Free accessResearch articleFirst published online 2006-10
The Effect of HIV-1 Resistance Mutations after First-Line Virological Failure on the Possibility to Sequence Antiretroviral Drugs in Second-Line Regimens
One of the more vigorous debates in the field of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) is how to start it and what the optimal drug sequence is.
Methods
A retrospective cohort analysis was performed. The aim was to evaluate which variables could influence the virological response to second-line genotypic-based HAART in patients with virological documented first-line HAART failure. A positive response was defined as a confirmed HIV RNA level <50 copies/ml.
Results
Two hundred and eight patients were included. Demographic characteristics, risk factors for HIV acquisition, and drugs included in the initial treatment did not significantly influence the considered outcome. According to a multiple logistic model, the presence of thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs) had a negative association with the virological outcome (P=0.006), whereas the use of a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) in second-line HAART was positively associated with the endpoint (P=0.001). Patients receiving a genotypic-based second-line HAART containing a boosted PI achieved a viral load <50 copies/ml in a 74.2% of cases compared with 52.2% of those whose therapy did not contain a boosted PI. This difference was statistically significant (P=0.002) with an odds ratio (OR) of 2.63 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) ranging from 1.46 to 4.76. This last variable positively influenced the outcome even when the analysis was restricted to patients harbouring a virus presenting TAMs. In this case, second-line HAART was successful in 66.7% of cases with an OR of 3.25 and a 95% CI ranging from 1.28 to 8.25 (P=0.014).
Conclusions
the wider range of available therapeutic options has made resistance and drug-sequencing considerations a crucial point in selecting first-line HAART. Our data indicate that, by limiting the risk of selecting or accumulating TAMs, it could be possible to save further therapeutic options. In second-line regimens, the higher antiviral effect and genetic barrier of boosted PIs may overcome the limits of the use of NRTI backbones, which retain only a partial effectiveness.
References
1.
WalmsleyS., BernsteinB., KingM.Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection.N Engl J Med2002; 346: 2039–2046.
2.
SquiresK.E., GulickR., TebasP.A comparison of stavudine plus lamivudine versus zidovudine plus lamivudine in combination with indinavir in antiretroviral naive individuals with HIV infection: selection of thymidine analog regimen therapy (START I).AIDS2000; 14: 1591–1600.
3.
DeJesusE., HerreraG., TeofiloE.Abacavir versus zidovudine combined with lamivudine and efavirenz, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults.Clin Infect Dis2004; 39: 1038–1046.
4.
StaszewskiS., Morales-RamirezJ., TashimaK.T.Efavirenz plus zidovudine and lamivudine, efavirenz plus indinavir, and indinavir plus zidovudine and lamivudine in the treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults.N Engl J Med1999; 341: 1865–1873.
5.
BartlettJ.A., DeMasiR., QuinnJ.Overview of the effectiveness of triple combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 infected adults.AIDS2001; 15: 1369–1377.
6.
ShaferR.W., SmeatonL.M., RobbinsG.K.Comparison of four drug regimens and pairs of sequential three drug regimens as initial therapy for HIV-1 infection.N Engl J Med2003; 349: 2304–2315.
7.
TebasP., PatricA.K., KaneE.M., KlebertM.K., SimpsonJ.H., EriceA., PowderlyW.G., HenryK.Virologic response to a ritonavir-saquinavir containing regimen in patients who had previously failed nelfinavir.AIDS1999, 13: F23–28.
8.
KatlamaC., SchneiderL., AgherR.Ritonavir/amprenavir combination therapy in HIV infected patients who failed several protease inhibitor containing regimens.AIDS2000; 14 Suppl 4: S28.
9.
KirkO., LundgrenJ.D.Clinical trial methodology and clinical cohorts: the importance of complete follow-up in trials evaluating the virological efficacy of anti-HIV medicines.Curr Opin Infect Dis2004, 17: 33–38.
10.
HirschM.S., Brun-VezinetF., ClotetB.Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1: 2003 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA Panel.Clin Infect Dis2003; 37: 113–128.
11.
ClavelF., HanceA.J.HIV drug resistanceN Engl J Med2004; 350: 1023–1035.
12.
FlandreP., DescampsD., JolyV., MaiffredyV., TamaletC., IzopetJ., AboulkerJ.P., Brun-VezinetF.Predictive factors and selection of thymidine analogue mutations by nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors according to initial regimen received.Antivir Ther2003; 8: 65–72.
13.
TebasP., PatricA.K., KaneE.M.Virologic response to a ritonavir-saquinavir containing regimen in patients who had previously failed nelfinavir.AIDS1999; 13: F23–28.
14.
AntinoriA., ZaccarelliM., CingolaniA.Cross-resistance among nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors limits recycling efavirenz after nevirapine failure.AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses2002; 12: 835–838.
15.
MillerV.Larder BA. Mutational patterns in the HIV genome and cross-resistance following nucleoside and nucleotide analogue drug exposure.Antivir Ther2001; 6 Suppl 3: 25–44.
16.
ShaferR.W.Genotypic testing for human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance.Clin Microbiol Rev2002, 15: 247–277.
17.
KuritzkesD.R., BassetR.L., HazelwoodD.Rate of thymidine analogue resistance mutation accumulation with zidovudine-or stavudine-based regimens.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2004; 36: 600–603.
18.
WainbergM.A., TurnerD.Resistance issues with new nucleoside/nucleotide backbone options.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2004; 37: S36–43.
19.
KuritzkesD.R., QuinnJ.B., BenoitS.L.Drug resistance and virologic response in NUCA 3001, a randomized trial of lamivudine (3TC) versus zidovudine (ZDV) versus ZDV plus 3TC in previously untreated patients.AIDS1996; 10: 975–981.
20.
MaguireM., GartlandM., MooreS.Absence of zidovudine resistance in antiretroviral-naive patients following zidovudine/lamivudine/protease inhibitor combination therapy: virological evaluation of the AVANTI 2 and AVANTI 3 studies.AIDS2000; 14: 1195–1201.
21.
MelbyT., TortellS., ThorbornD.Time to appearance of NRTI-associated mutations and response to subsequent therapy for patients on failing ABC/COM.8th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 4–8 February 2001, Chicago, USA. Abstract 448.
22.
MillerM.D., MargotN.A., LuB.Effect of baseline nucleoside-associated resistance on response to tenofovir therapy: integrated analyses of studies 9.2 and 907.9th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 24–28 February 2002, Seattle, USA. Abstract 43.
23.
AntinoriA., TrottaM., NastaP.Type-1 thymidine-associated mutations but not K65R mutation play a role in determining virologic failure to combined rescue therapy with tenofovir and stavudine.12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 22–25 February 2005, Boston, USA. Abstract 709.
24.
MaggioloF., CallegaroA., RipamontiD., NemisS., AcerbisA., GoglioA., SuterF.In vivo determination of stavudine activity in the presence of TAMs.12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 22–25 February 2005, Boston, USA. Abstract 706.
25.
MarcelinA.G., DelaguerreC., WirdenM.Thymidine analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors resistance mutations profiles and association to other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors resistance mutations observed in the context of virological failure.J Med Virol2004; 72: 162–165.
26.
Garcia-LermaJ., MacInnesH., BennetD., WeinstockH., HeneineW.Transmitted human immunodeficiency virus type 1 carrying the D67N or K219Q/E mutation evolves rapidly to zidovudine resistance in vitro and shows a high replicative fitness in the presence of zidovudine.J Med Virol2004; 78: 7545–7552.
27.
BangsbergD.R., AcostaE.P., GuptaR.Adherence-resistance relationship for protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors explained by virological fitness.AIDS2006; 20: 223–231.
