Is etravirine and two nucleosides an option for HIV with an isolated K103N mutation?

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.

Clinical and virological efficacy of etravirine plus two active Nucleos(t)ide analogs in an heterogeneous HIV-infected population

Etravirine (ETV) is recommended in combination with a boosted protease inhibitor plus an optimized background regimen for salvage therapy, but there is limited experience with its use in combination with two nucleos(t)ide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). This multicenter study aimed to assess the efficacy of this combination in two scenarios: group A) subjects without virologic failure on or no experience with non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) switched due to adverse events and group B) subjects switched after a virologic failure on an efavirenz- or nevirapine-based regimen. The primary endpoint was efficacy at 52 weeks analysed by intention-to-treat. Virologic failure was defined as the inability to suppress plasma HIV-RNA to <50 copies/mL after 24 weeks on treatment, or a confirmed viral load >200 copies/mL in patients who had previously achieved a viral suppression or had an undetectable viral load at inclusion. Two hundred eighty seven patients were included. Treatment efficacy rates in group A and B were 88.0% (CI_95, 83.9–92.1%) and 77.4% (CI₉₅, 65.0–89.7%), respectively; the rates reached 97.2% (CI₉₅, 95.1–99.3%) and 90.5% (CI₉₅, 81.7–99.3), by on-treatment analysis. The once-a-day ETV treatment was as effective as the twice daily dosing regimen. Grade 1–2 adverse events were observed motivating a treatment switch in 4.2% of the subjects. In conclusion, ETV (once- or twice daily) plus two analogs is a suitable, well-tolerated combination both as a switching strategy and after failure with first generation NNRTIs, ensuring full drug activity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01437241