Tenofovir and abacavir combination therapy: lessons learned from an urban clinic population

Regimens containing abacavir (ABC), tenofovir (TDF), and lamivudine (3TC) have recently been demonstrated to have high failure rates. This poses a clinical dilemma of how to manage patients currently being treated with other regimens containing tenofovir/abacavir. We evaluated the outcomes of tenofovir/abacavir regimens in our clinical practice through a retrospective review of 2655 charts. Two hundred patients (7%) were on a tenofovir/abacavir-containing regimen. Fifty-nine patients met the criteria for analysis and were grouped into three groups: (1) antiretroviral na?ve, (2) virally suppressed patients switched to TDF/ABC, and (3) patients with failure of their first antiretroviral regimen. Rates of viral suppression in the na?ve, switch, and first-failure groups were 95%, 86%, and 46%, respectively. In the first-failure group, viral suppression was 66% without and 18% with a preexisting M184V. A composite analysis of the groups revealed a success rate of 86% when the regimen contained zidovudine (ZDV) and 62% when it did not. No K65R mutations were noted. These findings support continued caution in the use of TDF/ABC in combination. However, these data suggest that this combination may be successfully used in selected situations such as in combination with ZDV. In patients already virally suppressed on a TDF/ABC-containing regimen, considerations include continuing the regimen or adding zidovudine, in the attempt to protect against the development of a K65R mutation and/or virologic failure, versus changing a stable regimen.     

Absence of zidovudine resistance in antiretroviral-naive patients following zidovudine/lamivudine/protease inhibitor combination therapy: virological evaluation of the AVANTI 2 and AVANTI 3 studies

OBJECTIVES: To assess the role of resistance mutations in subjects experiencing virological failure on zidovudine (ZDV) and lamivudine (3TC) combined with a protease inhibitor (PI) to those failing on ZDV/3TC alone. DESIGN AND METHODS: Samples were obtained from previously antiretroviral therapy-naive subjects enrolled into two studies, AVANTI 2 and AVANTI 3. Subjects were randomized to receive either: ZDV/3TC or ZDV/3TC plus indinavir (IDV) for 52 weeks (AVANTI 2), and ZDV/3TC or ZDV/3TC and nelfinavir (NFV) for 28 weeks (AVANTI 3). Emergence of viral resistance mutations was monitored by population sequencing and phenotypic resistance was determined by the recombinant virus assay. RESULTS: Genotypic data were obtained for subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA > 400 copies/ml. In AVANTI 2, ZDV mutations were detected in 27% of ZDV/3TC-treated patients at week 52, but were absent in subjects treated with ZDV/3TC/IDV. No subjects from either arm of AVANTI 3 developed ZDV resistance mutations at week 28. The M184V mutation developed in most ZDV/3TC-treated subjects from both studies. The presence of M184V was, however, associated with significantly lower plasma viral RNA levels when compared with values obtained before initiation of treatment. There was a high frequency (4 of 11) of the protease L10F substitution in ZDV/3TC/IDV-treated patients that was associated with virological failure but did not result in phenotypic resistance to any of the PIs tested. CONCLUSIONS: ZDV mutations were not detected in ZDV/3TC/PI-treated patients and they developed slowly in those treated with ZDV/3TC. Few protease mutations known to confer phenotypic PI resistance developed in the ZDV/3TC/PI arms of either study. The low prevalence of ZDV and PI mutations is encouraging regarding the future treatment options of these patients.     

The risks and incidence of K65R and L74V mutations and subsequent virologic responses.

The L74V and K65R mutations confer resistance to several nucleoside analogues, and the impact on subsequent regimens is unclear. The risk of developing L74V or K65R mutation in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) was 4.5 and 2.8 cases per 100 person-years, respectively; concomitant receipt of boosted protease inhibitors protected against K65R. High rates of virologic suppression in the presence of either mutation were observed if the next regimen contained at least 2 active agents. If suboptimal HAART was used, patients with K65R experienced significantly higher rates of virologic suppression than did those with L74V (P = .01).     

Clonal analyses of HIV quasispecies in patients harbouring plasma genotype with K65R mutation associated with thymidine analogue mutations or L74V substitution

We analysed the quasispecies at a clonal level in patients whose plasma genotypic test harboured K65R with L74V or thymidine analogue mutations (TAM). We showed that the K65R and TAM such as M41L, D67N, T215Y/D, L210W and K219E can be borne by the same virus. We found no clone bearing both K65R and L74V substitutions. Moreover, the S68G and V75I mutations are not necessarily linked with K65R, and could thus have their own resistance effect.     

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

Surveillance of drug resistance mutations in antiretroviral-experienced HIV(+) patients may provide useful information regarding options available for rescue interventions. All resistance tests performed from 1999 to 2005 on antiretroviral-experienced individuals at one reference laboratory in Madrid were examined. Only mutations associated with drug resistance recorded at the September 2006 IAS-USA list were considered. A total of 2137 specimens were analyzed. Overall, 71.1% showed resistance mutations to at least one drug class, 56.1% to at least two, and 21% to all three drug families. Resistance mutations were 65% for NRTI, 44.4% for NNRTI, and 42.5% for PI. Mutations T215Y/F, M184V, and M41L were the most frequent for NRTI. Their rate significantly declined since 1999. K65R significantly increased since 1999 (0.8%) to 2003 (7.3%) but declined up to 3.3% in 2005. For NNRTI, K103N significantly increased from 21.8% in 1999 to 29.5% in 2005 (p < 0.01). The most frequent PI resistance mutations were L90M (24.3%), V82X (19.9%), M46I/L (19.5%), and I54V (17.1%). The presence of five or more was 58.8% in 1999 but declined to 22.2% in 2005. The rate of drug resistance mutations causing NRTI and PI resistance has steadily declined in antiretroviral-experienced patients since 1999. The availability of a large number and/or more convenient NRTI as well as the wide use of ritonavir-boosted PI could explain these observations. However, broad PI cross-resistance was seen in nearly 25% of antiretroviral-experienced patients in 2005. Therefore, there is a still need for new antiretrovirals with different resistance profiles.