Gert U. van Zyl

Emergence of HIV Drug Resistance During First- and Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in Resource-Limited Settings

INTRODUCTION Antiretroviral therapy (ART) in resource-limited settings has expanded in the last decade, reaching >8 million individuals and reducing AIDS mortality and morbidity. Continued success of ART programs will require understanding the emergence of HIV drug resistance patterns among individuals in whom treatment has failed and managing ART from both an individual and public health perspective. We review data on the emergence of HIV drug resistance among individuals in whom first-line therapy has failed and clinical and resistance outcomes of those receiving second-line therapy in resource-limited settings. RESULTS Resistance surveys among patients initiating first-line nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based therapy suggest that 76%-90% of living patients achieve HIV RNA suppression by 12 months after ART initiation. Among patients with detectable HIV RNA at 12 months, HIV drug resistance, primarily due to M184V and NNRTI mutations, has been identified in 60%-72%, although the antiretroviral activity of proposed second-line regimens has been preserved. Complex mutation patterns, including thymidine-analog mutations, K65R, and multinucleoside mutations, are prevalent among cases of treatment failure identified by clinical or immunologic methods. Approximately 22% of patients receiving second-line therapy do not achieve HIV RNA suppression by 6 months, with poor adherence, rather than HIV drug resistance, driving most failures. Major protease inhibitor resistance at the time of second-line failure ranges from 0% to 50%, but studies are limited. CONCLUSIONS Resistance of HIV to first-line therapy is predictable at 12 months when evaluated by means of HIV RNA monitoring and, when detected, largely preserves second-line therapy options. Optimizing adherence, performing resistance surveillance, and improving treatment monitoring are critical for long-term prevention of drug resistance.

Significantly diminished long-term specificity of the BED capture enzyme immunoassay among patients with HIV-1 with very low CD4 counts and those on antiretroviral therapy.

Objective:To estimate the proportion who test as recent infections by the BED capture enzyme immunoassay (BED) among patients about to commence, and those receiving, antiretroviral therapy. Design:Cryopreserved plasma samples from HIV patients on the national antiretroviral treatment (ART) rollout program at Tygerberg Hospital HIV clinic, South Africa, were tested using the BED assay. Participants:Five hundred five patients qualifying for ART were included in this study. Method:All plasma samples from each patient were tested by BED. Basic demographic data, HIV-1 viral load, and CD4 count results were obtained from the laboratory database. Main Outcome:The proportion presenting as false recently infected is reported. Results:Among patients, with presumed long-term HIV-1 infections, about to commence ART, 11.2% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.3 to 14.5%] tested recent by BED. The proportion was higher among patients with CD4 counts <50 cells per microliter [odds ratio 2.63, 95% CI: 1.39 to 5.00] and log10 HIV-1 viral load less than 4 [odds ratio 3.03, 95% CI: 1.05 to 9.09]. Proportions testing false recent increased from 11.2% before ART to 17%, 25%, 38%, and 56% at 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2 years, respectively, after ART initiation. Conclusions:If the BED method is to be used for the accurate estimation of HIV incidence from cross-sectional surveys, it will be essential, before other statistical adjustment methods, to identify, at least, all cases who are on ART and all those with CD4 counts < 50 cells per microliter. The more general remaining problem is the unequivocal identification of all persons with long-term HIV infections.

Low lopinavir plasma or hair concentrations explain second line protease inhibitor failures in a resource-limited setting

Background:In resource-limited settings, many patients, with no prior protease inhibitor (PI) treatment on a second-line, high genetic barrier, ritonavir-boosted PI-containing regimen have virologic failure. Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional survey to investigate the aetiology of virologic failure in 2 public health antiretroviral clinics in South Africa documenting the prevalence of virologic failure (HIV RNA load >500 copies/mL) and genotypic antiretroviral resistance; and lopinavir hair and plasma concentrations in a nested case-control study. Results:Ninety-three patients treated with a second-line regimen including lopinavir boosted with ritonavir were included, of whom 50 (25 cases, with virologic failure and 25 controls) were included in a nested case control study. Of 93 patients, 37 (40%) had virological failure, only 2 of them had had major PI mutations. The negative predictive values: probability of failure with lopinavir plasma concentration >1 μg/mL or hair concentrations >3.63 ng/mg for virologic failure were 86% and 89%, and positive predictive values of low concentrations 73% and 79%, respectively, whereas all virologic failures with HIV RNA loads above 1000 copies per milliliter, of patients without PI resistance, could be explained by either having a low lopinavir concentration in plasma or hair. Conclusions:Most patients who fail a lopinavir/ritonavir regimen, in our setting, have poor lopinavir exposure. A threshold plasma lopinavir concentration (indicating recent lopinavir/ritonavir use) and/or hair concentration (indicating longer term lopinavir exposure) are valuable in determining the aetiology of virologic failure and identifying patients in need of adherence counselling or resistance testing.

HIV Treatment Adherence, Drug Resistance, Virologic Failure: Evolving Concepts

Poor adherence to combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) has been shown to be a major determinant of virologic failure, emergence of drug resistant virus, disease progression, hospitalizations, mortality, and health care costs. While high adherence levels can be achieved in both resource-rich and resource-limited settings following initiation of cART, long-term adherence remains a challenge regardless of available resources. Barriers to optimal adherence may originate from individual (biological, socio-cultural, behavioral), pharmacological, and societal factors. Although patients and providers should continuously strive for maximum adherence to cART, there is accumulating evidence that each class of antiretroviral therapy has specific adherence-drug resistance relationship characteristics allowing certain regimens more flexibility than others. There is not a universally accepted measure for cART adherence, since each method has distinct advantages and disadvantages including cost, complexity, accuracy, precision, intrusiveness and bias. Development of a real-time cART adherence monitoring tool will enable the development of novel, pre-emptive adherence-improving strategies. The application of these strategies may ultimately prove to be the most cost-effective method to reduce morbidity and mortality for the individual and decrease the likelihood of HIV transmission and emergence of resistance in the community.

Trends in Genotypic HIV-1 Antiretroviral Resistance between 2006 and 2012 in South African Patients Receiving First- and Second-Line Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens

Objectives South Africa’s national antiretroviral (ARV) treatment program expanded in 2010 to include the nucleoside reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors (NRTI) tenofovir (TDF) for adults and abacavir (ABC) for children. We investigated the associated changes in genotypic drug resistance patterns in patients with first-line ARV treatment failure since the introduction of these drugs, and protease inhibitor (PI) resistance patterns in patients who received ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r)-containing therapy. Methods We analysed ARV treatment histories and HIV-1 RT and protease mutations in plasma samples submitted to the Tygerberg Academic Hospital National Health Service Laboratory. Results Between 2006 and 2012, 1,667 plasma samples from 1,416 ARV-treated patients, including 588 children and infants, were submitted for genotypic resistance testing. Compared with 720 recipients of a d4T or AZT-containing first-line regimen, the 153 recipients of a TDF-containing first-line regimen were more likely to have the RT mutations K65R (46% vs 4.0%; p<0.001), Y115F (10% vs. 0.6%; p<0.001), L74VI (8.5% vs. 1.8%; p<0.001), and K70EGQ (7.8% vs. 0.4%) and recipients of an ABC-containing first-line regimen were more likely to have K65R (17% vs 4.0%; p<0.001), Y115F (30% vs 0.6%; p<0.001), and L74VI (56% vs 1.8%; p<0.001). Among the 490 LPV/r recipients, 55 (11%) had ≥1 LPV-resistance mutations including 45 (9.6%) with intermediate or high-level LPV resistance. Low (20 patients) and intermediate (3 patients) darunavir (DRV) cross resistance was present in 23 (4.6%) patients. Conclusions Among patients experiencing virological failure on a first-line regimen containing two NRTI plus one NNRTI, the use of TDF in adults and ABC in children was associated with an increase in four major non- thymidine analogue mutations. In a minority of patients, LPV/r-use was associated with intermediate or high-level LPV resistance with predominantly low-level DRV cross-resistance.

Deep Sequencing Reveals Minor Protease Resistance Mutations in Patients Failing a Protease Inhibitor Regimen

ABSTRACT Standard genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing, performed by bulk sequencing, does not readily detect variants that comprise <20% of the circulating HIV-1 RNA population. Nevertheless, it is valuable in selecting an antiretroviral regimen after antiretroviral failure. In patients with poor adherence, resistant variants may not reach this threshold. Therefore, deep sequencing would be potentially valuable for detecting minority resistant variants. We compared bulk sequencing and deep sequencing to detect HIV-1 drug resistance at the time of a second-line protease inhibitor (PI)-based antiretroviral regimen failure. Eligibility criteria were virologic failure (HIV-1 RNA load of >500 copies/ml) of a first-line nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimen, with at least the M184V mutation (lamivudine resistance), and second-line failure of a lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based regimen. An amplicon-sequencing approach on the Roche 454 system was used. Six patients with viral loads of >90,000 copies/ml and one patient with a viral load of 520 copies/ml were included. Mutations not detectable by bulk sequencing during first- and second-line failure were detected by deep sequencing during second-line failure. Low-frequency variants (>0.5% of the sequence population) harboring major protease inhibitor resistance mutations were found in 5 of 7 patients despite poor adherence to the LPV/r-based regimen. In patients with intermittent adherence to a boosted PI regimen, deep sequencing may detect minority PI-resistant variants, which likely represent early events in resistance selection. In patients with poor or intermittent adherence, there may be low evolutionary impetus for such variants to reach fixation, explaining the low prevalence of PI resistance.

Protease inhibitor resistance in South African children with virologic failure

Background: In South Africa, first-line antiretroviral therapy for children younger than 3 years of age combines a protease inhibitor (PI) with 2 nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitors. In our study, some pediatric patients received ritonavir (RTV) as single PI (RTV-sPI) and others ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r), which has a higher resistance barrier. We explored antiretroviral resistance mutations in pediatric patients failing PI-based antiretroviral therapy and the predictors of major PI resistance mutations (MPIRM) in these patients. Materials and Methods: We studied pediatric HIV patients at Tygerberg Academic Hospital experiencing virologic failure on a PI regimen. Mixed-effects linear- and mixed-effect logistic regression modeling, were used to explore predictors of MPIRM. Results: MPIRM were found in 12 of 17 patients exposed to RTV-sPI compared with 1 of 13 patients treated with LPV/r. Exposure to RTV-sPI was significantly associated with MPIRM, with both exposure time and estimated failing time on RTV-sPI being significant positive predictors of MPIRM. Neither CD4 count, viral load, age at first visit nor receiving rifampin predicted MPIRM. Conclusions: RTV-sPI in infants and children poses a significant risk of MPIRM which is dependent on the exposure time and time failing while receiving the regimen.

Antiretroviral resistance patterns and factors associated with resistance in adult patients failing NNRTI‐based regimens in the western cape, South Africa

Antiretroviral drug resistance in patients failing non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)‐based first‐line combination antiretroviral treatment (ART) is influenced by: regimen choice, HIV‐1 subtype, detection of and response to therapy failure. In order to describe resistance patterns by genotypic testing, at the time of first‐line ART failure and to describe associations with having M184I/V, K65R, three or more thymidine analog mutations (TAMs) and etravirine (ETV) resistance, the prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance associated mutations in a cross‐sectional study, at two South African public health clinic settings, at the time of virologic failure (HIV‐1 RNA load >400 copies/ml) are described. Also reported are associations of therapy choice, prolonged virologic failure, and concurrent HIV viral load and CD4 count with the presence of M184I/V, TAMs, K65R, and resistance to ETV. Of 167 adult patients with virologic failure on first‐line ART, 28 (17%) had no resistance, 137 (82%) had NNRTI resistance, 101 (60%) M184I/V, 20 (12%) TAMs, of which 4 had 3 or more TAMs, and 7 (4%) had K65R, of which 6 were on D4T and one on AZT. A prolonged estimated period of failure was associated with having ≥3 TAMs. Patients treated with nevirapine (NVP) were more likely to have ETV resistance than those treated with efavirenz (EFV). Major protease inhibitor mutations were not detected. A delayed response to ART failure may risk accumulation of TAMs in patients on an NNRTI‐based regimen. The use of NVP rather than EFV was associated with ETV resistance. J. Med. Virol. 83:1764–1769, 2011.

HIV Drug Resistance (HIVDR) in Antiretroviral Therapy-Naïve Patients in Tanzania not Eligible for WHO Threshold HIVDR Survey is Dramatically High.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended guidelines for a HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) survey for resource-limited countries. Eligibility criteria for patients include age below 25 years in order to focus on the prevalence of transmitted HIVDR (tHIVDR) in newly-infected individuals. Most of the participating sites across Africa have so far reported tHIVDR prevalences of below 5%. In this study we investigated whether the rate of HIVDR in patients <25 years is representative for HIVDR in the rest of the therapy-naïve population. Methods and Findings HIVDR was determined in 88 sequentially enrolled ART-naïve patients from Mwanza, Tanzania (mean age 35.4 years). Twenty patients were aged <25 years and 68 patients were aged 25–63 years. The frequency of HIVDR in the study population was 14.8% (95%; CI 0.072–0.223) and independent of NVP-resistance induced by prevention of mother-to-child transmission programs. Patients >25 years had a significantly higher HIVDR frequency than younger patients (19.1%; 95% CI 0.095–0.28) versus 0%, P = 0.0344). In 2 out of the 16 patients with HIVDR we found traces of antiretrovirals (ARVs) in plasma. Conclusions ART-naïve patients aged over 25 years exhibited significantly higher HIVDR than younger patients. Detection of traces of ARVs in individuals with HIVDR suggests that besides transmission, undisclosed misuse of ARVs may constitute a significant factor in the generation of the observed high HIVDR rate. The current WHO tHIVDR survey that is solely focused on the transmission of HIVDR and that excludes patients over 25 years of age may therefore result in substantial underestimation of the prevalence of HIVDR in the therapy-naïve population. Similar studies should be performed also in other areas to test whether the so far reported optimistic picture of low HIVDR prevalence in young individuals is really representative for the rest of the ART-naïve HIV-infected population.

HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations: Potential Applications for Point-of-Care Genotypic Resistance Testing

The increasing prevalence of acquired and transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance is an obstacle to successful antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) hardest hit by the HIV-1 pandemic. Genotypic drug resistance testing could facilitate the choice of initial ART in areas with rising transmitted drug resistance (TDR) and enable care-providers to determine which individuals with virological failure (VF) on a first- or second-line ART regimen require a change in treatment. An inexpensive near point-of-care (POC) genotypic resistance test would be useful in settings where the resources, capacity, and infrastructure to perform standard genotypic drug resistance testing are limited. Such a test would be particularly useful in conjunction with the POC HIV-1 viral load tests that are currently being introduced in LMICs. A POC genotypic resistance test is likely to involve the use of allele-specific point mutation assays for detecting drug-resistance mutations (DRMs). This study proposes that two major nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-associated DRMs (M184V and K65R) and four major NNRTI-associated DRMs (K103N, Y181C, G190A, and V106M) would be the most useful for POC genotypic resistance testing in LMIC settings. One or more of these six DRMs was present in 61.2% of analyzed virus sequences from ART-naïve individuals with intermediate or high-level TDR and 98.8% of analyzed virus sequences from individuals on a first-line NRTI/NNRTI-containing regimen with intermediate or high-level acquired drug resistance. The detection of one or more of these DRMs in an ART-naïve individual or in a individual with VF on a first-line NRTI/NNRTI-containing regimen may be considered an indication for a protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimen or closer virological monitoring based on cost-effectiveness or country policy.