Plasma HIV-1 Tropism and the Risk of Short-Term Clinical Progression to AIDS or Death

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if plasma HIV-1 tropism testing could identify subjects at higher risk for clinical progression and death in routine clinical management.

DESIGN

Nested case-control study within the EuroSIDA cohort.

METHODS

Cases were subjects with AIDS or who died from any cause, with a plasma sample with HIV-1 RNA >1000 copies/mL available for tropism testing 3 to 12 months prior to the event. At least 1 control matched for age, HIV-1 RNA and HCV status at the time of sampling were selected per each case. Conditional logistic regression was used to investigate exposures associated with clinical progression to AIDS or death. A linear mixed model with random intercept was used to compare CD4+T-cell slopes by HIV tropism over the 12 months following the date of sampling.

RESULTS

The study included 266 subjects, 100 cases and 166 controls; one quarter had X4 HIV; 26% were ART-naïve. Baseline factors independently associated with clinical progression or death were female gender (OR = 2.13 vs. male, 95CI = 1.04, 4.36), p = 0.038), CD4+T-cell count (OR = 0.90 (95CI = 0.80, 1.00) per 100 cells/mm3 higher, p = 0.058), being on ART (OR = 2.72 vs. being off-ART (95CI = 1.15, 6.41), p = 0.022) and calendar year of sample [OR = 0.84 (95CI = 0.77, 0.91) per more recent year, p<0.001). Baseline tropism was not associated with the risk of clinical progression or death. CD4+T-cell slopes did not differ within or between tropism groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictive role of plasma tropism determined using 454 sequencing in the context of people receiving cART with detectable VL is not helpful to identify subjects at higher risk for clinical progression to AIDS or death.

Use of cellular HIV DNA to predict virologic response to maraviroc: performance of population-based and deep sequencing

BACKGROUND

A tropism test is required before administration of the antiretroviral drug maraviroc. However, plasma RNA testing is not possible in patients with undetectable plasma viral loads. Here we assess genotypic testing of cellular human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) DNA from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) to predict virologic responses in treatment-experienced patients beginning maraviroc-containing regimens.

METHODS

PBMC samples from 181 maraviroc recipients at study entry in MOTIVATE or A4001029 (51% R5 by original Trofile). The V3 loop was amplified in triplicate from cellular HIV DNA, and matching plasma RNA (n = 156). Sequencing was performed using standard population-based methods and next-generation deep sequencing, with tropism assessment as previously defined.

RESULTS

Genotypic DNA-based tropism testing from the cellular compartment had 78%-81% sensitivity relative to RNA-based Trofile at the same time point. Cell-based genotypic tropism methods and plasma-based phenotypic and genotypic methods were predictive of virologic response. However, when classifications were discordant, the outcomes favored the plasma predictions over the DNA ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Genotypic determination of HIV tropism can be performed using cell-derived viral DNA, and is a predictor of virologic success on maraviroc in therapy-experienced patients. However, the PBMC compartment appears to be a suboptimal predictor compared to plasma.

HIV-1 antiretroviral resistance: scientific principles and clinical applications

The efficacy of an antiretroviral (ARV) treatment regimen depends on the activity of the regimen's individual ARV drugs and the number of HIV-1 mutations required for the development of resistance to each ARV - the genetic barrier to resistance. ARV resistance impairs the response to therapy in patients with transmitted resistance, unsuccessful initial ARV therapy and multiple virological failures. Genotypic resistance testing is used to identify transmitted drug resistance, provide insight into the reasons for virological failure in treated patients, and help guide second-line and salvage therapies. In patients with transmitted drug resistance, the virological response to a regimen selected on the basis of standard genotypic testing approaches the responses observed in patients with wild-type viruses. However, because such patients are at a higher risk of harbouring minority drug-resistant variants, initial ARV therapy in this population should contain a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) - the drug class with the highest genetic barrier to resistance. In patients receiving an initial ARV regimen with a high genetic barrier to resistance, the most common reasons for virological failure are nonadherence and, potentially, pharmacokinetic factors or minority transmitted drug-resistant variants. Among patients in whom first-line ARVs have failed, the patterns of drug-resistance mutations and cross-resistance are often predictable. However, the extent of drug resistance correlates with the duration of uncontrolled virological replication. Second-line therapy should include the continued use of a dual nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-containing backbone, together with a change in the non-NRTI component, most often to an ARV belonging to a new drug class. The number of available fully active ARVs is often diminished with each successive treatment failure. Therefore, a salvage regimen is likely to be more complicated in that it may require multiple ARVs with partial residual activity and compromised genetic barriers of resistance to attain complete virological suppression. A thorough examination of the patient's ARV history and prior resistance tests should be performed because genotypic and/or phenotypic susceptibility testing is often not sufficient to identify drug-resistant variants that emerged during past therapies and may still pose a threat to a new regimen. Phenotypic testing is also often helpful in this subset of patients. ARVs used for salvage therapy can be placed into the following hierarchy: (i) ARVs belonging to a previously unused drug class; (ii) ARVs belonging to a previously used drug class that maintain significant residual antiviral activity; (iii) NRTI combinations, as these often appear to retain in vivo virological activity, even in the presence of reduced in vitro NRTI susceptibility; and rarely (iv) ARVs associated with previous virological failure and drug resistance that appear to have possibly regained their activity as a result of viral reversion to wild type. Understanding the basic principles of HIV drug resistance is helpful in guiding individual clinical decisions and the development of ARV treatment guidelines.