Phenotypic testing predicts virological response in successive protease inhibitor-based regimens

ObjectiveTo evaluate the importance of the number of active drugs, as determined by phenotypic resistance testing, in achieving virological response in successive salvage regimens. DesignPhenotypic study of 57 plasma samples corresponding to 24 patients who had sequentially received three protease inhibitor-containing regimens. Phenotypic susceptibility to a drug (active drug) was defined as less than a four-fold-increase in the IC50 in comparison with the wild type. Main outcome measureVirological response according to the number of active drugs (three versus two or fewer), HIV load, length of antiretroviral exposure, and line of protease inhibitor-based therapy (first, second and third regimen). ResultsBefore the first protease inhibitor-based therapy, the median time on antiretroviral treatment was 42 months, and before the second and third protease inhibitor-salvage regimens it was 10 and 8 months, respectively. The number of patients receiving three active drugs simultaneously was 24, 35 and 31% in each line of therapy. At week 12, a close correlation was found between the presence of three active drugs in the antiretroviral regimen and the rate of virological response, in comparison with those patients receiving two or fewer active drugs [76 versus 45%, relative risk (RR), 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1–2.6;P  = 0.028]. In a multivariate analysis, the use of two or fewer active drugs was an independent predictor of lack of response, regardless of HIV load, length of previous antiretroviral exposure and line of salvage therapy (RR, 4.5; 95%CI, 1.1–18.3;P  = 0.03). Of note, a higher rate of response was observed in patients receiving the first protease inhibitor-containing regimen in comparison with those in subsequent protease inhibitor-based salvage regimens (83 versus 50 versus 28%, P  < 0.01), even when only those patients receiving three active drugs were included (100 versus 71 versus 60%). ConclusionsThis data confirm the usefulness of phenotypic testing in guiding antiretroviral therapy in heavily pretreated patients. The number of active drugs and the line of salvage therapy are independent predictors of virological response, regardless of HIV load and the length of antiretroviral exposure.

[1]  P. Harrigan,et al.  Baseline HIV drug resistance profile predicts response to ritonavir-saquinavir protease inhibitor therapy in a community setting. , 1999, AIDS.

[2]  M. Kazatchkine,et al.  Efficacy of a five-drug combination including ritonavir, saquinavir and efavirenz in patients who failed on a conventional triple-drug regimen: phenotypic resistance to protease inhibitors predicts outcome of therapy. , 1999, AIDS.

[3]  J. Schapiro,et al.  Drug-resistance genotyping in HIV-1 therapy: the VIRAD APT randomi sed controlled trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[4]  P. Volberding,et al.  Novel four-drug salvage treatment regimens after failure of a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor-containing regimen: antiviral activity and correlation of baseline phenotypic drug susceptibility with virologic outcome. , 1999, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[5]  T. Perneger,et al.  Impact of drug resistance mutations on virologic response to salvage therapy. Swiss HIV Cohort Study. , 1999, AIDS.

[6]  J. Stephenson.  HIV drug resistance testing shows promise. , 1999, JAMA.

[7]  S. Paulous,et al.  Constrained Evolution of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Protease during Sequential Therapy with Two Distinct Protease Inhibitors , 1999, Journal of Virology.

[8]  B. Clotet,et al.  Presence of Genotypic Resistance in Nucleoside Analogue-Treated HIV-1-Infected Patients with Undetectable Viral Load , 1999, Antiviral therapy.

[9]  V. Calvez,et al.  Stavudine Resistance: An Update on Susceptibility following Prolonged Therapy , 1999, Antiviral therapy.

[10]  P. Kissinger,et al.  Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  H. Vahaboğlu,et al.  Activities of cefepime and five other antibiotics against nosocomial PER-1-type and/or OXA-10-type beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp. , 1998, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[12]  C. Quereda,et al.  Predictors of long‐term response to protease inhibitor therapy in a cohort of HIV‐infected patients , 1998, AIDS.

[13]  B Clotet,et al.  Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults with HIV infection: implications for clinical management. International AIDS Society--USA Panel. , 1998, JAMA.

[14]  John M. Leonard,et al.  Genotypic Changes in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Associated with Loss of Suppression of Plasma Viral RNA Levels in Subjects Treated with Ritonavir (Norvir) Monotherapy , 1998, Journal of Virology.

[15]  M. Pérez-Elías,et al.  Percentage of Adherence Correlates with the Risk of Protease Inhibitor (PI) Treatment Failure in HIV-Infected Patients , 1998, Antiviral therapy.

[16]  R. Hogg,et al.  The antiviral effect of ritonavir and saquinavir incombination amongst HIV‐infected adults: results from a community‐based study , 1998, AIDS.

[17]  G. Satten,et al.  Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. HIV Outpatient Study Investigators. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Brendan Larder,et al.  A Rapid Method for Simultaneous Detection of Phenotypic Resistance to Inhibitors of Protease and Reverse Transcriptase in Recombinant Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Isolates from Patients Treated with Antiretroviral Drugs , 1998, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.