January 25, 2001; Updated
|Susa Coffey, MD|
| 9. ||Descamps
Mechanisms of virologic failure in previously untreated HIV-infected patients from a trial of induction-maintenance therapy. Trilège (Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA 072) Study Team). JAMA. 2000 Jan;283(2):205-11
[PubMed ID: 10634336]
CONTEXT: In the Trilège trial, following induction with a zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir regimen, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) replication was less suppressed by 2-drug maintenance therapy than by triple-drug therapy. OBJECTIVE: To identify mechanisms of virologic failure in the 3 arms of the Trilège trial. DESIGN: Case-control study conducted from February to October 1998. SETTING: Three urban hospitals in Paris, France. PATIENTS: Fifty-eight case patients with virologic failure (HIV RNA rebound to >500 copies/mL in 2 consecutive samples) randomized to 3 therapy groups: triple drug (zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir), 8; zidovudine-lamivudine, 29; and zidovudine-indinavir, 21; the case patients were randomly matched with 58 control patients with sustained viral suppression. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At virologic failure (S1 sample) and 6 weeks later (S2 sample), assessment of protease and reverse transcriptase gene mutations, plasma indinavir level, and degree of viral load rebound; pill count during induction and maintenance periods. RESULTS: Only 1 primary resistance mutation, M184V, was detected in S1 plasma samples from 4 of 6 patients in the triple-drug and in all 22 in the zidovudine-lamivudine therapy groups and in S2 plasma samples from 3 of 6 in the triple-drug and 20 of 21 in the zidovudine-lamivudine groups. Of controls, M184V was detected in 11 of 13 S1 plasma samples and in 10 of 11 S2 plasma samples. Indinavir levels were undetectable in all S1 samples but 2 in 7 triple-drug cases tested and in the expected range in 11 of 18 S1 and 5 of 12 S2 zidovudine-indinavir case plasma samples tested. Maintenance adherence rates were lower for cases vs controls for zidovudine (P = .05) and indinavir (P = .05). Low indinavir levels, lower adherence rates for zidovudine (P = .04) and lamivudine (P = .03), and rebound to near-baseline values suggested adherence as cause of early failure for 4 of 8 triple-drug cases. In the zidovudine-lamivudine arm, for which case and control adherence rates did not differ significantly (P = .96), most failures occurred late with low rebound, suggesting suboptimal drug potency. In the zidovudine-indinavir arm, virologic failures may be related to both mechanisms. CONCLUSIONS: During the maintenance phase early and late virologic failures appeared to be related more to problems of adherence and antiretroviral treatment potency, respectively, than to selection of resistant mutant viruses.
| 10. ||Havlir
Drug susceptibility in HIV infection after viral rebound in patients receiving indinavir-containing regimens. JAMA. 2000 Jan;283(2):229-34
[PubMed ID: 10634339]
CONTEXT: Loss of viral suppression in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), who are receiving potent antiretroviral therapy, has been attributed to outgrowth of drug-resistant virus; however, resistance patterns are not well characterized in patients whose protease inhibitor combination therapy fails afterachieving viral suppression. OBJECTIVE: To characterize drug susceptibility of virus from HIV-infected patients who are failing to sustain suppression while taking an indinavir-containing antiretroviral regimen. DESIGN AND SETTING: Substudy of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group 343, a multicenter clinical research trial conducted between February 1997 and October 1998. PATIENTS: Twenty-six subjects who experienced rebound (HIV RNA level > or =200 copies/mL) during indinavir monotherapy (n = 9) or triple-drug therapy (indinavir, lamivudine, and zidovudine; n = 17) after initially achieving suppression while receiving all 3 drugs, and 10 control subjects who had viral suppression while receiving triple-drug therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Drug susceptibility, determined by a phenotypic assay and genotypic evidence of resistance assessed by nucleotide sequencing of protease and reverse transcriptase, compared among the 3 patient groups. RESULTS: Indinavir resistance was not detected in the 9 subjects with viral rebound during indinavir monotherapy or in the 17 subjects with rebound during triple-drug therapy, despite plasma HIV RNA levels ranging from 10(2) to 10(5) copies/mL. In contrast, lamivudine resistance was detected by phenotypic assay in rebound isolates from 14 of 17 subjects receiving triple-drug therapy, and genotypic analyses showed changes at codon 184 of reverse transcriptase in these 14 isolates. Mean random plasma indinavir concentrations in the 2 groups with rebound were similar to those of a control group with sustained viral suppression, although levels below 50 ng/mL were more frequent in the triple-drug group than in the control group (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Loss of viral suppression may be due to suboptimal antiviral potency, and selection of a predominantly indinavir-resistant virus population may be delayed for months even in the presence of ongoing indinavir therapy. The results suggest possible value in assessing strategies using drug components of failing regimens evaluated with resistance testing.