Decreased phenotypic susceptibility to etravirine in patients with predicted genotypic sensitivity

Discordance between Etravirine Phenotype and Genotype-Based Predicted Phenotype for Subtype C HIV-1 from First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy Failures in South Africa

Etravirine (ETR) is a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) used in treatment-experienced individuals. Genotypic resistance test-interpretation systems can predict ETR resistance; however, genotype-based algorithms are derived primarily from HIV-1 subtype B and may not accurately predict resistance in non-B subtypes. The frequency of ETR resistance among recombinant subtype C HIV-1 and the accuracy of genotypic interpretation systems were investigated. HIV-1_LAI containing full-length RT from HIV-1 subtype C-positive individuals experiencing virologic failure (>10,000 copies/ml and >1 NNRTI resistance-associated mutation) were phenotyped for ETR susceptibility. Fold change (FC) was calculated against a composite 50% effective concentration (EC₅₀) from treatment-naive individuals and three classifications were assigned: (i) <2.9-FC, susceptible; (ii) ≥2.9- to 10-FC, partially resistant; and (iii) >10-FC, fully resistant. The Stanford HIVdb-v8.4 was used for genotype predictions merging the susceptible/potential low-level and low-level/intermediate groups for 3 × 3 comparison. Fifty-four of a hundred samples had reduced ETR susceptibility (≥2.9-FC). The FC correlated with HIVdb-v8.4 (Spearman's rho = 0.62; P < 0.0001); however, 44% of samples were partially (1 resistance classification difference) and 4% completely discordant (2 resistance classification differences). Of the 34 samples with an FC of >10, 26 were HIVdb-v8.4 classified as low-intermediate resistant. Mutations L100I, Y181C, or M230L were present in 27/34 (79%) of samples with an FC of >10 but only in 2/46 (4%) of samples with an FC of <2.9. No other mutations were associated with ETR resistance. Viruses containing the mutation K65R were associated with reduced ETR susceptibility, but 65R reversions did not increase ETR susceptibility. Therefore, genotypic interpretation systems were found to misclassify ETR susceptibility in HIV-1 subtype C samples. Modifications to genotypic algorithms are needed to improve the prediction of ETR resistance for the HIV-1 subtype C.

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.

Predicted residual activity of rilpivirine in HIV-1 infected patients failing therapy including NNRTIs efavirenz or nevirapine

Rilpivirine is a second-generation nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) currently indicated for first-line therapy, but its clinical benefit for HIV-1 infected patients failing first-generation NNRTIs is largely undefined. This study quantified the extent of genotypic rilpivirine resistance in viral isolates from 1212 patients upon failure of efavirenz- or nevirapine-containing antiretroviral treatment, of whom more than respectively 80% and 90% showed high-level genotypic resistance to the failing NNRTI. Of all study patients, 47% showed a rilpivirine resistance-associated mutation (RPV-RAM), whereas preserved residual rilpivirine activity was predicted in half of the patients by three genotypic drug resistance interpretation algorithms. An NNRTI-dependent impact on rilpivirine resistance was detected. Compared with the use of nevirapine, the use of efavirenz was associated with a 32% lower risk of having a RPV-RAM and a 50% lower risk of predicted reduced rilpivirine susceptibility. Most prevalent RPV-RAMs after nevirapine experience were Y181C and H221Y, whereas L100I+K103N, Y188L and K101E occurred most in efavirenz-experienced patients. Predicted rilpivirine activity was not affected by HIV-1 subtype, although frequency of individual mutations differed across subtypes. In conclusion, this genotypic resistance analysis strongly suggests that the latest NNRTI, rilpivirine, may retain activity in a large proportion of HIV-1 patients in whom resistance failed while they were on an efavirenz- or nevirapine-containing regimen, and may present an attractive option for second-line treatment given its good safety profile and dosing convenience. However, prospective clinical studies assessing the effectiveness of rilpivirine for NNRTI-experienced patients are warranted to validate knowledge derived from genotypic and phenotypic drug resistance studies.