Interpretation of genotype and pharmacokinetics for resistance to fosamprenavir-ritonavir-based regimens in antiretroviral-experienced patients

Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral drugs in HIV-infected patients

INTRODUCTION

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may be beneficial when applied to antiretroviral (ARV). Even though TDM can be a valuable strategy in HIV management, its role remains controversial. Areas covered: This review provides a comprehensive update on important issues relating to TDM of ARV drugs in HIV-infected patients. Articles from PubMed with keywords relevant to each topic section were reviewed. Search strategies limited to articles published in English. Expert commentary: There is evidence supporting the use of TDM in HIV treatment. However, some limitations need to be considered. The evidence supporting the use of routine TDM for all patients is limited, as it is not clear that this strategy offers any advantages over TDM for selected indications. Selected groups of patients including patients with physiological changes, patients with drug-drug interactions or toxicity, and the elderly could potentially benefit from TDM, as optimized dosing is challenging in these populations.

HIV-1 diversity, transmission dynamics and primary drug resistance in Angola

Objectives

To assess HIV-1 diversity, transmission dynamics and prevalence of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) in Angola, five years after ART scale-up.

Methods

Population sequencing of the pol gene was performed on 139 plasma samples collected in 2009 from drug-naive HIV-1 infected individuals living in Luanda. HIV-1 subtypes were determined using phylogenetic analysis. Drug resistance mutations were identified using the Calibrated Population Resistance Tool (CPR). Transmission networks were determined using phylogenetic analysis of all Angolan sequences present in the databases. Evolutionary trends were determined by comparison with a similar survey performed in 2001.

Results

47.1% of the viruses were pure subtypes (all except B), 47.1% were recombinants and 5.8% were untypable. The prevalence of subtype A decreased significantly from 2001 to 2009 (40.0% to 10.8%, P = 0.0019) while the prevalence of unique recombinant forms (URFs) increased>2-fold (40.0% to 83.1%, P<0.0001). The most frequent URFs comprised untypable sequences with subtypes H (U/H, n = 7, 10.8%), A (U/A, n = 6, 9.2%) and G (G/U, n = 4, 6.2%). Newly identified U/H recombinants formed a highly supported monophyletic cluster suggesting a local and common origin. TDR mutation K103N was found in one (0.7%) patient (1.6% in 2001). Out of the 364 sequences sampled for transmission network analysis, 130 (35.7%) were part of a transmission network. Forty eight transmission clusters were identified; the majority (56.3%) comprised sequences sampled in 2008–2010 in Luanda which is consistent with a locally fuelled epidemic. Very low genetic distance was found in 27 transmission pairs sampled in the same year, suggesting recent transmission events.

Conclusions

Transmission of drug resistant strains was still negligible in Luanda in 2009, five years after the scale-up of ART. The dominance of small and recent transmission clusters and the emergence of new URFs are consistent with a rising HIV-1 epidemics mainly driven by heterosexual transmission.

Prevalence of Drug Resistance and Associated Mutations in a Population of HIV-1(+) Puerto Ricans: 2006-2010

This is a continuation of our efforts to maintain a record of the evolution of HIV-1 infection in Puerto Rico by monitoring the expression levels of antiretroviral drug-resistance-associated mutations. Samples from 2,500 patients from 2006–2010 were analyzed using the TruGene HIV-1 genotyping kit and the OpenGene DNA sequencing system. Results show that 58.8% of males and 65.3% of females had HIV-1 with resistance to at least one medication. The average number of HIV mutations was 6.0 in males and 6.1 in females. Statistically significant differences between men and women were recorded in the levels of HIV-1 expressed mutations and antiretroviral drug resistance. The most prevalent antiretroviral medication resistance shifted from zalcitabine to nevirapine and efavirenz in the five-year period. M184V and L63P were the dominant mutations for the reverse transcriptase and the protease genes, respectively, but an increase in the incidence of minority mutations was observed.

Relationship between antiretroviral plasma concentration and emergence of HIV-1 resistance mutations at treatment failure

PURPOSE

The relationship between antiretroviral pharmacokinetic exposure and acquisition of human immunodeficency virus-1 (HIV-1) drug resistance mutations (DRM) is not fully understood. The aim of this study was to investigate whether antiretroviral plasma concentration could predict the emergence of DRM at treatment failure.

METHODS

The study cohort comprised retrospectively selected patients with failing antiretroviral regimens for whom a protease inhibitor (PI) or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) trough concentration measurement (TDM) had been obtained before failure, a genotypic resistance test (GRT1) had been performed before the TDM, and a genotypic resistance test (GRT2) had been performed at therapeutic failure. Drug levels were classified as undetectable/detectable or subtherapeutic/therapeutic according to limits of quantification of a high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet assay or pre-defined efficacy thresholds, respectively. The number of DRM acquired at treatment failure was evaluated by comparing the results of the GRT2 and GRT1.

RESULTS

A total of ten and 57 failure episodes occurred among our patients on NNRTI-based and PI-based regimens, respectively, and included in the evaluation. PI concentration was subtherapeutic in 28.1% of patients, among which the levels were undetectable in 21.1%. Twenty-five (43.9%) patients acquired at least one new PI-DRM according to the GRT2. Patients with undetectable PI levels showed a lower emergence of PI-DRM (minor + major) than those with detectable levels (8.3 vs. 53.3%, p = 0.007). Multivariate analysis confirmed that undetectable PI levels were independent negative predictors of DRM selection. NNRTI measurements were subtherapeutic in 2/10 (20%) patients. NNRTI-DRM were acquired by all patients regardless of NNRTI levels.

CONCLUSIONS

A PI measurement showing undetectable drug levels prior to treatment failure predicted the lack of emergence of PI-DRM at failure. These results suggest that PI levels can help clinicians interpret the reasons for treatment failure and guide the type of interventions needed.

Inhibitory quotient in HIV pharmacology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review discusses the use of the inhibitory quotient in light of therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral drugs. The inhibitory quotient is a parameter that combines viral resistance data with drug exposure data, and has its main role in therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors in experienced patients. Data from recent clinical studies investigating inhibitory quotient cutoffs to be used in therapeutic drug monitoring will be reviewed. In addition points for discussion regarding the use and study of inhibitory quotients will be presented.

RECENT FINDINGS

A number of studies generated data on the use of the inhibitory quotient in general and the genotypic inhibitory quotient in particular. Most of these studies define a cutoff inhibitory quotient value, above which the virological response rate is higher. These cutoff values can be used in therapeutic drug monitoring and give guidance to the clinician on dose adjustments. Genotypic inhibitory quotient cutoff values are available for amprenavir, atazanavir, darunavir, lopinavir, saquinavir and tipranavir.

SUMMARY

The inhibitory quotient is becoming a valuable tool in therapeutic drug monitoring. At this moment most data are available for the genotypic inhibitory quotient. Nevertheless, a consensus needs to be reached on a number of items, including the methods to study inhibitory quotient as well as the mathematical and virological background.

Predictive value of pharmacokinetics-adjusted phenotypic susceptibility on response to ritonavir-enhanced protease inhibitors (PIs) in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects failing prior PI therapy

The activities of protease inhibitors in vivo may depend on plasma concentrations and viral susceptibility. This nonrandomized, open-label study evaluated the relationship of the inhibitory quotient (IQ [the ratio of drug exposure to viral phenotypic susceptibility]) to the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) viral load (VL) change for ritonavir-enhanced protease inhibitors (PIs). Subjects on PI-based regimens replaced their PIs with ritonavir-enhanced indinavir (IDV/r) 800/200 mg, fosamprenavir (FPV/r) 700/100 mg, or lopinavir (LPV/r) 400/200 mg twice daily. Pharmacokinetics were assessed at day 14; follow-up lasted 24 weeks. Associations between IQ and VL changes were examined. Fifty-three subjects enrolled, 12 on IDV/r, 33 on FPV/r, and 8 on LPV/r. Median changes (n-fold) (FC) of 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC(50)s) to the study PI were high. Median 2-week VL changes were -0.7, -0.1, and -1.0 log(10) for IDV/r, FPV/r, and LPV/r. With FPV/r, correlations between the IQ and the 2-week change in VL were significant (Spearman's r range, -0.39 to -0.50; P < or = 0.029). The strongest correlation with response to FPV/r was the IC(50) FC (r = 0.57; P = 0.001), which improved when only adherent subjects were included (r = 0.68; P = 0.001). In multivariable analyses of the FPV/r arm that included FC, one measure of the drug concentration, corresponding IQ, baseline VL, and CD4, the FC to FPV was the only significant predictor of VL decline (P < 0.001). In exploratory analyses of all arms, the area under the concentration-time curve IQ was correlated with the week 2 VL change (r = -0.72; P < 0.001). In conclusion, in PI-experienced subjects with highly resistant HIV-1, short-term VL responses to RTV-enhanced FPV/r correlated best with baseline susceptibility. The IQ improved correlation in analyses of all arms where a greater range of virologic responses was observed.

Alternative methods to analyse the impact of HIV mutations on virological response to antiviral therapy

Background

Principal component analysis (PCA) and partial least square (PLS) regression may be useful to summarize the HIV genotypic information. Without pre-selection each mutation presented in at least one patient is considered with a different weight. We compared these two strategies with the construction of a usual genotypic score.

Methods

We used data from the ANRS-CO3 Aquitaine Cohort Zephir sub-study. We used a subset of 87 patients with a complete baseline genotype and plasma HIV-1 RNA available at baseline and at week 12. PCA and PLS components were determined with all mutations that had prevalences >0. For the genotypic score, mutations were selected in two steps: 1) p-value < 0.01 in univariable analysis and prevalences between 10% and 90% and 2) backwards selection procedure based on the Cochran-Armitage Test. The predictive performances were compared by means of the cross-validated area under the receiver operating curve (AUC).

Results

Virological failure was observed in 46 (53%) patients at week 12. Principal components and PLS components showed a good performance for the prediction of virological response in HIV infected patients. The cross-validated AUCs for the PCA, PLS and genotypic score were 0.880, 0.868 and 0.863, respectively. The strength of the effect of each mutation could be considered through PCA and PLS components. In contrast, each selected mutation contributes with the same weight for the calculation of the genotypic score. Furthermore, PCA and PLS regression helped to describe mutation clusters (e.g. 10, 46, 90).

Conclusion

In this dataset, PCA and PLS showed a good performance but their predictive ability was not clinically superior to that of the genotypic score.

Genotypic resistance analysis of the virological response to fosamprenavir-ritonavir in protease inhibitor-experienced patients in CONTEXT and TRIAD clinical trials

The aim of this study was to identify human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease mutations associated with virological response (VR) to fosamprenavir-ritonavir (FPV/r) in 113 protease inhibitor (PI)-experienced patients randomized in both CONTEXT and TRIAD clinical trials and receiving the same dose (700/100 mg twice daily) of FPV/r. The impact of each protease mutation on the VR to FPV/r, defined as the decrease in HIV RNA at week 12, was investigated with nonparametric analyses. A step-by-step procedure was done using a Jonckheere-Terpstra (JT) test that retains the group of mutations most strongly associated with the VR. Mutations at the following 14 codons were associated with a reduced VR to FPV/r: 10, 15, 33, 46, 54, 60, 62, 63, 72, 73, 82, 84, 89, and 90. The JT procedure led to selecting the CONTEXT/TRIAD genotypic set of mutations, I15V, M46I/L, I54L/M/V, D60E, L63P/T, and I84V, as providing the strongest association with the VR (P = 1.45 x 10(-11)). In the nine patients with zero mutations within this set, the median decrease in HIV RNA was -2.63 log copies/ml, and was -2.22 (n = 45), -1.50 (n = 26), -0.58 (n = 23), -0.47 (n = 6), -0.13 (n = 3), and 0.04 (n = 1) log copies/ml in those with one, two, three, four, five, and six mutations, respectively. This study identified six mutations associated with VR to FPV/r. Some of these mutations are shared with the current FPV/r Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA (ANRS) resistance score, which has been cross-validated in the CONTEXT/TRIAD data set, suggesting that the current ANRS FPV/r score is a useful tool for the prediction of VR to FPV/r in PI-experienced patients.

Efficacy and tolerability of a fosamprenavir-ritonavir-based versus a lopinavir-ritonavir-based antiretroviral treatment in 82 therapy-naïve patients with HIV-1 infection

Recent data indicate that fosamprenavir/ritonavir as part of an initial antiretroviral regimen in HIV-1-infected patients is associated with favourable efficacy and tolerability and in the KLEAN study (kaletra versus lexiva with epivir and abacavir in antiretroviral-naive patients) it was found to be non-inferior to lopinavir/ritonavir in association with abacavir/lamivudine. In our open-label, observational study conducted in 82 therapy-nasmall yi, Ukrainianve HIV-1-infected patients followed-up for 18 months, virological and immunological efficacy was comparable in subjects receiving a fosamprenavir/ritonavir-based and a lopinavir/ritonavir-based treatment (proportions of patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL at month 18 were 76.9% and 74.4%, respectively, when discontinuations were counted as failures). At the same time, frequency of treatment discontinuations and adverse events were similar in both groups, whereas incidence of diarrhoea and hypertriglyceridaemia was significantly higher in lopinavir-treated patients than in fosamprenavir-treated ones (53.5% vs. 25.6% and 69.8% vs. 43.6%, respectively; P < 0.01). In subjects with virological failure, no viral protease resistance mutations were detected by genotype analysis.

Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection: 2008 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA panel

Resistance to antiretroviral drugs remains an important limitation to successful human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) therapy. Resistance testing can improve treatment outcomes for infected individuals. The availability of new drugs from various classes, standardization of resistance assays, and the development of viral tropism tests necessitate new guidelines for resistance testing. The International AIDS Society-USA convened a panel of physicians and scientists with expertise in drug-resistant HIV-1, drug management, and patient care to review recently published data and presentations at scientific conferences and to provide updated recommendations. Whenever possible, resistance testing is recommended at the time of HIV infection diagnosis as part of the initial comprehensive patient assessment, as well as in all cases of virologic failure. Tropism testing is recommended whenever the use of chemokine receptor 5 antagonists is contemplated. As the roll out of antiretroviral therapy continues in developing countries, drug resistance monitoring for both subtype B and non-subtype B strains of HIV will become increasingly important.

HIV-1 drug resistance mutations: an updated framework for the second decade of HAART

More than 200 mutations are associated with antiretroviral resistance to drugs belonging to six licensed antiretroviral classes. More than 50 reverse transcriptase mutations are associated with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance including M184V, thymidine analog mutations, mutations associated with non-thymidine analog containing regimens, multi-nucleoside resistance mutations, and several recently identified accessory mutations. More than 40 reverse transcriptase mutations are associated with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance including major primary and secondary mutations, non-polymorphic minor mutations, and polymorphic accessory mutations. More than 60 mutations are associated with protease inhibitor resistance including major protease, accessory protease, and protease cleavage site mutations. More than 30 integrase mutations are associated with the licensed integrase inhibitor raltegravir and the investigational inhibitor elvitegravir. More than 15 gp41 mutations are associated with the fusion inhibitor enfuvirtide. CCR5 inhibitor resistance results from mutations that promote gp120 binding to an inhibitor-bound CCR5 receptor or CXCR4 tropism; however, the genotypic correlates of these processes are not yet well characterized.

Predictive values of the human immunodeficiency virus phenotype and genotype and of amprenavir and lopinavir inhibitory quotients in heavily pretreated patients on a ritonavir-boosted dual-protease-inhibitor regimen

The inhibitory quotient (IQ) of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors (PIs), which is the ratio of drug concentration to viral susceptibility, is considered to be predictive of the virological response. We used several approaches to calculate the IQs of amprenavir and lopinavir in a subset of heavily pretreated patients participating in the French National Agency for AIDS Research (ANRS) 104 trial and then compared their potentials for predicting changes in the plasma HIV RNA level. Thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to receive either amprenavir (600 mg twice a day [BID]) or lopinavir (400 mg BID) plus ritonavir (100 or 200 mg BID) for 2 weeks before combining the two PIs. The 90% inhibitory concentration (IC(90)) was measured using a recombinant assay without or with additional human serum (IC(90+serum)). Total and unbound PI concentrations in plasma were measured. Univariate linear regression was used to estimate the relation between the change in viral load and the IC(90) or IQ values. The amprenavir phenotypic IQ values were very similar when measured with the standard and protein binding-adjusted IC(90)s. No relationship was found between the viral load decline and the lopinavir IQ. During combination therapy, the amprenavir and lopinavir genotypic IQ values were predictive of the viral response at week 6 (P = 0.03). The number of protease mutations (< 5 or > or = 5) was related to the virological response throughout the study. These findings suggest that the combined genotypic IQ and the number of protease mutations are the best predictors of virological response. High amprenavir and lopinavir concentrations in these patients might explain why plasma concentrations and the phenotypic IQ have poor predictive value.

Virological Response to Darunavir/Ritonavir-Based Regimens in Antiretroviral-Experienced Patients (PREDIZISTA Study)

Background

We assessed the association of baseline HIV-1 mutations, phenotypic sensitivity and pharmacokinetics with virological failure (VF) at week 12 (W12) after onset of a darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r)-based regimen in a cohort of 67 antiretroviral-experienced HIV-patients failing on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).

Methods

VF was defined as HIV RNA >2.3 log10copies/ml at W12. HIV reverse transcriptase and protease sequencing was performed at W0; mutations with a P-value <0.25 in univariable analyses were used for a backward selection to find the best mutation set for VF prediction. Genotypic and phenotypic sensitivity scores were calculated and virtual phenotype predicted fold change (FC) assessed. DRV Cmin, Cmax, AUC0→12 h and genotypic inhibitory quotient (GIQ) were determined.

Results

Patients had a median of 15 previous treatments for 10 years. Median W0 values included a T-cell count of 129 cells/μl, 4.7 log10 HIV RNA copies/ml, four major protease and six nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations. At W12, median HIV RNA decrease was -2.1 log10 copies/ml with a gain of +67 CD4+ T-cells/μl; 40% of patients failed. We determined the genotypic score I13V+V32I+L33F/I/V+E35D+ M36I/L/V+I47V+F53L+I62V According to <4, 4–5 and >5 mutations, failure occurred in 11%, 48% and 100% of patients. Failure was associated with CDC stage, baseline CD4+ T-cell count, number of major protease inhibitor resistance mutations, FC and DRV/r score. Pharmacokinetics were not associated with failure, but GIQ was.

Conclusion

At W12, 60% of heavily pretreated patients responded on DRV/r-based HAART. Genotypic and phenotypic information constituted the main virological response determinant in patients with optimal drug concentrations.

Fosamprenavir calcium plus ritonavir for HIV infection

Fosamprenavir is a protease inhibitor (PI) approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Fosamprenavir is a prodrug of amprenavir developed to reduce the pill burden yet maintain the unique resistance pattern and efficacy associated with amprenavir. In a head-to-head, noninferiority trial in antiretroviral treatment-naive HIV-infected patients, the antiviral efficacy and tolerability of ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir was not inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, when the PIs were combined with two other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. There are fewer studies published about fosamprenavir use in antiretroviral treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. The high genetic barrier to the development of resistance to fosamprenavir and the low level of cross-resistance between ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir and other PI regimens are notable. As with amprenavir, gastrointestinal disturbance and rash are the most frequent short-term treatment-limiting events with fosamprenavir. Treatment with ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir can produce a durable response. To date, fosamprenavir is one of the recommended preferred PI components for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients.