Short Communication: In Vitro Accumulation of Drug Resistance Mutations in Chimeric Infectious Clones Containing Subtype B or C Reverse Transcriptase and Selected with Tenofovir or Didanosine

Antiviral Activity of Tenofovir Alafenamide Against HIV-1 Subtypes and Emergence of K65R

Differences in emergence of HIV resistance between subtypes B and C in vitro and potential implications on tenofovir alafenamide efficacy in vivo were evaluated. Dose escalation resistance selections showed K65R emerging earlier for subtype C viruses in vitro, as previously reported. Viral breakthrough experiments at therapeutic drug concentrations, however, showed no difference in time to breakthrough between these subtypes. Finally, clinical trial data found no evidence of greater K65R emergence in patients harboring subtype C HIV.

Evolution of tenofovir-resistant HIV-1 isolates exposed to tenofovir alafenamide dose escalation

Resistance selection experiments using HIV-1 isolates harboring pre-existing tenofovir (TFV)-resistance (K65R, 3TAMs, and Q151M complex) were carried out with the novel tenofovir prodrug tenofovir alafenamide (TAF) as well as with tenofovir (TFV), to investigate the potential for additional resistance development in the presence of TAF or TFV. Extended resistance selection of these TFV resistance associated mutations (RAMs)-containing viruses with TAF or TFV did not lead to the accumulation of additional known RAMs, or significant additional phenotypic resistance, after 6 months in culture. Two new mutations were found during the selections (L429I, T69I) that were further characterized, and found to have very limited or no role in resistance to TAF or TFV. Notably, viral survival in the presence of drug increases could not be sustained and led to viral cure in cell culture, suggesting a lack of alternative resistance pathways for the mutant viruses.

A farewell to didanosine: harm reduction and cost savings by eliminating use of didanosine

Didanosine (ddI) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor associated with adverse events and public health concerns which have diminished its place in HIV clinical practice, particularly in resource-rich settings. While international guidelines do not contain ddI-containing regimens in preferred first- or second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART), there is no guidance for management of patients currently on ddI. In 2012 at least 20 countries purchased a total of $1-2 million of ddI. Drug purchase data in that year show 3.2-10.3 times higher costs for ddI compared to lamivudine (3TC). Given issues of multiple toxicities, monitoring, drug interactions, inconvenience, and virologic efficacy, as well as cost and formulary concerns, national (including resource-limited setting) ART programmes should consider complete phase-out of ddI.