A randomized controlled trial of the value of phenotypic testing in addition to genotypic testing for HIV drug resistance: evaluation of resistance assays (ERA) trial investigators

Current ARTs, Virologic Failure, and Implications for AIDS Management: A Systematic Review

Antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) have revolutionized the management of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, significantly improved patient outcomes, and reduced the mortality rate and incidence of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). However, despite the remarkable efficacy of ART, virologic failure remains a challenge in the long-term management of HIV-infected individuals. Virologic failure refers to the persistent detectable viral load in patients receiving ART, indicating an incomplete suppression of HIV replication. It can occur due to various factors, including poor medication adherence, drug resistance, suboptimal drug concentrations, drug interactions, and viral factors such as the emergence of drug-resistant strains. In recent years, extensive efforts have been made to understand and address virologic failure in order to optimize treatment outcomes. Strategies to prevent and manage virologic failure include improving treatment adherence through patient education, counselling, and supportive interventions. In addition, the regular monitoring of viral load and resistance testing enables the early detection of treatment failure and facilitates timely adjustments in ART regimens. Thus, the development of novel antiretroviral agents with improved potency, tolerability, and resistance profiles offers new options for patients experiencing virologic failure. However, new treatment options would also face virologic failure if not managed appropriately. A solution to virologic failure requires a comprehensive approach that combines individualized patient care, robust monitoring, and access to a range of antiretroviral drugs.

Management of Virologic Failure and HIV Drug Resistance

Approximately 20% of people with HIV in the United States prescribed antiretroviral therapy are not virally suppressed. Thus, optimal management of virologic failure has a critical role in the ability to improve viral suppression rates to improve long-term health outcomes for those infected and to achieve epidemic control. This article discusses the causes of virologic failure, the use of resistance testing to guide management after failure, interpretation and relevance of HIV drug resistance patterns, considerations for selection of second-line and salvage therapies, and management of virologic failure in special populations.

Antiretroviral resistance testing in HIV-positive people

BACKGROUND

Resistance to antiretroviral therapy (ART) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) compromises treatment effectiveness, often leading to virological failure and mortality. Antiretroviral drug resistance tests may be used at the time of initiation of therapy, or when treatment failure occurs, to inform the choice of ART regimen. Resistance tests (genotypic or phenotypic) are widely used in high-income countries, but not in resource-limited settings. This systematic review summarizes the relative merits of resistance testing in treatment-naive and treatment-exposed people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of antiretroviral resistance testing (genotypic or phenotypic) in reducing mortality and morbidity in HIV-positive people.

SEARCH METHODS

We attempted to identify all relevant studies, regardless of language or publication status, through searches of electronic databases and conference proceedings up to 26 January 2018. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov to 26 January 2018. We searched Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and the Web of Science for publications from 1996 to 26 January 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that compared resistance testing to no resistance testing in people with HIV irrespective of their exposure to ART.Primary outcomes of interest were mortality and virological failure. Secondary outcomes were change in mean CD4-T-lymphocyte count, clinical progression to AIDS, development of a second or new opportunistic infection, change in viral load, and quality of life.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed each reference for prespecified inclusion criteria. Two review authors then independently extracted data from each included study using a standardized data extraction form. We analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis using a random-effects model. We performed subgroup analyses for the type of resistance test used (phenotypic or genotypic), use of expert advice to interpret resistance tests, and age (children and adolescents versus adults). We followed standard Cochrane methodological procedures.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven RCTs (published between 1999 and 2006), which included 2531 participants, met our inclusion criteria. All of these trials exclusively enrolled patients who had previous exposure to ART. We found no observational studies. Length of follow-up time, study settings, and types of resistance testing varied greatly. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 150 weeks. All studies were conducted in Europe, USA, or South America. Seven studies used genotypic testing, two used phenotypic testing, and two used both phenotypic and genotypic testing. Only one study was funded by a manufacturer of resistance tests.Resistance testing made little or no difference in mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 2.22; 5 trials, 1140 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may have slightly reduced the number of people with virological failure (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.87; 10 trials, 1728 participants; low-certainty evidence); and probably made little or no difference in change in CD4 cell count (mean difference (MD) -1.00 cells/mm³, 95% CI -12.49 to 10.50; 7 trials, 1349 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or progression to AIDS (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.29; 3 trials, 809 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Resistance testing made little or no difference in adverse events (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.55; 4 trials, 808 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduced viral load (MD -0.23, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.11; 10 trials, 1837 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported on development of new opportunistic infections or quality of life. We found no statistically significant heterogeneity for any outcomes, and the I² statistic value ranged from 0 to 25%. We found no subgroup effects for types of resistance testing (genotypic versus phenotypic), the addition of expert advice to interpretation of resistance tests, or age. Results for mortality were consistent when we compared studies at high or unclear risk of bias versus studies at low risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Resistance testing probably improved virological outcomes in people who have had virological failure in trials conducted 12 or more years ago. We found no evidence in treatment-naive people. Resistance testing did not demonstrate important patient benefits in terms of risk of death or progression to AIDS. The trials included very few participants from low- and middle-income countries.

Role of phenotypic investigation in the era of routine genotypic HIV-1 drug resistance testing

The emergence of drug resistance can seriously compromise HIV type-1 therapy and decrease therapeutic options. Resistance testing is highly recommended to guide treatment decisions and drug activity can be accurately predicted in the clinical setting through genotypic assays. While phenotypic systems are not suitable for monitoring drug resistance in routine laboratory practice, genotyping can misclassify unusual or complex mutational patterns, particularly with recently approved antivirals. In addition, phenotypic assays remain fundamental for characterizing candidate antiretroviral compounds. This review aims to discuss how phenotypic assays contributed to and still play a role in understanding the mechanisms of resistance of both licensed and investigational HIV type-1 inhibitors.

Burden of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance in HIV-1-infected patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The prevalence of HIV drug resistance varies with geographic location, year, and treatment exposure. This study generated yearly estimates of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance in treatment-naive (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) patients in the United States (US), Europe (EU), and Canada. Studies reporting NNRTI resistance identified in electronic databases and 11 conferences were analyzed in three groups: (1) TN patients in one of four geographic regions [US, Canada, EU countries with larger surveillance networks ("EU1"), and EU countries with fewer data ("EU2")]; (2) TE patients from any region; and (3) TN patients failing NNRTI-based treatments in clinical trials. Analysis data included 158 unique studies from 22 countries representing 84 cohorts of TN patients, 21 cohorts of TE patients, and 8 trials reporting resistance at failure. From 1995 to 2000, resistance prevalence in TN patients increased in US and EU1 from 3.1% to 7.5% and 0.8% to 3.6%, respectively. Resistance in both regions stabilized in 2006 onward. Little resistance was identified in EU2 before 2000, and increased from 2006 (5.0%) to 2010 (13.7%). One TN Canadian study was identified and reported resistance of 8.1% in 2006. Half of TN clinical trial patients had resistance after treatment failure at weeks 48-144. Resistance in TE patients increased from 1998 (10.1%) to 2001 (44.0%), then decreased after 2004. Trends in NNRTI resistance among TN patients show an increased burden in the US and some EU countries compared to others. These findings signify a need for alternate first-line treatments in some regions.

Replicative phenotyping adds value to genotypic resistance testing in heavily pre-treated HIV-infected individuals--the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

Background

Replicative phenotypic HIV resistance testing (rPRT) uses recombinant infectious virus to measure viral replication in the presence of antiretroviral drugs. Due to its high sensitivity of detection of viral minorities and its dissecting power for complex viral resistance patterns and mixed virus populations rPRT might help to improve HIV resistance diagnostics, particularly for patients with multiple drug failures. The aim was to investigate whether the addition of rPRT to genotypic resistance testing (GRT) compared to GRT alone is beneficial for obtaining a virological response in heavily pre-treated HIV-infected patients.

Methods

Patients with resistance tests between 2002 and 2006 were followed within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS). We assessed patients' virological success after their antiretroviral therapy was switched following resistance testing. Multilevel logistic regression models with SHCS centre as a random effect were used to investigate the association between the type of resistance test and virological response (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL or ≥1.5log reduction).

Results

Of 1158 individuals with resistance tests 221 with GRT+rPRT and 937 with GRT were eligible for analysis. Overall virological response rates were 85.1% for GRT+rPRT and 81.4% for GRT. In the subgroup of patients with >2 previous failures, the odds ratio (OR) for virological response of GRT+rPRT compared to GRT was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00-2.09). Multivariate analyses indicate a significant improvement with GRT+rPRT compared to GRT alone (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.31-2.15).

Conclusions

In heavily pre-treated patients rPRT-based resistance information adds benefit, contributing to a higher rate of treatment success.

Virologic response to lopinavir-ritonavir-based antiretroviral regimens in a multicenter international clinical cohort: comparison of genotypic interpretation scores

Several genotypic interpretation scores have been proposed for the evaluation of susceptibility to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) but have not been compared using an independent data set. This study was a retrospective multicenter cohort of patients initiating LPV/r-based therapy. The virologic response (VR) was defined as a viral load of <500 copies/ml at week 24. The genotypic interpretation scores surveyed were the LPV mutation score, the ViroLogic score, the ATU score, the Stanford database score, and the International AIDS Society-USA mutation list. Of the 103 patients included in the analysis, 76% achieved VR at 24 weeks. For scores with clinical breakpoints defined (LPV mutation, ATU, ViroLogic, and Stanford), over 80% of the patients below the breakpoints achieved VR, while 50% or less above the breakpoints responded. Protease mutations at positions 10, 54, and 82 and at positions 54, 84, and 90 were associated with a lack of VR in the univariate and multivariate analyses, respectively. The area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves for the five genotypic interpretation scores studied ranged from 0.73 to 0.76. The study confirms that the currently available genotypic interpretation scores which are widely used by clinicians performed similarly well and can be effectively used to predict the virologic activity of LPV/r in treatment-experienced patients.

Antiretroviral therapy: a primer for dermatologists

Combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) has transformed the care of individuals who have HIV infection. Effective ART has resulted in dramatic reductions in mortality, hospitalization rates, and the development of AIDS-defining illnesses. This article discusses the variety of agents that can comprise an effective ART regimen, focusing on the basic principles of ART, the indications for initiating ART in treatment-naive individuals who have established HIV infection, and the challenges associated with the use of antiretroviral medications.

Approach to salvage antiretroviral therapy in heavily antiretroviral-experienced HIV-positive adults

Despite dramatic declines in HIV-associated morbidity and mortality as a result of highly active antiretroviral therapy, management of heavily treatment-experienced patients remains complex and challenging. Treatment response rates with subsequent antiretroviral regimens are lower than with initial antiretroviral therapy. Additionally, increased mortality has been associated with multidrug-resistant HIV. We review data relevant to management of such patients and offer a systematic approach to constructing a salvage antiretroviral regimen.