Dolutegravir is an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) used in combination therapy to suppress HIV-1 replication. Since its first bench‑side experiments over two decades ago, the drug has reshaped how clinicians manage HIV, especially in low‑resource settings.
In the early 2000s, a team at Gilead Sciences synthesized a series of compounds targeting the HIV integrase enzyme. The lead molecule, later named dolutegravir, showed a potent ability to block viral DNA integration in cell cultures. Pre‑clinical studies revealed a high barrier to resistance - a rare feature for that era.
The first Phase I trial, launched in 2008, enrolled healthy volunteers in the United States. Researchers noted rapid plasma clearance, a long half‑life (approximately 14 hours), and minimal drug‑drug interactions, paving the way for once‑daily dosing. By 2009, Phase II studies demonstrated viral load reductions >2 log in treatment‑naïve patients.
These trials convinced regulators that dolutegravir could be a new backbone for first‑line therapy.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval in August 2013 for use in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) followed in 2014, and by 2015 the WHO listed dolutegravir as an alternative first‑line option.
In 2018, the WHO issued a strong recommendation for dolutegravir‑based regimens as the preferred first‑line therapy worldwide. This decision dovetailed with a partnership between ViiV Healthcare, the Global Fund, and UNITAID, which negotiated reduced pricing for low‑ and middle‑income countries.
South Africa, home to the highest number of people living with HIV, began a nationwide rollout in 2019. By the end of 2023, over 8 million South Africans were on a dolutegravir‑based regimen, a shift that contributed to a 12 % drop in national HIV incidence.
Early post‑marketing data from Botswana raised concerns about neural‑tube defects (NTDs) when dolutegravir was taken at conception. A 2018 study reported a prevalence of 0.3 % compared with 0.1 % in the general population. Subsequent larger analyses, including the Tsepamo study (2022), found the risk to be marginal and reaffirmed the drug’s safety profile. WHO updated its guidance, allowing dolutegravir use in women of child‑bearing age with appropriate counseling.
| Drug | Mechanism | Dosing | Resistance Barrier | Typical Cost (USD/yr, low‑income markets) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dolutegravir | Integrase strand transfer inhibition | Once daily | High | ~$45 |
| Raltegravir | Integrase strand transfer inhibition | Twice daily | Moderate | ~$120 |
| Bictegravir (Biktarvy) | Integrase strand transfer inhibition | Once daily | High | ~$300 |
Dolutegravir’s combination of potency, once‑daily dosing, and low cost makes it the go‑to choice for most national HIV programs.
Investigators are exploring long‑acting injectables that combine dolutegravir with cabotegravir, aiming for dosing intervals of two months or more. Early Phase II data (2024) suggest comparable viral suppression with a favorable safety profile.
Additionally, resistance‑monitoring networks across Africa are tracking emerging integrase mutations. So far, the prevalence of dolutegravir‑associated resistance remains below 1 %.
Its high barrier to resistance, once‑daily dosing, and low price allow wide adoption in resource‑limited settings while delivering strong viral suppression.
Early data hinted at a possible increase in neural‑tube defects when used at conception. Larger studies later showed the risk was minimal, leading WHO to maintain its recommendation with counseling for women of child‑bearing age.
Dolutegravir is taken once daily, provides a higher resistance barrier, and is cheaper. Raltegravir requires twice‑daily dosing and is more expensive in low‑income markets.
The Global Fund, UNITAID, and ViiV Healthcare negotiated pricing and supported distribution to over 30 low‑ and middle‑income countries.
Yes, WHO permits its use during pregnancy after counseling. Current data show no significant increase in adverse pregnancy outcomes compared with alternative regimens.