HIV-1 genotypic profiling ensures effective response to third-line antiretroviral therapy in Cameroon

In order to limit the emergence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drug resistance in a context of limited antiretroviral options, we sought to evaluate the efficacy of third-line (3L) regimens considering HIV genotypic resistance profile at initiation of 3L in Cameroon. A cohort-study was conducted from January-September 2020 among patients initiating a 3L antiretroviral therapy regimen at the Yaoundé Central Hospital. HIV-1 protease-reverse transcriptase was sequenced at the Chantal Biya international reference center for research on HIV/AIDS prevention and management and results were interpreted using Stanford HIVdbv8.3. Good virological response (viral load < 390 copies/mL) was assessed after 12 months using OPP-ERA platform. Statistical analyses were performed using Epi Info v7.2.2.6, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Of the 38 patients initiating 3L with an available genotyping (42% female; median age, 49 [39-57] years), median cluster of differentiation type 4 count and viral load were 173 [34-374] cells/μL and 169,322 [30,382-551,826] copies/mL, respectively. At enrollment, all patients harbored resistance to reverse transcriptase inhibitors and 66% (25/38) to protease-inhibitors, although 63% (24/38) were still susceptible to darunavir/ritonavir. Preferred 3L regimen was dolutegravir + darunavir/r + tenofovir + lamivudine (51%) and median duration on 3L was 21 [17-32] months. Interestingly, 82% (31/38) of the participants achieved good virological response on 3L, regardless of genotypic profile at recruitment, variations in 3L regimens (P = .9) and baseline cluster of differentiation type 4 count (P = .3). Despite the high burden of reverse transcriptase inhibitor - and protease inhibitor boosted by ritonavir drug resistance, genotyping-guided 3L regimens is accompanied by virological success in most patients. This high efficacy, most likely due to use of high genetic barrier antiretrovirals, requires continuous adherence support alongside close monitoring for long-term effectiveness in similar programmatic settings.

Review of authorship for COVID-19 research conducted during the 2020 first-wave epidemic in Africa reveals emergence of promising African biomedical research and persisting asymmetry of international collaborations

OBJECTIVES

The contribution of African authors to the biomedical literature is small. We evaluated the African and non-African scientific production published in the international literature on the COVID-19 in Africa during the first year of the epidemic (2020).

METHODS

Papers on COVID-19 in Africa were extracted from the Medline (PubMed) database for bibliometric analysis including the proportions of three leading and last authors by study type, study country, authors' and laboratories/institutions' countries of affiliation and journal ranking.

RESULTS

A total of 160 articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analysed. The majority (91.3%) was produced by half (53.7%) of African countries, with important regional disparities, and generally without sources of funding mentioned. The majority (>85.0) of authors in lead positions (first, second, third and last authors) were Africans. Only a small number (8.7%) of studies on COVID-19 in Africa were carried out by laboratories not on the African continent (mainly Europe, USA and China) and generally received funding. The last and first authors were more frequently of non-African origin in journals with an Impact Factor ranking ≥1, and more frequently of African origin in journals with a lower ranking (< 1). The first and last non-African authors tended to report their studies in high ranking ≥1 journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates that the emergence of promising African research capable of publishing in indexed but low-impact factor medical journals and reveals the persistence of a North-South asymmetry in international cooperation in biomedical research with Africa.