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.

Using Plant Phenomics to Exploit the Gains of Genomics

Agricultural scientists face the dual challenge of breeding input-responsive, widely adoptable and climate-resilient varieties of crop plants and developing such varieties at a faster pace. Integrating the gains of genomics with modern-day phenomics will lead to increased breeding efficiency which in turn offers great promise to develop such varieties rapidly. Plant phenotyping techniques have impressively evolved during the last two decades. The low-cost, automated and semi-automated methods for data acquisition, storage and analysis are now available which allow precise quantitative analysis of plant structure and function; and genetic dissection of complex traits. Appropriate plant types can now be quickly developed that respond favorably to low input and resource-limited environments and address the challenges of subsistence agriculture. The present review focuses on the need of systematic, rapid, minimal invasive and low-cost plant phenotyping. It also discusses its evolution to modern day high throughput phenotyping (HTP), traits amenable to HTP, integration of HTP with genomics and the scope of utilizing these tools for crop improvement.

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.

Updated European Recommendations for the Clinical Use of HIV Drug Resistance Testing

In most European countries, HIV drug resistance testing has become a routine clinical tool. However, its practical implementation in a clinical context is demanding. The European HIV Drug Resistance Panel was established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists on this topic and to propose quality control measures. The panel recommends resistance testing for the following indications: i) drug-naive patients with acute or recent infection; ii) therapy failure, including suboptimal treatment response, when treatment change is considered; iii) pregnant HIV-1-infected women and paediatric patients with detectable viral load when treatment initiation or change is considered; and iv) genotype source patient when post-exposure prophylaxis is considered. In addition, for drug-naive patients with chronic infection in whom treatment is to be started, the panel suggests that resistance testing should be strongly considered and recommends testing the earliest sample for drug resistance if suspicion of resistance is high or prevalence of resistance in this population exceeds 10%. The panel does not favour genotyping over phenotype, however it is anticipated that genotyping will be used more often because of its greater accessibility, lower cost and faster turnaround time. For the interpretation of resistance data, clinically validated systems should be used to the greatest extent possible. It is mandatory that laboratories performing HIV resistance tests take regular part in quality assurance programs. Similarly, it is necessary that HIV clinicians and virologists take part in continuous education and meet regularly to discuss problematic clinical cases. Indeed, resistance test results should be used in the context of all other clinically relevant information for predicting therapy response. The panel also encourages the timely collection of epidemiological information to estimate the impact of transmission of resistant HIV and the prevalence of HIV-1 non-B subtypes in the different European countries.