Week 144 resistance analysis of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir DF versus atazanavir+ritonavir+emtricitabine/tenofovir DF in antiretroviral-naïve patients

Initial Antiretroviral Therapy in an Integrase Inhibitor Era: Can We Do Better?

With the second-generation integrase inhibitors (dolutegravir and bictegravir) extending the attributes of earlier integrase inhibitors, three-drug regimens containing integrase inhibitors plus two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors are now widely recommended for first-line (initial) treatment of human immunodeficiency virus-1 infection. Led by dolutegravir plus lamivudine, two-drug therapy is emerging as a way to reduce antiretroviral therapy cost and adverse effects without compromising treatment options should virologic failure occur. Initial two-drug therapy has limitations, including the relative incompatibility with the coemerging concept of same-day antiretroviral therapy initiation.

Response to Therapy in Antiretroviral Therapy-Naive Patients With Isolated Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor-Associated Transmitted Drug Resistance

BACKGROUND

Nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-associated transmitted drug resistance (TDR) is the most common type of TDR. Few data guide the selection of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for patients with such resistance.

METHODS

We reviewed treatment outcomes in a cohort of HIV-1-infected patients with isolated NNRTI TDR who initiated ART between April 2002 and May 2014. In an as-treated analysis, virological failure (VF) was defined as not reaching undetectable virus levels within 24 weeks, virological rebound, or switching regimens during viremia. In an intention-to-treat analysis, failure was defined more broadly as VF, loss to follow-up, and switching during virological suppression.

RESULTS

Of 3245 patients, 131 (4.0%) had isolated NNRTI TDR; 122 received a standard regimen comprising 2 NRTIs plus a boosted protease inhibitor (bPI; n = 54), an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI; n = 52), or an NNRTI (n = 16). The median follow-up was 100 weeks. In the as-treated analysis, VF occurred in 15% (n = 8), 2% (n = 1), and 25% (n = 4) of patients in the bPI, INSTI, and NNRTI groups, respectively. In multivariate regression, there was a trend toward a lower risk of VF with INSTIs than with bPIs (hazard ratio: 0.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.02 to 1.1; P = 0.07). In intention-to-treat multivariate regression, INSTIs had a lower risk of failure than bPIs (hazard ratio: 0.38; 95% confidence interval: 0.18 to 0.82; P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with isolated NNRTI TDR experienced low VF rates with INSTIs and bPIs. INSTIs were noninferior to bPIs in an analysis of VF but superior to bPIs when frequency of switching and loss to follow-up were also considered.

Lack of impact of pre-existing T97A HIV-1 integrase mutation on integrase strand transfer inhibitor resistance and treatment outcome

T97A is an HIV-1 integrase polymorphism associated with integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) resistance. Using pooled data from 16 clinical studies, we investigated the prevalence of T97A (pre-existing and emergent) and its impact on INSTI susceptibility and treatment response in INSTI-naive patients who enrolled on elvitegravir (EVG)- or raltegravir (RAL)-based regimens. Prior to INSTI-based therapy, primary INSTI resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were absent and T97A pre-existed infrequently (1.4%; 47 of 3367 integrase sequences); most often among non-B (5.3%) than B (0.9%) HIV-1 subtypes. During INSTI-based therapy, few patients experienced virologic failure with emergent INSTI RAMs (3%; 122 of 3881 patients), among whom T97A emerged infrequently in the presence (n = 6) or absence (n = 8) of primary INSTI RAMs. A comparison between pre-existing and emergent T97A patient populations (i.e., in the absence of primary INSTI RAMs) showed no significant differences in EVG or RAL susceptibility in vitro. Furthermore, among all T97A-containing viruses tested, only 38-44% exhibited reduced susceptibility to EVG and/or RAL (all of low magnitude; <11-fold), while all maintained susceptibility to dolutegravir. Of the patients with pre-existing T97A, 17 had available clinical follow-up: 16 achieved virologic suppression and 1 maintained T97A and INSTI sensitivity without further resistance development. Overall, T97A is an infrequent integrase polymorphism that is enriched among non-B HIV-1 subtypes and can confer low-level reduced susceptibility to EVG and/or RAL. However, detection of T97A does not affect response to INSTI-based therapy with EVG or RAL. These results suggest a very low risk of initiating INSTI-based therapy in patients with pre-existing T97A.

Antiviral Activity of Bictegravir (GS-9883), a Novel Potent HIV-1 Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor with an Improved Resistance Profile

Bictegravir (BIC; GS-9883), a novel, potent, once-daily, unboosted inhibitor of HIV-1 integrase (IN), specifically targets IN strand transfer activity (50% inhibitory concentration [IC₅₀] of 7.5 ± 0.3 nM) and HIV-1 integration in cells. BIC exhibits potent and selective in vitro antiretroviral activity in both T-cell lines and primary human T lymphocytes, with 50% effective concentrations ranging from 1.5 to 2.4 nM and selectivity indices up to 8,700 relative to cytotoxicity. BIC exhibits synergistic in vitro antiviral effects in pairwise combinations with tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, or darunavir and maintains potent antiviral activity against HIV-1 variants resistant to other classes of antiretrovirals. BIC displayed an in vitro resistance profile that was markedly improved compared to the integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG), and comparable to that of dolutegravir (DTG), against nine INSTI-resistant site-directed HIV-1 mutants. BIC displayed statistically improved antiviral activity relative to EVG, RAL, and DTG against a panel of 47 patient-derived HIV-1 isolates with high-level INSTI resistance; 13 of 47 tested isolates exhibited >2-fold lower resistance to BIC than DTG. In dose-escalation experiments conducted in vitro, BIC and DTG exhibited higher barriers to resistance than EVG, selecting for HIV-1 variants with reduced phenotypic susceptibility at days 71, 87, and 20, respectively. A recombinant virus with the BIC-selected M50I/R263K dual mutations in IN exhibited only 2.8-fold reduced susceptibility to BIC compared to wild-type virus. All BIC-selected variants exhibited low to intermediate levels of cross-resistance to RAL, DTG, and EVG (<8-fold) but remained susceptible to other classes of antiretrovirals. A high barrier to in vitro resistance emergence for both BIC and DTG was also observed in viral breakthrough studies in the presence of constant clinically relevant drug concentrations. The overall virologic profile of BIC supports its ongoing clinical investigation in combination with other antiretroviral agents for both treatment-naive and -experienced HIV-infected patients.

HIV-1 drug resistance and resistance testing

The global scale-up of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy (ART) has led to dramatic reductions in HIV-1 mortality and incidence. However, HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) poses a potential threat to the long-term success of ART and is emerging as a threat to the elimination of AIDS as a public health problem by 2030. In this review we describe the genetic mechanisms, epidemiology, and management of HIVDR at both individual and population levels across diverse economic and geographic settings. To describe the genetic mechanisms of HIVDR, we review the genetic barriers to resistance for the most commonly used ARVs and describe the extent of cross-resistance between them. To describe the epidemiology of HIVDR, we summarize the prevalence and patterns of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) and acquired drug resistance (ADR) in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We also review to two categories of HIVDR with important public health relevance: (i) pre-treatment drug resistance (PDR), a World Health Organization-recommended HIVDR surveillance metric and (ii) and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)-related drug resistance, a type of ADR that can impact clinical outcomes if present at the time of treatment initiation. To summarize the implications of HIVDR for patient management, we review the role of genotypic resistance testing and treatment practices in both high-income and LMIC settings. In high-income countries where drug resistance testing is part of routine care, such an understanding can help clinicians prevent virological failure and accumulation of further HIVDR on an individual level by selecting the most efficacious regimens for their patients. Although there is reduced access to diagnostic testing and to many ARVs in LMIC, understanding the scientific basis and clinical implications of HIVDR is useful in all regions in order to shape appropriate surveillance, inform treatment algorithms, and manage difficult cases.

Drug Susceptibility and Viral Fitness of HIV-1 with Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitor Resistance Substitution Q148R or N155H in Combination with Nucleoside/Nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Resistance Substitutions

In clinical trials of coformulated elvitegravir (EVG), cobicistat (COBI), emtricitabine (FTC), and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), emergent drug resistance predominantly involved the FTC resistance substitution M184V/I in reverse transcriptase (RT), with or without the tenofovir (TFV) resistance substitution K65R, accompanied by a primary EVG resistance substitution (E92Q, N155H, or Q148R) in integrase (IN). We previously reported that the RT-K65R, RT-M184V, and IN-E92Q substitutions lacked cross-class phenotypic resistance and replicative fitness compensation. As a follow-up, the in vitro characteristics of mutant HIV-1 containing RT-K65R and/or RT-M184V with IN-Q148R or IN-N155H were also evaluated, alone and in combination, for potential interactions. Single mutants displayed reduced susceptibility to their corresponding inhibitor classes, with no cross-class resistance. Viruses with IN-Q148R or IN-N155H exhibited reduced susceptibility to EVG (137- and 40-fold, respectively) that was not affected by the addition of RT-M184V or RT-K65R/M184V. All viruses containing RT-M184V were resistant to FTC (>1,000-fold). Mutants with RT-K65R had reduced susceptibility to TFV (3.3- to 3.6-fold). Without drugs present, the viral fitness of RT and/or IN mutants was diminished relative to that of the wild type in the following genotypic order: wild type > RT-M184V ≥ IN-N155H ≈ IN-Q148R ≥ RT-M184V + IN-N155H ≥ RT-M184V + IN-Q148R ≥ RT-K65R/M184V + IN-Q148R ≈ RT-K65R/M184V + IN-N155H. In the presence of drug concentrations approaching physiologic levels, drug resistance counteracted replication defects, allowing single mutants to outcompete the wild type with one drug present and double mutants to outcompete single mutants with two drugs present. These results suggest that during antiretroviral treatment with multiple drugs, the development of viruses with combinations of resistance substitutions may be favored despite diminished viral fitness.

Dolutegravir - a review of the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety in the treatment of HIV

Dolutegravir is the newest integrase strand transfer inhibitor to be approved for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Dolutegravir is equivalent or superior to existing treatment regimens in both treatment-naïve and treatment-experienced patients including those with previous raltegravir or elvitegravir failure. The consistent efficacy coupled with excellent tolerability and infrequent drug–drug interactions makes the co-formulation of dolutegravir with two nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors an attractive treatment option. This review summarizes the pharmacokinetics, adverse event profile, and efficacy of dolutegravir in the treatment of HIV.

Resistance against Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitors and Relevance to HIV Persistence

Drug resistance prevents the successful treatment of HIV-positive individuals by decreasing viral sensitivity to a drug or a class of drugs. In addition to transmitted resistant viruses, treatment-naïve individuals can be confronted with the problem of drug resistance through de novo emergence of such variants. Resistant viruses have been reported for every antiretroviral drug tested so far, including the integrase strand transfer inhibitors raltegravir, elvitegravir and dolutegravir. However, de novo resistant variants against dolutegravir have been found in treatment-experienced but not in treatment-naïve individuals, a characteristic that is unique amongst antiretroviral drugs. We review here the issue of drug resistance against integrase strand transfer inhibitors as well as both pre-clinical and clinical studies that have led to the identification of the R263K mutation in integrase as a signature resistance substitution for dolutegravir. We also discuss how the topic of drug resistance against integrase strand transfer inhibitors may have relevance in regard to the nature of the HIV reservoir and possible HIV curative strategies.

Analysis of early resistance development at the first failure timepoint in elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-treated patients

OBJECTIVES

The patterns of emergent HIV-1 drug resistance in patients failing a single-tablet regimen consisting of elvitegravir, boosted by cobicistat, plus emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF) include mutations in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT) and integrase (IN). The order of development of mutations at early virological failure has not been described. The aim of this study was to determine the first resistance mutations to emerge during virological failure on EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Population sequencing was conducted at the first virological failure timepoint with HIV-1 RNA ≥400 copies/mL for each of the 18 patients with emergent resistance in the EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF arms of two randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 studies of EVG/COBI/FTC/TDF through Week 144.

RESULTS

At first failure compared with confirmed virological failure, 4 of the 18 patients had no detectable resistance mutation in their virus and only 51% of the RT and IN mutations were detected overall. M184V/I in RT was the first mutation to appear in many cases (n = 6) and was then followed by additional mutations in RT and IN. No case with development of resistance to the IN strand-transfer inhibitor prior to the development of M184V/I was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

The analysis of first failure found fewer patients with emergent resistance and fewer resistance mutations than the standard analysis at the later confirmation of virological failure. The early detection of resistance may preserve later treatment options.

Reduced viral fitness and lack of cross-class resistance with integrase strand transfer inhibitor and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations

The most common pattern of emergent resistance in the phase III clinical trials of coformulated elvitegravir (EVG)-cobicistat (COBI)-emtricitabine (FTC)-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) was the EVG resistance substitution E92Q in integrase (IN) with the FTC resistance substitution M184V in reverse transcriptase (RT), with or without the tenofovir (TFV) resistance substitution K65R. In this study, the effect of these IN and RT substitutions alone and in combination in the same genome on susceptibility to antiretroviral inhibitors and viral replication fitness was characterized. Single resistance substitutions (E92Q in IN [IN-E92Q], M184V in RT [RT-M184V], and K65R in RT [RT-K65R]) specifically affected susceptibility to the corresponding inhibitor classes, with no cross-class resistance observed. The IN-E92Q mutant displayed reduced susceptibility to EVG (50-fold), which was not impacted by the addition of RT-M184V or RT-K65R/M184V. Viruses containing RT-M184V had high-level resistance to FTC (>1,000-fold) that was not affected by the addition of IN-E92Q or RT-K65R. During pairwise growth competitions, each substitution contributed to decreased viral fitness, with the RT-K65R/M184V + IN-E92Q triple mutant being the least fit in the absence of drug. In the presence of drug concentrations approaching physiologic levels, however, drug resistance offset the replication defects, resulting in single mutants outcompeting the wild type with one drug present, and double and triple mutants outcompeting single mutants with two drugs present. Taken together, these results suggest that the reduced replication fitness and phenotypic resistance associated with RT and IN resistance substitutions are independent and additive. In the presence of multiple drugs, viral growth is favored for viruses with multiple substitutions, despite the presence of fitness defects.