Resistant minority species are rarely observed in patients on darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy

A detailed characterization of drug resistance during darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy highlights a high barrier to the emergence of resistance mutations in protease but identifies alternative pathways of resistance

BACKGROUND

Maintenance monotherapy with ritonavir-boosted darunavir has yielded variable outcomes and is not recommended. Trial samples offer valuable opportunities for detailed studies. We analysed samples from a 48 week trial in Cameroon to obtain a detailed characterization of drug resistance.

METHODS

Following failure of NNRTI-based therapy and virological suppression on PI-based therapy, participants were randomized to ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n = 81) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/lamivudine +ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (n = 39). At study entry, PBMC-derived HIV-1 DNA underwent bulk Protease and Reverse Transcriptase (RT) sequencing. At virological rebound (confirmed or last available HIV-1 RNA ≥ 60 copies/mL), plasma HIV-1 RNA underwent ultradeep Protease and RT sequencing and bulk Gag-Protease sequencing. The site-directed mutant T375A (p2/p7) was characterized phenotypically using a single-cycle assay.

RESULTS

NRTI and NNRTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were detected in 52/90 (57.8%) and 53/90 (58.9%) HIV-1 DNA samples, respectively. Prevalence in rebound HIV-1 RNA (ritonavir-boosted darunavir, n = 21; ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, n = 2) was 9/23 (39.1%) and 10/23 (43.5%), respectively, with most RAMs detected at frequencies ≥15%. The resistance patterns of paired HIV-1 DNA and RNA sequences were partially consistent. No darunavir RAMs were found. Among eight participants experiencing virological rebound on ritonavir-boosted darunavir (n = 12 samples), all had Gag mutations associated with PI exposure, including T375N, T375A (p2/p7), K436R (p7/p1) and substitutions in p17, p24, p2 and p6. T375A conferred 10-fold darunavir resistance and increased replication capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

The study highlights the high resistance barrier of ritonavir-boosted darunavir while identifying alternative pathways of resistance through Gag substitutions. During virological suppression, resistance patterns in HIV-1 DNA reflect treatment history, but due to technical and biological considerations, cautious interpretation is warranted.

Development of a highly sensitive ELISA for determination of darunavir in plasma samples using a polyclonal antibody with high affinity and specificity

Aim: To support pharmacokinetic studies and therapeutic monitoring of darunavir (DRV), a highly sensitive ELISA was developed for the determination of DRV in plasma samples at picogram levels. Results: The assay LOD and LOQ were 15 and 30 pg ml-1, respectively. The working range of the assay was 20–2000 pg ml-1. Analytical recoveries of DRV from spiked plasma were in the ranges of 98.4–113.0 and 86.0–99.1% for intra-assay and inter-assay runs, respectively. The precision of the assay was satisfactory. Conclusion: The ELISA is characterized by high throughput and it is expected to significantly contribute to routine analysis of DRV in its pharmacokinetic studies and therapeutic monitoring.

Week 96 efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in virologically suppressed patients with HIV: a randomized non-inferiority trial (ANRS 140 DREAM)

Background

Sparing of antiretroviral drug classes could reduce the toxicity and cost of maintenance treatment for HIV infection.

Objectives

To evaluate the non-inferiority of efficacy and the safety of lopinavir/ritonavir (r) monotherapy versus a single-tablet regimen of efavirenz, emtricitabine and tenofovir (EFV/FTC/TDF) over 2 years.

Methods

Adults on stable ART with plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load <50 copies/mL for the past 12 months and no documented treatment failure were randomized to receive either lopinavir/r or EFV/FTC/TDF for 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients without treatment failure at week 96 (viral load <50 copies/mL at week 96, confirmed at week 98), without study treatment discontinuation, a new AIDS-defining illness, or death.

Results

In the ITT analysis, the primary endpoint was reached by, respectively, 64% and 71% of patients in the lopinavir/r (n = 98) and EFV/FTC/TDF arms (n = 97), yielding a difference of -6.8% (lower limit of the 95% two-sided CI: -19.9%). Sanger and UltraDeep sequencing showed the occurrence of PI mutations in the lopinavir/r arm (n = 4) and of NNRTI and/or NRTI mutations in the EFV/FTC/TDF arm (n = 2). No unexpected serious clinical events occurred.

Conclusions

Lopinavir/r monotherapy cannot be considered non-inferior to EFV/FTC/TDF. PI resistance rarely emerged in the lopinavir/r arm and did not undermine future PI options. Two years of lopinavir/r monotherapy had no deleterious clinical impact when compared with EFV/FTC/TDF.

Next generation sequencing of HIV-1 protease in the PIVOT trial of protease inhibitor monotherapy

•

Next generation sequencing (NGS) was performed on patients on PI monotherapy.

•

It revealed previously unidentified minority variant protease mutations in 3 samples.

•

These mutations do not predict clinically important phenotypic resistance.

Background

The PIVOT trial examined whether patients with suppressed viral load on combination antiretroviral therapy could be safely switched long-term to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) monotherapy. The main trial publication reported that only one of 296 patients allocated to PI monotherapy experienced a loss of drug options due to protease mutations (identified by local Sanger sequencing resistance tests) likely selected by study drug.

Objectives

To assess if we had missed low frequency mutations, using a more sensitive methodology.

Study design

We performed next generation sequencing (NGS) on all available frozen plasma samples with VL >1000 copies/ml from patients who were randomised to PI monotherapy. Assays were performed at Public Health England laboratories using a previously described method.

Median coverage depth was 76,000 and the threshold for detection of minority variants was 2%. Drug susceptibility was predicted using the Stanford HIVdb algorithm.

Results

17 of 26 potential samples, all from different patients, were identified and successfully tested. The median viral load was 6780 copies/ml and the median time since randomisation was 43 weeks. NGS revealed previously unidentified minority variant protease mutations (G73D, I54T, L89V) in three samples, at frequencies ranging between 2% and 10%. None of these mutations predicted intermediate or high level resistance, the trial primary outcome.

Discussion

This report adds to the body of evidence that ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy, when used as a switch strategy with prompt detection of viral load rebound and early re-introduction of combination therapy, rarely leads to the development of clinically important protease resistance mutations.

The Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy Versus Ongoing Triple Therapy (PIVOT) trial: a randomised controlled trial of a protease inhibitor monotherapy strategy for long-term management of human immunodeficiency virus infection

BACKGROUND

Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection uses a combination of drugs, until now considered essential to minimise treatment failure and development of drug resistance. Protease inhibitors (PIs) are potent with a high genetic barrier to resistance and have the potential for use as monotherapy after viral load (VL) suppression achieved on combination therapy. However, longer-term resistance and toxicity risks are uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness, toxicity profile and cost-effectiveness of PI monotherapy with those of standard-of-care triple therapy in a pragmatic long-term clinical trial.

DESIGN

Open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Forty-three HIV clinical centres in the UK NHS.

PARTICIPANTS

HIV-positive adults taking standard combination ART with a suppressed VL for ≥ 6 months.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted PI monotherapy (PI-mono), with prompt return to combination therapy in the event of VL rebound.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was reduction of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-/high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was considered to be sensitive at trial entry (non-inferiority comparison, 10% margin). Secondary outcomes included confirmed virological rebound, serious drug- or disease-related complications, total grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), neurocognitive function change, cluster of differentiation 4 (CD4) cell count change, change in health-related quality of life, cardiovascular risk change, health-care costs and health economic analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 587 participants were randomised (77% male, 68% white) to OT (n = 291) or PI-mono (n = 296) and followed for a median of 44 months, of whom 2.7% withdrew/were lost to follow-up. One or more episodes of confirmed VL rebound were observed in eight patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3.2%) in the OT group and 95 patients (35.0%) in the PI-mono group [absolute risk difference 31.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24.6% to 39.0%; p < 0.001]. PI-mono patients who changed to ART after VL rebound all resuppressed (median 3.5 weeks). The proportions with loss of a future drug option at 3 years were 0.7% in the OT group and 2.1% in the PI-mono group (difference 1.4%, (95% CI -0.4% to 3.4%); non-inferiority demonstrated). There were no significant differences in serious disease complications between groups or in the frequency of grade 3 or 4 clinical AEs (16.8% OT group vs. 22% PI-mono group; absolute risk difference 5.1%, 95% CI -1.3% to 11.5%; p = 0.12). Overall, the PI-mono strategy was shown to be cost-effective compared with OT under most scenarios explored. PI-mono was cost saving because of the large savings in ART drug costs while being no less effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years in the within-trial analysis and only marginally less effective when extrapolated to lifetime outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

PI monotherapy, with prompt reintroduction of combination therapy for VL rebound, was non-inferior to combination therapy in preserving future treatment options and is an acceptable and cost-effective alternative for long-term management of HIV infection.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04857074.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Switch to Ritonavir-Boosted versus Unboosted Atazanavir plus Raltegravir Dual-Drug Therapy Leads to Similar Efficacy and Safety Outcomes in Clinical Practice

Objectives

To assess immunovirological response, safety and pharmacokinetic of NRTI-sparing regimen dual therapy of atazanavir (ATV) and raltegravir (RAL) in maintenance strategy.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on a cohort of HIV-infected adults followed in French centers (Dat’AIDS cohort), comparing the proportions of virological and therapeutic failures between ATV + RAL and ATV/ritonavir + RAL dual therapy regimens.

Results

283 patients were assessed: 185 switched for ATV + RAL and 98 for ATV/ritonavir + RAL dual therapy. Virological failure rate at week 96 was 13.8% (95% CI, 9.8–17.8), without difference between the two groups (Log-rank Test, p = 0.87). The cumulative percentages of patients remaining free of therapeutic failure at week 24, 48 and 96 of dual therapy were 74.9% (95% CI, 69.9–80.0), 65.4% (95% CI, 59.8–70.9) and 53.4% (95% CI, 47.5–59.2), respectively. Four out of 39 confirmed virological failures developed RAL resistance. By multivariate analysis, virological failure was associated with high HIV-1 RNA zenith (p = 0.02), low CD4+ T-cell count at baseline (p<0.001) and short duration on antiretroviral therapy (p<0.001). Before week 96, dual therapy was discontinued in 44 patients (16%) because of various adverse events, with no difference between the two groups. Minimal plasma levels were targeted in 84% and 87% of patients for ATV and RAL, respectively, and both were significantly higher in ritonavir-boosted regimen.

Conclusions

Emerging RAL-resistance and discontinuations for adverse events resulted in moderate efficacy rates of ATV and RAL dual therapy in heavily pretreated patients.

Antiretroviral resistance at virological failure in the NEAT 001/ANRS 143 trial: raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir or tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir as first-line ART

OBJECTIVES

To describe the pattern of drug resistance at virological failure in the NEAT001/ANRS143 trial (first-line treatment with ritonavir-boosted darunavir plus either tenofovir/emtricitabine or raltegravir).

METHODS

Genotypic testing was performed at baseline for reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease genes and for RT, protease and integrase (IN) genes for patients with a confirmed viral load (VL) >50 copies/mL or any single VL >500 copies/mL during or after week 32.

RESULTS

A resistance test was obtained for 110/805 (13.7%) randomized participants qualifying for resistance analysis (61/401 of participants in the raltegravir arm and 49/404 of participants in the tenofovir/emtricitabine arm). No resistance-associated mutation (RAM) was observed in the tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir arm, and all further analyses were limited to the raltegravir plus darunavir arm. In this group, 15/55 (27.3%) participants had viruses with IN RAMs (12 N155H alone, 1 N155H + Q148R, 1 F121Y and 1 Y143C), 2/53 (3.8%) with nucleotide analogue RT inhibitor RAMs (K65R, M41L) and 1/57 (1.8%) with primary protease RAM (L76V). The frequency of IN mutations at failure was significantly associated with baseline VL: 7.1% for a VL of <100,000 copies/mL, 25.0% for a VL of ≥100,000 copies/mL and <500,000 copies/mL and 53.8% for a VL of ≥500,000 copies/mL (PTREND = 0.007). Of note, 4/15 participants with IN RAM had a VL < 200 copies/mL at time of testing.

CONCLUSIONS

In the NEAT001/ANRS143 trial, there was no RAM at virological failure in the standard tenofovir/emtricitabine plus darunavir/ritonavir regimen, contrasting with a rate of 29.5% (mostly IN mutations) in the raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir NRTI-sparing regimen. The cumulative risk of IN RAM after 96 weeks of follow-up in participants initiating ART with raltegravir plus darunavir/ritonavir was 3.9%.

Late treatment failures in cerebrospinal fluid in patients on long-term maintenance ART with ritonavir-boosted protease PI monotherapy

BACKGROUND

Antiretroviral treatment (ART) with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (rb-PMT) remains a potentially attractive strategy for treatment simplification in HIV-infected individuals. However, long-term follow-up in particular with respect to HIV-RNA suppression in cerebrospinal fluids (CSF) is still lacking.

METHODS

Patients who participated in one of the three monotherapy trials [indinavir/r, ATARITMO (atazanavir/r), MOST (lopinavir/r)] at our HIV clinic and remained successfully suppressed during the entire trial (plasma < 50 copies/mL, CSF < 100 copies/mL) were offered to continue their monotherapy under close monitoring. While on rb-PMT, patients were asked to provide CSF samples in yearly or 2-yearly intervals. All patients fully suppressed in plasma and CSF for at least 12 months were included in the analysis. Patients demonstrating any failure in plasma or CSF resumed triple combined ART.

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (5 women and 22 men) fulfilled the entry criteria. The median follow-up time was 4.8 (1.1-10.9) years with an overall experience of 139 patient-years on monotherapy. Eleven of 27 (41 %) patients (2 women and 9 men) developed virologic failure (1 in plasma only, 4 in CSF only, 4 both in plasma and CSF and 2 in plasma with CSF not available). Plasma failure occurred in 7 patients after a median follow-up of 25 (13-32) months, and CSF failure in 8 patients after a median follow-up of 30 (14-64) months. Seven patients are still on rb-PMT with atazanavir/r. Failure was associated with shorter duration of fully suppressed plasma viral load prior to starting (p < 0.022).

CONCLUSION

For selected patients, rb-PMT might be a valid long-term treatment strategy. Nevertheless, even after 12 months of full HIV-RNA suppression, more than 1/3 of patients may still develop failure in either plasma or CSF. Given the observation of isolated CSF failure, treatment monitoring with regular lumbar puncture should be recommended in rb-PMT. Only monotherapy with atazanavir/r was successful beyond 39 months. Monotherapy failure was significantly associated with a shorter duration of complete HIV-RNA suppression in plasma prior to rb-PMT start. Further investigation is needed to better identify predictors for patients that will qualify for successful long-term rb-PMT.

Protease inhibitor monotherapy for long-term management of HIV infection: a randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Background

Standard-of-care antiretroviral therapy (ART) uses a combination of drugs deemed essential to minimise treatment failure and drug resistance. Protease inhibitors are potent, with a high genetic barrier to resistance, and have potential use as monotherapy after viral load suppression is achieved with combination treatment. We aimed to assess clinical risks and benefits of protease inhibitor monotherapy in long-term clinical use: in particular, the effect on drug resistance and future treatment options.

Methods

In this pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we enrolled adults (≥18 years of age) positive for HIV attending 43 public sector treatment centres in the UK who had suppressed viral load (<50 copies per mL) for at least 24 weeks on combination ART with no change in the previous 12 weeks and a CD4 count of more than 100 cells per μL. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to maintain ongoing triple therapy (OT) or to switch to a strategy of physician-selected ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor monotherapy (PI-mono); we recommended ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted darunavir (800 mg) once daily or ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted lopinavir (400 mg) twice daily, with prompt return to combination treatment if viral load rebounded. All treatments were oral. Randomisation was with permuted blocks of varying size and stratified by centre and baseline ART; we used a computer-generated, sequentially numbered randomisation list. The primary outcome was loss of future drug options, defined as new intermediate-level or high-level resistance to one or more drugs to which the patient's virus was deemed sensitive at trial entry (assessed at 3 years; non-inferiority margin of 10%). We estimated probability of rebound and resistance with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, number ISRCTN04857074.

Findings

Between Nov 4, 2008, and July 28, 2010, we randomly allocated 587 participants to OT (291) or PI-mono (296). At 3 years, one or more future drug options had been lost in two participants (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·7%) in the OT group and six (2·1%) in the PI-mono group: difference 1·4% (−0·4 to 3·4); non-inferiority shown. 49 (16·8%) participants in the OT group and 65 (22·0%) in the PI-mono group had grade 3 or 4 clinical adverse events (difference 5·1% [95% CI −1·3 to 11·5]; p=0·12); 45 (six treatment related) and 56 (three treatment related) had serious adverse events.

Interpretation

Protease inhibitor monotherapy, with regular viral load monitoring and prompt reintroduction of combination treatment for rebound, preserved future treatment options and did not change overall clinical outcomes or frequency of toxic effects. Protease inhibitor monotherapy is an acceptable alternative for long-term clinical management of HIV infection.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

Trends in darunavir resistance-associated mutations and phenotypic resistance in commercially tested United States clinical samples between 2006 and 2012

HIV-1 samples submitted by clinicians from the United States for routine drug susceptibility testing (PhenoSense GT) were evaluated for genotypic and phenotypic resistance to darunavir and other protease inhibitors (PIs). Among these samples (Monogram Biosciences database January 2006-June 2012; N=78,843), isolates harboring zero IAS-USA darunavir resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) increased from 77.7% in 2006 to 92.8% through the first half of 2012 (H1 2012; upward trend, p=0.0008); a downward trend seen for samples with three or more darunavir RAMs (7.5% in 2006 and 2.6% in H1 2012; p=0.002). Among samples with any PI resistance (N=15,932), samples harboring zero darunavir RAMs gradually increased (39.9% in 2006 vs. 55.0% in H1 2012; upward trend, p=0.005), but three or more darunavir RAMs did not change over time (21.7% in 2006 and 19.2% in H1 2012; p=0.27). During this period, the frequency of the 11 individual darunavir RAMs (IAS-USA 2011 list) decreased among all samples. The frequency of each darunavir RAM in PI-resistant samples decreased or remained relatively stable. The prevalence of samples with phenotypic resistance to darunavir (partial-to-full) decreased over time in all samples (8.2% in 2006 vs. 2.3% in H1 2012), as did resistance to other PIs (p<0.006 for all PIs). Phenotypic resistance to darunavir and other PIs also decreased in PI-resistant samples (darunavir: 23.9% in 2006 vs. 17.1% in H1 2012; p<0.013 for all PIs). Since approval of darunavir in 2006, there was a significant decrease in prevalence of samples with genotypic and phenotypic resistance to darunavir in commercially tested HIV-1 isolates. Furthermore, the prevalence of phenotypic resistance to darunavir was lower than all other PIs.

Low concordance and resistance mutation emergence in the HIV protease gene among circulating and cell-associated viruses at viral replication episodes during darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the changes on the HIV protease gene in plasma and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) compartments during viral replication episodes in patients on boosted-darunavir monotherapy (mtDRV/rtv).

METHODS

A prospective study was carried out in which adult HIV-1-infected patients who started mtDRV/rtv after viral suppression for ≥ 6 months with no major darunavir-related resistance mutations were enrolled. Patients with two consecutive plasma HIV RNA measurements >200 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL were considered as having virological failure (VF), while patients with two consecutive plasma HIV RNA measurements >50 copies/mL without meeting the VF criteria were considered to have virological rebound (VR). HIV protease genotypic profiles from plasma and PBMCs were performed at baseline and at VF and VR episodes.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty patients were included in the study, with overall VF and VR rates of 14% (n=21) and 14.7% (n=22), respectively. No major darunavir resistance mutations were observed in the plasma or PBMC samples. Circulating and cell-associated viruses showed a wild-type protease gene sequence in 54% and 23% of patients, respectively while the remainder patients only harboured minor protease inhibitor-associated mutations. Full concordance between plasma RNA and PBMC DNA protease genotypes was found in 23% of the sequences.

CONCLUSIONS

No darunavir-related mutations were found in patients with VF or VR, either in plasma or in PBMCs; thus, simplification to mtDRV/rtv does not comprise future antiretroviral treatment options.

The nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and protease inhibitors in the treatment of HIV infections (AIDS)

The majority of the drugs currently used for the treatment of HIV infections (AIDS) belong to either of the following three classes: nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), and protease inhibitors (PIs). At present, there are 7 NRTIs, 5 NNRTIs, and 10 PIs approved for clinical use. They are discussed from the following viewpoints: (i) chemical formulae; (ii) mechanism of action; (iii) drug combinations; (iv) clinical aspects; (v) preexposure prophylaxis; (vi) prevention of mother-to-child transmission; (vii) their use in children; (viii) toxicity; (ix) adherence (compliance); (x) resistance; (xi) new NRTIs, NNRTIs, or PIs in (pre)clinical development; and (xii) the prospects for a "cure" of the disease.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Gag and protease: partners in resistance

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) maturation plays an essential role in the viral life cycle by enabling the generation of mature infectious virus particles through proteolytic processing of the viral Gag and GagPol precursor proteins. An impaired polyprotein processing results in the production of non-infectious virus particles. Consequently, particle maturation is an excellent drug target as exemplified by inhibitors specifically targeting the viral protease (protease inhibitors; PIs) and the experimental class of maturation inhibitors that target the precursor Gag and GagPol polyproteins. Considering the different target sites of the two drug classes, direct cross-resistance may seem unlikely. However, coevolution of protease and its substrate Gag during PI exposure has been observed both in vivo and in vitro. This review addresses in detail all mutations in Gag that are selected under PI pressure. We evaluate how polymorphisms and mutations in Gag affect PI therapy, an aspect of PI resistance that is currently not included in standard genotypic PI resistance testing. In addition, we consider the consequences of Gag mutations for the development and positioning of future maturation inhibitors.