A randomized trial of nelfinavir, ritonavir, or delavirdine in combination with saquinavir-SGC and stavudine in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients

Innovative approaches to develop prophylactic and therapeutic vaccines against HIV/AIDS

The acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) emerged in the human population in the summer of 1981. According to the latest United Nations estimates, worldwide over 33 million people are infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and the prevalence rates continue to rise globally. To control the alarming spread of HIV, an urgent need exists for developing a safe and effective vaccine that prevents individuals from becoming infected or progressing to disease. To be effective, an HIV/AIDS vaccine should induce broad and long-lasting humoral and cellular immune responses, at both mucosal and systemic level. However, the nature of protective immune responses remains largely elusive and this represents one of the major roadblocks preventing the development of an effective vaccine. Here we summarize our present understanding of the factors responsible for resistance to infection or control of progression to disease in human and monkey that may be relevant to vaccine development and briefly review recent approaches which are currently being tested in clinical trials. Finally, the rationale and the current status of novel strategies based on nonstructural HIV-1 proteins, such as Tat, Nef and Rev, used alone or in combination with modified structural HIV-1 Env proteins are discussed.

Nelfinavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV infection

Nelfinavir (Viracept) is an orally administered protease inhibitor. In combination with other antiretroviral drugs (usually nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors [NRTIs]), nelfinavir produces substantial and sustained reductions in viral load in patients with HIV infection. Nelfinavir may be used in the treatment of adults, adolescents and children aged >or=2 years with HIV infection. It can also be used in pregnancy. Resistance to nelfinavir may develop, but the most common mutation (D30N, appearing mainly in HIV-1 subtype B) does not confer resistance to other protease inhibitors, thereby conserving these agents for later use. Although less effective than lopinavir/ritonavir, the preferred first-line treatment in US guidelines, nelfinavir is positioned as an alternative agent for the treatment of adults and adolescents with HIV infection and is an option for those unable to tolerate other protease inhibitors. Nelfinavir also has a role in the management of pregnant patients as well as paediatric patients with HIV infection.

The molecular population genetics of HIV-1 group O

HIV-1 group O originated through cross-species transmission of SIV from chimpanzees to humans and has established a relatively low prevalence in Central Africa. Here, we infer the population genetics and epidemic history of HIV-1 group O from viral gene sequence data and evaluate the effect of variable evolutionary rates and recombination on our estimates. First, model selection tools were used to specify suitable evolutionary and coalescent models for HIV group O. Second, divergence times and population genetic parameters were estimated in a Bayesian framework using Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling, under both strict and relaxed molecular clock methods. Our results date the origin of the group O radiation to around 1920 (1890-1940), a time frame similar to that estimated for HIV-1 group M. However, group O infections, which remain almost wholly restricted to Cameroon, show a slower rate of exponential growth during the twentieth century, explaining their lower current prevalence. To explore the effect of recombination, the Bayesian framework is extended to incorporate multiple unlinked loci. Although recombination can bias estimates of the time to the most recent common ancestor, this effect does not appear to be important for HIV-1 group O. In addition, we show that evolutionary rate estimates for different HIV genes accurately reflect differential selective constraints along the HIV genome.

Effectiveness of Antiretroviral Therapy after Protease Inhibitor Failure: An Analytic Overview

To examine effectiveness of subsequent antiretroviral therapy (ART), studies published during the period of 1 January 1997 through 31 May 2003 involving patients who had failed a protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimen and were switched to another regimen were reviewed. Twelve studies describing 1197 patients were analyzed. A total of 38% of patients had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA levels of <500 copies/mL at 24 weeks. After adjustment for baseline HIV RNA level, the rate of virologic suppression ranged from 16% for patients switching drugs within previously failed classes to 54% for nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-naive patients switched to boosted PI- and NNRTI-containing regimens. ART regimens in patients who failed a PI-containing regimen provided virologic suppression only in a few patients. The best response was seen in NNRTI-naive patients receiving NNRTI- and boosted PI-containing regimens. New approaches are needed to achieve better suppression in pretreated HIV-infected patients.

Baseline antiretroviral drug susceptibility influences treatment response in patients receiving saquinavir-enhancing therapy

PURPOSE

To relate baseline plasma HIV genotypic and virtual phenotypic antiretroviral drug susceptibility to subsequent virological response in patients receiving saquinavir (SQV)-enhancing therapy. Individuals were randomized to receive stavudine (d4T), SQV, and one of ritonavir, nelfinavir, or delavirdine to enhance SQV blood levels.

METHOD

The protease and reverse transcriptase baseline sequences of 31 treatment-experienced patients were analyzed by genotype and virtual phenotype and were related to viral load at weeks 12 and 24. Genotypic resistance to SQV was defined by the presence of G48V and/or L90M mutations in the protease gene. Potential cross-resistance to d4T in zidovudine (ZDV)-experienced individuals was defined by the presence of thymidine-associated mutations in the reverse transcriptase gene.

RESULTS

ZDV-associated mutations did not affect the virological response at 24 weeks. Individuals who were sensitive to SQV at baseline as determined by either genotyping or virtual phenotyping showed a greater decrease in viral load at week 24 than those resistant to SQV, irrespective of treatment arm. By genotyping, SQV-sensitive individuals had a median log decrease of 1.12 compared to 0.32 for those individuals who were SQV resistant. By virtual phenotyping, SQV-sensitive individuals had a median log decrease of 1.0 compared to a rise of 0.08 in resistant individuals.

CONCLUSION

Thymidine analogue-associated mutations at baseline did not influence the response to subsequent therapy involving d4T. Individuals who were sensitive or resistant to SQV by genotyping or virtual phenotyping responded to SQV-enhancing regimens, but the virological response was greater in those who were sensitive.