Further information on this topic is provided by the results of the SAILING study that evaluated the use of RAL vs. DTG in a context in which previously treatment-experienced Selleck SB-715992 patients had received therapy with many other types of drugs but not with INSTIs. Moreover, the patients in this trial had
developed resistance against many of the compounds that were used in prior therapy. Accordingly, almost all of them had compromised background regimens that involved the use of the various antiretroviral compounds that were employed. The results of the SAILING study show clearly that DTG outperformed RAL in terms of percentage of patients who achieved significant drops in viral load . This is important, as it suggests that Entinostat solubility dmso DTG is a more potent compound than RAL when either of these drugs is used in a salvage setting for patients who have previously failed traditional drug regimens that did not include an INSTI. At the selleck chemicals same time, patients in the RAL arm of the trial who developed resistance against the latter compound did so due to development of mutations that are associated with the latter drug.
In contrast, patients in the DTG arm of the trial developed resistance in very few cases. Two individuals developed the R263K mutation  that had earlier been shown to be of potential significance for DTG on the basis of tissue culture selection studies . Accordingly, it appears that resistance to DTG in the clinic may be very difficult to develop, even in the case of patients who have previously failed other drug regimens and who are currently being treated with DTG, almost in the context of functional monotherapy. This suggests that it may be very difficult to develop resistance against DTG under circumstances in which this compound is used as part of a first-line INSTI regimen. This may be because the mutations that develop against DTG, when the latter is used in first-line therapy, are ones that
significantly diminish viral replication capacity [73, 74]. In contrast, the use of DTG as part of a second-line INSTI regimen may be more laden with problems, given the fact that mutations at positions 148, 140, and elsewhere within the viral genome, that are associated Carbohydrate with resistance to RAL and EVG, may interfere with the ability of DTG to perform well. Moreover, the use of DTG to treat previously INSTI-experienced patients, with resistance to RAL and/or EVG, may lead to the selection of additional mutations that may further compromise therapy and cause cross-resistance . Notably, in vitro studies suggest that the very rare individuals who may fail DTG treatment following emergence of the R263K mutation may still be treatable with RAL but not with EVG . As stated, the results of the VIKING studies showed that many patients who possessed mutations at positions 148 and 140 within integrase did not respond well to DTG .