Analysis of HIV cross-resistance to protease inhibitors using a rapid single-cycle recombinant virus assay for patients failing on combination therapies

Predictors of the virological response to a change in the antiretroviral treatment regimen in HIV-1-infected patients enrolled in a randomized trial comparing genotyping, phenotyping and standard of care (Narval trial, ANRS 088)

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).

Quality control trial for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance testing using clinical samples reveals problems with detecting minority species and interpretation of test results

Between January and March 2000, a quality control panel for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) drug resistance testing was analyzed by 20 laboratories in five countries. The panel consisted of three clinical samples with different drug resistance genotypes and phenotypes and one HIV-negative plasma. Participants were asked to report the methods used for amplification and sequencing, a list of drug resistance-associated mutations that were detected in the protease and reverse transcriptase of each sample, and an interpretation concerning the susceptibility or resistance to 14 antiretroviral drugs. A total of 22 genotypic data sets were generated, which showed an overall good technical quality except for three participants, who failed to report key mutations for drug resistance. Problems were encountered in three respects: (i). resistant minorities of L90M in the protease, which were determined to about 12% by real-time amplification, were only detected by one-fourth of the participants; (ii). newly described resistance mutations were frequently not reported; and (iii). interpretations of drug resistance-associated mutations varied widely, in particular for protease inhibitors. In some cases, different interpretations were caused by differences in the detection of resistant minorities, but even for the same genotypic profile, interpretations varied considerably. Similar discrepancies were revealed if current Web-based interpretation systems were used to predict drug resistance for samples of the proficiency panel. This indicates that a consensus for the interpretation of drug resistance-associated mutations is urgently needed.

An open-label randomized clinical trial of novel therapeutic strategies for HIV-infected patients in whom antiretroviral therapy has failed: rationale and design of the OPTIMA Trial

OPTIMA (OPTions In Management with Antiretrovirals) is a clinical trial with a factorial randomization to evaluate the hypotheses that mega-antiretroviral therapy (ART) consisting of five or more anti-HIV drugs compared to standard-ART consisting of four or fewer anti-HIV drugs and a 3-month antiretroviral drug-free period (ARDFP) compared to no ARDFP will delay the occurrence of new or recurrent acquired immunodeficiency syndrome events or death, and prove to be more cost-effective in treating human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals previously exposed to ART drugs from the current three main classes. The aim is to randomize 1,700 participants to four treatment strategy arms: (1) ARDFP+standard-ART; (2) ARDFP+mega-ART; (3) no ARDFP+standard-ART; (4) no ARDFP+mega-ART. The planned study duration is 3.5 years with 2.5 years of intake and a minimum 1 year of follow-up. The OPTIMA Trial was initiated in June 2001 at 30 U.S. Department of Veterans' Affairs hospitals, 22 hospitals in Canada, and 25 hospitals in the United Kingdom. This is the first large-scale, multicenter, randomized controlled trial to compare the relative efficacy of these different therapeutic strategies. We discuss the rationale behind the OPTIMA Trial design as well as the issues arising from the conduct of a trial that involves three national clinical trial agencies.

Enfuvirtide, an HIV-1 fusion inhibitor, for drug-resistant HIV infection in North and South America

BACKGROUND

The T-20 vs. Optimized Regimen Only Study 1 (TORO 1) was a randomized, open-label, phase 3 study of enfuvirtide (T-20), a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) fusion inhibitor.

METHODS

Patients from 48 sites in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil with at least six months of previous treatment with agents in three classes of antiretroviral drugs, resistance to drugs in these classes, or both, and with at least 5000 copies of HIV-1 RNA per milliliter of plasma were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive enfuvirtide plus an optimized background regimen of three to five antiretroviral drugs or such a regimen alone (control group). The primary efficacy end point was the change in the plasma HIV-1 RNA level from base line to week 24.

RESULTS

A total of 501 patients underwent randomization, and 491 received at least one dose of study drug and had at least one measurement of plasma HIV-1 RNA after treatment began. The two groups were balanced in terms of the median base-line HIV-1 RNA level (5.2 log10 copies per milliliter in both groups), median CD4+ cell count (75.5 cells per cubic millimeter in the enfuvirtide group, and 87.0 cells per cubic millimeter in the control group), demographic characteristics, and previous antiretroviral therapy. At 24 weeks, the least-squares mean change from base line in the viral load (intention-to-treat, last observation carried forward) was a decrease of 1.696 log10 copies per milliliter in the enfuvirtide group, and a decrease of 0.764 log10 copies per milliliter in the control group (P<0.001). The mean increases in CD4+ cell count were 76 cells per cubic millimeter and 32 cells per cubic millimeter, respectively (P<0.001). Reactions at the site of the injections were reported by 98 percent of patients receiving enfuvirtide. There were more cases of pneumonia in the enfuvirtide group than in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of enfuvirtide to an optimized antiretroviral regimen provided significant antiretroviral and immunologic benefit through 24 weeks in patients who had previously received multiple antiretroviral drugs and had multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection.

Efficacy of enfuvirtide in patients infected with drug-resistant HIV-1 in Europe and Australia

BACKGROUND

The T-20 vs. Optimized Regimen Only Study 2 (TORO 2) compared the efficacy and safety of 24 weeks of treatment with the fusion inhibitor enfuvirtide in combination with an optimized background antiretroviral regimen with the efficacy and safety of the optimized background regimen alone.

METHODS

The patients had previous treatment with each of the three classes of antiretroviral drugs, documented resistance to each class, or both and a plasma level of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA of at least 5000 copies per milliliter. They were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either enfuvirtide (90 mg twice daily) plus a background regimen optimized with the aid of resistance testing (enfuvirtide group) or the background regimen alone (control group).

RESULTS

Of the 512 patients who underwent randomization, 335 in the enfuvirtide group and 169 in the control group received at least one dose of study medication and had at least one follow-up measurement of plasma HIV-1 RNA. The median base-line plasma HIV-1 RNA level was 5.1 log10 copies per milliliter in both groups. The median CD4+ cell count was 98.0 cells per cubic millimeter in the enfuvirtide group and 101.5 cells per cubic millimeter in the control group. Patients had a median of seven years of previous treatment and had received a median of 12 antiretroviral drugs. The background regimen comprised a mean of four antiretroviral drugs in both groups. At 24 weeks, the least-squares mean change from base line in the plasma viral load (intention-to-treat, last observation carried forward) was a decrease of 1.429 log10 copies per milliliter in the enfuvirtide group and a decrease of 0.648 log10 copies per milliliter in the control group, a difference of 0.781 log10 copies per milliliter (P<0.001). The mean increase in the CD4+ cell count was greater in the enfuvirtide group (65.5 cells per cubic millimeter) than in the control group (38.0 cells per cubic millimeter, P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of enfuvirtide to an optimized background regimen provided significant viral suppression and immunologic benefit over a 24-week period in HIV-1-infected patients who had previously received multiple antiretroviral drugs.

Distinct cross-resistance profiles of the new protease inhibitors amprenavir, lopinavir, and atazanavir in a panel of clinical samples

A panel of 245 clinical samples with known treatment histories was retrospectively evaluated for cross-resistance to new protease inhibitors (PI). Samples with resistance to previously approved PI displayed high cross-resistance to atazanavir, whereas cross-resistance to amprenavir was considerably lower. A similar cross-resistance profile was observed for lopinavir, if a higher cut-off for resistance (9.5-fold) was applied. The enhanced efficacy of boosted PI is discussed with respect to clinically relevant cut-offs for drug resistance.

Improving lopinavir genotype algorithm through phenotype correlations: novel mutation patterns and amprenavir cross-resistance

BACKGROUND

Current genotypic algorithms suggest that the HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PI) lopinavir (LPV) and amprenavir (APV) have distinct resistance profiles. However, phenotypic data indicate that cross-resistance is more common than expected.

METHODS

Protease genotype (GT) and phenotype (PT) from 1418 patient viruses with reduced PI susceptibility and/or resistance-associated mutations (training data) were analyzed. Samples were classified as LPV resistant by GT (GT-R) if six or more LPV mutations were present, and by PT (PT-R) if the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) fold-change (FC) was over 10.

RESULTS

There were 182 samples (13%) that were GT-S but PT-R for LPV. A comparison of the mutation prevalence in PT-R/GT-S samples with that in PT-S/GT-S samples identified mutations associated with LPV PT-R. Several previously defined LPV mutations were found to have a stronger than average effect (e.g., M46I/L, I54V/T, V82A/F), and new variants at known positions (e.g., I54A/M/S, V82S) were identified. Other mutations, including known APV resistance mutations, were found to contribute to reduced LPV susceptibility. A new LPV genotypic interpretation algorithm was constructed that improved overall genotypic/phenotypic concordance from 80% to 91%. The algorithm demonstrated a concordance rate of 90% when tested on 523 new samples. Cross-resistance between APV and LPV was greater in samples with primary APV resistance mutations than in those lacking them.

CONCLUSIONS

The current LPV mutation score does not fully account for many resistant viruses. Consequently, cross-resistance between LPV and APV is underappreciated. Phenotypic results from large and diverse patient virus populations should be used to guide the development of more accurate GT interpretation algorithms.

Drug Resistance Genotypes Predict Response to Amprenavir-Containing Regimens in Highly Drug-Experienced HIV-1-Infected Patients

We have undertaken a study of virological responses to amprenavir-containing antiretroviral regimens, during the expanded access programme within the UK. Ninety-five HIV-1-infected patients were included for which virological and immunological follow-up was available for 75, and baseline drug resistance data available for 51. These were highly drug-experienced patients, having previously received a median of nine antiviral drugs, within all available classes. Eighty-eight percent of patients had a virological response to the new regimen, with a median maximal decline of 1.45 log10 copies/ml, and 34% of patients reached <400 copies/ml on treatment. Although 68% of patients with resistance data had protease inhibitor resistance mutations, only 10% patients had key amprenavir resistance mutations, and virological response was predicted by the number of active drugs utilized in the amprenavir-containing regimen, as determined by the baseline genotypic resistance test. Other independent predictors of viral load decline were a higher baseline viral load and fewer previous antiviral drugs. We conclude that amprenavir can contribute to antiviral efficacy in salvage regimens, and that resistance testing may help to optimize its use in this scenario. New formulations of amprenavir, together with boosted regimens, may enhance the activity in the presence of protease inhibitor-resistant virus.

Elucidation of HIV-1 protease resistance by characterization of interaction kinetics between inhibitors and enzyme variants

The kinetics of the interaction between drug-resistant variants of HIV-1 protease (G48V, V82A, L90M, I84V/L90M, and G48V/V82A/I84V/L90M) and clinically used inhibitors (amprenavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir) were determined using biosensor technology. The enzyme variants were immobilized on a biosensor chip and the association and dissociation rate constants (k(on) and k(off)) and affinities (K(D)) for interactions with inhibitors were determined. A unique interaction kinetic profile was observed for each variant/inhibitor combination. Substitution of single amino acids in the protease primarily resulted in reduced affinity through increased k(off) for the inhibitors. For inhibitors characterized by fast association rates to wild-type protease (ritonavir, amprenavir, and indinavir), additional substitutions resulted in a further reduction of affinity by a combination of decreased k(on) and increased k(off). For inhibitors characterized by slow dissociation rates to wild-type enzyme (saquinavir and nelfinavir), the decrease of affinity conferred by additional mutations was attributed to increased k(off) values. Development of resistance thus appears to be associated with a change of the distinctive kinetic parameter contributing to high affinity. Further inhibitor design should focus on improving the "weak point" of the lead compound, that being either k(on) or k(off).

Real versus virtual phenotype to guide treatment in heavily pretreated patients: 48-week follow-up of the Genotipo-Fenotipo di Resistenza (GenPheRex) trial

We compared viroimmunologic response after real phenotype (r-PHT) versus virtual phenotype (v-PHT) in patients failing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). A total of 201 patients with >2 years of exposure, more than six experienced drugs, >1000 HIV RNA copies/mL, and on stable HAART for >6 months were randomized to the r-PHT or v-PHT arm. The primary end point was the proportion of HIV plasma viral load (pVL) <400 copies/mL. Secondary end points were absolute pVL change, proportion of pVL reduction >0.5 log(10) copies/mL, and absolute CD4 cell change. In the intention-to-treat-last observation carried forward analysis, study outcomes were not significantly different between arms over 48 weeks of follow-up: 20% and 24% pVL <400 copies/mL; 58% and 61% pVL reduction >0.5 log(10) copies/mL; -0.92 and -0.94(10) log copies/mL mean pVL decrease; and +41.6 and +94.4 cells/mm(3) mean absolute CD4 increase in the r-PHT and v-PHT arms, respectively. On-treatment analyses gave similar results. In the multivariate analysis of pVL <400 copies/mL, the following covariates were independent predictors at week 48: adherence (OR p= 0.25; p=.002), baseline CD4 (OR = 4.39; p=.007), intravenous drug use as risk factor for HIV acquisition (OR = 0.33; p=.024), and sensitivity score of the new regimens by biologic cut-offs (OR = 1.84; p=.029). Prescribed drugs for which patients were naive resulted in marginal prediction (OR = 1.93; p=.054). In conclusion, virologic and immunologic outcomes did not differ when r-PHT or v-PHT was used in this cohort of heavily pretreated patients. Several factors should be considered to take better advantage of resistance testing, including treatment history, clinical status, and patients' ability to adhere to treatment.

Selection of high-level resistance to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitors

Protease inhibitors represent some of the most potent agents available for therapeutic strategies designed to inhibit human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) replication. Under certain circumstances the virus develops resistance to the inhibitor, thereby negating the benefits of this therapy. We have carried out selections for high-level resistance to each of three protease inhibitors (indinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir) in cell culture. Mutations accumulated over most of the course of the increasing selective pressure. There was significant overlap in the identity of the mutations selected with the different inhibitors, and this gave rise to high levels of cross-resistance. Virus particles from the resistant variants all showed defects in processing at the NC/p1 protease cleavage site in Gag. Selections with pairs of inhibitors yielded similar patterns of resistance mutations. A virus that could replicate at near-toxic levels of the three protease inhibitors combined was selected. The pro sequence of this virus was similar to that of the viruses that had been selected for high-level resistance to each of the drugs singly. Finally, a molecular clone carrying the eight most common resistance mutations seen in these selections was characterized. The sequence of this virus was relatively stable during selection for revertants in spite of displaying poor processing at the NC/p1 site and having significantly reduced fitness. These results reveal patterns of drug resistance that extend to near the limits of attainable selective pressure with these inhibitors and confirm the patterns of cross-resistance for these three inhibitors and the attenuation of virion protein processing and fitness that accompanies high-level resistance.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between amprenavir and delavirdine after multiple-dose administration in healthy volunteers

AIMS

To evaluate the safety and the pharmacokinetic interaction between amprenavir and delavirdine after multiple dose administration in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a prospective, open-label, randomized, controlled, two-sequence, two-period multiple dose study with 18 healthy subjects. Volunteers were randomly assigned to amprenavir, 600 mg twice a day, or delavirdine, 600 mg twice a day, for 10 days, followed by both drugs for another 10 days with pharmacokinetic evaluation on day 10 and day 20. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study.

RESULTS

Amprenavir decreased all the delavirdine pharmacokinetic parameters apart from tmax. Delavirdine C12h dropped from 7,916 to 933 ng ml-1 (median decrease 5,930 ng ml-1, 95% CI 3,013, 8,955 ng ml-1). A decrease in amprenavir t(1/2) was also seen leading to almost identical median amprenavir C24h values. No serious clinical adverse events were observed during the study. The most frequently reported effects were gastrointestinal symptoms, headache, fatigue and rash.

CONCLUSIONS

Amprenavir is an effective inducer of delavirdine metabolism, probably through its effect on hepatic CYP3A4. This could have consequences in other drug-drug interaction situations. Delavirdine is an inhibitor of amprenavir metabolism. The regimen of amprenavir 600 mg and delavirdine 600 mg twice a day is not recommended when an antiretroviral effect from delavirdine is required.

Nevirapine or lamivudine plus stavudine and indinavir: examples of 2-class versus 3-class regimens for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1

We compared use of a 3-class regimen (nevirapine [Nvp], stavudine [d4T], and indinavir [Idv; 1000 mg 3 times daily]) with use of a 2-class regimen (lamivudine [3TC], d4T, and Idv [800 mg 3 times daily]) for 145 patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). At week 72, the plasma HIV-1 RNA level was undetectable in 52% of Nvp recipients versus 79% of 3TC recipients (P<.001). Idv trough levels were 81 ng/mL in the Nvp group and 99 ng/mL in the 3TC group (P=.012). In the Nvp group, 42.5% of patients discontinued the study regimen; in the 3TC group, 22.5% of patients discontinued therapy (P=.013). The rate of resistance to nonnucleoside analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitors among patients in the Nvp group with virological failure was not different from the rate of resistance to 3TC among patients in the 3TC group with virological failure. These results do not support the use of a 3-class regimen that includes Nvp for patients with no or limited exposure to nucleoside analogues.

Phenotypic and genotypic HIV-1 drug resistance assays provide complementary information

To determine the extent to which genotype (GT) or phenotype (PT) methods provide HIV-1 drug resistance information that is overlapping or complementary, both tests were performed on 1378 patient plasma samples. Discordance, defined as determination of reduced susceptibility measured by PT but sensitivity by GT (PT-R/GT-S), or vice versa (PT-S/GT-R), was common: 83, 62, 43, and 28% of samples with evidence of drug resistance had at least 1, 2, 3, or 4 drugs discordant, respectively. Three types of discordance were observed: PT-R/GT-S, and PT-S/GT-R with or without the presence of mixtures at resistance-associated positions (25%, 34%, and 41% of all discordance, respectively). After accounting for mixtures, results for didanosine (30%), zalcitabine (18%), tenofovir (17%), abacavir (14%), lamivudine (12%), and amprenavir (11%) were discordant in >or= 10% of samples. PT-S/GT-R results were most common for didanosine and zalcitabine, whereas PT-R/GT-S results were most common for lamivudine and amprenavir. PT provided quantitative assessment of the degree of reduced susceptibility and identified reduced susceptibility (PT-R/GT-S) or normal susceptibility (PT-S/GT-R) that was not recognized by the GT interpretation algorithm. GT provided valuable information when mixtures were present and minor populations of drug resistant virus were not detected by phenotyping (PT-S/GT-R results). This demonstrates the complementary nature of information provided by PT and GT tests and suggests that their combined use can provide additional clinically-relevant information.

Inclusion of full length human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) gag sequences in viral recombinants applied to drug susceptibility phenotyping

Drug susceptibility phenotyping of recombinant clinical human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates has been used widely to quantitatively assess viral resistance to antiretroviral agents. A novel method is described for HIV-1 drug susceptibility phenotyping. Recombinant virus that contains the entire HIV-1 Gag, protease (PR) and reverse transcriptase (RT) coding regions is generated from plasma of HIV-1 infected subjects, thus allowing the in vitro investigation of effects caused by all protein-coding sequence elements upstream from the drug targets on: (i) drug susceptibility; and (ii) viral replicative capacity. Mutations known to cause retarded viral growth kinetics (RT M184V and PR I50V) were introduced and analyzed in parallel using both the new Five Prime HIV assay (FPH) and a standard recombinant virus assay (RVA). The M184V and I50V mutants produced up to 4.8- and 5.9-fold higher p24 antigen levels, respectively, with the FPH when compared to the cultures containing RVA-derived viruses. The reduced number of homologous recombination events necessary to generate replication-competent provirus with the FPH is the most likely explanation for these findings. Long range RT-PCR products were generated from plasma of HIV-1 infected subjects and HIV-1 LTR sequences were added using one-step PCR-mediated recombination. FPH-recombinants generated from two patients with previous HIV PR and RT inhibitor therapy showed lower drug susceptibilities than mutants established in parallel by RVA, and relative in vitro replication of the FPH recombinant derived from one of these subjects was enhanced compared to the corresponding RVA mutant. Although there were changes from the HIV-1 subtype B consensus sequence in amino acids flanking the Gag p17/p24, p24/p2 or p2/p7 PR cleavage sites, none were within the 10 amino acids immediately flanking the sites. These data suggest that determinants of drug susceptibility may be encoded in Gag upstream of the p7/p1 and p1/p6 regions, and that some phenotyping assays may therefore be underdetermining the reduction of drug susceptibility in some viral isolates.

Longitudinal use of phenotypic resistance testing to HIV-1 protease inhibitors in patients developing HAART failure

An "in-house" recombinant virus protease inhibitor susceptibility assay was carried out (median of 3 per patient) retrospectively in 26 patients failing HIV protease inhibitor based therapy at regular intervals to the initiation of the first protease inhibitor. Patients were treated with either indinavir (N = 6), ritonavir (N = 10), or saquinavir (N = 10) and two nucleoside analogues. Second line therapy was based on single or dual protease inhibitor regimens occasionally containing nelfinavir. Clinically relevant resistance cut-offs associated with a poorer virological outcome from 6 months on and the clinical outcome from 3 months on were determined tentatively as 4- to 8-fold resistance for indinavir and ritonavir and 2.5- to 8-fold to saquinavir. In addition, the degree of cross-resistance at the time of the change of protease inhibitor was associated with the response in viral load at 6 months to the second line therapy (P = 0.018). Cross-resistance (> or = 8-fold) between ritonavir and indinavir was common (78 and 100%). Cross-resistance between indinavir or ritonavir and saquinavir was less frequent (75 and 60% respectively) than the opposite (100%, P = 0.004). Cross-resistance to nelfinavir was encountered more frequently (> 70%) than to amprenavir (9%). The magnitudes of resistance were correlated between each other. In summary, the protease inhibitor susceptibility carried out longitudinally appears to be an earlier prognostic marker than viral load in a context of cross-resistance. The magnitude of resistance, as a marker of cross-resistance, should be useful to guide second line therapy.

Genotypic Correlates of Resistance to HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors on Longitudinal Data: The Role of Secondary Mutations

Direct sequencing of the pol gene was assessed retrospectively with protease inhibitor susceptibility in a longitudinal study. A total of 134 samples from 26 patients were analysed at regular intervals up to 2 years. Patients were included in virological failure despite indinavir, ritonavir or saquinavir based triple-drug therapy. Both the type and number of certain secondary protease mutations modulated the effect of primary mutations on phenotypic resistance. This was notably applicable to L10I/V, and to lesser extents to A71V/T. However, combinations of primary mutations, including I54V could predict resistance to the drug used and nelfinavir in more than 80%. In contrast, in vitro cross-resistance to amprenavir was rarely encountered. In addition, there was a relationship between a higher number of key mutations and poorer virological and clinical outcomes, respectively, from 6 and 3 months on. The key mutations were the protease mutations independently conferring phenotypic resistance and/or the reverse transcriptase mutations predicting treatment outcome. This relationship was independent from drug history, viral load and CD4 cell count measurements. In summary, even on a small sample size, sequence-based genotyping seems to be a good prognostic marker when performed longitudinally. In the context of primary resistance mutations, including additional secondary mutations, it may be useful in the prediction of phenotypic and clinical resistance. This should be assessed to optimize treatment monitoring before emergence of broadly cross-resistant virus.

Combination of Protease Inhibitors for the Treatment of HIV-1-Infected Patients: A Review of Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Experience

The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy, the combination of at least three different antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV-1 infection, has greatly improved the prognosis for HIV-1-infected patients. The efficacy of a combination of a protease inhibitor (PI) plus two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors has been well established over a period of up to 3 years. However, virological treatment failure has been reported in 40–60% of unselected patients within 1 year after initiation of a PI-containing regimen. This observation may, at least in part, be attributed to the poor pharmacokinetic characteristics of the PIs. Given as a single agent the PIs have several pharmacokinetic limitations; relatively short plasma-elimination half-lives and a modest and variable oral bioavailability, which is, for some of the PIs, influenced by food. To overcome these suboptimal pharmacokinetics, high doses (requiring large numbers of pills) must be ingested, often with food restrictions, which complicates patient adherence to the prescribed regimen.

Positive drug–drug interactions increase the exposure to the PIs, allowing administration of lower doses at reduced dosing frequencies with less dietary restrictions. In addition to increasing the potency of an antiretroviral regimen, combinations of PIs may enhance patient adherence, both of which will contribute to a more durable suppression of viral replication. The favourable pharmacokinetics of PIs in combination are a result of interactions through cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) isoenzymes and, possibly, the multi-drug transporting P-glycoprotein (P-gp). Antiretroviral synergy between PIs and non-overlapping primary resistance patterns in the HIV-1 protease genome may further enhance the anti-retroviral potency and durability of combinations of PIs. Many combinations contain ritonavir because this PI has the most pronounced inhibiting effects on CYP3A4. The combination of saquinavir and ritonavir, both in a dose of 400 mg twice-a-day, is the most studied double PI combination, with clinical experience extending over 3 years. Combination of a PI with a low dose of ritonavir (≤400 mg/day), only to boost its pharmacokinetic properties, seems an attractive option for patients who cannot tolerate higher doses of ritonavir. A recently introduced PI, lopinavir, has been co-formulated with low-dose ritonavir, which allows for a convenient three-capsules, twice-a-day dosing regimen. In an attempt to prolong suppression of viral replication combinations of PIs are becoming increasingly popular. However, further clinical studies are needed to identify the optimal combinations for treatment of antiretroviral naive and experienced HIV-1-infected patients. This review covers combinations of saquinavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, amprenavir and lopinavir with different doses of ritonavir, as well as the combinations of saquinavir and indinavir with nelfinavir.

Immune reconstitution in HIV-1-infected children on antiretroviral therapy: role of thymic output and viral fitness

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the role of thymic output and viral fitness in immune reconstitution in HIV-1-infected children on antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

Thymic output was studied by measuring levels of T-cell receptor rearrangement excision circles (TREC) in peripheral blood lymphocytes, using a real-time quantitative PCR assay. Recombinant viruses containing pre-therapy or post-therapy HIV-1 protease domains were evaluated for viral infectivity in a quantitative single-cycle assay.

RESULTS

Eighteen HIV-1-infected children who showed a significant increase in CD4 T-cell count after therapy were studied; HIV-1 plasma viraemia was substantially suppressed in 12 children (virological responders), but not in the other six (virological non-responders). TREC were quantified at baseline, and sequentially during the first 12 months of therapy. Both virological responders and non-responders showed an increase in TREC levels that was inversely correlated with baseline TREC and CD4 T cell counts. Changes in TREC positively correlated with CD4 T-cell count increases in virological responders, but not in non-responders; moreover, the ratios between TREC and CD4 T-cell count increases were higher in non-responders than in responders, suggesting a persistence of peripheral CD4 T-cell loss in the former. Drug-resistant viruses with reduced replicative capacity were documented in three out of six non-responders.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings indicate that recovery of thymic function is a pivotal event in immune reconstitution, and suggest that CD4 T-cell increase despite persistent viraemia is sustained by a continuous thymic output that compensates peripheral CD4 T-cell depletion which might be slowed down by emerging viruses with reduced fitness.

Genotypic testing for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance

There are 16 approved human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) drugs belonging to three mechanistic classes: protease inhibitors, nucleoside and nucleotide reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors, and nonnucleoside RT inhibitors. HIV-1 resistance to these drugs is caused by mutations in the protease and RT enzymes, the molecular targets of these drugs. Drug resistance mutations arise most often in treated individuals, resulting from selective drug pressure in the presence of incompletely suppressed virus replication. HIV-1 isolates with drug resistance mutations, however, may also be transmitted to newly infected individuals. Three expert panels have recommended that HIV-1 protease and RT susceptibility testing should be used to help select HIV drug therapy. Although genotypic testing is more complex than typical antimicrobial susceptibility tests, there is a rich literature supporting the prognostic value of HIV-1 protease and RT mutations. This review describes the genetic mechanisms of HIV-1 drug resistance and summarizes published data linking individual RT and protease mutations to in vitro and in vivo resistance to the currently available HIV drugs.

Phenotypic or genotypic resistance testing for choosing antiretroviral therapy after treatment failure: a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the respective value of phenotype versus genotype versus standard of care for choosing antiretroviral therapy in patients failing protease inhibitor-containing regimens.

METHODS

Patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA exceeding 1000 copies/ml were randomly allocated to phenotyping, genotyping, or standard of care.

RESULTS

Five-hundred and forty-one patients were randomized, 190 to phenotyping, 192 to genotyping and 159 to standard of care. The baseline median CD4 cell count (280 x 106 cells/l), the plasma HIV-1 RNA level (4.3 log10 copies/ml), and the number of drugs previously received (n = 6) were similar in the three arms. More patients in the standard-of-care arm received at least three new drugs (55% versus 20% in the other arms; P < 0.001) and a regimen containing drugs from the three different classes. Plasma HIV-1 RNA was < 200 copies/ml at week 12 in 35% of patients in the phenotyping arm, 44% in the genotyping arm and 36% in the standard-of-care arm (phenotyping versus standard of care, P = 0.918; genotyping versus standard of care, P = 0.120). In a secondary analysis of 179 patients experiencing a first protease inhibitor failure, the percentage of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA < 200 copies/ml was significantly higher in the genotyping arm (65%) than in the phenotyping (45%) and the standard-of-care arms (45%) (genotyping versus standard of care, P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, resistance assays did not demonstrate benefit over standard of care. In patients with the most limited protease inhibitor experience, a significant benefit was observed in the genotyping arm.

Emergence of resistance to protease inhibitor amprenavir in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients: selection of four alternative viral protease genotypes and influence of viral susceptibility to coadministered reverse transcriptase nucleoside inhibitors

Previous data have indicated that the development of resistance to amprenavir, an inhibitor of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease, is associated with the substitution of valine for isoleucine at residue 50 (I50V) in the viral protease. We present further findings from retrospective genotypic and phenotypic analyses of plasma samples from protease inhibitor-naïve and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-experienced patients who experienced virological failure while participating in a clinical trial where they had been randomized to receive either amprenavir or indinavir in combination with NRTIs. Paired baseline and on-therapy isolates from 31 of 48 (65%) amprenavir-treated patients analyzed demonstrated the selection of protease mutations. These mutations fell into four distinct categories, characterized by the presence of either I50V, I54L/I54M, I84V, or V32I+I47V and often included accessory mutations, commonly M46I/L. The I50V and I84V genotypes displayed the greatest reductions in susceptibility to amprenavir, although each of the amprenavir-selected genotypes conferred little or no cross-resistance to other protease inhibitors. There was a significant association, for both amprenavir and indinavir, between preexisting baseline resistance to NRTIs subsequently received during the study and development of protease mutations (P = 0.014 and P = 0.031, respectively). Our data provide a comprehensive analysis of the mechanisms by which amprenavir resistance develops during clinical use and present evidence that resistance to concomitant agents in the treatment regimen predisposes to the development of mutations associated with protease inhibitor resistance and treatment failure.

Amprenavir inhibitory quotient and virological response in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients on an amprenavir-containing salvage regimen without or with ritonavir

The efficacy of an amprenavir (APV)-containing therapy without (group A) or with (group B) ritonavir was assessed in patients with failure of previous protease inhibitor therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. The mean minimal plasma APV concentrations in groups A and B were 58 and 1,320 ng/ml, respectively, corresponding to APV inhibitory quotients of 0.2 (range, 0.03 to 0.70) and 7.0 (range, 1.4 to 145), respectively. At week 24, 2 of 8 and 13 of 14 patients in groups A and B, respectively, had <200 HIV RNA copies/ml of plasma, including 4 of 5 patients infected with APV-resistant viruses.

Prediction of abacavir resistance from genotypic data: impact of zidovudine and lamivudine resistance in vitro and in vivo

Abacavir is frequently used in antiretroviral combination therapies as a potent nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI). Four mutations are selected for by abacavir in vitro and in vivo: K65R, L74V, Y115F, and M184V. Abacavir resistance has also been observed in NRTI multidrug-resistant samples. Furthermore, abacavir resistance has been described in the context of zidovudine resistance. To evaluate the genetic basis of abacavir resistance, the viral genotype and phenotypic resistance were analyzed for 307 patient samples. Low- and high-level resistances were defined as 2.5- to 5.5-fold- and >5.5-fold-reduced susceptibility, respectively. If all samples with abacavir-selected and NRTI multidrug resistance-associated mutations were scored as resistant, 27.6% of the samples were misclassified, mainly due to samples falsely scored as susceptible. Therefore, the relative frequencies of other mutations were evaluated. Mutations at codons 44 and 118 were rarely detected in abacavir-susceptible samples but were overrepresented in resistant samples. Site-directed mutagenesis of E44D, V118I, and M184V resulted in low-level resistance for the double mutant 44/184 and the triple mutant. Low-level abacavir resistance was also detected for a viral clone carrying zidovudine mutations only. Additional insertion of M184V into the zidovudine background doubled the resistance, whereas 44/118 did not lead to a further increase. Incorporating combinations of zidovudine mutations and M184V into the scoring system markedly reduced the number of misclassified samples, whereas 44/118 did not improve the prediction. In conclusion, the combination of M184V with zidovudine mutations gives rise to high-level abacavir resistance, which may be clinically relevant. Thus, options for useful sequential combinations of NRTI are limited.

Drug resistance in patients experiencing early virological failure under a triple combination including indinavir

OBJECTIVE

To assess the pattern of drug resistance mutations selected in HIV-1-infected patients failing a first line triple combination therapy including indinavir.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Plasma samples from 87 patients collected at the time of the first virological rebound (> 50 HIV-RNA copies/ml) were examined for the presence of drug-resistant genotypes.

RESULTS

The mean level of plasma viraemia at rebound was 7824 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml in 73 subjects with good compliance, whereas it was 359,460 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml in 14 patients who admitted to poor adherence. Genetic sequence analysis yielded results for 51 (70%) of the patients having good adherence. More than half of them (26/51, 51%) carried primary mutations associated with resistance to nucleoside analogues. In contrast, primary protease inhibitor resistance mutations were recognized less frequently (14/51, 27%; P < 0.05). Moreover, in 23 (45%) patients there was no evidence of drug-resistant viruses at all. The most frequent drug-resistant genotypes in the reverse transcriptase gene were at codons 184 (n = 19), 215 (n = 14) and 41 (n = 8), whereas for the protease they were at codons 46 (n = 10), 82 (n = 9) and 90 (n = 7). No resistance genotypes were found among non-compliant patients.

CONCLUSION

The overall rate of drug-resistant HIV genotypes was 38% (28/73) in patients with good adherence and who were experiencing a first virological failure under a triple combination regimen including indinavir; resistance to nucleoside analogues was more frequent than resistance to indinavir. Therefore, treatment intensification in those patients without resistance, or a selective substitution of nucleosides in those with resistance limited to these compounds, might be justified.

Genotypic and phenotypic resistance patterns of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 variants with insertions or deletions in the reverse transcriptase (RT): multicenter study of patients treated with RT inhibitors

Genomic rearrangements in the 5' part of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) reverse transcriptase (RT) have been involved in multidrug resistance to nucleoside RT inhibitors (NRTI). We carried out a retrospective, multicenter study to investigate the prevalence, variability, and phenotypic consequences of such rearrangements. Data concerning the HIV-1 RT genotype and the biological and clinical characteristics of NRTI-treated patients were collected from 10 virology laboratories. Sensitivities of the different HIV-1 variants to RT inhibitors were analyzed in a single-cycle recombinant virus assay. Fifty-two of 2,152 (2.4%) RT sequences had a rearrangement in the 5' part of the RT, with an extensive molecular variation. The number of codons inserted between positions 68 and 69 ranged from 1 (3 samples) or 2 (41 samples) to 5 and 11 in one case each. In four cases, codon 67 was deleted. High levels of phenotypic resistance to zidovudine (AZT), lamivudine (3TC), stavudine (d4T), abacavir (ABC), and didanosine (ddI) were found in 95, 92, 72, 62, and 15% of the 40 samples analyzed, respectively. Resistance to AZT, d4T, and ABC could be found in the absence of the T215Y/F mutations. Resistance to 3TC could develop in the absence of specific mutations. Low-level resistance to ddI was noticed in 40% of the patients. The deletions of codon 67 seemed to have little effect on NRTI sensitivity. Most of the rearrangements were shown to contribute to cross-resistance to NRTI. The results regarding susceptibility to ddI raise the question of the interpretation of the phenotypic data concerning this drug.

The effect of nevirapine in combination with nelfinavir in heavily pretreated HIV-1-infected patients: a prospective, open-label, controlled, randomized study

The purpose of the current study was to determine the efficacy and safety of nevirapine combined with nelfinavir and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in patients previously exposed to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). In a prospective, open-label, randomized study, 56 HIV-infected adults who had received HAART, including saquinavir hard gel capsule, ritonavir, or indinavir, were randomly assigned to receive nevirapine in addition to nelfinavir and two NRTIs. The proportion of patients who achieved an undetectable viral load (plasma HIV-RNA <200 copies/ml) at weeks 24 and 36 was significantly higher in the nevirapine group than in the control group (55% and 52% vs. 22% and 22%; p =.015 and p =.047). No differences in CD4 cell count or clinical outcome were observed. In the nevirapine group, 17% of patients discontinued treatment because of rashes. We conclude that the addition of nevirapine, when switching from one protease inhibitor-containing regimen to one containing nelfinavir, has a substantial effect on viral suppression.

Sequencing of protease inhibitor therapy: insights from an analysis of HIV phenotypic resistance in patients failing protease inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the pattern of HIV-1 susceptibility to protease inhibitors in patients failing an initial protease inhibitor-containing regimen.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis of antiretroviral susceptibility.

SETTING

HIV clinics in six metropolitan areas.

PATIENTS

Eighty-eight HIV-infected adults with HIV RNA > 400 copies/ml after > or = 6 months of antiretroviral therapy, including the use of one protease inhibitor for > or = 3 months.

MEASUREMENTS

The frequency and magnitude of decreased susceptibility, measured with a phenotypic assay using recombinant constructs, to five protease inhibitors. Decreased susceptibility was defined as > 2.5-fold increase in the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) compared with drug sensitive control virus.

RESULTS

At study entry, patients were being treated with nelfinavir (63%), indinavir (25%), or another protease inhibitor (11%). HIV isolates from these patients were susceptible (fold change < 2.5) to all five protease inhibitors in 18% of patients and to none in 8%. Isolates from patients receiving nelfinavir were less likely to have reduced susceptibility to other protease inhibitors than isolates from patients treated with indinavir (P < 0.001) or one of the other three agents (P < 0.001), even after adjustment for the duration of prior protease inhibitor use. Reduced susceptibility to saquinavir and amprenavir was observed significantly less frequently than for the other protease inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of protease inhibitor cross-resistance and the magnitude of changes in susceptibility varied according to the initial protease inhibitor used in the failing treatment regimen. Significantly less protease inhibitor cross-resistance was demonstrated for isolates from patients failing a nelfinavir-containing regimen compared with those from patients receiving other protease inhibitors.

International perspectives on antiretroviral resistance. Resistance to protease inhibitors

The availability of protease inhibitors (PIs) and their combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors marked the passage of antiretroviral therapy (ART) from potential for control to effective suppression and thus substantially reduced rates of morbidity and mortality related to HIV. Even so, what was first hoped to be an immutable HIV DNA treatment target has proved to be prone to resistance mutations, with substitutions identified at more than 20 amino acid sites, which reduces PI susceptibility and increases resistance to treatment. The mutation patterns associated with each PI have been defined, and have been observed to occur at one of two locations: at or near the active site, or in the substrate cleavage site. The natural history of PI resistance has been extensively studied, and the genetic and cellular pathways are described in detail in this article. In addition, cross-resistance among PIs is now recognized to be fairly extensive, although the degree of cross-resistance varies with the number of mutations and the variants selected by drug pressure. Thus, it is still possible to salvage a response with another PI after a first regimen with another PI has failed. The extensive basic science and clinical experience with PIs in the fight against HIV are reviewed in this article, which provides data on resistance-mutation profiles, cellular resistance mechanisms, viral fitness studies, and clinical outcome trials with various first-line and subsequent regimens that contain PIs. It is hoped that the information provided will guide physicians in best using PIs as part of a logical and successful ART strategy.

Comparison of DNA sequencing and a line probe assay for detection of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance mutations in patients failing highly active antiretroviral therapy

The resistance of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) to drugs is a major cause of antiretroviral treatment failure. We have compared direct sequencing to a line probe assay (LiPA) for the detection of drug resistance-related mutations in 197 clinical samples, and we have investigated the sequential appearance of mutations under drug pressure. For 26 patients with virological failure despite the use of two nucleoside analogues and one protease inhibitor (indinavir [n = 6], ritonavir [n = 10], and saquinavir [n = 10]), genotypic resistance assays were carried out retrospectively every 3 months for up to 2 years by using direct sequencing (TruGene; Visible Genetics) and a LiPA for detection of mutations in the reverse transcriptase (INNO-LiPA HIV-1 RT; Innogenetics) and the protease (INNO-LiPA HIV Protease, prototype version; Innogenetics) genes. Comparison of the results from both assays found rare major discrepancies (<1% of codons analyzed). INNO-LiPA detected more wild-type-mutant mixtures than sequencing but suffered from a high rate of codon hybridization failures for the reverse transcriptase. LiPA detected earlier and more frequently than sequencing the transient mixed virus population that contained I84V, which appears before V82A in the protease sequence. Mutations M461, G48V, and L90M were often transient and drug pressure related. In conclusion, direct sequencing and LiPAs give concordant results for most clinical isolates. LiPAs are more sensitive for the detection of mixed virus populations. Mutation I84V appears in minor populations in the early steps of the pathways of resistance to indinavir and ritonavir. The fact that some mutations can be found only transiently and in minor virus populations highlights the importance of a low detection limit for resistance assays.

Loss of antiretroviral drug susceptibility at low viral load during early virological failure in treatment-experienced patients

BACKGROUND

Clinical studies have demonstrated a correlation between the response to second-line antiretroviral therapy and the number of drugs in the regimen to which the virus is susceptible. These studies have largely been performed in patients with viral loads over 1000 copies/ml.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the evolution of resistance during early virological failure, and the potential role of susceptibility testing in patients with low viral loads (below 1000 copies/ml), in treatment-experienced patients.

METHODS

Drug susceptibility and genotypes of HIV-1 from indinavir-experienced patients undergoing therapy with nelfinavir, saquinavir, abacavir and either a second nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) or nevirapine were determined.

RESULTS

Sixteen subjects were studied. Five of the ten subjects treated with nevirapine, and one of six treated with a second NRTI, achieved and maintained plasma HIV RNA < 500 copies/ml. Virus from the treatment failures lost susceptibility to one or more treatment drugs, including nelfinavir and/or saquinavir, after 4 to 36 weeks of treatment. In six of the ten failures, virus with new reductions in drug susceptibility was detected prior to failure. In five of the six failures who had at least one plasma sample with a viral load between 50 and 1000 copies/ml, reductions in susceptibility to one or more treatment drugs were detected (viral load range: 260 to 630 copies/ml).

CONCLUSIONS

Drug resistance can be detected at viral loads below 1000 copies/ml which may be predictive of treatment failure. Failure of a second line regimen was typically associated with early evolution of resistance in HIV protease.

Amprenavir: a review of its clinical potential in patients with HIV infection

The virological/immunological efficacy of amprenavir-containing combination regimens has been evaluated in a small number of clinical trials in patients with HIV infection. Amprenavir plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) was more effective than 2 NRTIs (in treatment-naive patients) or amprenavir monotherapy (in treatment-naive or -experienced patients) in double-blind trials. In the only direct comparison with another protease inhibitor as part of triple therapy, amprenavir was less effective than indinavir in treatment-experienced (protease inhibitor-naive) patients. Amprenavir was as effective as other protease inhibitors when given with abacavir in a small nonblind trial. Amprenavir is generally well tolerated (most events are mild or moderate). GI disturbance and rash are the principal treatment-limiting effects. Preclinical data suggest that amprenavir may have a low potential for metabolic disturbances (e.g. lipodystrophy, fat redistribution); such effects have been infrequent in patients treated to date, but longer term experience is needed. 150V is the major HIV protease substitution associated with amprenavir resistance; this mutation is not seen in isolates from patients receiving other available protease inhibitors. Amprenavir-resistant isolates evaluated to date showed no significant cross-resistance to most other protease inhibitors, although some cross-resistance to ritonavir was noted. Many isolates from patients previously treated with other protease inhibitors are susceptible to amprenavir. Amprenavir offers the convenience of twice-daily administration with no food-timing or fluid restrictions, but this may be offset by the large number and size of the capsules. However, pharmacokinetic data support the use of co-administration of amprenavir and ritonavir at reduced dosages, thereby allowing a reduction in the number of amprenavir capsules.

CONCLUSIONS

Amprenavir-containing combination regimens have shown virological efficacy, and have generally been well tolerated, in patients with HIV infection (primarily treatment-naive or protease inhibitor-naive). The limited number of studies available and the absence of well controlled comparisons with other triple therapies limits the conclusions that can be drawn at present. The clinical value of amprenavir for patients with isolates which are resistant to other protease inhibitors but sensitive to amprenavir, and in treatment-experienced patients in general, requires further investigation. Further evaluation of the amprenavir/ritonavir combination is awaited with interest. Like other members of its class, amprenavir has a particular profile of tolerability, resistance and administration characteristics which should be carefully considered in relation to the needs of individual patients.

Low level of cross-resistance to amprenavir (141W94) in samples from patients pretreated with other protease inhibitors

The therapeutic success of an antiretroviral salvage regimen containing protease inhibitors (PI) is limited by PI-resistant viral strains exhibiting various degrees of resistance and cross-resistance. To evaluate the extent of cross-resistance to the new PI amprenavir, 155 samples from 132 human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients were analyzed for viral genotype by direct sequencing of the protease gene. Concomitantly, drug sensitivity to indinavir, saquinavir, ritonavir, nelfinavir, and amprenavir was analyzed by a recombinant virus assay. A total of 111 patients had been pretreated with 1-4 PI, but all were naive to amprenavir. A total of 105 samples (67.7%) were sensitive to amprenavir; 25 samples (16.1%) were intermediately resistant, and another 25 samples were highly resistant (4- to 8-fold- and >8-fold-reduced sensitivity, respectively). The mutations 46I/L, 54L/V, 84V, and 90M showed the strongest association with amprenavir resistance (P < 0. 0001). The scoring system using 84V and/or any two of a number of mutations (10I/R/V/F, 46I/L, 54L/V, and 90M) predicted amprenavir resistance with a sensitivity of 86.0% and a specificity of 81.0% within the analyzed group of samples. Of 62 samples with resistance against 4 PI, 23 (37.1%) were still sensitive to amprenavir. In comparison, only 2 of 23 samples (8.7%) from nelfinavir-naive patients with resistance against indinavir, saquinavir, and ritonavir were still sensitive to nelfinavir. Amprenavir thus appears to be an interesting alternative for PI salvage therapy.

Experience with Nevirapine in Previously Treated HIV-1-Infected Individuals

Objective

To assess the tolerability, virological, immunological and clinical effects of nevirapine in the setting of a compassionate use programme in pretreated HIV-infected individuals.

Design

Retrospective observational cohort-study in 13 HIV-outpatient clinics in The Netherlands.

Methods

Main outcome measures: plasma HIV-1 RNA levels; CD4 cell counts; incidence of new AIDS-defining diseases; multivariate analysis of predictors for virological success; incidence of skin rashes.

Results

187 HIV-infected individuals treated with nevirapine in the Nevirapine Named Patient Programme in The Netherlands were included. After 48 weeks, 38% of patients had an HIV-1 RNA level below 1000 copies/ml. In multivariate regression analysis, prior treatment with three or less nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and a higher baseline CD4 cell count was predictive of virological success. The median CD4 cell count remained stable over the 48 weeks. Eleven patients experienced a new AIDS-defining event. The total incidence of rash (including rash not leading to discontinuation of nevirapine) was 13.9 and 6.4% of the patients discontinued nevirapine because of rash. None of the 28 patients with undetectable HIV-1 RNA levels at baseline developed a rash.

Conclusions

We conclude that nevirapine when used as part of salvage therapy, is safe and most likely to give sustained suppression of HIV-1 in patients that have been less extensively pretreated. CD4 cell counts remained stable despite the low rate of virological success, this also occurred in patients not concurrently using protease inhibitors (PIs). The incidence of nevirapine-related rash in PI-pretreated patients and especially in patients with undetectable HIV-1 RNA levels at the start of nevirapine treatment, is considerably lower than previously reported for antiretroviral-naive patients.

Amprenavir: a new human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor

OBJECTIVE

This paper reviews the pharmacologic properties and clinical usefulness of amprenavir, a new human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitor.

BACKGROUND

Amprenavir, the most recent HIV-1 protease inhibitor to receive marketing approval from the US Food and Drug Administration, is a potent competitive inhibitor of HIV-1 protease and a relatively weak inhibitor of HIV-2 protease. Inhibition of the HIV-1 protease enzyme results in immature and noninfectious viral particles. Amprenavir is rapidly absorbed following oral administration. The time to peak concentration (Tmax) in adults is between 1 and 2 hours, the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve is roughly proportional to the dose, the half-life is approximately 8 hours, and the volume of distribution is approximately 430 L. The Tmax in children 4 to 12 years of age is between 1.1 and 1.4 hours. The bioavailability of the solution is 86% relative to the capsule formulation. It is metabolized by the cytochrome P-450 isozyme CYP3A4 and to a lesser extent by CYP2D6 and CYP2C9.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), AIDSLINE (1980 to January 2000), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to January 2000), PharmaProjects (January 2000 version), and Web sites of major HIV/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome conferences for appropriate published references (1996 to February 2000).

RESULTS

Data reported to date indicate that amprenavir is efficacious in the treatment of HIV disease in patients with primary HIV infection, antiretroviral-naïve patients, protease inhibitor-naïve patients, protease inhibitor-experienced patients, and pediatric patients. Adverse effects were usually of early onset (range, 2 to 21 days) and transient (range, 3 to 46 days), although the incidence of metabolic abnormalities such as lipodystrophy, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus has not yet been defined. Amprenavir should be avoided in patients with a known sulfonamide allergy. Concomitant use of other medications that are CYP3A4 inducers or inhibitors should be done cautiously and only if the potential benefit clearly outweighs potential risk. The dose should be reduced in patients with significant hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh score, > or = 5). Amprenavir probably should not be administered with rifabutin, rifampin, astemizole, midazolam , triazolam, bepridil, dihydroergotamine, ergotamine, or cisapride. The recommended adult dose is 1200 mg twice daily. For patients between 4 and 12 years of age or between 13 and 16 years of age who weigh < 50 kg, the recommended dosage of the capsule form is 20 mg/kg (22.5 mg/kg for oral solution) twice daily or 15 mg/kg (17 mg/kg for oral solution) 3 times a day to a maximum dose of 2400 mg (2800 mg for oral solution). Patients should not take vitamin E supplements because amprenavir is formulated with a large amount of vitamin E (109 IU/capsule and 46 IU/mL oral solution) to improve oral absorption. Amprenavir may be administered with or without food, but a high-fat meal (> 67 g fat) should be avoided.

CONCLUSIONS

Published clinical data are limited, but amprenavir appears to be efficacious and generally well tolerated in patients with HIV infection. Pharmacoeconomic data are not yet available. The introduction of amprenavir appears to be important, since it provides an additional treatment option as a component of both initial and salvage combination therapies for patients with HIV.

Nelfinavir: an update on its use in HIV infection

Nelfinavir is one of several currently available protease inhibitors used to limit viral replication and improve immune function in HIV-infected individuals. It is administered in combination with other antiretroviral agents. Nelfinavir has been evaluated as first-line therapy with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in treatment-naive patients, or as an additional antiretroviral agent in protease inhibitor-naive patients already receiving NRTIs. These studies have shown good efficacy in terms of HIV viral load reduction and increased CD4+ cell counts. When used in combination with NRTIs, nelfinavir 1250 mg twice daily produced similar results to 750 mg 3 times daily. The more convenient twice-daily dosage schedule, which is now approved in the US, may be beneficial in improving patient adherence to therapy. Nelfinavir has also been used successfully in combination with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and/or other protease inhibitors, with or without NRTIs. Resistance to nelfinavir has been observed in vitro and in clinical isolates from patients experiencing insufficient or waning viral suppression during treatment. Nelfinavir primarily selects for the D30N mutation, which is not seen with other protease inhibitors, and alone does not cause resistance to other protease inhibitors in vitro. Several studies have shown that patients who experience virological failure while receiving nelfinavir can respond to salvage therapy with other protease inhibitors. Diarrhoea is the most frequent adverse event in patients receiving nelfinavir-based combination therapy, but was generally mild and resulted in minimal discontinuation of therapy in clinical trials. Diarrhoea can usually be controlled with drugs that slow gastrointestinal motility. Metabolic disturbances associated with protease inhibitor use (hypercholesterolaemia, hyperglycaemia and lipodystrophy) have also been reported with nelfinavir. Nelfinavir is associated with a number of clinically significant drug interactions and coadministration of some drugs (e.g. astemizole, cisapride, triazolam) is contraindicated. Coadministration of nelfinavir with other protease inhibitors generally resulted in favourable pharmacokinetic interactions (usually increased area under the concentration-time curve for both drugs).

CONCLUSION

Nelfinavir, in combination with reverse transcriptase inhibitors and/or other protease inhibitors, is effective in limiting HIV replication and increasing CD4+ cell counts in HIV-infected adults and children. The convenience of its dosage administration, the low incidence of adverse events, and the potential for salvage therapies indicate that nelfinavir (as part of combined antiretroviral therapy regimens) should be considered as a first-line option in protease inhibitor-naive patients and in those unable to tolerate other protease inhibitors.

Human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance testing: state of the art in genotypic and phenotypic testing of antiretrovirals

Antiretroviral drugs have significantly reduced death rates from the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome in the United States. They are highly effective in reducing viral replication, but their utility is threatened by rapid development of drug resistance. Although antiretroviral drug resistance testing is available by either genotyping or phenotyping, no consensus guidelines have been published regarding the appropriate use or interpretation of these new tests. Even though their role in clinical practice is not defined, it is important for clinicians to become familiar with relative advantages and disadvantages of genotypic and phenotypic testing and various mechanisms of antiretroviral resistance.