Evaluation of etravirine resistance in clinical samples by a simple phenotypic test

A simple and cost-saving phenotypic drug susceptibility testing of HIV-1

It is essential to monitor the occurrence of drug-resistant strains and to provide guidance for clinically adapted antiviral treatment of HIV/AIDS. In this study, an individual patient's HIV-1 pol gene encoding the full length of protease and part of the reverse transcriptase was packaged into a modified lentivirus carrying dual-reporters ZsGreen and luciferase. The optimal coefficient of correlation between drug concentration and luciferase activity was optimized. A clear-cut dose-dependent relationship between lentivirus production and luciferase activity was found in the phenotypic testing system. Fold changes (FC) to a wild-type control HIV-1 strain ratios were determined reflecting the phenotypic susceptibility of treatment-exposed patient's HIV-1 strains to 12 HIV-1 inhibitors including 6 nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), 4 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and 2 protease inhibitors (PIs). Phenotypic susceptibility calls from 8 HIV-1 infected patients were consistent with 80-90% genotypic evaluations, while phenotypic assessments rectified 10-20% genotypic resistance calls. By a half of replacement with ZsGreen reporter, the consumption of high cost Bright-Glo Luciferase Assay is reduced, making this assay cheaper when a large number of HIV-1 infected individuals are tested. The study provides a useful tool for interpreting meaningful genotypic mutations and guiding tailored antiviral treatment of HIV/AIDS in clinical practice.

Phenotype, Genotype, and Drug Resistance in Subtype C HIV-1 Infection

BACKGROUND

Virologic failure in subtype C is characterized by high resistance to first-line antiretroviral (ARV) drugs, including efavirenz, nevirapine, and lamivudine, with nucleoside resistance including type 2 thymidine analog mutations, K65R, a T69del, and M184V. However, genotypic algorithms predicting resistance are mainly based on subtype B viruses and may under- or overestimate drug resistance in non-B subtypes. To explore potential treatment strategies after first-line failure, we compared genotypic and phenotypic susceptibility of subtype C human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) following first-line ARV failure.

METHODS

AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5230 evaluated patients failing an initial nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) regimen in Africa and Asia, comparing the genotypic drug resistance and phenotypic profile from the PhenoSense (Monogram). Site-directed mutagenesis studies of K65R and T69del assessed the phenotypic impact of these mutations.

RESULTS

Genotypic algorithms overestimated resistance to etravirine and rilpivirine, misclassifying 28% and 32%, respectively. Despite K65R with the T69del in 9 samples, tenofovir retained activity in >60%. Reversion of the K65R increased susceptibility to tenofovir and other nucleosides, while reversion of the T69del showed increased resistance to zidovudine, with little impact on other NRTI.

CONCLUSIONS

Although genotype and phenotype were largely concordant for first-line drugs, estimates of genotypic resistance to etravirine and rilpivirine may misclassify subtype C isolates compared to phenotype.

Decreased phenotypic susceptibility to etravirine in patients with predicted genotypic sensitivity

Background

A sensitive, phenotypic reverse transcriptase (RT)-based drug susceptibility assay for the detection of etravirine (ETR) resistance in patient isolates was developed and compared with the results from direct sequencing and ultra-deep pyrosequencing (UDPS).

Methods

Samples were obtained from 15 patients with antiretroviral therapy (ART) failure and from five non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-naïve patients of whom four were infected by an NNRTI-resistant strain (transmitted drug resistance, TDR). In five patients, two consecutive samples (a and b) were taken for follow up of the virological response. HIV-1 RT was purified and drug susceptibility (IC₅₀) to ETR was estimated. Direct sequencing was performed in all samples and UDPS in samples from nine patients.

Results

Increased IC₅₀ to ETR was found in samples from 13 patients where direct sequencing predicted resistance in only four. UDPS identified additional (N = 11) NNRTI resistance associated mutations (RAMs) in six of nine tested patients. During early failure, IC₅₀ increases were observed in three of six patients without any ETR-RAMs detected by direct sequencing. In further two patients, who stopped NNRTI before sampling, increased IC₅₀ values were found shortly after, despite absence of ETR-RAMs. In two patients who had stopped NNRTI for >1 year, a concordance between phenotype and genotypes was found. Two patients with TDR had increased IC₅₀ despite no ETR-RAMs were detected by direct sequencing. UDPS revealed additional ETR-RAMs in four patients with a discrepancy between phenotype and direct sequencing.

Conclusions

The RT-based phenotypic assay showed decreased ETR susceptibility in patients where direct sequencing predicted ETR-sensitive virus. This increased phenotypic sensitivity was to a large extent supported by UDPS and treatment history. Our method could be valuable for further studies on the phenotypic kinetics of NNRTI resistance. The clinical relevance remains to be studied in larger patient-populations.