Positioning of HIV-protease inhibitors in clinical practice.

The availability of more than 20 drugs for the treatment of HIV infection, and the success of the current antiretroviral regimens, should not overlook the difficulty of long-term maintaining the control of viral replication. The therapy needs to be continued for decades, if not for lifetime, and there are clear evidences that, even in patients fully suppressed for many years, HIV starts again its replication cycles in case antiviral pressure is removed. The development of resistance is a natural event at the time of virological failure, that needs to be taken into account in the global strategy against HIV in each particular patient. Taking all together, therapeutic regiments must be embedded, since the beginning, in a long-term strategy whose main task is the stable control of the replication of HIV. To do so, the choice of the first antiviral regimen has to be highly appropriate to keep the virus in check, and at the same time maintain future therapeutic options. Change of therapy at the time of failure has to be also appropriate, in term of timing, diagnostic strategy, and selection of drugs. Under these circumstances, the use of protease inhibitors in the first line acquires a strong rationale, that balances the greater pure potency of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), and makes them a valuable options for many patients that need to start antiviral therapy.

[1]  J. J. Henning,et al.  Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-Infected Adults and Adolescents, January 28, 2000 , 1998, HIV clinical trials.

[2]  D. Richman The impact of drug resistance on the effectiveness of chemotherapy for chronic hepatitis B , 2000, Hepatology.

[3]  J. Baril,et al.  Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Fosamprenavir plus Ritonavir Versus Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Combination with Abacavir/Lamivudine over 144 Weeks , 2009, HIV clinical trials.

[4]  Marilyn M. Wagener,et al.  Adherence to protease inhibitor therapy and outcomes in patients with HIV infection (vol 133, pg 21, 2000) , 2002 .

[5]  A. Perelson,et al.  Rapid turnover of plasma virions and CD4 lymphocytes in HIV-1 infection , 1995, Nature.

[6]  Victoria A Johnson,et al.  Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1: 2003 recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA Panel. , 2003, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[7]  A. Antinori,et al.  Usefulness of monitoring HIV drug resistance and adherence in individuals failing highly active antiretroviral therapy: a randomized study (ARGENTA) , 2002, AIDS.

[8]  Z. Fox,et al.  Randomized trial to evaluate indinavir/ritonavir versus saquinavir/ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients: the MaxCmin1 Trial. , 2003, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[9]  J. Lange A Rational Approach to the Selection and Sequencing of Nucleoside/Nucleotide Analogues: A New Paradigm , 2000, Antiviral therapy.

[10]  D. Pillay,et al.  Emergence of drug resistance in HIV type 1-infected patients after receipt of first-line highly active antiretroviral therapy: a systematic review of clinical trials. , 2008, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[11]  Dale J. Kempf,et al.  Virtual Inhibitory Quotient Predicts Response to Ritonavir Boosting of Indinavir-Based Therapy in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients with Ongoing Viremia , 2002, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[12]  N. Parkin,et al.  Activities of Atazanavir (BMS-232632) against a Large Panel of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Clinical Isolates Resistant to One or More Approved Protease Inhibitors , 2003, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[13]  J. van Lunzen,et al.  Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48 , 2008, AIDS.

[14]  A. Luber,et al.  Open Access Journal of the International Aids Society Genetic Barriers to Resistance and Impact on Clinical Response , 2005 .

[15]  J. Molina,et al.  Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 48 week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study , 2008, The Lancet.

[16]  Susan Swindells,et al.  Adherence to Protease Inhibitor Therapy and Outcomes in Patients with HIV Infection , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  J. Hammond,et al.  Efficacy and Safety of Atazanavir, With or Without Ritonavir, as Part of Once-Daily Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Regimens in Antiretroviral-Naive Patients , 2008, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[18]  Martin A. Nowak,et al.  Viral dynamics in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection , 1995, Nature.

[19]  C. Katlama,et al.  The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks: a randomised non-inferiority trial , 2006, The Lancet.

[20]  B. Gazzard,et al.  A Randomized Trial to Evaluate Lopinavir/Ritonavir versus Saquinavir/Ritonavir in HIV-1-Infected Patients: The Maxcmin2 Trial , 2005, Antiviral therapy.