HBV genotypes and response to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV/HBV-coinfected persons

BACKGROUND Hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotypes can influence treatment outcome in HBV-monoinfected and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/HBV-coinfected patients. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) plays a pivotal role in antiretroviral therapy (ART) of HIV/HBV-coinfected patients. The influence of HBV genotypes on the response to antiviral drugs, particularly TDF, is poorly understood. METHODS HIV/HBV-co-infected participants with detectable HBV DNA prior to TDF therapy were selected from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. HBV genotypes were identified and resistance testing was performed prior to antiviral therapy, and in patients with delayed treatment response (>6 months). The efficacy of TDF to suppress HBV (HBV DNA <20 IU/mL) and the influence of HBV genotypes were determined. RESULTS 143 HIV/HBV-coinfected participants with detectable HBV DNA were identified. The predominant HBV genotypes were A (82 patients, 57 %); and D (35 patients, 24 %); 20 patients (14 %) were infected with multiple genotypes (3 % A + D and 11 % A + G); and genotypes B, C and E were each present in two patients (1 %). TDF completely suppressed HBV DNA in 131 patients (92 %) within 6 months; and in 12 patients (8 %), HBV DNA suppression was delayed. No HBV resistance mutations to TDF were found in patients with delayed response, but all were infected with HBV genotype A (among these, 5 patients with genotype A + G), and all had previously been exposed to lamivudine. CONCLUSION In HIV/HBV-coinfected patients, infection with multiple HBV genotypes was more frequent than previously reported. The large majority of patients had an undetectable HBV viral load at six months of TDF-containing ART. In patients without viral suppression, no TDF-related resistance mutations were found. The role of specific genotypes and prior lamivudine treatment in the delayed response to TDF warrant further investigation.

Predictors of optimal viral suppression in patients switched to abacavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of continued HIV RNA viral load suppression in individuals switched to abacavir (ABC), lamivudine (3TC) and zidovudine (ZDV) after successful previous treatment with a protease inhibitor or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based combination antiretroviral therapy. DESIGN AND METHODS: An observational cohort study, which included individuals in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study switching to ABC/3TC/ZDV following successful suppression of viral load. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure defined as the first of the following events: two consecutiveviral load measurements > 400 copies/ml under ABC/3TC/ZDV, one viral load measurement > 400 copies/ml and subsequent discontinuation of ABC/3TC/ZDV within 3 months, AIDS or death. RESULTS: We included 495 individuals; 47 experienced treatment failure in 1459 person-years of follow-up [rate = 3.22 events/100 person-years; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 2.30-4.14]. Of all failures, 62% occurred in the first year after switching to ABC/3TC/ZDV. In a Cox regression analysis, treatment failure was independently associated with earlier exposure to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) mono or dual therapy [hazard ratio (HR), 8.02; 95% CI, 4.19-15.35) and low CD4 cell count at the time of the switch (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.87 by +100 cells/microl up to 500 cells/microl). In patients without earlier exposure to mono or dual therapy, AIDS prior to switch to simplified maintenance therapy was an additional risk factor. CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate was low in patients with suppressed viral load and switch to ABC/3TC/ZDV treatment. Patients with earlier exposure to mono or dual NRTI therapy, low CD4 cell count at time of switch, or AIDS are at increased risk of treatment failure, limiting the use of ABC/3TC/ZDV in these patient groups.

Emergence of HIV-1 drug resistance in previously untreated patients initiating combination antiretroviral treatment: a comparison of different regimen types

BACKGROUND: Standard first-line combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) against human immunodeficiency virus 1 (HIV-1) contains either a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r). Differences between these regimen types in the extent of the emergence of drug resistance on virological failure and the implications for further treatment options have rarely been assessed. METHODS: We investigated virological outcomes in patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study initiating cART between January 1, 1999, and December 31, 2005, with an unboosted PI, a PI/r, or an NNRTI and compared genotypic drug resistance patterns among these groups at treatment failure. RESULTS: A total of 489 patients started cART with a PI, 518 with a PI/r, and 805 with an NNRTI. A total of 177 virological failures were observed (108 [22%] PI failures, 24 [5%] PI/r failures, and 45 [6%] NNRTI failures). The failure rate was highest in the PI group (10.3 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8.5-12.4). No difference was seen between patients taking a PI/r (2.7; 95% CI, 1.8-4.0) and those taking an NNRTI (2.4; 95% CI, 1.8-3.3). Genotypic test results were available for 142 (80%) of the patients with a virological treatment failure. Resistance mutations were found in 84% (95% CI, 75%-92%) of patients taking a PI, 30% (95% CI, 12%-54%) of patients taking a PI/r, and 66% (95% CI, 49%-80%) of patients taking an NNRTI (P < .001). Multidrug resistance occurred almost exclusively as resistance against lamivudine-emtricitabine and the group-specific third drug and was observed in 17% (95% CI, 9%-26%) of patients taking a PI, 10% (95% CI, 0.1%-32%) of patients taking a PI/r, and 50% (95% CI, 33%-67%) of patients taking an NNRTI (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Regimens that contained a PI/r or an NNRTI exhibited similar potency as first-line regimens. However, the use of a PI/r led to less resistance in case of virological failure, preserving more drug options for the future.

Virologic and immunologic responses in treatment-naive patients to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir or efavirenz with a common backbone

Background: Atazanavir boosted with ritonavir (ATV/r) and efavirenz (EFV) are both recommended as first-line therapies for HIV-infected patients. We compared the 2 therapies for virologic efficacy and immune recovery. Methods: We included all treatment-naïve patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study starting therapy after May 2003 with either ATV/r or EFV and a backbone of tenofovir and either emtricitabine or lamivudine. We used Cox models to assess time to virologic failure and repeated measures models to assess the change in CD4 cell counts over time. All models were fit as marginal structural models using both point of treatment and censoring weights. Intent-to-treat and various as-treated analyses were carried out: In the latter, patients were censored at their last recorded measurement if they changed therapy or if they were no longer adherent to therapy. Results: Patients starting EFV (n = 1,097) and ATV/r (n = 384) were followed for a median of 35 and 37 months, respectively. During follow-up, 51% patients on EFV and 33% patients on ATV/r remained adherent and made no change to their first-line therapy. Although intent-to-treat analyses suggest virologic failure was more likely with ATV/r, there was no evidence for this disadvantage in patients who adhered to first-line therapy. Patients starting ATV/r had a greater increase in CD4 cell count during the first year of therapy, but this advantage disappeared after one year. Conclusions: In this observational study, there was no good evidence of any intrinsic advantage for one therapy over the other, consistent with earlier clinical trials. Differences between therapies may arise in a clinical setting because of differences in adherence to therapy.