Changing rates and patterns of drug resistance mutations in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected patients

Martins MR, Vandamme AM, Camacho R, Gomes P, Abecasis A. Increasing Prevalence of HIV-1 Transmitted Drug Resistance in Portugal: Implications for First Line Treatment Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Treatment for All recommendations have allowed access to antiretroviral (ARV) treatment for an increasing number of patients. This minimizes the transmission of infection but can potentiate the risk of transmitted (TDR) and acquired drug resistance (ADR).

OBJECTIVE

To study the trends of TDR and ADR in patients followed up in Portuguese hospitals between 2001 and 2017.

METHODS

In total, 11,911 patients of the Portuguese REGA database were included. TDR was defined as the presence of one or more surveillance drug resistance mutation according to the WHO surveillance list. Genotypic resistance to ARV was evaluated with Stanford HIVdb v7.0. Patterns of TDR, ADR and the prevalence of mutations over time were analyzed using logistic regression.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The prevalence of TDR increased from 7.9% in 2003 to 13.1% in 2017 (p < 0.001). This was due to a significant increase in both resistance to nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), from 5.6% to 6.7% (p = 0.002) and 2.9% to 8.9% (p < 0.001), respectively. TDR was associated with infection with subtype B, and with lower viral load levels (p < 0.05). The prevalence of ADR declined from 86.6% in 2001 to 51.0% in 2017 (p < 0.001), caused by decreasing drug resistance to all antiretroviral (ARV) classes (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

While ADR has been decreasing since 2001, TDR has been increasing, reaching a value of 13.1% by the end of 2017. It is urgently necessary to develop public health programs to monitor the levels and patterns of TDR in newly diagnosed patients.

The Decline in HIV-1 Drug Resistance in Heavily Antiretroviral-Experienced Patients Is Associated with Optimized Prescriptions in a Treatment Roll-Out Program in Mexico

A decrease in the rate of acquired antiretroviral (ARV) drug resistance (ADR) over time has been documented in high-income settings, but data on the determinants of this phenomenon are lacking. We tested the hypothesis that in heavily ARV-experienced patients in the Mexican ARV therapy (ART) roll-out program, the drop in ADR would be associated with changes in ARV drug usage. Genotypic resistance tests obtained from 974 HIV-infected patients with virological failure and at least 2 previously failed ARV regimens from throughout the country were analyzed for the presence of nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and protease inhibitor (PI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). Patients were divided into two groups according to their first ART start date: 488 patients initiated ART before mid-2003 (group 1) and 486 after mid-2003 (group 2). The rate of RAMs, median resistance score of several sentinel ARVs, and composition of ART drugs in patient's entire treatment history were compared between both groups. Patients in group 2 were less likely to have >3 thymidine analogue-associated mutations (TAMs) and >3 PI-mRAMs [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.37; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 0.25-0.54; p < .001 and aOR = 0.53; 95% CI = 0.36-0.77; p = .001, respectively] and had a significantly lower resistance score for zidovudine, tenofovir, ritonavir-boosted (r)-lopinavir, r-atazanavir, and r-darunavir than group 1 patients. A significantly lower proportion of patients in group 2 used monotherapy, bitherapy, thymidine analogue-containing regimens, nonboosted PI-containing regimens, and low resistance barrier PI-containing regimens. In Mexican ARV-experienced patients, the occurrence of TAM and PI-mRAM has significantly declined over time. This can be explained by treatment optimization in the national ART roll-out program in recent years.

Considerations and guidance in designing equity-relevant clinical trials

Health research has documented disparities in health and health outcomes within and between populations. When these disparities are unfair and avoidable they may be referred to as health inequities. Few trials attend to factors related to health inequities, and there is limited understanding about how to build consideration of health inequities into trials. Due consideration of health inequities is important to inform the design, conduct and reporting of trials so that research can build evidence to more effectively address health inequities and importantly, ensure that inequities are not aggravated. In this paper, we discuss approaches to integrating health equity-considerations in randomized trials by using the PROGRESS Plus framework (Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender, Religion, Education, Socio-economic status, Social capital and "Plus" that includes other context specific factors) and cover: (i) formulation of research questions, (ii) two specific scenarios relevant to trials about health equity and (iii) describe how the PROGRESS Plus characteristics may influence trial design, conduct and analyses. This guidance is intended to support trialists designing equity-relevant trials and lead to better design, conduct, analyses and reporting, by addressing two main issues: how to avoid aggravating inequity among research participants and how to produce information that is useful to decision-makers who are concerned with health inequities.

Estimating trends in the proportion of transmitted and acquired HIV drug resistance in a long term observational cohort in Germany

Objective

We assessed trends in the proportion of transmitted (TDR) and acquired (ADR) HIV drug resistance and associated mutations between 2001 and 2011 in the German ClinSurv-HIV Drug Resistance Study.

Method

The German ClinSurv-HIV Drug Resistance Study is a subset of the German ClinSurv-HIV Cohort. For the ClinSurv-HIV Drug Resistance Study all available sequences isolated from patients in five study centres of the long term observational ClinSurv-HIV Cohort were included. TDR was estimated using the first viral sequence of antiretroviral treatment (ART) naïve patients. One HIV sequence/patient/year of ART experienced patients was considered to estimate the proportion of ADR. Trends in the proportion of HIV drug resistance were calculated by logistic regression.

Results

9,528 patients were included into the analysis. HIV-sequences of antiretroviral naïve and treatment experienced patients were available from 34% (3,267/9,528) of patients. The proportion of TDR over time was stable at 10.4% (95% CI 9.1–11.8; p _{for trend} = 0.6; 2001–2011). The proportion of ADR among all treated patients was 16%, whereas it was high among those with available HIV genotypic resistance test (64%; 1,310/2,049 sequences; 95% CI 62–66) but declined significantly over time (OR 0.8; 95% CI 0.77–0.83; p _{for trend}<0.001; 2001–2011). Viral load monitoring subsequent to resistance testing was performed in the majority of treated patients (96%) and most of them (67%) were treated successfully.

Conclusions

The proportion of TDR was stable in this study population. ADR declined significantly over time. This decline might have been influenced by broader resistance testing, resistance test guided therapy and the availability of more therapeutic options and not by a decline in the proportion of TDR within the study population.

Burden of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance in HIV-1-infected patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The prevalence of HIV drug resistance varies with geographic location, year, and treatment exposure. This study generated yearly estimates of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance in treatment-naive (TN) and treatment-experienced (TE) patients in the United States (US), Europe (EU), and Canada. Studies reporting NNRTI resistance identified in electronic databases and 11 conferences were analyzed in three groups: (1) TN patients in one of four geographic regions [US, Canada, EU countries with larger surveillance networks ("EU1"), and EU countries with fewer data ("EU2")]; (2) TE patients from any region; and (3) TN patients failing NNRTI-based treatments in clinical trials. Analysis data included 158 unique studies from 22 countries representing 84 cohorts of TN patients, 21 cohorts of TE patients, and 8 trials reporting resistance at failure. From 1995 to 2000, resistance prevalence in TN patients increased in US and EU1 from 3.1% to 7.5% and 0.8% to 3.6%, respectively. Resistance in both regions stabilized in 2006 onward. Little resistance was identified in EU2 before 2000, and increased from 2006 (5.0%) to 2010 (13.7%). One TN Canadian study was identified and reported resistance of 8.1% in 2006. Half of TN clinical trial patients had resistance after treatment failure at weeks 48-144. Resistance in TE patients increased from 1998 (10.1%) to 2001 (44.0%), then decreased after 2004. Trends in NNRTI resistance among TN patients show an increased burden in the US and some EU countries compared to others. These findings signify a need for alternate first-line treatments in some regions.

Trends and correlates of HIV-1 resistance among subjects failing an antiretroviral treatment over the 2003-2012 decade in Italy

Background

Despite a substantial reduction in virological failures following introduction of new potent antiretroviral therapies in the latest years, drug resistance remains a limitation for the control of HIV-1 infection. We evaluated trends and correlates of resistance in treatment failing patients in a comprehensive database over a time period of relevant changes in prescription attitudes and treatment guidelines.

Methods

We analyzed 6,796 HIV-1 pol sequences from 49 centres stored in the Italian ARCA database during the 2003–2012 period. Patients (n = 5,246) with viremia > 200 copies/mL received a genotypic test while on treatment. Mutations were identified from IAS-USA 2013 tables. Class resistance was evaluated according to antiretroviral regimens in use at failure. Time trends and correlates of resistance were analyzed by Cochran-Armitage test and logistic regression models.

Results

The use of NRTI backbone regimens slightly decreased from 99.7% in 2003–2004 to 97.4% in 2010–2012. NNRTI-based combinations dropped from 46.7% to 24.1%. PI-containing regimens rose from 56.6% to 81.7%, with an increase of boosted PI from 36.5% to 68.9% overtime. In the same reference periods, Resistance to NRTIs, NNRTIs and PIs declined from 79.1% to 40.8%, from 77.8% to 53.8% and from 59.8% to 18.9%, respectively (p < .0001 for all comparisons). Dual NRTI + NNRTI and NRTI + PI resistance decreased from 56.4% to 33.3% and from 36.1% to 10.5%, respectively. Reduced risk of resistance over time periods was confirmed by a multivariate analysis.

Conclusions

Mutations associated with NRTIs, NNRTIs and PIs at treatment failure declined overtime regardless of specific class combinations and epidemiological characteristics of treated population. This is likely due to the improvement of HIV treatment, including both last generation drug combinations and prescription guidelines.

First line treatment response in patients with transmitted HIV drug resistance and well defined time point of HIV infection: updated results from the German HIV-1 seroconverter study

Background

Transmission of drug-resistant HIV-1 (TDR) can impair the virologic response to antiretroviral combination therapy. Aim of the study was to assess the impact of TDR on treatment success of resistance test-guided first-line therapy in the German HIV-1 Seroconverter Cohort for patients infected with HIV between 1996 and 2010. An update of the prevalence of TDR and trend over time was performed.

Methods

Data of 1,667 HIV-infected individuals who seroconverted between 1996 and 2010 were analysed. The WHO drug resistance mutations list was used to identify resistance-associated HIV mutations in drug-naïve patients for epidemiological analysis. For treatment success analysis the Stanford algorithm was used to classify a subset of 323 drug-naïve genotyped patients who received a first-line cART into three resistance groups: patients without TDR, patients with TDR and fully active cART and patients with TDR and non-fully active cART. The frequency of virologic failure 5 to 12 months after treatment initiation was determined.

Results

Prevalence of TDR was stable at a high mean level of 11.9% (198/1,667) in the HIV-1 Seroconverter Cohort without significant trend over time. Nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance was predominant (6.0%) and decreased significantly over time (OR = 0.92, CI = 0.87–0.98, p = 0.01). Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (2.4%; OR = 1.00, CI = 0.92–1.09, p = 0.96) and protease inhibitor resistance (2.0%; OR = 0.94, CI = 0.861.03, p = 0.17) remained stable. Virologic failure was observed in 6.5% of patients with TDR receiving fully active cART, 5,6% of patients with TDR receiving non-fully active cART and 3.2% of patients without TDR. The difference between the three groups was not significant (p = 0.41).

Conclusion

Overall prevalence of TDR remained stable at a rather high level. No significant differences in the frequency of virologic failure were identified during first-line cART between patients with TDR and fully-active cART, patients with TDR and non-fully active cART and patients without TDR.

The emergence of drug resistant HIV variants at virological failure of HAART combinations containing efavirenz, tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine within the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort

BACKGROUND

Lamivudine (3TC) and emtricitabine (FTC) are guideline choices for combination highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). 3TC has a shorter intracellular half life than FTC and may be more likely to lead to the development of drug resistant HIV variants.

METHODS

In this study we analysed linked data from the observational UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) Study and UK HIV Drug Resistance Database (HDRD) to investigate the rate of development of K65R or M184V resistance mutations in patients failing on combinations containing tenofovir (TDF) and efavirenz (EFV) with either 3TC or FTC. Virological failure was defined as 1 viral load >400 copies/ml. Rates were stratified by demographic variables, baseline viral load, current CD4 count, current viral load and year of starting regimen. Significant associations were identified using Poisson regression models and multivariable analyses were performed adjusting for the variables above. Logistic regression was used to determine whether there were any significant associations between type of regimen and detection of resistance mutation.

RESULTS

5455 patients received either (or both) 3TC, TDF and EFV or FTC, TDF and EFV contributing 6465 treatment episodes over 9962 person-years follow up. 47 of these episodes were preceded by resistance tests showing development of K65R or M184V mutation and were hence excluded. The majority of treatment episodes consisted of FTC- (n = 5190) rather than 3TC- (n = 1228) based regimens. 21 cases of K65R were detected over the course of follow up, giving an overall event rate of 0.21 (95% CI: 0.12-0.31)/100 person years follow up (PYFU). The overall event rate for detection of M184V was 0.38 (95% CI: 0.26-0.5)/100 PYFU. 201 patients receiving either regimen for the first time experienced virological failure. Of those receiving 3TC (n = 53), 7 (13.2%), 12 (22.6%) and 15 (28.3%) developed K65R, M184V and either K65R or M184V respectively. Of those receiving FTC (n = 148), 13 (8.8%), 20 (13.5%) and 26 (17.6%) developed K65R, M184V and either K65R or M184V respectively. Although patients on 3TC were more likely to develop resistance, this was not statistically significant in univariable (OR 1.85 (95% CI: 0.89-3.85, p = 0.09)) or multivariable analyses (OR 1.89 (95% CI: 0.89-4.01, p = 0.1)).

CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence of an increased risk of development of M184V and K65R in patients exposed to 3TC.

Missing data on the estimation of the prevalence of accumulated human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance in patients treated with antiretroviral drugs in north america

Determination of the prevalence of accumulated antiretroviral drug resistance among persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is complicated by the lack of routine measurement in clinical care. By using data from 8 clinic-based cohorts from the North American AIDS Cohort Collaboration on Research and Design, drug-resistance mutations from those with genotype tests were determined and scored using the Genotypic Resistance Interpretation Algorithm developed at Stanford University. For each year from 2000 through 2005, the prevalence was calculated using data from the tested subset, assumptions that incorporated clinical knowledge, and multiple imputation methods to yield a complete data set. A total of 9,289 patients contributed data to the analysis; 3,959 had at least 1 viral load above 1,000 copies/mL, of whom 2,962 (75%) had undergone at least 1 genotype test. Using these methods, the authors estimated that the prevalence of accumulated resistance to 2 or more antiretroviral drug classes had increased from 14% in 2000 to 17% in 2005 (P < 0.001). In contrast, the prevalence of resistance in the tested subset declined from 57% to 36% for 2 or more classes. The authors' use of clinical knowledge and multiple imputation methods revealed trends in HIV drug resistance among patients in care that were markedly different from those observed using only data from patients who had undergone genotype tests.

A template-dependent dislocation mechanism potentiates K65R reverse transcriptase mutation development in subtype C variants of HIV-1

Numerous studies have suggested that the K65R reverse transcriptase (RT) mutation develops more readily in subtype C than subtype B HIV-1. We recently showed that this discrepancy lies partly in the subtype C template coding sequence that predisposes RT to pause at the site of K65R mutagenesis. However, the mechanism underlying this observation and the elevated rates of K65R development remained unknown. Here, we report that DNA synthesis performed with subtype C templates consistently produced more K65R-containing transcripts than subtype B templates, regardless of the subtype-origin of the RT enzymes employed. These findings confirm that the mechanism involved is template-specific and RT-independent. In addition, a pattern of DNA synthesis characteristic of site-specific primer/template slippage and dislocation was only observed with the subtype C sequence. Analysis of RNA secondary structure suggested that the latter was unlikely to impact on K65R development between subtypes and that Streisinger strand slippage during DNA synthesis at the homopolymeric nucleotide stretch of the subtype C K65 region might occur, resulting in misalignment of the primer and template. Consequently, slippage would lead to a deletion of the middle adenine of codon K65 and the production of a -1 frameshift mutation, which upon dislocation and realignment of the primer and template, would lead to development of the K65R mutation. These findings provide additional mechanistic evidence for the facilitated development of the K65R mutation in subtype C HIV-1.

Estimating prevalence of accumulated HIV-1 drug resistance in a cohort of patients on antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVES

Estimating the prevalence of accumulated HIV drug resistance in patients receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) is difficult due to lack of resistance testing at all occasions of virological failure and in patients with undetectable viral load. A method to estimate this for 6498 EuroSIDA patients who were under follow-up on ART at 1 July 2008 was therefore developed by imputing data on patients with no prior resistance test results, based on the probability of detecting resistance in tested patients with similar profiles.

METHODS

Using all resistance test results available, predicted intermediate/high-level resistance to specific drug classes [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and protease inhibitors (PIs)] was derived using the Stanford algorithm v5.1.2. Logistic regression models were then employed to estimate predicted probability of resistance to each drug class for given values of current viral load, history of virological failure and previous virological suppression. Based on these predicted probabilities and patients' covariate profiles, estimates of prevalence in 5355 patients with no prior test results were obtained. Overall prevalence of resistance was estimated by pooling these data with those observed in the remaining 1143 tested patients.

RESULTS

Prevalence of NRTI, NNRTI and PI resistance was estimated as 43% (95% confidence interval: 39%-46%), 15% (13%-18%) and 25% (22%-28%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This method provides estimates for the proportion of treated patients in a cohort who harbour resistance on a given date, which are less likely to be affected by selection bias due to missing resistance data and will allow us to estimate prevalence of resistance to different drug classes at specific timepoints in HIV-infected populations on ART.

Impact of baseline antiretroviral resistance status on efficacy outcomes among patients receiving maraviroc plus optimized background therapy in the MOTIVATE 1 and 2 trials

PURPOSE

The MOTIVATE studies assessed maraviroc with optimized background therapy (OBT) in treatment-experienced patients with R5 HIV-1. This post hoc analysis compared outcomes between patients with and without HIV-1 resistance to epsilon3 classes of antiretrovirals at screening (triple-class-resistant [TCR] versus not-TCR [nTCR]).

METHODS

Week 48 changes (N = 635) in HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ cells were compared between TCR and nTCR groups receiving twice-daily maraviroc+OBT or placebo+OBT.

RESULTS

HIV-1 RNA change from baseline on maraviroc was significantly greater in the nTCR group (-2.05 vs -1.74 log(10) copies/mL; 95% CI difference 0.05-0.58 log(10)) though proportions <400 or <50 copies/mL were not. Week 48 CD4 increases were significantly greater in the nTCR group overall (mean +150 vs +110 cells/mm(3); 95% CI difference 18-62 cells/mm(3)) and in those with <50 RNA copies/mL (nTCR +192 vs +126 cells/mm(3); 95% CI difference, 19-93 cells/mm(3)) or receiving > or = 2 active OBT agents (weighted score; nTCR +184 vs +125 cells/mm3; 95% CI difference 8-110 cells/mm(3)).

CONCLUSIONS

Virologic suppression on maraviroc was greater in the nTCR than the TCR group, though proportions <50 or 400 copies/mL were not significantly different. Optimal CD4 increases on maraviroc appeared to accrue from initiation before development of TCR virus.

Prevalence of transmitted drug resistance and impact of transmitted resistance on treatment success in the German HIV-1 Seroconverter Cohort

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to analyse the prevalence of transmitted drug resistance, TDR, and the impact of TDR on treatment success in the German HIV-1 Seroconverter Cohort.

METHODS

Genotypic resistance analysis was performed in treatment-naïve study patients whose sample was available 1,312/1,564 (83.9% October 2008). A genotypic resistance result was obtained for 1,276/1,312 (97.3%). The resistance associated mutations were identified according to the surveillance drug resistance mutations list recommended for drug-naïve patients. Treatment success was determined as viral suppression below 500 copies/ml.

RESULTS

Prevalence of TDR was stable at a high level between 1996 and 2007 in the German HIV-1 Seroconverter Cohort (N = 158/1,276; 12.4%; CI(wilson) 10.7-14.3; p(for trend) = 0.25). NRTI resistance was predominant (7.5%) but decreased significantly over time (CI(Wilson): 6.2-9.1, p(for trend) = 0.02). NNRTI resistance tended to increase over time (NNRTI: 3.5%; CI(Wilson): 2.6-4.6; p(for trend)= 0.07), whereas PI resistance remained stable (PI: 3.0%; CI(Wilson): 2.1-4.0; p(for trend) = 0.24). Resistance to all drug classes was frequently caused by singleton resistance mutations (NRTI 55.6%, PI 68.4%, NNRTI 99.1%). The majority of NRTI-resistant strains (79.8%) carried resistance-associated mutations selected by the thymidine analogues zidovudine and stavudine. Preferably 2NRTI/1PIr combinations were prescribed as first line regimen in patients with resistant HIV as well as in patients with susceptible strains (susceptible 45.3%; 173/382 vs. resistant 65.5%; 40/61). The majority of patients in both groups were treated successfully within the first year after ART-initiation (susceptible: 89.9%; 62/69; resistant: 7/9; 77.8%).

CONCLUSION

Overall prevalence of TDR remained stable at a high level but trends of resistance against drug classes differed over time. The significant decrease of NRTI-resistance in patients newly infected with HIV might be related to the introduction of novel antiretroviral drugs and a wider use of genotypic resistance analysis prior to treatment initiation.

Resistance and virological response analyses in a three initial treatment strategy trial: a substudy of the INITIO trial

PURPOSE

To study the impact of baseline resistance mutations and HIV-1 subtypes on virological response to first-line antiretroviral therapy and to analyse the concordance of the results of two antiretroviral resistance interpretation tools in the INITIO trial.

METHOD

Genotype and virco TYPE resistance analyses were studied at baseline, Year 2, Year 3, and at first therapeutic failure on plasma specimens stored at -80 degrees C. Relations between resistance mutations at baseline, subtype, initial virological response, and virological outcome after Week 24 were studied.

RESULTS

781 participants had genotypic results available at baseline. Therapeutic failure occurred for 112 participants. Initial virological response as well as virological outcome after Week 24 were not associated with HIV subtype. Before Week 24, the proportion of participants remaining under strict initial regimen was lower in patients with resistance mutations at baseline than in those without any resistance mutations. Presenceof resistance mutations at baseline also impacted negatively long-term virological outcome. Few discrepancies were observed between genotypic and virco TYPE for resistance interpretation.

CONCLUSION

These data showed that presence of resistance mutations at baseline was associated with a poorer long-term virological outcome in the INITIO trial.

Clinical and genotypic findings in HIV-infected patients with the K65R mutation failing first-line antiretroviral therapy in Nigeria

INTRODUCTION

The HIV-1 epidemic in African countries is largely due to non-B HIV-1 subtypes. Patterns and frequency of antiretroviral drug resistance mutations observed in these countries may differ from those in the developed world, where HIV-1 subtype B predominates.

METHODS

HIV-1 subtype and drug resistance mutations were assayed among Nigerian patients with treatment failure on first-line therapy (plasma HIV RNA >1000 copies/mL). Sequence analysis of the reverse transcriptase and protease gene revealed drug resistance mutations and HIV-1 viral subtype. Specific patterns of mutations and clinical characteristics are described in patients with the K65R mutation.

RESULTS

Since 2005, 338 patients were evaluated. The most prevalent subtypes were CRF02_AG [152 of 338 (44.9%)] and G [128 of 338 (37.9%)]. Three hundred seven of 338 (90.8%) patients had previously received stavudine and/or zidovudine + lamivudine + efavirenz or nevirapine; 41 of 338 (12.1%) had received tenofovir (TDF). The most common nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor mutations observed were M184V (301, 89.1%) and K70R (91, 26.9%). The K65R mutation was present in 37 of 338 patients (10.9%). The Q151M (P < 0.05), K219R, and T69del (P < 0.01) mutations were more common in patients with K65R who had not received TDF.

CONCLUSIONS

The K65R mutation is increasingly recognized and is a challenging finding among patients with non-B HIV subtypes, whether or not they have been exposed to TDF.

International cohort analysis of the antiviral activities of zidovudine and tenofovir in the presence of the K65R mutation in reverse transcriptase

A K65R mutation in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase can occur with the failure of tenofovir-, didanosine-, abacavir-, and, in some cases, stavudine-containing regimens and leads to reduced phenotypic susceptibility to these drugs and hypersusceptibility to zidovudine, but its clinical impact is poorly described. We identified isolates with the K65R mutation within the Stanford Resistance Database and a French cohort for which subsequent treatment and virological response data were available. The partial genotypic susceptibility score (pGSS) was defined as the genotypic susceptibility score (GSS) excluding the salvage regimen's nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) component. A three-part virologic response variable was defined (e.g., complete virologic response, partial virologic response, and no virologic response). Univariate, multivariate, and bootstrap analyses evaluated factors associated with the virologic response, focusing on the contributions of zidovudine and tenofovir. Seventy-one of 130 patients (55%) achieved a complete virologic response (defined as an HIV RNA level of <200 copies/ml). In univariate analyses, pGSS and zidovudine use in the salvage regimen were predictors of the virologic response. In a multivariate analysis, pGSS and zidovudine and tenofovir use were associated with the virologic response. Bootstrap analyses showed similar reductions in HIV RNA levels with zidovudine or tenofovir use (0.5 to 0.9 log(10)). In the presence of K65R, zidovudine and tenofovir are associated with similar reductions in HIV RNA levels. Given its tolerability, tenofovir may be the preferred agent over zidovudine even in the presence of the K65R mutation.

Prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance among treatment-naive and treated HIV-infected patients in Venezuela

An in-house, low-cost method was developed to determine the genotypic resistance of immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates. All 179 Venezuelan isolates analysed belonged to subtype B. Primary drug resistance mutations were found in 11% of 63 treatment-naïve patients. The prevalence of resistance in isolates from 116 HIV-positive patients under antiretroviral treatment was 47% to protease inhibitors, 65% to nucleoside inhibitors and 38% to non-nucleoside inhibitors, respectively. Around 50% of patients in the study harboured viruses with highly reduced susceptibility to the three classical types of drugs after only five years from their initial diagnoses.

[Resistance to integrase inhibitors]

Integrase inhibitors are the most recently approved family of antiretroviral agents for the treatment of HIV infection. As with other antiretroviral agents, under pharmacological pressure, the virus selects resistance mutations if viral suppression is incomplete. Mutations are selected in the integrase gene, specifically in positions proximal to the catalytic center. Because clinical experience with these drugs is scarce, information on resistance is limited. Virologic failure with raltegravir is associated with selection of primary mutations such as N155H (40%) and distinct changes in position Q148 (28%). Less frequently, Y143R (6.6%) and E92Q are selected. The most frequently observed mutations in failure with elvitegravir are E92Q, E138K, Q148R/K/H and N155H, and less frequently S147G and T66A/I/K. The most common resistance pattern seems to be E138K + E147G + Q148R. There is a high grade of cross resistance between raltegravir and elvitegravir, making sequencing between these two drugs impossible.

The impact of transmission clusters on primary drug resistance in newly diagnosed HIV-1 infection

OBJECTIVES

To monitor HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance (TDR) in a well defined urban area with large access to antiretroviral therapy and to assess the potential source of infection of newly diagnosed HIV individuals.

METHODS

All individuals resident in Geneva, Switzerland, with a newly diagnosed HIV infection between 2000 and 2008 were screened for HIV resistance. An infection was considered as recent when the positive test followed a negative screening test within less than 1 year. Phylogenetic analyses were performed by using the maximum likelihood method on pol sequences including 1058 individuals with chronic infection living in Geneva.

RESULTS

Of 637 individuals with newly diagnosed HIV infection, 20% had a recent infection. Mutations associated with resistance to at least one drug class were detected in 8.5% [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), 6.3%; non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), 3.5%; protease inhibitors, 1.9%]. TDR (P-trend = 0.015) and, in particular, NNRTI resistance (P = 0.002) increased from 2000 to 2008. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that 34.9% of newly diagnosed individuals, and 52.7% of those with recent infection were linked to transmission clusters. Clusters were more frequent in individuals with TDR than in those with sensitive strains (59.3 vs. 32.6%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Moreover, 84% of newly diagnosed individuals with TDR were part of clusters composed of only newly diagnosed individuals.

CONCLUSION

Reconstruction of the HIV transmission networks using phylogenetic analysis shows that newly diagnosed HIV infections are a significant source of onward transmission, particularly of resistant strains, thus suggesting an important self-fueling mechanism for TDR.

Monitoring HIV drug resistance in treatment-naive individuals: molecular indicators, epidemiology and clinical implications

Transmitted drug resistance (TDR) has been documented to occur soon after the introduction of HAART. The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge regarding the epidemiology, the clinical implications and the trends in the research field of TDR. Until now, there have been different approaches for monitoring TDR, however, the surveillance drug resistance-associated mutations list seems fairly advantageous for TDR surveillance compared with other methods. The prevalence of TDR is approximately 10% in Europe and North America among recently or newly infected individuals sampled over the last few years. TDR was found to be higher among patients infected in Europe and North America compared with those in geographic areas with a high prevalence of HIV-1, reflecting the differences in the access to HAART in the two populations. Resistant viruses show different reversal rates to wild-type depending on the fitness cost of particular mutations. TDR in treatment-naive individuals is of major importance in HIV clinical practice and for this reason British–European and USA guideline panels recommend drug-resistance testing prior to treatment.

[Viral resistance and genetic barrier of atazanavir]

Resistance to protease inhibitors (PI) is generally due to a mutation in the protease gene. Different changes have been described for each PI. The I 50L mutation is characteristic of resistance to atazanavir (ATV). It does not produce cross resistance to other PI; but it does increase susceptibility to all of them (hypersusceptibility). When PI are given concomitantly with low doses of ritonavir, the exposure to higher levels of PI requires that multiple resistance mutations have to be selected in the protease so that there is a significant loss of susceptibility. For the majority of PI/r, including ATV/r, >or=5 mutations in the protease are required to produce a compromise in the virological response. Despite having a moderate genetic barrier when not boosted with ritonavir, the prolonged half life of ATV minimises the risk of resistance in clinical practice.

Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection: 2008 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA panel

Resistance to antiretroviral drugs remains an important limitation to successful human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) therapy. Resistance testing can improve treatment outcomes for infected individuals. The availability of new drugs from various classes, standardization of resistance assays, and the development of viral tropism tests necessitate new guidelines for resistance testing. The International AIDS Society-USA convened a panel of physicians and scientists with expertise in drug-resistant HIV-1, drug management, and patient care to review recently published data and presentations at scientific conferences and to provide updated recommendations. Whenever possible, resistance testing is recommended at the time of HIV infection diagnosis as part of the initial comprehensive patient assessment, as well as in all cases of virologic failure. Tropism testing is recommended whenever the use of chemokine receptor 5 antagonists is contemplated. As the roll out of antiretroviral therapy continues in developing countries, drug resistance monitoring for both subtype B and non-subtype B strains of HIV will become increasingly important.

Population Trends in the Prevalence and Patterns of Protease Resistance Related to Exposure to Unboosted and Boosted Protease Inhibitors

Background

In recent years, several new drugs from the protease inhibitor (PI) class designed to treat HIV infection have become available and the use of ritonavir-boosting has increased in popularity. These changes might be expected to affect the prevalence and patterns of protease resistance in the population of patients who experience treatment failure.

Methods

The UK HIV Drug Resistance Database aims to capture the results of all genotypic resistance tests conducted nationally. Tests on antiretroviral therapy-experienced patients were identified through linkage with the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort Study, from which detailed clinical information on these patients, including a full antiretroviral therapy history, was obtained.

Results

Analyses were on the basis of 8,553 genotypic resistance tests carried out between 1998 and 2005, during which time the overall prevalence of protease resistance halved from 35% to 16%. Substantial declines were observed regardless of whether the patient had been exposed to unboosted PIs and/or boosted PIs. The frequency of protease resistance among patients who had received boosted PIs fell sharply until 2002 with a weaker trend thereafter, falling to 12% in 2005. Individual mutations L33F, M46I/L, V82A/F/T/S/L and I84V became relatively more frequent over the period of study.

Conclusions

The decline in protease resistance was partly due to increasing use of ritonavir-boosting. Nonetheless, the prevalence of resistance was higher than suggested by clinical trials, indicating that prolonged exposure to a boosted PI could ultimately select for major protease mutations.

Genetic basis of variation in tenofovir drug susceptibility in HIV-1

OBJECTIVE

To develop an improved model for the genetic basis of reduced susceptibility to tenofovir in vitro.

METHODS

A dataset of 532 HIV-1 subtype B reverse transcriptase genotypes for which matched phenotypic susceptibility data were available was assembled, both as a continuous (transformed) dataset and a categorical dataset generated by imposing a cut-off on the basis of earlier studies of in-vivo response of 1.4-fold. Models were generated using stepwise regression, decision tree and random forest approaches on both the continuous and categorical data. Models were compared by mean squared error (continuous models), or by misclassification rates by nested crossvalidation.

RESULTS

From the continuous dataset, stepwise linear regression, regression tree and regression forest methods yielded models with MSE of 0.46, 0.48 and 0.42 respectively. Amino acids 215, 65, 41, 67, 184 and 151 in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase were identified in all three models and amino acid 210 in two. The categorical data yielded logistic regression, classification tree and forest models with misclassification rates of 26, 24 and 23%, respectively. Amino acids 215, 65 and 67 appeared in all; 41, 184, 210 and 151 were also included in the classification forest model.

CONCLUSION

The random forests approach has yielded a substantial improvement in the available models to describe the genetic basis of reduced susceptibility to tenofovir in vitro. The most important sites in these models are amino acid sites 215, 65, 41, 67, 184, 151 and 210 in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase.