Impact of drug resistance mutations on virologic response to salvage therapy. Swiss HIV Cohort Study

Short-term measures of relative efficacy predict longer-term reductions in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA levels following nelfinavir monotherapy

We calculated the relative efficacy of treatment, defined as the rate of decline of virus levels in plasma during treatment relative to the rate of decline during highly potent combination therapy, in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) patients treated for 56 days with different doses of the protease inhibitor nelfinavir. Relative efficacies based on the rate of decline of HIV-1 RNA levels in plasma over the first 14 to 21 days correlated with drug dose and viral load reduction by day 56. Calculation of relative treatment efficacies over the first 2 to 3 weeks of treatment can allow rapid assessment of new antiretroviral agents and dosing regimens, reducing the need to keep subjects in clinical trials on monotherapy for prolonged periods of time. Relative efficacy may also serve as a measure of treatment efficacy in patients in initiating established therapies.

Effect of genotypic resistance on the virological response to highly active antiretroviral therapy in cerebrospinal fluid

Paired plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens drawn from 15 HIV-infected patients with neurological disease before and after a median 6-week duration of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) were studied to assess the short-term virological response of CSF and whether this can be predicted on the basis of baseline resistance mutations. After treatment, the median plasma and CSF viral load (VL) decreased by, respectively, 2.08 log10 (p = 0.0001) and 0.91 log10 copies/ml (p = 0.007) in comparison with baseline. A plasma virological response was observed in all but one patient, whereas the posttreatment CSF VL increased, remained unchanged, or decreased at a substantial lower rate than in plasma of six "CSF non/slow responders" (40%). Direct sequencing of baseline specimens showed that none of these patients had reverse transcriptase (RT) or primary protease resistance mutations in the CSF alone, but two had RT mutations conferring high-level resistance to drugs included in the HAART regimen in both CSF and plasma. The other four patients had no RT or primary protease resistance mutations. There was no significant difference in the nucleotide diversity of the CSF and plasma RT sequences, baseline plasma or CSF VL, the CSF-to-plasma VL ratio, the number of CSF cells, the CD4+ cell counts, or the history of antiretroviral treatment between the CSF non-slow responders and the other patients. During this short-term follow-up and despite a plasma response, a significant proportion of HAART-treated patients with neurological symptoms showed a slow or absent CSF response. Most of these cases were not associated with the presence of resistant HIV strains in the CSF.

Clinical use of genotypic and phenotypic drug resistance testing to monitor antiretroviral chemotherapy

Assays that detect antiretroviral drug resistance in human immunodeficiency virus have recently become available to clinicians. Phenotypic assays measure the drug susceptibility of the virus by determining the concentration of drug that inhibits viral replication in tissue culture. Genotypic assays determine the presence of mutations that are known to confer decreased drug susceptibility. Although each type of assay has specific advantages, limitations associated with these tests often complicate the interpretation of results. Several retrospective clinical trials have suggested that resistance testing may be useful in the assessment of the success of salvage antiretroviral therapy. Prospective, controlled trials have demonstrated that resistance testing improves short-term virological response. Resistance testing is currently recommended to help guide the choice of new drugs for patients after treatment has failed and for pregnant women. Resistance testing should also be considered for treatment-naïve patients, to detect transmission of resistant virus.

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.

Clinical and laboratory guidelines for the use of HIV-1 drug resistance testing as part of treatment management: recommendations for the European setting. The EuroGUidelines Group for HIV resistance

Viral drug susceptibility is associated with virologic response to new treatments. Standardized drug resistance tests are now available, and data from some clinical trials suggest that the use of drug resistance testing may be associated with improved virologic outcome. However, drug resistance testing is complex in terms of performance, interpretation and clinical application. HIV-1 drug resistance testing is used across Europe in patient management, but not in a consistent manner. This is due to differences in the national approaches to treatment, treatment management and reimbursement, as well as availability of tests. National guidelines only exist in some countries. In addition, the laboratory quality assurance and quality control standards are not applied uniformly. The EuroGuidelines Group was established to formulate clinical as well as laboratory guidelines for the use of HIV-1 drug resistance testing that are specific for the European setting. The group is comprised of academic clinicians and virologists, scientist from the industry and representatives of the patient community. The panel of experts will review these guidelines and update them on a yearly basis as new scientific evidence becomes available.

Phenotypic cross-resistance to nelfinavir: the role of prior antiretroviral therapy and the number of mutations in the protease gene

Cross-resistance to nelfinavir (NFV) is observed in patients failing protease inhibitor (PI)-containing therapies. We performed a study with 111 patients who started an NFV-based salvage regimen after failing PI-based therapy to evaluate genotypic changes and to identify factors associated with resistance to NFV. Genotypic and phenotypic resistance data at entry (111 and 51 samples) and after NFV failure (74 and 31 samples) were available. Median CD4(+) cell count was 208 x 10(6)/liter, HIV RNA level was 4.6 log(10) copies/ml, and median number of mutations in the protease was 9. At baseline, 51 and 14% of viral isolates showed high or intermediate phenotypic resistance to NFV. Phenotypic data correlated with virological outcome, reaching undetectability at the third month in 40, 14, and 0% of those patients with susceptible, intermediate, or resistant viral isolates, respectively. Phenotypic resistance to NFV was associated with the presence of the L90M mutation: 46% for resistant vs. 6% in susceptible strains. The number of mutations in the protease correlated with the fold-increase in the IC(50)-NFV. The D30N mutation was detected in only 1 of 74 patients who failed. In a logistic regression analysis, the number of mutations in the protease was associated with NFV cross-resistance (RR, 2.09 per each additional mutation; 95% CI 1.23-3.55; p < 0.01). In conclusion, phenotypic cross-resistance to NFV for PI-experienced patients can be predicted by the number of mutations in the protease. The L90M mutation is significantly associated with the subsequent failure of NFV-containing regimens. The presence of the D30N mutation was rare and not useful in identifying NFV-resistant isolates.

Rapid and simple phenotypic assay for drug susceptibility of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 using CCR5-expressing HeLa/CD4(+) cell clone 1-10 (MAGIC-5)

We describe a rapid and simple novel phenotypic assay for drug susceptibility of human immunodeficiency virus type-1 (HIV-1) using a CCR5-expressing HeLa/CD4(+) cell clone 1-10 (MAGIC-5). MAGIC-5 cells produced large amounts of HIV-1 in culture supernatants, which enabled us to perform the phenotypic resistance assay. Determination of HIV-1 susceptibility to various protease inhibitors (PI) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors was completed within 15 days in T-cell-tropic (X4) and macrophage-tropic (R5) viruses using fresh plasma samples containing at least 10(4) copies/ml. The nucleotide sequence of the envelope V3 region of HIV-1 in plasma was almost identical to that of the virus isolated by MAGIC-5 cells, suggesting a lack of selection bias in our assay. The assay variability was confined to within five-fold in all drugs examined. Accordingly, we used a 10-fold increase in the 50% inhibitory concentration as the cutoff value for viral resistance in the present assay. HIV-1 resistant to lamivudine, which was not detected by conventional genotypic assays, was isolated. In HIV-1 with PI-associated primary amino acid substitutions, our assay showed that drug resistance profiles correlated well with previously reported genotypic-assay data. Furthermore, our assay provided comprehensive results regarding PI resistance in the presence of multiple mutations. The novel assay successfully quantified the level of resistance of clinical HIV-1 isolates to a battery of anti-HIV drugs, indicating its clinical usefulness, particularly in patients who failed to respond to antiretroviral chemotherapy.

The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in patients with advanced HIV infection: impact on medical, palliative care, and quality of life outcomes

The effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in the treatment of HIV infection is usually measured by survival, CD4 lymphocyte counts, HIV-1 RNA viral load testing, and the occurrence of opportunistic infections. This pilot study sought to measure the impact of HAART treatments on a wide range of clinical outcomes and psychological variables in a sample of patients with advanced HIV infection. Seventy patients with advanced AIDS who were protease inhibitor naïve were started on HAART regimens. Patients were admitted to an AIDS inpatient unit of a long-term care facility that provides treatment and palliative care. All patients were diagnosed with AIDS, had CD4 cell counts below 300/cc(3), and had a projected survival of greater than one month. Patients were started on triple-drug HAART regimens with daily medical supervision and observation. In addition to standard clinical and laboratory markers, a series of observer-rated and self-report instruments were used to measure various physical and psychological factors (e.g., pain and symptom distress, psychological well-being, depression). Data were collected at baseline and after 1 and 3 months of HAART therapy. As expected, the CD4 count increased and viral load levels decreased significantly over the 3-month study period. In addition, patients improved significantly in body weight, and serum albumin and ferritin levels. The only psychosocial measure that improved significantly with treatment was depression. Ratings of pain intensity, physical and psychological symptom distress, and overall quality of life did not change. Of the 70 patients studied, 84.3% were still alive after the 3-month study period. Of these, 6 (8.6%) were discharged to community. However, 17 surviving patients (24.3%) had HAART regimens discontinued due to drug intolerance and 11 patients (15.7%) expired during the study period. While these data are preliminary, HAART regimens appear to have positive effects on CD4 count, HIV viral load, and several other measures of physical well-being in patients with advanced AIDS. Despite these improvements, the benefits of treatment on pain and symptom distress, and psychological well-being were less clear. In addition, treatment failure (mortality and intolerance) were not uncommon in this sample (40%). Further research is clearly necessary to better understand the benefits of HAART therapy in patients with advanced HIV infection.

Predictors of Virological Response in HIV-Infected Patients to Salvage Antiretroviral Therapy that Includes Nelfinavir

Different salvage strategies have been used to regain control in patients with HIV who have virological failure on combination antiretroviral therapy. We conducted a cohort study of 63 extensively antiretroviral pretreated patients who initiated nelfinavir as part of salvage therapy, to determine predictors of virological response. The maximum HIV RNA response was >0.5 log10 copies/ml reduction in 43 patients (68%), including 21 patients (33%) who had suppression to <500 copies/ml. Corresponding response rates at 24 weeks were 41 and 19%, respectively. Responders and non-responders could not be distinguished by mean baseline HIV RNA or CD4 cell count, duration of prior protease inhibitor (PI) use, introduction of an initial non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor or the number of antiretroviral agents changed when nelfinavir was added, likely reflecting the homogeneity of the population studied. The only parameter predictive of response was virus genotype. Response rates were lower in patients with increasing numbers of primary ( P=0.045) or secondary ( P=0.001) PI mutations. The addition of increasing numbers of reverse transcriptase mutations further impaired response rates ( P=0.004).

Clinical monitoring of HIV-1 infection in the ERA of antiretroviral resistance testing

Viral replication of HIV-1 in the human body is a dynamic process. Incomplete suppression of replication during antiretroviral therapy ultimately selects for resistance that imparts an adaptive advantage to HIV-1. Therefore, the goal of antiretroviral therapy is complete suppression of viral replication. Viral suppression to below the lowest possible limits of detection has been associated with an optimal clinical response and delay of drug resistance. An ultrasensitive viral load assay with a very low threshold of detection remains our best laboratory tool to monitor the response to therapy. Patients may fail HAART for many reasons. Only when other potential causes of treatment failure are excluded should antiretroviral resistance testing be considered. Genotypic and phenotypic assays for assessing resistance are now available, and recent retrospective and prospective data support their use in clinical management as an adjunct to helping to choose among different antiretroviral drugs. Despite the growing enthusiasm for these tests, improvements in sensitivity, turnaround time, and quality control are still needed. A practitioner's decision about when to initiate or change therapy in an HIV-infected patient should depend primarily on viral load results, and not on antiretroviral resistance test results. Moreover, resistance testing is no substitute for a thorough clinical and drug history. As we approach the third decade of the HIV epidemic, we will learn how to use antiretroviral resistance tests in conjunction with (not in lieu of) proven clinical and laboratory tools.

[Genotypic resistance to antiretroviral drugs in patients with therapeutic failure to highly active antiretroviral therapy]

BACKGROUND

To assess genotypic resistance mutations in patients with virological failure with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) METHODS: Genotyping of reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease (PRO) HIV-1 genes were carried out in 33 adherent patients failing on HAART.

RESULTS

Resistance mutations were found in 32 of the 33; 27 of them (81.8%) being primary mutations: 26 (78.8%) in the RT gene and 60 (60.6%) in the PRO gene. Overall, 66.6% had genotypic resistance to two drugs and 60.6% showed resistance to drugs belonging to the two main classes of antiretroviral drugs. At the time of treatment failure, 72.7% had on their therapeutic regimen one antiretroviral drug to which they had resistance mutations, 48.5% had genotypic resistance to two drugs of the therapeutic regimen and 21.2% to three drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Most adherent patients failing on HAART carry drug resistant genotypes. These patients may constitute a reservoir of multidrug resistant HIV that may limit treatment options in the future.

The cumulative occurrence of resistance mutations in the HIV-1 protease gene is associated with failure of salvage therapy with ritonavir and saquinavir in protease inhibitor-experienced patients

Salvage therapy with ritonavir (RTV) and saquinavir (SQV) failed to achieve virological and immunological improvement in 24 HIV-infected patients who discontinued triple therapy with RTV or indinavir (IDV) because of failure or intolerance to treatment. Changes in the HIV-1 protease gene sequence were analyzed prospectively in 14 patients. No primary protease mutation was found prior to the use of protease inhibitors. After 7 months of treatment with IDV or RTV, primary resistance mutations at codons pol 46 and/or pol 82 were observed in 11 of 13 patients. After 16 weeks on RTV-SQV, novel primary mutations related to SQV emerged in 7 of 13 patients, together with an increase in the number of secondary resistance mutations. Our observations indicate that the cumulative occurrence of resistance mutations in the protease gene was associated with failure of antiretroviral therapy. The presence of mutations to a first protease inhibitor may represent a risk factor for the failure of a subsequent treatment with a second line protease inhibitor.

Phenotypic testing predicts virological response in successive protease inhibitor-based regimens

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the importance of the number of active drugs, as determined by phenotypic resistance testing, in achieving virological response in successive salvage regimens.

DESIGN

Phenotypic study of 57 plasma samples corresponding to 24 patients who had sequentially received three protease inhibitor-containing regimens. Phenotypic susceptibility to a drug (active drug) was defined as less than a four-fold-increase in the IC50 in comparison with the wild type.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Virological response according to the number of active drugs (three versus two or fewer), HIV load, length of antiretroviral exposure, and line of protease inhibitor-based therapy (first, second and third regimen).

RESULTS

Before the first protease inhibitor-based therapy, the median time on antiretroviral treatment was 42 months, and before the second and third protease inhibitor-salvage regimens it was 10 and 8 months, respectively. The number of patients receiving three active drugs simultaneously was 24, 35 and 31% in each line of therapy. At week 12, a close correlation was found between the presence of three active drugs in the antiretroviral regimen and the rate of virological response, in comparison with those patients receiving two or fewer active drugs [76 versus 45%, relative risk (RR), 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.6; P = 0.028]. In a multivariate analysis, the use of two or fewer active drugs was an independent predictor of lack of response, regardless of HIV load, length of previous antiretroviral exposure and line of salvage therapy (RR, 4.5; 95%CI, 1.1-18.3; P = 0.03). Of note, a higher rate of response was observed in patients receiving the first protease inhibitor-containing regimen in comparison with those in subsequent protease inhibitor-based salvage regimens (83 versus 50 versus 28%, P < 0.01), even when only those patients receiving three active drugs were included (100 versus 71 versus 60%).

CONCLUSIONS

This data confirm the usefulness of phenotypic testing in guiding antiretroviral therapy in heavily pretreated patients. The number of active drugs and the line of salvage therapy are independent predictors of virological response, regardless of HIV load and the length of antiretroviral exposure.

Prevalence of drug resistant mutants and virological response to combination therapy in patients with primary HIV-1 infection

Baseline genotype resistance analysis was carried out in 48 adults with primary HIV-1 infection between 1995 and 1998 before starting early combination therapy. Seventeen percent (8/48) of the isolates displayed key mutations conferring resistance to reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors such as amino acid substitutions 215Y/F (5/48,10%), 70R (3/48, 6%), 184V (2%). Two percent (1/48) had a major mutation associated with resistance to protease inhibitors (D30N). Other mutations at positions 10, 15, 20, 33, 36, 46, 63, 71, 77, 82, 93 of the protease gene were frequent (73%). Among the 46 patients who were given antiretroviral combination therapy and who responded durably to treatment after 6 and 12 months, there was no significant difference between those harboring RT mutant strains (Group I) and those with wild-type isolates (Group II). No significant difference was found at months 6 and 12 between the two groups in terms of CD4+ cell counts. These findings suggest that the presence of drug-resistant strains at the time of primary HIV-1 infection does not necessarily predict drug failure. Other factors, such as adherence to treatment, tolerance and pharmacokinetics parameters are probably major determinants of virological response in patients with early therapeutic intervention.

Clinical utility of testing human immunodeficiency virus for drug resistance

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 drug-resistance testing is quickly moving from the research laboratory to the clinic as data defining its utility as a prognostic indicator of response to therapy become available. In July 1998, a panel of the International AIDS Society-USA did not recommend the widespread application of resistance testing, but by May 2000 this panel endorsed and recommended the incorporation of resistance testing in patient-care management. Considerable data supporting the use of drug-resistance testing have now been published or presented at international conferences. These data strongly suggest that drug-resistance testing is of considerable value in many clinical settings. Prospective trials of resistance testing as a clinical management tool are still ongoing, and the long-term benefits still need to be evaluated. Nevertheless, early results from several studies showed a significantly better virological response when treatment regimens were based on resistance-testing data, rather than on the standard of care. HIV drug-resistance testing is also useful as a tool for new antiretroviral drug design and development, as well as for monitoring the spread of primary HIV drug resistance.

Salvage therapy with abacavir plus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and a protease inhibitor in heavily pre-treated HIV-1 infected patients. Swiss HIV Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) may fail, especially in pre-treated patients.

OBJECTIVE

To examine retrospectively whether heavily pre-treated patients not responding to HAART at least once respond to a salvage therapy with abacavir, a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) plus a non-nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) and one or two protease inhibitors (PI).

PATIENTS

We retrospectively identified and analysed patients followed in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study with > 1000 HIV RNA copies/ml on HAART, naive to abacavir who were switched to abacavir plus one NNRTI (efavirenz or nevirapine) and one or two PI which had not been used in the previous HAART.

RESULTS

Of 23 identified HIV-infected patients with four (median) therapy changes before salvage, 10 patients (43%) achieved a decrease of plasma HIV RNA > 0.5 log10 at 6 months of therapy. After 6 months only two patients had an HIV-1 RNA < 500 copies/ml, one of them < 50 copies/ml. Seven patients increased their CD4 cell counts by > 30% above baseline. Three patients, all with CD4 cell counts < 100 x 10(6)/l before salvage therapy had a > 30% decline in CD4 cell count. An extended number of resistance-associated mutations was found in almost all patients at baseline. One patient had two new AIDS-defining events. Five patients (22%) discontinued treatment because of side-effects, mainly occurrence of a rash.

CONCLUSION

Salvage therapy in intensively pre-treated patients has a low virological success rate despite usage of abacavir and NNRTI. Nevertheless, this did not correlate with immunological and clinical course. This study emphasizes the difficulty of second-line treatment in HIV-1 infection and stresses the need for new compounds.

HIV resistance testing: value for money

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related morbidity and mortality has declined dramatically with the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) into routine HIV care (Palella et al, 1998). Nevertheless, many health authorities continue to struggle with the excessive health-care costs for HIV infection (Perdue et al, 1998). With the emergence of viral resistance testing as a potentially useful adjuvant to standard HIV care, budget pressures will certainly increase.

A novel phenotypic drug susceptibility assay for human immunodeficiency virus type 1

Although combination antiretroviral therapy has resulted in a considerable improvement in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 (HIV-1) infection, the emergence of resistant virus is a significant obstacle to the effective management of HIV infection and AIDS. We have developed a novel phenotypic drug susceptibility assay that may be useful in guiding therapy and improving long-term suppression of HIV replication. Susceptibility to protease (PR) and reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors is measured by using resistance test vectors (RTVs) that contain a luciferase indicator gene and PR and RT sequences derived from HIV-1 in patient plasma. Cells are transfected with RTV DNA, resulting in the production of virus particles that are used to infect target cells. Since RTVs are replication defective, luciferase activity is measured following a single round of replication. The assay has been automated to increase throughput and is completed in 8 to 10 days. Test results may be useful in facilitating the selection of optimal treatment regimens for patients who have failed prior therapy or drug-naive patients infected with drug-resistant virus. In addition, the assay can be used to evaluate candidate drugs and assist in the development of new drugs that are active against resistant strains of HIV-1.

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.

The relation between baseline HIV drug resistance and response to antiretroviral therapy: re-analysis of retrospective and prospective studies using a standardized data analysis plan

To assess the relation between resistance to antiretroviral drugs for treatment of HIV-1 infection and virological response to therapy, results from 12 different studies were re-analysed according to a standard data analysis plan. These studies included nine clinical trials and three observational cohorts. The primary end-point in our analyses was virological failure by week 24. Baseline factors that were investigated as predictors of virological failure were plasma HIV-1 RNA, the number and type of new antiretroviral drugs in the regimen, and viral susceptibility to the drugs in the regimen, determined by genotyping or phenotyping methods. These analyses confirmed the importance of both genotypic and phenotypic drug resistance as predictors of virological failure, whether these factors were analysed separately or adjusted for other baseline confounding factors. In most of the re-analysed studies, the odds of virological failure were reduced by about twofold for each additional drug in the regimen to which the patient's virus was sensitive by genotyping methods, and by about two- to threefold for each additional drug that was sensitive by phenotyping.

Immunopathological factors for vertical transmission of HIV-1

With the global rise in human immunodeficiency virus-1 (HIV-1) infection in women of childbearing age, there has also been an alarming rise in the number of mother-to-child transmissions of HIV-1. Although drug therapies such as zidovudine as well as nevirapine have been demonstrated to significantly decrease the incidence of vertical transmission of HIV-1, these therapeutic regimens are still not widely available in some developing countries where maternal-to-child transmission of HIV-1 continues to occur at an alarming rate. Therefore, the continued studies of mechanisms and correlates of vertical transmission of HIV-1 are warranted. The current status of immunological and virological correlates of vertical transmission are summarized in this review. In addition, information concerning recent therapeutic agents for the prevention of HIV-1 vertical transmission is presented.

Quantification of the impact of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase and protease mutations on the efficacy of rescue HAART

The reduction in the efficacy of rescue treatment (administered on a clinical basis) due to drug resistance was retrospectively quantified in 55 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected patients failing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) by using a novel score calculation system based upon HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease (PR) mutations. Patients were all naive for nelfinavir (NFV) and efavirenz (EFV) and were assigned to one of the following rescue therapy schedules: (i) 17 patients received NFV + EFV + stavudine (d4T) (group A); (ii) 14 patients received NFV + saquinavir (SQV) + lamivudine (3TC) + d4T/zidovudine (AZT) (group B); (iii) 19 patients received NFV + d4T + didanosine (ddI)/3TC/zalcitabine (ddC) (group C); (iv) five patients received miscellaneous treatments including NFV (group D). Responders were considered patients showing a drop in HIV-1 RNA level > 0.5 log10 after 3 months of therapy. Forty-eight (28 responders and 20 non-responders) out of 55 patients completed the first 3 months of rescue therapy and reduction in HIV-1 viral load was found to be significantly higher in group A compared to groups B and C (81.2% responders vs. 38.5 and 40.0%, respectively). At baseline, no patient carried EFV- or d4T-resistant HIV-1 strains, despite prolonged administration of d4T, while 41/48 (87.2%) patients had mutations conferring resistance to NFV in the absence of previous treatment with this drug. A significant inverse correlation between reduction in viral load and reduction in therapy efficacy due to drug resistance, as determined by the score calculation system, was found (r = 0.62). A cut-off value of 36% reduction in therapy efficacy showed a positive predictive value (capacity to detect failure of rescue treatment) of 81.2% and a negative predictive value (ability to detect successful treatment) of 75.8%. In addition, 45 out of 48 patients completed also the 9-12 month period of rescue therapy and 10/28 responders had a rebound in HIV-1 viral load level detected after the first 3 months of rescue therapy. Of these, 5/7 (71.4%) showed a further reduction in rescue therapy efficacy due to the emergence of new mutations.

Multiple sites in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase associated with virological response to combination therapy

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether analysis of sequence variation in reverse transcriptase at baseline can explain differences in response to combination antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

Amino acid sequences of reverse transcriptase obtained from baseline isolates from 55 patients included in a trial of zidovudine and didanosine versus zidovudine/didanosine/nevirapine (ACTG241) were analysed. Simple and multiple linear regression were used to determine the relationship between numbers and identity of mutations at baseline and virological response after 8 and 48 weeks.

RESULTS

Numbers of baseline zidovudine resistance mutations were predictive of short-term response (week 8). Amino acid identity at position 215 explained > 20% of the variation in response at week 8, but less at week 48. Multiple regression identified the combinations: 215 + 44 and 41 + 202, each of which explained about 30% of the variation in week 8 response. A model incorporating amino acids 214 + 215 + 60 + 202 + baseline viral load explained > 40% of the variation in response at week 48. Unexpectedly, the mutant combination 601 + 215Y/F responded threefold better than 60V + 215Y/F over 48 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of clinical data to analyse virological response to combination therapy has revealed effects of baseline amino acid mutations at sites not previously identified as being important in antiretroviral resistance. Predictors of long-term responses were different from those involved in the short term and may require more complex analysis.

Persisting Long-Term Benefit of Genotype-Guided Treatment for HIV-Infected Patients Failing Haart. The Viradapt Study: Week 48 Follow-Up

Objective

We report the 12 months follow-up of the patients who participated in the Viradapt study.

Methods

A total of 108 HIV-infected patients failing antiretroviral (ARV) therapy (HIV RNA >10000 copies/ml, therapy >6 months with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, >3 months with protease inhibitors (PIs) were randomized into two arms: standard of care in the control arm, and treatment according to the resistance mutations in the protease and reverse transcriptase genes in the study arm. After the first 6 months of the randomized study, open-label, genotype-guided treatment was offered in both arms. A multivariate analysis was performed to assess the predictive factors of treatment success (HIV RNA <200 copies/ml).

Results

The two arms were comparable in terms of risk factors, age, sex, previous treatments, CD4 cell count and log10 HIV-1 RNA at baseline. At week 24, an interim combined analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the drop in viral load at months 3 and 6 ( P=0.015, repeated measures analysis of variance) in favour of the genotype group. Patients in both arms were then offered open-label genotyping. Genotype analysis was performed every 3 months, and treatment changes could accordingly be made. As some of the patients in the control arm had already progressed to months 9 or 12, only 69% (30/43) of these patients received genotype-guided treatment changes. In the genotype arm, the mean drop in HIV RNA of 1.15 log10 copies/ml, obtained at month 6, persisted at months 9 and 12 (1.15 log10 copies/ml ±0.17). In the control arm, an additional drop in HIV RNA to 0.98 log10 ±0.22 copies/ml was observed by month 12. In control patients receiving open-label genotype, the percentage of patients with HIV-1 RNA levels below detection limit (200 copies/ml) rose from 14% at month 6 to 30.5% at month 12. This percentage in the study arm remained stable at 31.3% and 30% at months 9 and 12, respectively. Genotype-guided therapy, primary protease mutations and PI plasma concentrations were significantly correlated with virological success.

Conclusions

In this heavily pretreated patient population, genotype-guided therapy resulted in a sustained reduction in HIV RNA of greater than one log10 throughout a 1 year follow-up period. Performance of genotype-guided therapy may have contributed to the additional viral load reduction seen in patients in the control group who received open-label genotyping after the 6 month point. Multivariate analysis showed that the presence of primary protease mutations, performance of genotype-guided treatment changes and PI plasma concentrations independently affected virological response.

Efavirenz, nelfinavir, and stavudine rescue combination therapy in HIV-1-positive patients heavily pretreated with nucleoside analogues and protease inhibitors

Tolerability, activity, and pharmacokinetic parameters of a combination therapy with efavirenz (EFV), nelfinavir (NFV), and stavudine (d4T) were evaluated in this study. Forty-seven HIV-1-infected study subjects, naive to NFV and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), who had experienced virologic failure while being treated with combination antiretroviral therapies including protease inhibitors (PIs), were enrolled. At baseline, HIV-1 viral load in plasma was 4.8 log10, CD4+ count was 204 cells/microl (both mean values); patients had received a mean of 3.1 different treatments (range, 2-5 treatments). Study medications were generally well tolerated; 7 of 47 patients (14.8%) were dropped from the study because of related drug toxicity. At week 24, mean plasma viral load (pVL) was reduced by 1.9 log10, with mean CD4+ count increased to 324 cells/microl (+/-59% from baseline); pVL was below the limit of detection (500 copies/ml) in 46.1% of patients. An extended follow-up study was performed at 12 months. Results showed a reduction of 1.7 log10 in pVL from basal values that was consistent with values observed at months 3 and 6. A history of previous use of PIs represented a negative prognostic marker. Sequencing analysis, performed in a subset of patients, showed the presence of multiple point mutations associated with PI resistance. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated a marked interindividual variability in NFV plasma concentrations, producing in 4 of 18 patients (22%) trough concentrations lower than minimum effective concentration. In pretreated patients, further studies are needed to characterize the pharmacokinetic factors that affect response to therapy and the association of these results with the 95% inhibitory concentration (IC95) determined by phenotyping.

HIV-1 genotypic resistance patterns predict response to saquinavir-ritonavir therapy in patients in whom previous protease inhibitor therapy had failed

BACKGROUND

Tests for resistance to HIV drugs are available for clinical use; however, their predictive value has not been fully assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine HIV-1 genotypic predictors of a virologic response to saquinavir-ritonavir therapy in patients in whom at least one previous protease inhibitor-containing regimen had failed and to compare the predictive value of baseline genotype with that of standard clinical evaluation.

DESIGN

Retrospective clinical cohort study.

SETTING

University-based HIV clinic.

PATIENTS

54 HIV-1-infected adults treated with saquinavir-ritonavir who had experienced virologic failure while receiving a protease inhibitor-containing regimen for at least 3 months.

MEASUREMENTS

HIV-1 reverse transcriptase and protease gene sequences, CD4 cell counts, clinical characteristics, detailed antiretroviral treatment history, and plasma HIV-1 RNA levels at baseline and at three follow-up time points (median, 4, 12, and 26 weeks). Virologic failure was defined as a plasma HIV RNA level greater than 1000 copies/mL.

RESULTS

In 22 patients (41%), a plasma HIV-1 RNA level less than 500 copies/mL was achieved by week 12; in 15 patients (28%), this response was maintained through week 26. Clinical characteristics predicting a poorer response included a diagnosis of AIDS, lower CD4 cell count, and higher plasma HIV RNA level (P<0.03). Number of previous nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, previous protease inhibitor therapy, and duration of previous protease inhibitor therapy were predictors of poorer response (P<0.01). Multivariate regression models revealed that protease mutations present at the initiation of saquinavir-ritonavir therapy were the strongest predictors of virologic response. A model of clinical features explained up to 45% of the variation in virologic outcomes by week 12, whereas the explained variance was 71% when genotypic predictors were included.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients in whom protease inhibitor-containing antiretroviral therapy fails, HIV-1 genotype is predictive of virologic response to subsequent therapy. This predictive capacity adds to that of standard clinical evaluation.

Indinavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV infection

Indinavir is a protease inhibitor used in the treatment of patients with HIV infection. Combination antiretroviral therapy with indinavir plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is associated with greater reductions in viral load, greater increases in CD4+ cell counts, and reduced morbidity and mortality when compared with 2 NRTIs alone. In the landmark clinical trial ACTG 320, the rate of progression to AIDS or death (primary end-point) among zidovudine-experienced patients treated with indinavir, zidovudine and lamivudine was approximately half that of patients who received only zidovudine plus lamivudine (6 vs 11%; p < 0.001). The durability of an indinavir-containing regimen was demonstrated in Merck protocol 035, an ongoing trial in which a significant proportion of patients had sustained viral suppression for up to 3 years. Merck protocol 039, also an ongoing trial, showed a greater effect on surrogate markers of HIV disease progression with indinavir-based triple therapy than with zidovudine plus lamivudine or indinavir monotherapy in patients with advanced disease (median baseline CD4+ count 15 cells/microL). Numerous additional clinical trials have established the beneficial antiviral and immunological effects of indinavir in both antiretroviral-naive and -experienced patients with HIV infection. Indinavir is associated with various drug class-related adverse events, including gastrointestinal disturbances (e.g. nausea, diarrhoea), headache and asthenia/fatigue. A lipodystrophy syndrome has been commonly reported with indinavir and other protease inhibitors combined with NRTIs, but it has also been reported in many protease inhibitor-naive patients, and a definitive causal link has not been established between the syndrome and protease inhibitors. Nephrolithiasis may develop in about 9% of patients receiving indinavir but does not appear to be associated with other protease inhibitors; <0.5% of patients receiving indinavir discontinue the drug because of nephrolithiasis, which may be the extreme end of a continuum of crystal-related renal syndromes. Additional renal problems (e.g. nephropathy) have been reported in small numbers of patients receiving indinavir. In summary, indinavir is a protease inhibitor with well documented efficacy when used as part of combined therapy in patients with HIV infection. Both US and UK treatment guidelines continue to recommend protease inhibitor-based regimens including indinavir as a first-line option. Indinavir is being studied as a twice daily and once daily regimen with a low dosage of ritonavir as a way to alleviate tolerability, drug interaction and patient compliance/adherence issues. Indinavir-containing triple therapy has demonstrated positive effects not only on surrogate markers of disease progression, but also on clinical end-points of mortality and morbidity in patients with HIV disease. Protease inhibitors are a significant advance in the care of patients with HIV infection, and, in an era of evidence-based medicine, indinavir represents an important component of antiretroviral treatment strategies.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess the patterns of HIV phenotypic cross-resistance to protease inhibitors (PI) in patients experiencing viral load rebound on combination therapy including a PI.

METHODS

Phenotypic analysis of sensitivity to indinavir, nelfinavir, saquinavir, ritonavir and amprenavir was carried out using a single-cycle recombinant virus assay. Viral protease was sequenced by automated dideoxynucleotide chain termination.

RESULTS

Of the 108 patients studied, 68 had received indinavir, 50 ritonavir, 25 saquinavir and eight nelfinavir. The majority (71%) had received only one PI. The incidence of cross-resistance between indinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir was high (60-90%). Cross-resistance to amprenavir was less frequent (37-40%). However there was some correlation between levels of sensitivity to amprenavir and indinavir (r2 = 0.34; P < 0.01). Conversely, the correlation between levels of sensitivity to indinavir and saquinavir was poor (r2 = 0.25), particularly for patients who had not received saquinavir. The degree of cross-resistance correlated with the level of resistance and with the total number of mutations in the protease gene (P < 0.05, chi square test) but could not be significantly correlated to any one particular mutation or combination of mutations. Mutation 184V was significantly associated with cross-resistance to amprenavir, with no mutations at codon 50 observed, while mutations associated with cross-resistance to saquinavir differed according to the treatment received.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that, although the total number of protease mutations correlates with the degree of cross-resistance, the specific mechanisms accounting for primary resistance and for cross-resistance may be different.

Transmission of antiretroviral-drug-resistant HIV-1 variants

BACKGROUND

Resistance of HIV-1 to antiretroviral drugs is the main cause of antiretroviral-treatment failure. We assessed the transmission of drug-resistant variants among individuals with primary HIV-1 infection.

METHODS

Population-based sequencing of the viral reverse-transcriptase and protease genes derived from plasma viral RNA was done in 82 consecutive individuals with documented primary HIV-1 infection from January, 1996, to July, 1998. Phenotypic resistance to protease inhibitors was assessed by recombinant virus assay in individuals with two or more mutations associated with resistance to protease inhibitors.

FINDINGS

Zidovudine-resistance mutations were detected in seven (9%) of 82 individuals. Mutations associated with resistance to other reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (RTIs) were detected in two individuals. Primary-resistance mutations associated with protease inhibitors (V82A, L90M) were detected in three (4%) of 70 individuals; two of these had also RTI-resistance mutations. Decreased sensitivity to three or four protease inhibitors was seen in three individuals, one of whom was infected with HIV-1 variants that harboured 12 mutations associated with resistance to multiple RTI and protease inhibitors.

INTERPRETATION

To introduce the best antiretroviral treatment, resistance testing should be done in recently HIV-1-infected individuals.

Antiretroviral Drug Resistance in HIV-1

Progress in understanding antiretroviral resistance has evolved rapidly in recent years. Specific resistance mutations have been associated with virologic failure of different nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). These mutations vary in the extent of cross resistance they confer to other drugs in the same class. In addition, two novel mutational patterns conferring resistance to multiple NRTIs have been recognized. Considerable class-specific cross resistance also exists among viruses with reduced susceptibility to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). Among protease inhibitors, low level resistance that arises early during virologic failure may be drug specific in some situations, but high level resistance seen later during suboptimal therapy is likely to confer cross resistance to the entire class. Prevalence of drug resistance in infected patients appears to be considerable, and transmission of multidrug-resistant virus has been documented. Current methods of testing for resistance are promising, but they have significant limitations and require further clinical validation. The best approach to prevent resistance is to start treatment early during infection with a regimen that engenders good compliance and is potent enough to decrease viral load to below detection limits of the most sensitive assay available. Once resistance arises, salvage regimens in general have compromised efficacy and should be planned with attention to the patient's prior drug treatment history and the viruses' suspected or demonstrated resistance patterns.

Salvage treatment against human immunodeficiency virus

Despite dramatic declines in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated morbidity and mortality as a result of highly active antiretroviral combination therapies, including protease inhibitors, treatment failure occurs at such high rates as 20-50%. As drug regimens are very demanding, even short decreases of drug concentrations may trigger resistance. Viral loads can be decreased to very low concentrations, and there is no strict cut-off regarding the definition of treatment failure. Nevertheless, continuous detection of HIV of more than 50 copies per mL blood plasma is a predictor of increasing viral loads and of a suboptimal response to therapy. From a theoretical point of view, treatment changes should be made at low HIV RNA levels, but fewer options often dictate a more conservative approach. Drug susceptibility testing will be of increasing value, especially in patients experiencing drug failure for the first time. Success of salvage therapies is closely connected with the use of new compounds including new drug classes. As drugs susceptible to a multi-drug-resistant HIV are not yet available, regimens with more than three or even with five to nine drugs are used in clinical trials. Salvage therapies often fail in virological terms, ie in 50-80% of patients, depending primarily on the treatment history, but immunological and clinical stability can often be achieved.

Clinical progression and virological failure on highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 patients: a prospective cohort study. Swiss HIV Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in suppression of HIV-1 is well documented. We investigated virological and clinical outcomes of HAART in routine practice.

METHODS

We analysed prospective data from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study on suppression of viral load and progression to AIDS or death in 2674 outpatients (median age 36 years, 27.3% women) who started HAART in 1995-98. Viral rebound was defined as two consecutive HIV-1-RNA measurements of more than 400 copies/mL. We analysed separately outcomes in patients with a history of antiretroviral treatment and in treatment-naïve patients.

FINDINGS

An estimated 90.7% of treatment-naïve patients reached undetectable viral load (<400 copies/mL) by 12 months. Among pretreated patients, estimates ranged from 70.3% treated with one new drug to 78.7% on three new drugs. 2 years after reaching undetectable concentrations, an estimated 20.1% of treatment-naïve patients and 35.7-40.1% of pretreated patients had viral rebound. At 30 months, an estimated 6.6% (95% CI 4.6-8.6) of patients who had maintained undetectable concentrations, 9.0% (5.5-12.5) who had viral rebound, and 20.1% (15.3-24.9) who had never reached undetectable concentrations developed AIDS or died. Compared with patients who maintained undetectable viral load, the adjusted relative hazard of AIDS or death was 1.00 (0.66-1.55) for patients with viral rebound, and 2.40 (1.72-3.33) for patients who failed to reach undetectable concentrations.

INTERPRETATION

The rate of virological failure of HAART was high among these patients, but the probability of clinical progression was low even in patients with viral rebound.