Search

We characterized transmitted drug resistance to rilpivirine and the predicted efficacy of first-line rilpivirine-containing regimens in antiretroviral-naive Spanish patients. International Antiviral Society-USA mutations were detected in 138 of 2781 patients (4.9%), E138A (3.4%) being the most prevalent. Using the Stanford Algorithm, 121 patients (4.4%) showed low-level or intermediate resistance. No differences in the predicted efficacy of first-line non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimens were observed. As rilpivirine becomes more widely used in clinical practice, the evolution of its transmitted drug resistance will need to be monitored. In addition, the exact role of E138A singletons on rilpivirine activity as part of first-line regimens merits further evaluation., (Copyright © 2014 European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Rilpivirine (RPV) is the latest approved nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). It displays in-vitro activity extending over other NNRTI-resistant HIV strains. There is scarce information about the rate of RPV resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in patients failing other NNRTIs., Methods: RPV RAMs were examined in plasma samples collected from HIV patients that had recently failed NNRTI-based regimens at 22 clinics in Spain., Results: Resistance tests from a total of 1064 patients failing efavirenz (EFV) (54.5%), nevirapine (NVP) (40%) or etravirine (ETR) (5.5%) were examined. The prevalence of RPV RAMs was K101E (9.1%), K101P (1.4%), E138A (3.9%), E138G (0.3%), E138K (0.3%), E138Q (0.8%), V179L (0.2%), Y181C (21.8%), Y181I (0.5%), Y181V (0.2%), H221Y (8.3%), F227C (0.1%) and M230L (1.5%). K101E/M184I was seen in 1%. E138K/M184I were absent. Mutations L100I and V108I were significantly more frequent in patients failing EFV than NVP (7.9 vs. 0.2 and 12.2 vs. 7.3%, respectively). Conversely, Y181C, Y181I, V106A, H221Y and F227L were more prevalent following NVP than EFV failures. Using the Spanish resistance interpretation algorithm, 206 genotypes (19.3%) from patients failing NNRTI (NVP 52%, EFV 40.8% and ETR 7.8%) were considered as RPV resistant. In patients with ETR failure, cross-resistance to RPV was seen in 27.6%, mainly as result of Y181C (81.3%), V179I (43.8%), V90I (31.3%) and V108I (18.8%)., Conclusion: RPV resistance is overall recognized in nearly 20% of patients failing other NNRTIs. It is more common following ETR (27.6%) or NVP (25%) failures than EFV (14.5%). E138 mutants are rarely seen in this context.

Background: Thymidine analogue resistance mutations (TAMs) selected under treatment with nucleoside analogues generate two distinct genotypic profiles in the HIV-1 reverse transcriptase (RT): (i) TAM1: M41L, L210W and T215Y, and (ii) TAM2: D67N, K70R and K219E/Q, and sometimes T215F. Secondary mutations, including thumb subdomain polymorphisms (e.g. R284K) have been identified in association with TAMs. We have identified mutational clusters associated with virological failure during salvage therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine-based regimens. In this context, we have studied the role of R284K as a secondary mutation associated with mutations of the TAM1 complex., Results: The cross-sectional study carried out with > 200 HIV-1 genotypes showed that virological failure to tenofovir/emtricitabine was strongly associated with the presence of M184V (P < 10-10) and TAMs (P < 10-3), while K65R was relatively uncommon in previously-treated patients failing antiretroviral therapy. Clusters of mutations were identified, and among them, the TAM1 complex showed the highest correlation coefficients. Covariation of TAM1 mutations and V118I, V179I, M184V and R284K was observed. Virological studies showed that the combination of R284K with TAM1 mutations confers a fitness advantage in the presence of zidovudine or tenofovir. Studies with recombinant HIV-1 RTs showed that when associated with TAM1 mutations, R284K had a minimal impact on zidovudine or tenofovir inhibition, and in their ability to excise the inhibitors from blocked DNA primers. However, the mutant RT M41L/L210W/T215Y/R284K showed an increased catalytic rate for nucleotide incorporation and a higher RNase H activity in comparison with WT and mutant M41L/L210W/T215Y RTs. These effects were consistent with its enhanced chain-terminated primer rescue on DNA/DNA template-primers, but not on RNA/DNA complexes, and can explain the higher fitness of HIV-1 having TAM1/R284K mutations., Conclusions: Our study shows the association of R284K and TAM1 mutations in individuals failing therapy with tenofovir/emtricitabine, and unveils a novel mechanism by which secondary mutations are selected in the context of drug-resistance mutations.

The presence of resistance mutations in patients failing tipranavir or darunavir was examined at the national drug resistance database of the Spanish AIDS Research Network. Although mutations emerging during tipranavir and darunavir failures differed considerably, cross-resistance was found in up to half of the patients tested. Interestingly, mutation 54L, which is associated with tipranavir hypersusceptibility, was selected in half of the darunavir failures. Thus, resistance testing seems mandatory to ensure the benefit of the sequential use of these drugs.

The prevalence of etravirine resistance mutations was examined in genotypes derived from 1343 HIV-infected patients failing nevirapine or efavirenz in the resistance database of the Spanish AIDS Research Network (ResRIS). Overall, etravirine-resistant genotypes were recognized in 18.7% of patients, with no significant differences between failures under nevirapine or efavirenz. Thus, more than 80% patients with prior failure to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors could potentially benefit from etravirine rescue therapy.

Natural genetic variability at the pol gene may account for differences in drug susceptibility and selection of resistance patterns across HIV-1 clades. Spread of non-B subtypes along with changes in antiretroviral drug use may have modified drug resistance patterns in recent years. All HIV-1 clinical samples sent to a reference laboratory located in Madrid for drug resistance testing since January 2000 were analyzed. The pol gene was sequenced and HIV-1 subtypes were assigned using the Stanford algorithm and phylogenetic analyses for non-B subtypes. Drug resistance mutations were recorded using the IAS-USA mutation list (April 2008). A total of 3034 specimens from 730 antiretroviral-naive individuals (92 with non-B subtypes) and 1569 antiretroviral-experienced patients (97 with non-B subtypes) were examined. The prevalence of HIV-1 non-B subtypes in the study period increased from 4.4% (2000-2003) to 10.1% (2004-2007) (p < 0.01). The most predominant variants were CRF02&#95;AG (41.8%) and G (17.5%). Thymidine analogue mutations (TAMs) were more prevalent in B than non-B subtypes, in both drug-naive (6.2% vs. 1%; p < 0.01) and treatment-experienced patients (49% vs. 30%, p < 0.01). K103N was most frequent in B than non-B subtypes (34% vs. 21%; p < 0.01); conversely, 106A/M was more prevalent in non-B than B clades (11% vs. 5%). Codon 179 mutations associated with etravirine resistance were more frequent in non-B than B subtypes. Finally, secondary protease resistance mutations were more common in non-B than B clades, with a potentially significant impact at least on tipranavir. The prevalence of HIV-1 non-B subtypes has increased since the year 2000 in a large drug resistance database in Spain, determining changes in drug resistance patterns that may influence the susceptibility to new antiretroviral drugs and have an impact on genotypic drug resistance interpretation algorithms.

Interpreting the results of drug resistance tests for HIV-1 is one of the most difficult tasks for both clinicians and virologists. There are many amino acid changes in viral proteins influencing the susceptibility to specific drugs, causing loss of activity or conversely hypersusceptibility. Moreover, the results of interactions derived from complex mutational patterns are difficult to predict. Different interpretation algorithms have been developed to facilitate the translation of information obtained in the genotypes to clinicians. Controversy exists, however, regarding the impact of genotypic changes over the activity of many antiretroviral drugs. Based on virologic outcomes, scientific literature, and expert opinion, the Drug Resistance Platform of the Spanish AIDS Research Network (RIS, Red de Investigación en SIDA) has developed over the last years its own interpretation system. Herein, we present the 2009 guidelines, in which special efforts have been made to standardize the criteria for interpreting resistance mutations for compounds within the same drug family and to facilitate the clinical interpretation of HIV-1 resistance genotypes.

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.