prevalent PI mutation found only in the B group (0.8%: 0.4% in both TCs and out of TCs), followed by M46L (0.7%; 0.4% and 0.3%) This mutation was also found in non-B subtypes (0.2%; 0.1% in both TCs and out of TCs).

TDR to INSTIs was rare [overall, n = 6 (0.3%); within B subtype, n = 2 (0.2%); within non-B subtype, n = 4 (0.4%)]. Regarding the B subtype, no TDR to this drug class was found in TCs, while in non-B subtypes, 0.2% of TDR was found in both TCs and out of TCs. Among these six individuals harbouring INSTI resistance, one had resistance to NRTIs, one had resistance to NNRTIs and another one had resistance to both NRTIs and NNRTIs (Table S4). Two individuals were part of TCs.

Factors associated with TDR

Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were performed to identify potential predictors of TDR (Table 2). The results showed that in our population, being part of TCs was not a predictor of TDR [odds ratio, AOR (95% CI): 1.1 (0.8–1.4); P = 0.701], whereas there was a negative association between the presence of TDR and individuals infected with a CRF02_AG recombinant form [AOR (95% CI): 0.3 (0.2–0.8); P = 0.008], F [AOR (95% CI): 0.3 (0.1–0.7); P = 0.011] and A [AOR (95% CI): 0.4 (0.1–0.9); P = 0.032] subtypes compared with those infected with a B subtype (Table 2).

Table 2. Factors associated with the detection of TDR in c-ART naïve individuals

Variables	Odds ratio of detecting TDR	
	Crude	Adjusteda	
	OR (95% CI)	P value	OR (95% CI)	P value	
Gender					
Maleb	1				
Female	1.1 (0.8–1.7)	0.515			
Unknown	0.7 (0.2–2.1)	0.538			
Age	1.0 (1.0–1.0)	0.903			
Subtype	1				
Bb					
CRF02_AG	0.4 (0.2–0.8)	0.009	0.3 (0.2–0.8)	0.008	
F1	0.3 (0.1–0.7)	0.010	0.3 (0.1–0.7)	0.011	
C	0.7 (0.4–1.4)	0.368	0.7 (0.4–1.4)	0.326	
A	0.4 (0.1–0.9)	0.025	0.4 (0.1–0.9)	0.032	
Other	0.9 (0.6–1.3)	0.637	0.9 (0.6–1.4)	0.768	
Risk factor					
MSMb	1		1		
Heterosexual	0.7 (0.5–1.0)	0.069	0.8 (0.5–1.2)	0.321	
IDU	0.8 (0.3–1.9)	0.618	0.9 (0.4–2.1)	0.798	
Sexual	1.0 (0.6–1.8)	0.873	1.1 (0.7–2.0)	0.623	
Other	1.1 (0.1–9.0)	0.909	1.5 (0.2–12.5)	0.705	
Unknown	0.9 (0.6–1.3)	0.493	1.0 (0.7–1.4)	0.966	
Nationality					
Italianb	1				
non-Italian	1.0 (0.7–1.4)	0.831			
Unknown	1.0 (0.7–1.5)	0.948			
Year at genotyping	1.1 (1–1.1)	0.181			
State of infection					
Chronicb	1				
Recent	1.0 (0.6–1.4)	0.857			
Unknown	0.8 (0.6–1.2)	0.270			
Viraemia at genotyping					
<100 000b	1				
100 000–1 000 000	0.8 (0.6–1.2)	0.304			
>1 000 000	0.9 (0.6–1.5)	0.662			
unknown	1.5 (0.9–2.7)	0.154			
CD4 at genotyping					
<200b	1		1		
201–350	0.7 (0.4–1.1)	0.110	0.7 (0.4–1.1)	0.110	
350–500	1.0 (0.7–1.6)	0.918	1.0 (0.7–1.6)	0.913	
>500	1.4 (1–2)	0.080	1.4 (0.9–2.0)	0.102	
Unknown	0.2 (0.0–1.8)	0.164	0.2 (0.0–1.6)	0.138	
TCs					
no TC versus TC>=2	1.1 (0.8–1.4)	0.701			
aOnly variables significant at univariable analysis (P < 0.1) were retained in multivariable models.

bReference (dummy).

Discussion

To gain further insight into the time trends of subtype distribution, TDR and TCs, we have described the epidemiological and molecular characteristics of 2386 newly diagnosed individuals with HIV-1 attending several counselling and testing centres in north and central Italy between 2015 and 2021. The present study represents an update of a previous analysis on protease and reverse transcriptase,17 implemented with the evaluation of resistance to INSTIs in a considerable number of integrase sequences (more than 1800). We found an increase of non-B subtypes over time, confirming the increasing trend observed between 2000 and 2014,17 up to the point that, today, new diagnoses with non-B subtypes represent about 50% of the cases, as already observed in another Italian Cohort.16 The increase was confirmed not only in the overall population but also among Italian subjects, around 40% of whom were infected with non-B subtypes viral strains in recent years. The most common non-B subtypes were CRF02_AG, F1, A and C, similar to those generally observed in central Europe.24 However, it is of note that subtype A, specifically A6, one of the factors associated with the failure to the new treatment strategy based on long-acting combination with cabotegravir and rilpivirine, was found only in eight (0.3%) individuals among the overall population, while most of individuals were infected with subtype A1 (5.3% of the overall population), which does not seem be associated with failure to the combination.35–37

These findings highlight the importance of providing accurate information about the resistance and the HIV-1 subtype.

With regards to resistance, the overall TDR prevalence in Italy between 2015 and 2021 was 8%, similar to what was previously observed by our group17 and by other studies focused on TDR prevalence in Italy from 2013 to 20186,16 or, more generally, in Europe between 2014 and 2019.7 TDR prevalence remained almost stable over time, overall and in both B and non-B subtypes; this was in contrast to the trend observed in our previous study in which TDR prevalence increased in non-B subtypes and decreased in B subtypes. On the other hand, a constant trend of TDR prevalence (although higher than found in our study) was recently observed in Europe and the USA.6,8 The stable trend over time can be explained by the fact that TDR resistance was mainly due to the presence of NNRTI mutations (particularly the K103N) in both HIV-1 B and non-B subtypes despite the change of landscape of ART prescription from efavirenz-based regimens to INSTI-based regimens.4,5 Unlike NRTI resistance mutations (such as, for example, M184V that in our cohort had a very low prevalence), the mutations associated with NNRTI resistance might only have a minimal impact on viral fitness and have longer intra-host persistence.38

By analysing TDR to INSTIs, we found a very low prevalence (<0.5%), thus confirming what has been observed so far in other studies.2,8,10 The integrase resistance mutations transmitted were mainly related to the first-generation INSTIs raltegravir and elvitegravir. Among the six individuals with TDR to INSTIs, three of them harboured resistance also to NRTIs and/or NNRTIs. It is noteworthy that one of these six individuals harboured the INSTI pattern G140S + Q148H that confers intermediate-/high-level resistance to all the INSTIs.39,40 These findings highlight the importance of performing a GRT in newly diagnosed individuals not only in protease and reverse transcriptase, but also in integrase in the light of long-term successful management of these individuals.

By analysing genotypic susceptibility to antiretrovirals, we found a lower prevalence of susceptibility (≤95%) for first-line regimens based on NNRTIs, explained by the presence of the mutation K103N for efavirenz, the polymorphic mutations at the position E138 for rilpivirine and the mutation V106I for doravirine (Figure 4 and Table S3). Regarding the mutations at positions E138 and V106I, these are not considered in the surveillance list30 but they are considered in the evaluation of genotypic susceptibility. In fact, mutations at position E138 play a role in the rilpivirine resistance and (especially the polymorphic mutation E138A, present in our population study at around 7%; Table S3) in virological failure41,42 while the accessory mutation V106I can be associated with doravirine resistance.43 We also found a lower prevalence of susceptibility to the first-generation INSTIs, while a high genotypic susceptibility was found for the second-generation INSTIs as described before.

This study also evaluated the contribution of TCs in the spread of HIV-1 and TDR. Overall, 300 TCs were identified, involving about half the individuals of the population analysed, with a similar proportion of B and non-B subtype infections. The characteristics of these 1155 individuals involved in TCs were similar regardless of subtypes (data not shown). Most of them were native, MSM and with a median age of 38, as confirmed by our previous17 and other European studies.6,13

Regarding TDR in TCs, mutations associated with resistance to NRTIs, in particular those associated with thymidine analogues, were predominant in B subtype TCs, confirming the frequent transmission of viruses containing these mutations in Europe.44,45 By contrast, thymidine analogues were rarely found in non-B TCs. A similar scenario was found for the mutations associated with resistance to PIs. Mutations associated with NNRTIs, such as K103N/S and K101E were present in both B and non-B subtypes, confirming, at least in the case of K103N, a more frequent transmission clustering.46

We finally evaluated factors related to the presence of TDR. Similar to our previous study,17 as the multivariate logistic regression model did not identify factors associated with TDR, with the exception of a negative role of some subtypes (such as CRF02_AG, F1 and A), we were unable to identify positive predictors of drug resistance.

As with any other observational study, our data may have some limitations. First, our study population might not be representative of the overall Italian population because it is strictly related to the Italian regions of Lazio and Emilia-Romagna. However, the high prevalence of non-B subtypes found in our population in recent years is in line with other Italian16,47,48 and European10 studies, suggesting a good reproducibility of our results with respect to large European contexts. Second, genotyping was performed through Sanger technology. This test has fairly limited sensitivity but it was the technique used in clinical routine during the time period described. Finally, the number of sequences in the last 2 years of observation was lower; this could be related to the effect of the COVID pandemic.

In conclusion, the present study shows that, in recent years, TDR to PIs and RTIs has remained constant at about 8% in Italy, a fact that is mainly due to NNRTI mutations. Some cases of TDR to INSTIs have also been detected. Resistant strains were found circulating regardless of being in TCs, but these were less likely in non-B subtypes. Thus, our findings reinforce the importance of evaluating HIV-1 resistance in newly diagnosed individuals not only in protease and reverse transcriptase but also in integrase as a part of routine testing in clinical practice and national surveillance programmes. These programmes are needed to continuously monitor the presence of TDR, as well as for providing the HIV molecular information (such as HIV subtypes and TCs) that is needed for a correct knowledge of national HIV molecular epidemiology.

Supplementary Material

dkae189_Supplementary_Data

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank all the clinicians, virologists and data managers throughout Italy who contributed with their work to develop, expand and maintain the Italian HIV drug resistance group. Finally, we thank Debra Mandatori revising and editing this paper.

 

Italian HIV Drug Resistance Group

University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’, Rome, Italy: F. Ceccherini-Silberstein, M.C. Bellocchi, L. Carioti, M.M. Santoro, V. Svicher; Policlinic of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome: M. Andreoni, M. Iannetta, A. Bertoli, L. Sarmati, V. Malagnino; E. Teti; Saint Camillus International University of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy: D. Armenia; National Institute for Infectious Diseases ‘L. Spallanzani’, IRCCS, Rome, Italy: A. Antinori, F. Baldini, R. Bellagamba, G. Berno, M. Camici, S. Cicalini, F. De Zottis, R. Esvan, L. Fabeni, F. Forbici, M. Fusto, R. Gagliardini, S. Gebremeskel, F. Gili; E. Girardi, E. Grilli, S. Grisetti, I. Mastrorosa, V. Mazzotta, A. Mondi, N. Orchi; S. Ottou, C. Pinnetti, S. Pittalis; D. Pizzi, M. Plazzi, A. Vergori; San Gallicano Hospital, IRCCS, Rome, Italy: A.R. Buonomini, M. Giuliani, A. Latini, A. Pacifici; Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, Rome, Italy: C.F. Perno; La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy: V. Belvisi, C. Del Borgo, A. Carraro, M. Lichtner, R. Marocco; University Hospital, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy: V. Borghi, C. Mussini, W. Gennari.

This paper was in part presented as an oral presentation at the European Meeting on HIV & Hepatitis, 7–9 June 2023, Rome, Italy (Abstract 72).

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by an unrestricted grant from the Fondazione Aviralia.

Transparency declarations

The authors have nothing to declare.

Supplementary data

Tables S1 to S4 are available as Supplementary data at JAC Online.
==== Refs
References

1 Bansi L , GerettiAM, DunnDet al The impact of transmitted drug-resistance on treatment selection and outcome of first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr (1988) 2010; 53 : 633–9. 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181c070d2
2 Guo C , WuY, ZhangYet al Transmitted drug resistance in antiretroviral therapy-naive persons with acute/early/primary HIV infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12 : 718763. 10.3389/fphar.2021.718763 34899288
3 Wittkop L , GünthardHF, de WolfFet al Effect of transmitted drug resistance on virological and immunological response to initial combination antiretroviral therapy for HIV (EuroCoord-CHAIN Joint Project): a European Multicohort Study. Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 11 : 363–71. 10.1016/S1473-3099(11)70032-9 21354861
4 European AIDS Clinical Society (EACS) . EACS Guidelines, Version 12.0, 2023. https://www.eacsociety.org/guidelines/eacs-guidelines/
5 DHHS Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents . Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Adults and Adolescents Living with HIV Developed by the DHHS Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults, 2024. https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/sites/default/files/guidelines/documents/adult-adolescent-arv/guidelines-adult-adolescent-arv.pdf
6 Miranda MNS , PingarilhoM, PimentelVet al Trends of transmitted and acquired drug resistance in Europe from 1981 to 2019: a comparison between the populations of late presenters and non-late presenters. Front Microbiol 2022; 13 : 846943. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.846943 35495657
7 Rhee S-Y , KassayeSG, BarrowGet al HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance surveillance: shifting trends in study design and prevalence estimates. J Int AIDS Soc 2020; 23 : e25611. 10.1002/jia2.25611 32936523
8 McClung RP , OsterAM, OcfemiaMCBet al Transmitted drug resistance among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 diagnoses in the United States, 2014–2018. Clin Infect Dis 2022; 74 : 1055–62. 10.1093/cid/ciab583 34175948
9 Günthard HF , CalvezV, ParedesRet al Human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance: 2018 recommendations of the International Antiviral Society-USA Panel. Clin Infect Dis 2019; 68 : 177–87. 10.1093/cid/ciy463 30052811
10 de Salazar A , ViñuelaL, FuentesAet al Transmitted drug resistance to integrase-based first-line human immunodeficiency virus antiretroviral regimens in Mediterranean Europe. Clin Infect Dis 2023; 76 : 1628–35. 10.1093/cid/ciac972 36571282
11 Williams A , MenonS, CroweMet al Geographic and population distributions of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 and HIV-2 circulating subtypes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis (2010–2021). J Infect Dis 2023; 228 : 1583–91. 10.1093/infdis/jiad327 37592824
12 Nchinda N , ElangovanR, YunJet al Global associations of key populations with HIV-1 recombinants: a systematic review, global survey, and individual participant data meta-analysis. Front Public Health 2023; 11 : 1153638. 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1153638 37575094
13 Pingarilho M , PimentelV, MirandaMNSet al HIV-1-transmitted drug resistance and transmission clusters in newly diagnosed patients in Portugal between 2014 and 2019. Front Microbiol 2022; 13 : 823208. 10.3389/fmicb.2022.823208 35558119
14 Assoumou L , BocketL, PallierCet al Stable prevalence of transmitted drug resistance mutations and increased circulation of non-B subtypes in antiretroviral-naive chronically HIV-infected patients in 2015/2016 in France. J Antimicrob Chemother 2019; 74 : 1417–24. 10.1093/jac/dkz011 30753724
15 Tamalet C , Tissot-DupontH, MotteAet al Emergence of uncommon HIV-1 non-B subtypes and circulating recombinant forms and trends in transmission of antiretroviral drug resistance in patients with primary infection during the 2013–2015 period in Marseille, Southeastern France. J Med Virol 2018; 90 : 1559–67. 10.1002/jmv.25228 29797570
16 Rossetti B , Di GiambenedettoS, TortiCet al Evolution of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance and viral subtypes circulation in Italy from 2006 to 2016. HIV Med 2018; 19 : 619–28. 10.1111/hiv.12640 29932313
17 Fabeni L , AlteriC, Di CarloDet al Dynamics and phylogenetic relationships of HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance according to subtype in Italy over the years 2000–14. J Antimicrob Chemother 2017; 72 : 2837–45. 10.1093/jac/dkx231 29091206
18 Neogi U , HäggblomA, SantacatterinaMet al Temporal trends in the Swedish HIV-1 epidemic: increase in non-B subtypes and recombinant forms over three decades. PLoS ONE 2014; 9 : e99390. 10.1371/journal.pone.0099390 24922326
19 Richardson D , FitzpatrickC, ParkesLet al HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance in Brighton, UK, from 2014 to 2020. Int J STD AIDS 2021; 32 : 199–201. 10.1177/0956462420953043 33327896
20 Ramirez JJD , BallouzT, NguyenHet al Increasing frequency and transmission of HIV-1 non-B subtypes among men who have sex with men in the Swiss HIV cohort study. J Infect Dis 2022; 225 : 306–16. 10.1093/infdis/jiab360 34260728
21 Serwin K , ChaillonA, ScheibeKet al Circulation of human immunodeficiency virus 1 A6 variant in the eastern border of the European union-dynamics of the virus transmissions between Poland and Ukraine. Clin Infect Dis 2023; 76 : 1725–36. 10.1093/cid/ciad058 36857141
22 van de Klundert MAA , AntonovaA, Di TeodoroGet al Molecular epidemiology of HIV-1 in Eastern Europe and Russia. Viruses 2022; 14 : 2099. 10.3390/v14102099 36298654
23 Wagner T , ZuckermanNS, HalperinTet al Epidemiology and transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance among treatment-naïve individuals in Israel, 2010–2018. Viruses 2021; 14 : 71. 10.3390/v14010071 35062274
24 Paraskevis D , BeloukasA, StasinosKet al HIV-1 molecular transmission clusters in nine European countries and Canada: association with demographic and clinical factors. BMC Med 2019; 17 : 4. 10.1186/s12916-018-1241-1 30616632
25 Leitner T , Romero-SeversonE. Phylogenetic patterns recover known HIV epidemiological relationships and reveal common transmission of multiple variants. Nat Microbiol 2018; 3 : 983–8. 10.1038/s41564-018-0204-9 30061758
26 Paraskevis D , NikolopoulosGK, MagiorkinisGet al The application of HIV molecular epidemiology to public health. Infect Genet Evol 2016; 46 : 159–68. 10.1016/j.meegid.2016.06.021 27312102
27 Armenia D , FabeniL, AlteriCet al HIV-1 integrase genotyping is reliable and reproducible for routine clinical detection of integrase resistance mutations even in patients with low-level viraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother 2015; 70 : 1865–73. 10.1093/jac/dkv029 25712318
28 Santoro MM , FabeniL, ArmeniaDet al Reliability and clinical relevance of the HIV-1 drug resistance test in patients with low viremia levels. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 58 : 1156–64. 10.1093/cid/ciu020 24429430
29 Fabeni L , BernoG, FokamJet al Comparative evaluation of subtyping tools for surveillance of newly emerging HIV-1 strains. J Clin Microbiol 2017; 55 : 2827–37. 10.1128/JCM.00656-17 28701420
30 Bennett DE , CamachoRJ, OteleaDet al Drug resistance mutations for surveillance of transmitted HIV-1 drug-resistance: 2009 update. PLoS ONE 2009; 4 : e4724. 10.1371/journal.pone.0004724 19266092
31 Tzou PL , RheeS-Y, DescampsDet al Integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI)-resistance mutations for the surveillance of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance. J Antimicrob Chemother 2020; 75 : 170–82. 10.1093/jac/dkz417 31617907
32 Rhee S-Y , VargheseV, HolmesSPet al Mutational correlates of virological failure in individuals receiving a WHO-recommended tenofovir-containing first-line regimen: an international collaboration. EBioMedicine 2017; 18 : 225–35. 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.024 28365230
33 Tavaré S . Some probabilistic and statistical problems in the analysis of DNA sequences. Lectures Math Life Sci 1986; 17 : 57–86. https://ia903105.us.archive.org/29/items/someprobabilisticandstatisticalproblemsintheanalysisofdnasequences/Some%20Probabilistic%20and%20Statistical%20Problems%20in%20the%20Analysis%20of%20DNA%20Sequences.pdf
34 Tamura K , StecherG, PetersonDet al MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 2013; 30 : 2725–9. 10.1093/molbev/mst197 24132122
35 Orkin C , SchapiroJM, PernoCFet al Expanded multivariable models to assist patient selection for long-acting cabotegravir + rilpivirine treatment: clinical utility of a combination of patient, drug concentration, and viral factors associated with virologic failure. Clin Infect Dis 2023; 77 : 1423–31. 10.1093/cid/ciad370 37340869
36 Rusconi S , SantoroMM, CapettiAFet al The future of long-acting cabotegravir plus rilpivirine therapy: deeds and misconceptions. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2022; 60 : 106627. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106627 35760225
37 Kityo CM , MambuleIK, SokhelaSet al Randomized trial of cabotegravir and rilpivirine long-acting in Africa (CARES): week 48 results. Abstract of the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI), Denver, CO, 2024. Abstract 122. 22.
38 Jain V , SucupiraMC, BacchettiPet al Differential persistence of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance mutation classes. J Infect Dis 2011; 203 : 1174–81. 10.1093/infdis/jiq167 21451005
39 Santoro MM , FornabaioC, MalenaMet al Susceptibility to HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) in highly treatment-experienced patients who failed an INSTI-based regimen. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 56 : 106027. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106027 32450199
40 Oliveira M , IbanescuRI, AnstettKet al Selective resistance profiles emerging in patient-derived clinical isolates with cabotegravir, bictegravir, dolutegravir, and elvitegravir. Retrovirology 2018; 15 : 56. 10.1186/s12977-018-0440-3 30119633
41 Rimsky L , VingerhoetsJ, Van EygenVet al Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of HIV-1 isolates obtained from patients on rilpivirine therapy experiencing virologic failure in the phase 3 ECHO and THRIVE studies: 48-week analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2012; 59 : 39–46. 10.1097/QAI.0b013e31823df4da 22067667
42 Azijn H , TirryI, VingerhoetsJet al TMC278, a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), active against wild-type and NNRTI-resistant HIV-1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54 : 718–27. 10.1128/AAC.00986-09 19933797
43 Martin EA , LaiMT, NgoWet al Review of doravirine resistance patterns identified in participants during clinical development. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2020; 85 : 635–42. 10.1097/QAI.0000000000002496 32925358
44 Mortier V , DebaisieuxL, DessillyGet al Prevalence and evolution of transmitted human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance in Belgium between 2013 and 2019. Open Forum Infect Dis 2022; 9 : ofac195. 10.1093/ofid/ofac195 35794938
45 Chalmet K , StaelensD, BlotSet al Epidemiological study of phylogenetic transmission clusters in a local HIV-1 epidemic reveals distinct differences between subtype B and non-B infections. BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10 : 262. 10.1186/1471-2334-10-262 20822507
46 Wertheim JO , OsterAM, JohnsonJAet al Transmission fitness of drug-resistant HIV revealed in a surveillance system transmission network. Virus Evol 2017; 3 : vex008. 10.1093/ve/vex008 28458918
47 Lorenzin G , GargiuloF, CarusoAet al Prevalence of non-B HIV-1 subtypes in north Italy and analysis of transmission clusters based on sequence data analysis. Microorganisms 2019; 8 : 36. 10.3390/microorganisms8010036 31878069
48 Mazzuti L , MelenguT, FalascaFet al Transmitted drug resistance mutations and trends of HIV-1 subtypes in treatment-naïve patients: a single-centre experience. J Glob Antimicrob Resist 2020; 20 : 298–303. 10.1016/j.jgar.2019.08.024 31518723
