Short communication: Phenotypic protease inhibitor resistance and cross-resistance in the clinic from 2006 to 2008 and mutational prevalences in HIV from patients with discordant tipranavir and darunavir susceptibility phenotypes

To test tipranavir (TPV) or darunavir (DRV) as treatment options for patients with phenotypic resistance to protease inhibitors (PIs), including lopinavir, saquinavir, atazanavir, and fosamprenavir, the PhenoSense GT database was analyzed for susceptibility to DRV or TPV among PI-resistant isolates. The Monogram Biosciences HIV database (South San Francisco, CA) containing 7775 clinical isolates (2006-2008) not susceptible to at least one first-generation PI was analyzed. Phenotypic responses [resistant (R), partially susceptible (PS), or susceptible (S)] were defined by upper and lower clinical cut-offs to each PI. Genotypes were screened for amino acid substitutions associated with TPV-R/DRV-S and TPV-S/DRV-R phenotypes. In all, 4.9% (378) of isolates were resistant to all six PIs and 31.0% (2407) were resistant to none. Among isolates resistant to all four first-generation PIs, DRV resistance increased from 21.2% to 41.9% from 2006 to 2008, respectively, and resistance to TPV remained steady (53.9 to 57.3%, respectively). Higher prevalence substitutions in DRV-S/TPV-R isolates versus DRV-R/TPV-S isolates, respectively, were 82L/T (44.4% vs. 0%) and 83D (5.8% vs. 0%). Higher prevalence substitutions in DRV-R/TPV-S virus were 50V (0.0% vs. 28.9%), 54L (1.0% vs. 36.1%), and 76V (0.4% vs. 15.5%). Mutations to help predict discordant susceptibility to DRV and TPV in isolates with reduced susceptibility to other PIs were identified. DRV resistance mutations associated with improved virologic response to TPV were more prevalent in DRV-R/TPV-S isolates. TPV resistance mutations were more prevalent in TPV-R and DRV-S isolates. These results confirm the impact of genotype on phenotype, illustrating how HIV genotype and phenotype data assist regimen optimization.     

Evaluating the role of etravirine in the second-line antiretroviral therapy after failing an initial non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimen in a resource-limited setting

Etravirine demonstrates activity against NNRTI-resistant HIV-1 but its efficacy depends on the number of etravirine resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). This study aimed to evaluate the role of etravirine in the second regimen in a resource-limited setting. Genotype resistance assay was conducted in a cohort of HIV-infected patients who experienced virological failure from an initial NNRTI-based regimen. We focused on etravirine-RAMs previously described: V90I, A98G, L100I, K101E/P, V106I, V179D/F, Y181C/I/V, and G190A/S. Frequency and predicting factors for 2 etravirine-RAMs. Etravirine may have activity for using in the second regimen in most patients in resource-limited setting who fail an initial NNRTI-based regimen. Genotype testing is needed to identify this group. Some of these patients, indicated by genotype results, may be able to use etravirine plus 2 active NRTIs for second ART regimen. This strategy may be an option for patients who cannot afford or tolerate protease inhibitor. Prospective study to evaluate this strategy should be conducted in resource-limited setting.     

Short communication: the number of HIV major NRTI mutations correlates directly with other antiretroviral-associated mutations and indirectly with replicative capacity and reduced drug susceptibility

While it is known that selection for specific HIV-1 drug resistance-associated mutations (DRM) occurs following ART failure, the patterns of resistance mutations, reduced susceptibility (RS), and replicative capacity (RC) that appear as the number of major NRTI mutations increases have been less well-studied. These changes were examined as a function of the number of major NRTI mutations using patient-derived HIV samples submitted for resistance testing between 2003-2005 (n = 35,222) that were grouped by number of NRTI-DRMs present. In the absence of NRTI-DRMs, few (3.4%) samples had RS to one or more NRTI, 33.6% to one or more NNRTI, and 12.6% to one or more PI. With one NRTI-DRM, 94% had RS to one or more NRTI, 50% to one or more NNRTI, and 33% to one or more PI. Increases in NRTI-DRMs were accompanied by increased prevalence of NNRTI and PI DRMs and RS. With one NRTI-DRM, the mean number of NRTIs with RS was 1.7, while when five NRTI-DRMs were present, RS to > or =5 NRTIs was observed. PI-DRM and RS increased at a slower rate than NNRTI-DRM and RS. RC declined from a mean of 97.8% for samples without NRTI-DRMs to 68.9% with one NRTI-DRM, possibly due to reduced fitness conferred by K65R or M184I/V, to an RC of 43.9% for samples with seven to eight NRTI-DRMs. The relatively high percent of samples with NNRTI-DRM but without NRTI-DRMs may result from selection following virologic failure, and/or transmission of virus uniquely resistant to NNRTI.