Table 3.
The dynamic variability of drug susceptibility in 88 HIV/AIDS patients
| Drugs | Numbers of drug susceptibility undergo changes | Total (N/%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| −4 | −3 | −2 | −1 | invariant | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 3TC | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 77 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 11 (12.50) |
| T3 vs T2 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 74 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 14 (15.91) |
| AZT | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 79 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 (10.23) |
| T3 vs T2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 81 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 (7.95) |
| D4T | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 75 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 13 (14.77) |
| T3 vs T2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 13 (14.77) |
| TDF | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 82 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 (6.82) |
| T3 vs T2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 80 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 8 (9.09) |
| EFV | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 63 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 25 (28.41) |
| T3 vs T2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 68 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 20 (22.73) |
| ETR | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 60 | 9 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 28 (31.82) |
| T3 vs T2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 70 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 18 (20.45) |
| NVP | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 67 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 7 | 21 (23.86) |
| T3 vs T2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 71 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 17 (19.32) |
| LPV/r | ||||||||||
| T2 vs T1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 86 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 (2.27) |
| T3 vs T2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 85 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 (3.41) |
T2 vs T1: Comparison of second detection and first detection, T3 vs T2: Comparison of third detection and second detection
−4 represent drug resistant degree reduce 4 grades (For example, the first detected result was high level resistance, the second result change to Susceptible), opposite 4 represent drug resistant degree raise 4 grades, the others and the like