Dolutegravir maintains a durable effect against HIV replication in tissue culture even after drug washout

Durable suppression of HIV-1 with resistance mutations to integrase inhibitors by dolutegravir following drug washout

OBJECTIVES

Dolutegravir (DTG) has achieved better long-term suppression of HIV-1 replication than other integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs), such as raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG). In in-vitro drug washout experiments, we previously showed that removal of DTG from pretreated MT-2 cells infected with wild-type HIV-1 showed slower rebound in viral replication as compared to removal of RAL. Now, we performed DTG, EVG and RAL washout experiments to compare the recovery of viral integration and production of 2-long terminal repeat (LTR) circles using wild-type HIV-1 clones, R263K viruses with low-level resistance to DTG and viruses with G140S/Q148H mutations showing cross-resistance against all currently approved INSTIs.

DESIGN AND METHODS

MT-2 cells infected with wild-type, R263K or G140S/Q148H HIV-1 clones were treated with DTG, RAL or EVG for 3 days. Viral rebound following drug washout was assessed, monitoring viral integration and 2-LTR circle production by qPCR.

RESULTS

Viral integration did not resume for up to 8 days after DTG washout from the wild-type or R263K infections but increased soon after washout of either RAL or EVG. With the G140S/Q148H virus, levels of integration were not significantly affected by the presence of either RAL or EVG. With DTG, integration was much lower at 3 days after infection than for the no-drug control. At 8 days after DTG washout, viral integration resumed but remained relatively low.

CONCLUSION

DTG antiretroviral activity in tissue culture is more durable than that of either RAL or EVG after drug washout and this is true for both wild-type and drug-resistant viruses.

Selective resistance profiles emerging in patient-derived clinical isolates with cabotegravir, bictegravir, dolutegravir, and elvitegravir

Background

Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended for first-line HIV therapy based on their relatively high genetic barrier to resistance. Although raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG) resistance profiles are well-characterized, resistance patterns for dolutegravir (DTG), bictegravir (BIC), and cabotegravir (CAB) remain largely unknown. Here, in vitro drug selections compared the development of resistance to DTG, BIC, CAB, EVG and RAL using clinical isolates from treatment-naïve primary HIV infection (PHI) cohort participants (n = 12), and pNL4.3 recombinant strains encoding patient-derived Integrase with (n = 5) and without (n = 5) the E157Q substitution.

Results

Patient-derived viral isolates were serially passaged in PHA-stimulated cord blood mononuclear cells in the presence of escalating concentrations of INSTIs over the course of 36–46 weeks. Drug resistance arose more rapidly in primary clinical isolates with EVG (12/12), followed by CAB (8/12), DTG (8/12) and BIC (6/12). For pNL4.3 recombinant strains encoding patient-derived integrase, the comparative genetic barrier to resistance was RAL > EVG > CAB > DTG and BIC. The E157Q substitution in integrase delayed the advent of resistance to INSTIs. With EVG, T66I/A, E92G/V/Q, T97A or R263K (n = 16, 3, 2 and 1, respectively) arose by weeks 8–16, followed by 1–4 accessory mutations, conferring high-level resistance (> 100-fold) by week 36. With DTG and BIC, solitary R263K (n = 27), S153F/Y (n = 7) H51Y (n = 2), Q146 R (n = 3) or S147G (n = 1) mutations conferred low-level (< 3-fold) resistance at weeks 36–46. Similarly, most CAB selections (n = 18) resulted in R263K, S153Y, S147G, H51Y, or Q146L solitary mutations. However, three CAB selections resulted in Q148R/K followed by secondary mutations conferring high-level cross-resistance to all INSTIs. EVG-resistant viruses (T66I/R263K, T66I/E157Q/R263K, and S153A/R263K) retained residual susceptibility when switched to DTG, BIC or CAB, losing T66I by week 27. Two EVG-resistant variants developed resistance to DTG, BIC and CAB through the additional acquisition of E138A/Q148R and S230N, respectively. One EVG-resistant variant (T66I) acquired L74M/G140S/S147G, L74M/E138K/S147G and H51Y with DTG CAB and BIC, respectively.

Conclusions

Second generation INSTIs show a higher genetic barrier to resistance than EVG and RAL. The potency of CAB was lower than BIC and DTG. The development of Q148R/K with CAB can result in high-level cross-resistance to all INSTIs.

Lopinavir plus nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, lopinavir plus raltegravir, or lopinavir monotherapy for second-line treatment of HIV (EARNEST): 144-week follow-up results from a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Millions of HIV-infected people worldwide receive antiretroviral therapy (ART) in programmes using WHO-recommended standardised regimens. Recent WHO guidelines recommend a boosted protease inhibitor plus raltegravir as an alternative second-line combination. We assessed whether this treatment option offers any advantage over the standard protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) second-line combination after 144 weeks of follow-up in typical programme settings.

METHODS

We analysed the 144-week outcomes at the completion of the EARNEST trial, a randomised controlled trial done in HIV-infected adults or adolescents in 14 sites in five sub-Saharan African countries (Uganda, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Kenya, Zambia). Participants were those who were no longer responding to non-NRTI-based first-line ART, as assessed with WHO criteria, confirmed by viral-load testing. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) plus two or three clinician-selected NRTIs (protease inhibitor plus NRTI group), protease inhibitor plus raltegravir (400 mg twice per day; protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group), or protease inhibitor monotherapy (plus raltegravir induction for first 12 weeks, re-intensified to combination therapy after week 96; protease inhibitor monotherapy group). Randomisation was by computer-generated randomisation sequence, with variable block size. The primary outcome was viral load of less than 400 copies per mL at week 144, for which we assessed non-inferiority with a one-sided α of 0·025, and superiority with a two-sided α of 0·025. The EARNEST trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 37737787.

FINDINGS

Between April 12, 2010, and April 29, 2011, 1837 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 1277 patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group. In the primary (complete-case) analysis at 144 weeks, 317 (86%) of 367 in the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL compared with 312 (81%) of 383 in the protease inhibitor plus raltegravir group (p=0·07; lower 95% confidence limit for difference 10·2% vs specified non-inferiority margin 10%). In the protease inhibitor monotherapy group, 292 (78%) of 375 had viral loads of less than 400 copies per mL; p=0·003 versus the protease inhibitor plus NRTI group at 144 weeks. There was no difference between groups in serious adverse events, grade 3 or 4 adverse events (total or ART-related), or events that resulted in treatment modification.

INTERPRETATION

Protease inhibitor plus raltegravir offered no advantage over protease inhibitor plus NRTI in virological efficacy or safety. In the primary analysis, protease inhibitor plus raltegravir did not meet non-inferiority criteria. A regimen of protease inhibitor with NRTIs remains the best standardised second-line regimen for use in programmes in resource-limited settings.

FUNDING

European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), UK Medical Research Council, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Irish Aid, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Instituto Superiore di Sanita, Merck, ViiV Healthcare, WHO.

Reduced antiretroviral drug efficacy and concentration in HIV-infected microglia contributes to viral persistence in brain

BACKGROUND

In patients with HIV/AIDS receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART), HIV-1 persistence in brain tissue is a vital and unanswered question. HIV-1 infects and replicates in resident microglia and trafficking macrophages within the brain although the impact of individual ART drugs on viral infection within these brain myeloid cells is unknown. Herein, the effects of contemporary ART drugs were investigated using in vitro and in vivo models of HIV-1 brain infection.

RESULTS

The EC₅₀ values for specific ART drugs in HIV-infected human microglia were significantly higher compared to bone marrow-derived macrophages and peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Intracellular ART drug concentrations in microglia were significantly lower than in human lymphocytes. In vivo brain concentrations of ART drugs in mice were 10 to 100-fold less in brain tissues compared with plasma and liver levels. In brain tissues from untreated HIV-infected BLT mice, HIV-encoded RNA, DNA and p24 were present in human leukocytes while ART eradicated viral RNA and DNA in both brain and plasma. Interruption of ART resulted in detectable viral RNA and DNA and increased human CD68 expression in brains of HIV-infected BLT mice. In aviremic HIV/AIDS patients receiving effective ART, brain tissues that were collected within hours of last ART dosing showed HIV-encoded RNA and DNA with associated neuroinflammatory responses.

CONCLUSIONS

ART drugs show variable concentrations and efficacies in brain myeloid cells and tissues in drug-specific manner. Despite low drug concentrations in brain, experimental ART suppressed HIV-1 infection in brain although HIV/AIDS patients receiving effective ART had detectable HIV-1 in brain. These findings suggest that viral suppression in brain is feasible but new approaches to enhancing ART efficacy and concentrations in brain are required for sustained HIV-1 eradication from brain.

Differences among HIV-1 subtypes in drug resistance against integrase inhibitors

Three integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs), raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir (EVG) and dolutegravir (DTG), have been approved by the FDA. Resistance against these three INSTIs have been reported and cross-resistance among them has been documented. Due to extensive and dynamic genetic diversity in different HIV-1 variants, significant differences in susceptibility to the INSTIs have been observed among HIV subtypes. This review summarizes what is known about this topic and discusses possible clinical implications.

Might dolutegravir be part of a functional cure for HIV?

Antiretroviral therapy (ART) has greatly decreased HIV-related morbidity and mortality. However, HIV can establish viral reservoirs that evade both the immune system and ART. Dolutegravir (DTG) is a second-generation integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) related to the first-generation INSTIs raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG). DTG shows a higher genetic barrier to the development of HIV-1 resistance than RAL and EVG. More interestingly, clinical resistance mutations to DTG in treatment-naïve patients have not been observed to date. This review summarizes recent studies on strategies toward a cure for HIV, explores resistance profiles of DTG, and discusses how DTG might help in finding a functional cure for HIV.

Resistance against Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitors and Relevance to HIV Persistence

Drug resistance prevents the successful treatment of HIV-positive individuals by decreasing viral sensitivity to a drug or a class of drugs. In addition to transmitted resistant viruses, treatment-naïve individuals can be confronted with the problem of drug resistance through de novo emergence of such variants. Resistant viruses have been reported for every antiretroviral drug tested so far, including the integrase strand transfer inhibitors raltegravir, elvitegravir and dolutegravir. However, de novo resistant variants against dolutegravir have been found in treatment-experienced but not in treatment-naïve individuals, a characteristic that is unique amongst antiretroviral drugs. We review here the issue of drug resistance against integrase strand transfer inhibitors as well as both pre-clinical and clinical studies that have led to the identification of the R263K mutation in integrase as a signature resistance substitution for dolutegravir. We also discuss how the topic of drug resistance against integrase strand transfer inhibitors may have relevance in regard to the nature of the HIV reservoir and possible HIV curative strategies.