Minority quasispecies of drug-resistant HIV-1 that lead to early therapy failure in treatment-naive and -adherent patients.

BACKGROUND: Early virological failure of antiretroviral therapy associated with the selection of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 in treatment-naive patients is very critical, because virological failure significantly increases the risk of subsequent failures. Therefore, we evaluated the possible role of minority quasispecies of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1, which are undetectable at baseline by population sequencing, with regard to early virological failure. METHODS: We studied 4 patients who experienced early virological failure of a first-line regimen of lamivudine, tenofovir, and either efavirenz or nevirapine and 18 control patients undergoing similar treatment without virological failure. The key mutations K65R, K103N, Y181C, M184V, and M184I in the reverse transcriptase were quantified by allele-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction performed on plasma samples before and during early virological treatment failure. RESULTS: Before treatment, none of the viruses showed any evidence of drug resistance in the standard genotype analysis. Minority quasispecies with either the M184V mutation or the M184I mutation were detected in 3 of 18 control patients. In contrast, all 4 patients whose treatment was failing had harbored drug-resistant viruses at low frequencies before treatment, with a frequency range of 0.07%-2.0%. A range of 1-4 mutations was detected in viruses from each patient. Most of the minority quasispecies were rapidly selected and represented the major virus population within weeks after the patients started antiretroviral therapy. All 4 patients showed good adherence to treatment. Nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor plasma concentrations were in normal ranges for all 4 patients at 2 separate assessment times. CONCLUSIONS: Minority quasispecies of drug-resistant viruses, detected at baseline, can rapidly outgrow and become the major virus population and subsequently lead to early therapy failure in treatment-naive patients who receive antiretroviral therapy regimens with a low genetic resistance barrier.

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.

Long-term assessment of didanosine, lamivudine, and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive patients: 3-year follow-up.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of didadosine (ddI), lamivudine (3TC), and efavirenz (EFV). This was a follow-up to the VESD study, a 12-month open-label, observational, multicenter study of adult patients with HIV infection who started antiretroviral treatment with the ddI-3TC-EFV once-daily regimen. Of the 167 patients originally included, 106 patients remained on the same triple therapy at the end of the study (1 year), and they were offered an extra 24 months of follow-up; 96 were enrolled in this study (VESD-2). Seventy patients out of the initial cohort were still on the same regimen at month 36, with 97% of them with plasma viral load <50 copies /ml. An intention-to-treat analysis showed that the percentage of patients with plasma viral load <50 copies/ml was 73% at 36 months. CD4 cell counts increased 344 cells/microl over the 36 months. Safety and tolerance were good with no unexpected long-term toxicity. After 3 years of treatment with ddI-3TC-EFV, more than 40% of the patients were still receiving the initial antiretroviral therapy with sustained, durable immunovirological benefit and good acceptance. Long-term toxicity and virological failure were low.

Antiviral therapy against chronic hepatitis B in Brazil: high rates of lamivudine resistance mutations and correlation with HBV genotypes

The effectiveness of antiviral treatments of chronic hepatitis B has been poorly studied in Brazil. Here, hepatitis B virus (HBV) DNA positivity, drug resistance mutations and their association with HBV genotypes were evaluated in chronically HBV-infected patients under different drug regimens in Brazil. The study involved 129 patients under interferon or nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy for a median treatment time of 12 months. One hundred and five (81%) of these patients were treated with lamivudine (LAM), either in monotherapy or in combination with newer drugs, such as entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir (TDF). High (37.5-100%) rates of HBV DNA positivity were observed with all but one drug regimen (LAM + ETV). However, patients that were treated with ETV alone, TDF alone or with LAM combination therapies had a mean viral load that was 3-4 log lower than patients treated with LAM monotherapy. Of the patients treated with LAM, 47% developed resistance mutations. HBV genotypes A (59.1%), D (30.3%) and F (9.1%) were found. There was no association between the presence of LAM resistance mutations and genotypes, HBeAg status or treatment duration. Nevertheless, the rtM204V mutation was observed more frequently (12/13, 92%) in genotype A than in the others (p = 0.023). Six out of nine isolates that contained the rtM204I mutation belonged to genotype D and half of them displayed a single mutation. Genotype D isolates with the rtM204V variant preferentially displayed a triple mutation, while genotype A preferentially displayed a double mutation (p = 0.04).

Incidence of HIV-1 drug resistance among antiretroviral treatment-naive individuals starting modern therapy combinations.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of drug resistance incidence to modern first-line combination antiretroviral therapies against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 are complicated by limited availability of genotypic drug resistance tests (GRTs) and uncertain timing of resistance emergence. METHODS: Five first-line combinations were studied (all paired with lamivudine or emtricitabine): efavirenz (EFV) plus zidovudine (AZT) (n = 524); EFV plus tenofovir (TDF) (n = 615); lopinavir (LPV) plus AZT (n = 573); LPV plus TDF (n = 301); and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATZ/r) plus TDF (n = 250). Virological treatment outcomes were classified into 3 risk strata for emergence of resistance, based on whether undetectable HIV RNA levels were maintained during therapy and, if not, whether viral loads were >500 copies/mL during treatment. Probabilities for presence of resistance mutations were estimated from GRTs (n = 2876) according to risk stratum and therapy received at time of testing. On the basis of these data, events of resistance emergence were imputed for each individual and were assessed using survival analysis. Imputation was repeated 100 times, and results were summarized by median values (2.5th-97.5th percentile range). RESULTS: Six years after treatment initiation, EFV plus AZT showed the highest cumulative resistance incidence (16%) of all regimens (<11%). Confounder-adjusted Cox regression confirmed that first-line EFV plus AZT (reference) was associated with a higher median hazard for resistance emergence, compared with other treatments: EFV plus TDF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; range, 0.42-0.76), LPV plus AZT (HR, 0.63; range, 0.45-0.89), LPV plus TDF (HR, 0.55; range, 0.33-0.83), ATZ/r plus TDF (HR, 0.43; range, 0.17-0.83). Two-thirds of resistance events were associated with detectable HIV RNA level ≤500 copies/mL during treatment, and only one-third with virological failure (HIV RNA level, >500 copies/mL). CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of TDF instead of AZT and ATZ/r was correlated with lower rates of resistance emergence, most likely because of improved tolerability and pharmacokinetics resulting from a once-daily dosage.

Treatment modification in human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals starting combination antiretroviral therapy between 2005 and 2008.

BACKGROUND: Adverse effects of combination antiretroviral therapy (CART) commonly result in treatment modification and poor adherence. METHODS: We investigated predictors of toxicity-related treatment modification during the first year of CART in 1318 antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study who began treatment between January 1, 2005, and June 30, 2008. RESULTS: The total rate of treatment modification was 41.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 37.6-45.8) per 100 person-years. Of these, switches or discontinuations because of drug toxicity occurred at a rate of 22.4 (95% CI, 19.5-25.6) per 100 person-years. The most frequent toxic effects were gastrointestinal tract intolerance (28.9%), hypersensitivity (18.3%), central nervous system adverse events (17.3%), and hepatic events (11.5%). In the multivariate analysis, combined zidovudine and lamivudine (hazard ratio [HR], 2.71 [95% CI, 1.95-3.83]; P < .001), nevirapine (1.95 [1.01-3.81]; P = .050), comedication for an opportunistic infection (2.24 [1.19-4.21]; P = .01), advanced age (1.21 [1.03-1.40] per 10-year increase; P = .02), female sex (1.68 [1.14-2.48]; P = .009), nonwhite ethnicity (1.71 [1.18-2.47]; P = .005), higher baseline CD4 cell count (1.19 [1.10-1.28] per 100/microL increase; P < .001), and HIV-RNA of more than 5.0 log(10) copies/mL (1.47 [1.10-1.97]; P = .009) were associated with higher rates of treatment modification. Almost 90% of individuals with treatment-limiting toxic effects were switched to a new regimen, and 85% achieved virologic suppression to less than 50 copies/mL at 12 months compared with 87% of those continuing CART (P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: Drug toxicity remains a frequent reason for treatment modification; however, it does not affect treatment success. Close monitoring and management of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions are crucial for the durability of CART.

Abacavir/Lamivudine Versus Tenofovir/Emtricitabine in Virologically Suppressed Patients Switching from Ritonavir-Boosted Protease Inhibitors to Raltegravir

There are few clinical data on the combination abacavir/lamivudine plus raltegravir. We compared the outcomes of patients from the SPIRAL trial receiving either abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine at baseline who had taken at least one dose of either raltegravir or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors. For the purpose of this analysis, treatment failure was defined as virological failure (confirmed HIV-1 RNA ≥50 copies/ml) or discontinuation of abacavir/lamivudine or tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events, consent withdrawal, or lost to follow-up. There were 143 (72.59%) patients with tenofovir/emtricitabine and 54 (27.41%) with abacavir/lamivudine. In the raltegravir group, there were three (11.11%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and eight (10.96%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference 0.15%; 95% CI -17.90 to 11.6). In the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group, there were four (14.81%) treatment failures with abacavir/lamivudine and 12 (17.14%) with tenofovir/emtricitabine (estimated difference -2.33%; 95% CI -16.10 to 16.70). Triglycerides decreased and HDL cholesterol increased through the study more pronouncedly with abacavir/lamivudine than with tenofovir/emtricitabine and differences in the total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio between both combinations of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tended to be higher in the raltegravir group, although differences at 48 weeks were not significant. While no patient discontinued abacavir/lamivudine due to adverse events, four (2.80%) patients (all in the ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor group) discontinued tenofovir/emtricitabine because of adverse events (p=0.2744). The results of this analysis do not suggest that outcomes of abacavir/lamivudine are worse than those of tenofovir/emtricitabine when combined with raltegravir in virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults.

Once-daily dolutegravir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection (FLAMINGO): 96 week results from a randomised, open-label, phase 3b study.

BACKGROUND: The primary analysis of the FLAMINGO study at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virological response rate than did those taking ritonavir-boosted darunavir once daily, with similar tolerability. We present secondary efficacy and safety results analysed at 96 weeks. METHODS: FLAMINGO was a multicentre, open-label, phase 3b, non-inferiority study of HIV-1-infected treatment-naive adults. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg, with investigator-selected combination tenofovir and emtricitabine or combination abacavir and lamivudine background treatment. The main endpoints were plasma HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL and safety. The non-inferiority margin was -12%. If the lower end of the 95% CI was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01449929. FINDINGS: Of 595 patients screened, 488 were randomly assigned and 484 included in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boosted darunavir). At 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir-boosted darunavir group had HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL (adjusted difference 12·4, 95% CI 4·7-20·2; p=0·002), with the greatest difference in patients with high viral load at baseline (50/61 [82%] vs 32/61 [52%], homogeneity test p=0·014). Six participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus ritonavir group discontinued because of adverse events. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhoea (23/242 [10%] in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 [24%] in the darunavir plus ritonavir group), nausea (31/242 [13%] vs 34/242 [14%]), and headache (17/242 [7%] vs 12/242 [5%]). INTERPRETATION: Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological response rate than is once-daily ritonavir-boosted darunavir. Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety to a boosted darunavir regimen with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor background treatment for HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients. FUNDING: ViiV Healthcare and Shionogi & Co.

Lamivudine therapy for hepatitis B in renal transplantation

Antiviral therapies are associated with an increased risk of acute rejection in transplant patients. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lamivudine therapy for hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in renal transplant patients. Six patients were included in this study. They received 150 mg/day of lamivudine during a follow-up period of 24 months. The laboratory tests monitored were HBV DNA, HBsAg, HBeAg, ALT, gamma-GT, serum creatinine and blood cyclosporine levels. The HBV DNA became undetectable in four patients as early as in the third month of treatment. After six months, the viral load was also negative in the other two patients, and remained so until 18 months of follow-up. The medication was well tolerated with no major side effects. Lamivudine was safe and effective in blocking HBV replication in renal transplant patients without any apparent increase in the risk of graft failure for the 24-month period of study.

Evaluation of inadequate anti-retroviral treatment in patients with HIV/AIDS

Introduction: Since the emergence of antiretroviral therapy, the survival of patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus has increased. Non-adherence to this therapy is directly related to treatment failure, which allows the emergence of resistant viral strains. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study of the antiretroviral dispensing records of 229 patients from the Center for Health Care, University Hospital, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil, was conducted between January and December 2009. Results: The study aimed to evaluate patient compliance and determine if there was an association between non-adherence and the therapy. Among these patients, 63.8% were men with an average age of 44.0 +/- 9.9 years. The most used treatment was a combination of 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors with 1 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (55.5%) or with 2 protease inhibitors (28.8%). It was found that patients taking lopinavir/ritonavir with zidovudine and lamivudine had a greater frequency of inadequate treatment than those taking atazanavir with zidovudine and lamivudine (85% and 83.3%, respectively). Moreover, when the combination of zidovudine/lamivudine was used, the patients were less compliant (chi(2) = 4.468, 1 degree of freedom, p = 0.035). Conclusions: The majority of patients failed to correctly adhere to their treatment; therefore, it is necessary to implement strategies that lead to improved compliance, thus ensuring therapeutic efficacy and increased patient survival.

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.

Reduction of HIV-1 in blood and lymph nodes following potent antiretroviral therapy and the virologic correlates of treatment failure

Potent antiretroviral therapy can reduce plasma HIV RNA levels below the threshold of detection for periods of a year or more. The magnitude of HIV RNA reduction in the lymphoid tissue in patients with suppression of HIV RNA levels in plasma beyond 6 months has not been determined. We evaluated levels of HIV RNA and DNA and characterized resistance mutations in blood and inguinal lymph node biopsies obtained from 10 HIV-infected subjects who received 36–52 weeks of indinavir (IDV)/zidovudine (ZDV)/lamivudine (3TC), IDV, or ZDV/3TC. After 1 year of therapy, viral RNA levels in LN of individuals remained detectable but were log10 = 4 lower than in subjects on the triple drug regimen with interruption of therapy or in those treated with ZDV/3TC alone, who had viral loads in their lymph nodes indistinguishable from those expected for untreated patients. In all cases viral DNA remained detectable in lymph nodes and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). When plasma virus suppression was incomplete, lymph node and PBMC cultures were positive and drug resistance developed. These studies indicate that pronounced and sustained suppression of plasma viremia by a potent antiretroviral combination is associated with low HIV RNA levels in the lymph nodes 1 year after treatment. Conversely, the persistence of even modest levels of plasma virus after 1 year of treatment reflects ongoing viral replication, the emergence of drug resistance, and the maintenance of high burdens of virus in the lymph nodes.