Search

Background: Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) subtype may influence disease progression. We compared CD4 lymphocyte cell count levels at seroconversion, decline rates and viral load set point in individuals infected with different HIV-1 subtypes., Methods: We used data from the Concerted Action on SeroConversion to AIDS and Death in Europe (CASCADE) collaboration, restricted to those infected since 1996, aged ≥15 years, and applied mixed effects models for CD4 cell count decline and median regression for viral load set point (mean level 6-24 months from seroconversion)., Results: The analysis included 3364 seroconverters with known HIV-1 subtypes. Compared with subtype B, CD4 at seroconversion was significantly higher for subtype CRF01 and lower for subtype C. Subsequent CD4 decline was significantly slower for subtypes A and CRF02 and marginally slower for subtype C compared with B. Mean CD4 loss at 2 years of seroconversion for white men exposed through sex between men, aged 30-39 years, having seroconverted since 2006, enrolled within 6 months of seroconversion, and without acute infection was 88, 142, 100, 130, 103, and 167 cells/µL for subtypes A, B, C, CRF01_AE, CRF02_AG, and G, respectively. In adjusted analysis, median viral load set point and time to clinical AIDS/death did not differ significantly by subtype, although all subtypes, except C, tended to have lower levels compared with B., Conclusions: HIV-1 subtype significantly influences seroconversion CD4 cell levels and decline rates but not viral load set point. These findings may be helpful to HIV-positive individuals and their attending physicians in understanding disease progression.

Background: The effect of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) on first-line combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) for HIV-1 needs further study to inform choice of optimum drug regimens. We investigated the effect of TDR on outcome in the first year of cART within a large European collaboration., Methods: HIV-infected patients of any age were included if they started cART (at least three antiretroviral drugs) for the first time after Jan 1, 1998, and were antiretroviral naive and had at least one sample for a genotypic test taken before the start of cART. We used the WHO drug resistance list and the Stanford algorithm to classify patients into three resistance categories: no TDR, at least one mutation and fully-active cART, or at least one mutation and resistant to at least one prescribed drug. Virological failure was defined as time to the first of two consecutive viral load measurements over 500 copies per mL after 6 months of therapy., Findings: Of 10,056 patients from 25 cohorts, 9102 (90·5%) had HIV without TDR, 475 (4·7%) had at least one mutation but received fully-active cART, and 479 (4·8%) had at least one mutation and resistance to at least one drug. Cumulative Kaplan-Meier estimates for virological failure at 12 months were 4·2% (95% CI 3·8-4·7) for patients in the no TDR group, 4·7% (2·9-7·5) for those in the TDR and fully-active cART group, and 15·1% (11·9-19·0) for those in the TDR and resistant group (log-rank p<0·0001). The hazard ratio for the difference in virological failure between patients with TDR and resistance to at least one drug and those without TDR was 3·13 (95% CI 2·33-4·20, p<0·0001). The hazard ratio for the difference between patients with TDR receiving fully-active cART and patients without TDR was 1·47 (95% CI 0·19-2·38, p=0·12). In stratified analysis, the hazard ratio for the risk of virological failure in patients with TDR who received fully-active cART that included a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) compared with those without TDR was 2·0 (95% CI 0·9-4·7, p=0·093)., Interpretation: These findings confirm present treatment guidelines for HIV, which state that the initial treatment choice should be based on resistance testing in treatment-naive patients., Funding: European Community's Seventh Framework Programme FP7/2007-2013 and Gilead., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Life expectancy of people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is now estimated to approach that of the general population in some successfully treated subgroups. However, to attain these life expectancies, viral suppression must be maintained for decades., Methods: We studied the rate of triple-class virologic failure (TCVF) in patients within the Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research Europe (COHERE) who started antiretroviral therapy (ART) that included a nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r) from 1998 onwards. We also focused on TCVF in patients who started a PI/r-containing regimen after a first-line NNRTI-containing regimen failed., Results: Of 45 937 patients followed up for a median (interquartile range) of 3.0 (1.5-5.0) years, 980 developed TCVF (2.1%). By 5 and 9 years after starting ART, an estimated 3.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.1%-3.6%) and 8.6% (95% CI, 7.5%-9.8%) of patients, respectively, had developed TCVF. The incidence of TCVF rose during the first 3 to 4 years on ART but plateaued thereafter. There was no significant difference in the risk of TCVF according to whether the initial regimen was NNRTI or PI/r based (P = .11). By 5 years after starting a PI/r regimen as second-line therapy, 46% of patients had developed TCVF., Conclusions: The rate of virologic failure of the 3 original drug classes is low, but not negligible, and does not appear to diminish over time from starting ART. If this trend continues, many patients are likely to need newer drugs to maintain viral suppression. The rate of TCVF from the start of a PI/r regimen after NNRTI failure provides a comparator for studies of response to second-line regimens in resource-limited settings.

Objective: To evaluate the longer-term utility of genotypic resistance testing in HIV-1-infected children with virological failure., Methods: Children aged 3 months-18 years switching antiretroviral therapy (ART) with HIV-1 RNA > 2,000 copies/ml were randomized between genotypic testing (Virtual Phenotype) and no testing at baseline and subsequent virological failures. Children were followed to at least 96 weeks., Results: One hundred and seventy eligible children, from 24 clinical centres in six countries, were randomized to resistance testing (n = 87) or no testing (n = 83) between June 2000-July 2003. At baseline, mean HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ T-cell percentage were 4.7 log10 copies/ml and 20%, respectively. Children had taken ART for a mean of 5 years; 24% had received all three classes, 53% nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)+protease inhibitors (PIs), 9% NRTIs+non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and 14% NRTIs only. There was no difference between the arms in the drug classes or the individual PIs/NNRTIs prescribed. However, 49% in the resistance test arm (RT) versus 19% in the no-test arm (NT) continued at least one NRTI from their failing regimen; 56% versus 19% were prescribed didanosine+stavudine as their NRTI backbone. Adjusting for baseline HIV-1 RNA, mean reductions in HIV-1 RNA at 48 weeks were 1.51 log10 copies/ml in the RT arm and 1.23 in the NT arm (P = 0.3); the difference between the arms was smaller at week 96 (RT: 1.50, NT: 1.47; P = 0.9)., Conclusion: In this first paediatric trial of resistance testing, we observed a substantial difference in NRTI-prescribing behaviour across arms. However statistically significant evidence of a long-term virological or immunological benefit was not observed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN14367816.

Objectives: To examine factors influencing the rate of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) among seroconverters, with particular emphasis on 3 widely used genotypic drug resistance algorithms., Methods: The study used data from CASCADE (Concerted Action on Seroconversion to AIDS and Death in Europe), a collaboration of seroconverter cohorts in Europe and Canada. Genotypic resistance data were derived within 18 months of the last seronegative test or date of laboratory evidence of acute infection and before the initiation of antiretroviral therapy. The Stanford algorithm was used to analyze each individual's nucleotide sequence. A multivariate logistic model was used to assess independent relationships between the presence of TDR and exposure category, sex, age at seroconversion, and year of seroconversion. The paper also describes 3 alternative definitions of resistance: the Stanford algorithm, the key resistance mutations defined by the International AIDS Society, and the Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le Sida (ANRS) algorithm., Results: Forty-five of 438 patients (10.3%) seroconverting between 1987 and 2003 were infected with a drug-resistant HIV-1 variant. Forty patients (9.1%) showed resistance mutations to only 1 class of antiretroviral drugs, 2 (0.5%) to 2 classes, and 3 (0.7%) to 3 classes of antiretroviral therapy. It was suggested that individuals seroconverting later in calendar time were more likely to have TDR (relative risk 3.89 and 95% CI: 0.84 to 18.02, and relative risk 4.69 and 95% CI: 1.03 to 21.31, for 1996-1999 and 2000-2003, respectively, compared with pre-1996; P trend = 0.08). This trend was apparent regardless of the definition of TDR used. The total estimated proportion of individuals with TDR varied between 10.3% and 15.5% according to which definition was used., Conclusions: Evidence was found for the rise of TDR over time. A specific definition of what constitutes TDR rather than a simple list of mutations is needed.

In most European countries, HIV drug resistance testing has become a routine clinical tool. However, its practical implementation in a clinical context is demanding. The European HIV Drug Resistance Panel was established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists on this topic and to propose quality control measures. The panel recommends resistance testing for the following indications: i) drug-naive patients with acute or recent infection; ii) therapy failure, including suboptimal treatment response, when treatment change is considered; iii) pregnant HIV-1-infected women and paediatric patients with detectable viral load when treatment initiation or change is considered; and iv) genotype source patient when post-exposure prophylaxis is considered. In addition, for drug-naive patients with chronic infection in whom treatment is to be started, the panel suggests that resistance testing should be strongly considered and recommends testing the earliest sample for drug resistance if suspicion of resistance is high or prevalence of resistance in this population exceeds 10%. The panel does not favour genotyping over phenotype, however it is anticipated that genotyping will be used more often because of its greater accessibility, lower cost and faster turnaround time. For the interpretation of resistance data, clinically validated systems should be used to the greatest extent possible. It is mandatory that laboratories performing HIV resistance tests take regular part in quality assurance programs. Similarly, it is necessary that HIV clinicians and virologists take part in continuous education and meet regularly to discuss problematic clinical cases. Indeed, resistance test results should be used in the context of all other clinically relevant information for predicting therapy response. The panel also encourages the timely collection of epidemiological information to estimate the impact of transmission of resistant HIV and the prevalence of HIV-1 non-B subtypes in the different European countries.

Despite numerous studies in recent years, it is still difficult to draw general conclusions about the extent to which drug-resistant HIV-1 is transmitted. In addition to the highly stratified nature of primary resistance itself, true epidemiological surveillance has been rare and studies to date have suffered from wide variability in their designs, definitions and datasets. In the absence of consensus standards, this has resulted in a large number of isolated 'snapshots' with little scope for data-pooling and comparison. This brief review examines some of the major confounding factors that restrict the utility of individual studies and prevent the combination of studies to increase statistical power. Despite these limitations, data from North America and Europe lead to the tentative conclusion that transmission rates in these areas have generally fallen or remained stable in the past 2-3 years. However, data for the UK seem to indicate an ongoing rise in the transmission of drug resistance mutations, currently present in up to 20% of new infections. Transmission of resistant HIV represents a clinically important phenomenon, although the scale and relevance are being obscured by methodological variations and non-clinical definitions of resistance. Those of us with an interest in the epidemiology of drug resistance, whether in primary transmission or on-treatment, must learn to speak the same language if we are to establish meaningful correlations between survey datasets and the HIV-infected population as a whole.

The declining incidence of AIDS-related opportunistic diseases among people with HIV infection has shifted the focus of clinical management to prevention and treatment of comorbidities such as chronic liver disease. The increased risk of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related advanced liver disease in people with HIV infection makes early HCV diagnosis a priority. To assess HCV prevalence and predictors of HIV/HCV coinfection, we have conducted a retrospective analysis of people enrolled in the CAESAR (Canada, Australia, Europe, South Africa) study, a multinational randomized placebo-controlled study of the addition of lamivudine to background antiretroviral therapy. The impact of HCV on HIV disease progression was also examined. Anti-HCV antibody testing on 1649 CAESAR study participants demonstrated a HIV/HCV coinfection prevalence of 16.1%, which varied from 1.9% in South Africa to 48.6% in Italy. The strongest predictor of HIV/HCV coinfection was HIV exposure category (P<0.0001), with odds ratios (ORs) compared to homosexual as follows: injecting drug use (IDU), 365 [95% confidence interval (CI): 179-742]; transfusion or blood products, 32.2 (95% CI: 15.2-67.6); homosexual and IDU, 22.9 (95% CI: 8.5-62.1). The prevalence of HIV/HCV was low (3.7%) among homosexual men without reported IDU. Other predictors of HIV/HCV coinfection were alanine aminotransferase (ALT), country of residence, ethnicity and stage of HIV disease. A history of IDU or ALT > or =40 U/L at baseline had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 35%, negative predictive value (NPV) of 96%, sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 71% for HIV/HCV coinfection. HIV disease progression was similar in HIV monoinfected and HIV/HCV coinfected patients. People with HIV and a history of IDU or elevated liver function tests should be targeted for HCV testing. The low prevalence of HIV/HCV coinfection among homosexual men without a history of IDU suggests low efficiency of sexual HCV transmission.