Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29769116›Full record

ArticleRetrovirology2018

Efficacies of Cabotegravir and Bictegravir against drug-resistant HIV-1 integrase mutants.

Steven J Smith, Xue Zhi Zhao, Terrence R Burke, Stephen H Hughes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Retrovirology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A systematic review of the genetic mechanisms of dolutegravir resistance.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Impact of Integrase Sequences from HIV-1 Subtypes A6/A1 on theAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2022
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. ACS infectious diseases · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Steven J SmithHIV Dynamics and Replication Program, National Cancer Institute-Frederick, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, MD, USA.
Xue Zhi ZhaoChemical Biology Laboratory, National Cancer Institute-Frederick, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, MD, USA.
Terrence R BurkeChemical Biology Laboratory, National Cancer Institute-Frederick, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, MD, USA.
Stephen H HughesHIV Dynamics and Replication Program, National Cancer Institute-Frederick, National Institutes of Health, Frederick, MD, USA. hughesst@mail.nih.gov.
National Cancer Institute · USFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

IntegraseZIABC011426 · NCI · DIVISION OF BASIC SCIENCES - NCI · PI HUGHES, STEPHEN H · 2012 to 2022
$14.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are the class of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs most recently approved by the FDA for the treatment of HIV-1 infections. INSTIs block the strand transfer reaction catalyzed by HIV-1 integrase (IN) and have been shown to potently inhibit infection by wild-type HIV-1. Of the three current FDA-approved INSTIs, Dolutegravir (DTG), has been the most effective, in part because treatment does not readily select for resistant mutants. However, recent studies showed that when INSTI-experienced patients are put on a DTG-salvage therapy, they have reduced response rates. Two new INSTIs, Cabotegravir (CAB) and Bictegravir (BIC), are currently in late-stage clinical trials.

resultsBoth CAB and BIC had much broader antiviral profiles than RAL and EVG against the INSTI-resistant single, double, and triple HIV-1 mutants used in this study. BIC was more effective than DTG against several INSTI-resistant mutants. Overall, in terms of their ability to inhibit a broad range of INSTI-resistant IN mutants, BIC was superior to DTG, and DTG was superior to CAB. Modeling the binding of CAB, BIC, and DTG within the active site of IN suggested that the "left side" of the INSTI pharmacophore (the side away from the viral DNA) was important in determining the ability of the compound to inhibit the IN mutants we tested.

conclusionsOf the two INSTIs in late stage clinical trials, BIC appears to be better able to inhibit the replication of a broad range of IN mutants. BIC retained potency against several of the INSTI-resistant mutants that caused a decrease in susceptibility to DTG.

Indexed as

Drug Resistance, ViralMutationAmidesCell LineCodonDiketopiperazinesHeterocyclic Compounds, 3-RingHeterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More RingsHIV-1HIV InfectionsHIV IntegraseHIV Integrase InhibitorsHumansMicrobial Sensitivity TestsModels, MolecularMolecular ConformationAmidesbictegravircabotegravirCodonDiketopiperazinesHeterocyclic Compounds, 3-RingHeterocyclic Compounds, 4 or More RingsHIV IntegraseHIV Integrase InhibitorsPiperazinesPyridonesHIV-1InfectivityIntegraseModelingPotencyResistanceSusceptibility

Identifiers

PMID29769116
PMCPMC5956922
OpenAlexW2804301217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.