Sequence clusters in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase are associated with subsequent virological response to antiretroviral therapy

Phylodynamics of infectious disease epidemics

We present a formalism for unifying the inference of population size from genetic sequences and mathematical models of infectious disease in populations. Virus phylogenies have been used in many recent studies to infer properties of epidemics. These approaches rely on coalescent models that may not be appropriate for infectious diseases. We account for phylogenetic patterns of viruses in susceptible-infected (SI), susceptible-infected-susceptible (SIS), and susceptible-infected-recovered (SIR) models of infectious disease, and our approach may be a viable alternative to demographic models used to reconstruct epidemic dynamics. The method allows epidemiological parameters, such as the reproductive number, to be estimated directly from viral sequence data. We also describe patterns of phylogenetic clustering that are often construed as arising from a short chain of transmissions. Our model reproduces the moments of the distribution of phylogenetic cluster sizes and may therefore serve as a null hypothesis for cluster sizes under simple epidemiological models. We examine a small cross-sectional sample of human immunodeficiency (HIV)-1 sequences collected in the United States and compare our results to standard estimates of effective population size. Estimated prevalence is consistent with estimates of effective population size and the known history of the HIV epidemic. While our model accurately estimates prevalence during exponential growth, we find that periods of decline are harder to identify.

Laboratory Guidelines for the Practical Use of HIV Drug Resistance Tests in Patient Follow-Up

HIV drug resistance is one of the major limitations in the successful treatment of HIV-infected patients using currently available antiretroviral combination therapies. When appropriate, drug susceptibility profiles should be taken into consideration in the choice of a specific combination therapy. Guidelines recommending resistance testing in certain circumstances have been issued. Many clinicians have access to resistance testing and will increasingly use these results in their treatment decisions. In this document, we comment on the different methods available, and the relevant issues relating to the clinical application of these tests. Specifically, the following recommendations can be made: (i) genotypic and phenotypic HIV-1 drug resistance analyses can yield complementary information for the clinician. However, insufficient information currently exists as to which approach is preferable in any particular clinical setting; (ii) when HIV-1 drug resistance testing is required, it is recommended that testing be performed on plasma samples obtained before starting, stopping or changing therapy, on samples that have a viral load above the detection limit of the resistance test; (iii) the panel recommends that genotypic and phenotypic HIV-1 drug resistance testing for clinical purposes be performed in a certified laboratory under strict quality control and quality assurance standards; and (iv) the panel recommends that resistance testing laboratories provide clinicians with resistance reports that include a list of drug-related resistance mutations (genotype) and/or a list of drug-related fold resistance values (phenotype), with interpretations of each by an experienced virologist. The interpretation of genotypic and phenotypic analysis is a complex and developing science, and in order to understand HIV-1 drug resistance reports, communication between the requesting clinician and the expert that interpreted the resistance report is recommended.

Comparative analysis of HIV type 1 genotypic resistance across antiretroviral trial treatment regimens

From data on HIV-1 genotypes collected from antiretroviral trial participants who fail virologically, we describe methods for comparing distributions of acquired HIV-1 mutations across different treatment regimens. Given a definition of a "mutational distance" that summarizes the genetic change of a subject's virus in a way that captures the resistance cost of exposure to an antiretroviral regimen, these comparative analyses inform about the relative treatability of emergent virus by next-line therapy directed to the same viral target. The utility of the methods is illustrated by application to data from AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) Study 241. We find that patients failing zidovudine/didanosine/nevirapine accumulated a 2.41-fold greater nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI) mutational distance than patients failing zidovudine/didanosine [95% confidence interval (1.55, 5.26), p < 0.000001], quantitating expectations that adding a nonnucleoside RTI to a double nucleoside regimen may attenuate future effectiveness of nonnucleoside RTI therapy for nucleoside-experienced patients if viremia is not suppressed. We also find that persons with extensive prior experience with suboptimal nucleoside therapy who were virologically failing zidovudine/didanosine/nevirapine or zidovudine/didanosine accumulated a similar nucleoside RTI mutational distance, implying that the addition of the nonnucleoside RTI did not preserve future nucleoside options.

Residual HIV-RNA levels persist for up to 2.5 years in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients on potent antiretroviral therapy

The long-term response of 10 asymptomatic, antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients to potent combination antiretroviral therapy was characterized by monitoring levels of HIV-1 RNA in plasma, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC), and lymphoid tissue using highly sensitive HIV-1 RNA assays. Although plasma viral loads were continuously suppressed to levels below 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml for up to 2.5 years (60-128 weeks), HIV-1 RNA was still detectable at very low levels (1 to 49 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml) in 25% of the samples. In corresponding PBMC specimens, residual HIV-RNA was detectable in as much as 91% of samples tested (1 to 420 HIV-1 RNA copies/microg total RNA). Similarly, HIV-1 RNA levels in lymphoid tissue also remained detectable at a high frequency (86%). A highly significant correlation was demonstrated between therapy-induced change in PBMC HIV-1 RNA levels and change in plasma HIV-1 RNA levels (r2 = 0.69; p = 0.003). These findings support the concept that measurement of HIV-1 RNA in the easily accessible PBMC compartment is relevant for evaluating the potency of current and future antiretroviral therapies.

New advances in pharmacogenomics

In the years to come, pharmacogenomics will make an impact on the development of new drugs. Numerous publications have shown that gene polymorphism can influence drug toxicity and/or efficacy. In order to improve current applications of pharmacogenomics, some technical limitations regarding marker generation, genotyping and biostatistical analysis are being overcome.

Incidence and impact of resistance against approved antiretroviral drugs

More than 15 antiretroviral drugs are now available for clinical use, and have led to significant reductions in morbidity and mortality for HIV infected individuals. Nevertheless, antiviral drug resistance emerges to all these drugs, which limits their benefit. This review addresses the biological basis of antiretroviral drug resistance, and the prevalence of specific drug resistance associated mutations in patients treated with the three currently available classes of agents, namely nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors. In addition, data on prevalence of HIV drug resistance in untreated individuals published to date are summarised, and the implications of potential transmission of drug resistant HIV is discussed.

Clinical utility of testing human immunodeficiency virus for drug resistance

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 drug-resistance testing is quickly moving from the research laboratory to the clinic as data defining its utility as a prognostic indicator of response to therapy become available. In July 1998, a panel of the International AIDS Society-USA did not recommend the widespread application of resistance testing, but by May 2000 this panel endorsed and recommended the incorporation of resistance testing in patient-care management. Considerable data supporting the use of drug-resistance testing have now been published or presented at international conferences. These data strongly suggest that drug-resistance testing is of considerable value in many clinical settings. Prospective trials of resistance testing as a clinical management tool are still ongoing, and the long-term benefits still need to be evaluated. Nevertheless, early results from several studies showed a significantly better virological response when treatment regimens were based on resistance-testing data, rather than on the standard of care. HIV drug-resistance testing is also useful as a tool for new antiretroviral drug design and development, as well as for monitoring the spread of primary HIV drug resistance.