Search

Background: The aim of this study was to characterize the mutations selected upon failure on etravirine (ETR)-containing regimen in non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs)-experienced HIV-infected patients and the associated factors., Methods: Forty-two patients displaying virological failure after a 6 months ETR-containing regimen were studied. For each patient the reverse transcriptase (RT) sequence at failure was compared with all the RT sequences available before introduction of ETR. The effect of baseline and failure HIV-1 RNA, HIV-1 subtype, baseline number of NNRTI resistance mutations, protease inhibitor and nucleoside RT inhibitor genotypic sensitivity scores, number of new drugs used in the treatment, and previous use of efavirenz or nevirapine on the selection of NNRTI resistance mutations were investigated., Results: At failure, 12/42 (29%) patients showed development of at least 1 new NNRTI mutation (7 patients selected 1 mutation and 5 patients 2 mutations). NNRTI mutations selected were V179I (5 patients), V179L (1), V179F (2), L100I (1), K103N (2), Y181C (3), K101E (1), K101R (1) and H221Y (1). Univariate analysis showed that HIV-1 RNA level at failure (P=0.033) and past exposure to efavirenz (P<0.001) were associated with the occurrence of at least one NNRTI mutation. The multivariate model retained only past exposure to efavirenz. Among the 36 viruses classified as susceptible to ETR at baseline, 3 were classified as possibly resistant at failure., Conclusion: In this study, 29% of viruses from patients experiencing ETR failure selected new NNRTI resistance mutations (at position V179 in 2/3 of cases) in a context of multiple NNRTI resistance mutations.

Background: HIV type-1 (HIV-1) integrase (IN) inhibitor resistance is the consequence of mutations that are selected in the viral IN gene targeted by antiretroviral drugs, such as raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG). The genetic barrier, defined as the number of viral mutations required to overcome the drug-selective pressure, is one of the important factors in the development of drug resistance. The genetic barrier for IN inhibitor resistance was compared between HIV-1 subtype B and HIV-1 subtype CRF02&#95;AG, which is highly prevalent in West Africa and becoming more frequent in developed countries., Methods: IN nucleotide sequences from 73 HIV-1 subtype B and 77 HIV-1 subtype CRF02&#95;AG antiretroviral-naive patients were examined at 19 IN amino acid positions implicated in RAL and EVG resistance., Results: The majority (14/19) of the studied positions showed a high degree of conservation of the predominant codon sequences leading to a similar genetic barrier between subtypes B and CRF02&#95;AG. Nevertheless, at positions 140 and 151, the variability between subtypes affected the genetic barrier for the mutations G140C, G140S and V1511 with a higher genetic barrier being calculated for subtype CRF02&#95;AG., Conclusions: The major IN mutations E92Q, Q148K/R/H, N155H and E157Q (implicated in the resistance of IN inhibitors RAL and EVG) are highly conserved between subtypes B and CRF02&#95;AG and display a similar genetic barrier. However, subtype CRFO2&#95;AG showed a higher genetic barrier to acquire mutations 6140S, 6140C and V1511 as compared with subtype B, which could play a role in the resistance to RAL and/or EV6.

HIV-1 resistance to protease inhibitors (PIs) is characterized by extensive cross-resistance within this drug class. Some PIs, however, appear less affected by cross-resistance and are often prescribed in salvage therapy regimens for patients who have failed previous PI treatment. To examine the capacity of HIV-1 to adapt to these treatment changes, we have followed the evolution of HIV-1 protease genotypes and phenotypes in 21 protease-inhibitor-experienced patients in whom 26 weeks of an aggressive salvage regimen associating lopinavir, amprenavir and ritonavir failed to suppress viral replication. Baseline genotypes exhibited a median of seven resistance mutations in the protease. After 26 weeks of treatment, changes in protease genotypes were seen in 13/21 patients. The evolution of these protease genotypes was rapid, with more than one-third of the changes occurring during the first 6 weeks. Although the mean number of additional mutations was small (2.15 new mutations at week 26) these mutations were sufficient to promote remarkable changes in resistance phenotype. In several patients, some of the new mutations were found to exist before salvage treatment as part of minority quasi-species. Thus, in the face of the strong pharmacological pressure exerted by combinations of PIs to which it has never been exposed, and in spite of limited cross-resistance to these drugs before salvage therapy, HIV-1 can rapidly adapt its resistance genotype and phenotype at a minimal evolutionary cost.

Objectives: To compare the antiviral efficacy of a salvage therapy combining lopinavir and amprenavir with 200 mg/d or 400 mg/d ritonavir, together with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, over a 26-week period in HIV-infected patients in whom multiple antiretroviral regimens had failed., Design: Phase IIb, randomized, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients were eligible if they had <500 CD4+ cells/mm3 and >4 log10 copies/ml HIV-RNA after treatment with at least two protease inhibitors (PIs) and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor., Results: At baseline (n=37), the median CD4+ cell count was 207/mm3 and the median plasma HIV-1 RNA level was 4.7 log10 copies/ml; the median number of PI mutations was seven and the median decrease in phenotypic susceptibility to lopinavir and amprenavir was 9.7 and 2.6, respectively. The mean number of antiretrovirals received prior to randomization was 7.7. The fall in the median HIV-1 RNA level at week 26 was -1.4 log10 copies/ml in the 200 mg/d ritonavir group and -2.5 log10 copies/ml in the 400 mg/d group (P=0.02). Viral load fell below 50 copies/ml in 32% and 61% of patients, respectively (P=0.07). After adjustment for the ritonavir dose, a smaller number of PI mutations was the only baseline characteristic associated with a better virological response at week 26. Amprenavir concentrations were significantly lower in presence of lopinavir. The lopinavir inhibitory quotient at week 6 correlated weakly with the change in the HIV-RNA level at week 26., Conclusion: Combination of amprenavir, lopinavir and 400 mg/d ritonavir shows significant virological efficacy without increased toxicity in HIV-infected patients in whom multiple antiretroviral regimens have failed.

Objectives: To understand the virological mechanisms of 2-year persistence of multidrug-resistant virus without selective antiretroviral pressure in HIV-1-infected patients., Patients and Methods: Two patients were contaminated recently by their HIV-1-infected partners, who had received, before the transmission, all available antiretroviral drugs and who exhibited a severe therapeutic failure. The resistance mutations analysis was performed by clonal sequencing of 1.2 kb of pol gene in plasma of index and sources patients. Sequencing of HIV-1 DNA was performed in PBMCs of index patients., Results: Genotypic testing performed in index patients at time of seroconversion showed resistance mutations to three classes of drugs. All mutations were linked on the same viral genome and all quasispecies carried all mutations. No wild-type virus was detected. The same results were found in source patients and showed that all mutations were transmitted. In the index patients, all mutations persisted over 2 years without antiretroviral treatment. Moreover, the resistance mutations were all archived in the cellular reservoir. Viral load and CD4 count of index patients remained unchanged during 2 years of follow-up., Discussion: Only multidrug-resistant viruses were detected in the source patients and could be transmitted in index patients. In the latter, an expansion of predominant multidrug-resistant quasispecies and the 'archival' of all mutations were observed. These results explain the persistence of mutations and suggest that it is highly difficult to return to a wild-type viral population, sensitive to an antiretroviral treatment. The treatment of index patients is limited and the major risk is the transmission of these multidrug-resistant viruses. This work was presented in part in the XII International HIV Drug Resistance Workshop, Los Cabos, Mexico, June 2003; and in the 2nd IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis & Treatment, Paris, France, July 2003.

Objective: To identify predictors of the virological response to antiretroviral therapy in patients in whom initial therapy has failed., Methods: The Narval trial was designed to compare phenotyping, genotyping and standard of care for the choice of antiretroviral therapy in patients in whom a protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimen had failed. Virological success was defined as viral load below 200 copies/ml at week 12. Baseline variables including demographic, clinical and biological characteristics, HIV reverse transcriptase and protease mutations, the randomization arm, the drugs prescribed, as well as adherence to treatment and plasma concentrations of PIs and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) at week 12 were tested in the model. Variables that were significantly associated with virological success in univariate analysis were included in a logistic regression model., Results: Five-hundred-and-forty-one patients were randomized. Virological success at week 12 was obtained in 200 patients. In multivariate analysis, the following factors were significantly associated with virological success: prescription of efavirenz to NNRTI-naive patients (OR=4.37; 95% CI: 2.76-6.90), randomization to the genotyping arm (OR=2.13, 1.20-3.79), prescription of lamivudine (OR=1.69, 1.01-2.83) and prescription of abacavir to abacavir-naive patients (OR=1.66, 1.02-2.72). Factors significantly associated with virological failure were prescription of nelfinavir (OR=0.30, 0.13-0.68), a high baseline viral load (OR=0.37, 0.28-0.50), the presence of at least five PI mutations (OR=0.42, 0.26-0.66), the presence of at least three thymidine analogue mutations (OR=0.61, 0.39-0.97) and at least 30 months of prior PI exposure (OR=0.64, 0.41-0.99)., Conclusions: These results confirm that among heavily pretreated patients, prescription of efavirenz to NNRTI-naive patients is associated with a good virological response, while a high baseline viral load, a large number of PI mutations and nelfinavir prescription at baseline are associated with a poor virological response. Genotyping was found to be beneficial, while this was not the case for phenotyping. This work was presented at the XI International HIV Drug Resistance Workshop, Sevilla, Spain, July 3-6 2002 (Abstract N(o)133); and at the XIV International Conference on AIDS, Barcelona, Spain, July 7-11 2002 (Abstract N(o)ThOrB138).