Clinical implications of HIV drug resistance to nucleoside and nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

This review focuses on issues pertinent to the epidemiology and clinical interpretation of resistance to nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations, and especially thymidine analog mutations, remain the most common form of resistance detected in drug-naive patients. At the same time, improved treatment strategies, changes in prescribing policies, and prompt management of treatment failure are changing the prevalence and patterns of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance in treatment-experienced patients. The clinical interpretation of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance is being increasingly refined, helped by improved understanding of resistance pathways, development of sophisticated methods of analysis of genotypic resistance patterns, and introduction of clinically relevant cutoffs. Correlation of genotypic and phenotypic resistance data to clinical outcomes is essential to allow appropriate interpretation. In some cases, phenotypic data, either obtained directly by phenotypic tests or extrapolated from genotypic results, provide the most immediate predictors of virologic response. In other cases, genotypic analyses identify mutations that impact on responses without showing a marked effect on the phenotype, by either acting as "sentinel" markers for the presence of resistance undetectable by standard methods, or by lowering the genetic barrier to the evolution of resistance. The potential benefits of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance, through hypersusceptibility and fitness effects, are also increasingly understood and exploited in clinical practice. Although progress has been significant, there remain many challenges. It is often questioned whether genotypic scores and clinical cutoffs obtained by various methods and from frequently small datasets can be reliably extrapolated to the general population of treated patients. At the same time, there is a need to define the role of reverse transcriptase mutations that are identified by statistical analyses as being associated with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor exposure, but have unknown effects on virus phenotype and clinical outcome. Novel mechanisms have also been proposed to play a role in nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance, including changes in RNaseH that are not targeted by routine testing at present. One additional, currently unresolved issue is the clinical relevance of minority resistant species and the feasibility of introducing ultra-sensitive resistance tests in routine diagnostic settings. The most appropriate viral-load cutoff for performing resistance tests and the reliability of results obtained at low copy numbers are similarly controversial. In spite of these limitations, resistance testing with appropriate interpretation provides an important guide to successful treatment outcomes and necessary support to the introduction of new treatment strategies.

[1]  A. Phillips,et al.  Prevalence and predictors of antiretroviral drug resistance in newly diagnosed HIV-1 infection. , 2007, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[2]  A. Geretti Epidemiology of antiretroviral drug resistance in drug-naïve persons , 2007, Current opinion in infectious diseases.

[3]  F. Brun-Vézinet,et al.  Rare Selection of the K65R Mutation in Antiretroviral-Naive Patients Failing a First-Line Abacavir/Lamivudine-Containing Haart Regimen , 2006, Antiviral therapy.

[4]  Thomas Lengauer,et al.  Involvement of Novel Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Reverse Transcriptase Mutations in the Regulation of Resistance to Nucleoside Inhibitors , 2006, Journal of Virology.

[5]  F. Bastos,et al.  Trends in drug resistance mutations in antiretroviral‐naïve intravenous drug users of Rio de Janeiro , 2006, Journal of medical virology.

[6]  L. Bacheler,et al.  The K65R Mutation in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Reverse Transcriptase Exhibits Bidirectional Phenotypic Antagonism with Thymidine Analog Mutations , 2006, Journal of Virology.

[7]  R. Kaiser,et al.  Primary HIV Drug Resistance and Efficacy of First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy Guided by Resistance Testing , 2006, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[8]  Laura Galli,et al.  Lamivudine monotherapy in HIV-1-infected patients harbouring a lamivudine-resistant virus: a randomized pilot study (E-184V study) , 2006, AIDS.

[9]  Christine Hogan,et al.  Tracking the Prevalence of Transmitted Antiretroviral Drug-Resistant HIV-1: A Decade of Experience , 2006, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[10]  D. Pillay,et al.  Evolution of Transmitted HIV-1 with Drug-Resistance Mutations in the Absence of Therapy: Effects on Cd4+ T-Cell Count and HIV-1 Rna Load , 2006, Antiviral therapy.

[11]  S. Swaminathan,et al.  The K65R Reverse Transcriptase Mutation in HIV-1 Reverses the Excision Phenotype of Zidovudine Resistance Mutations , 2006, Antiviral therapy.

[12]  C. Rouzioux,et al.  HIV-1 resistant strains acquired at the time of primary infection massively fuel the cellular reservoir and persist for lengthy periods of time , 2006, AIDS.

[13]  S. Swaminathan,et al.  A combination of decreased NRTI incorporation and decreased excision determines the resistance profile of HIV-1 K65R RT , 2005, AIDS.

[14]  Rebecca Hoh,et al.  Interruption of treatment with individual therapeutic drug classes in adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. , 2005, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[15]  V. Calvez,et al.  Clinically Relevant Genotype Interpretation of Resistance to Didanosine , 2005, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[16]  M. King,et al.  Long-term safety and durable antiretroviral activity of lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive patients: 4 year follow-up study , 2004, AIDS.

[17]  R. Elston,et al.  GW433908/ritonavir once daily in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-infected patients: absence of protease resistance at 48 weeks , 2004, AIDS.

[18]  Mark A Wainburg The impact of the M184V substitution on drug resistance and viral fitness , 2004 .

[19]  N. Pedersen,et al.  Reversion of the M184V Mutation in Simian Immunodeficiency Virus Reverse Transcriptase Is Selected by Tenofovir, Even in the Presence of Lamivudine , 2003, Journal of Virology.

[20]  A. Hsu,et al.  Incidence of resistance in a double-blind study comparing lopinavir/ritonavir plus stavudine and lamivudine to nelfinavir plus stavudine and lamivudine. , 2004, The Journal of infectious diseases.