Long term probability of detection of HIV-1 drug resistance after starting antiretroviral therapy in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the long term risk of development of HIV-1 drug resistance for patients starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) with three or four drug regimens in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We analysed a large cohort study of patients seen in one of six large HIV clinics in and around London, UK. The focus of this analysis was on patients who started ART with two nucleosides plus either a single protease inhibitor (PI), a PI with ritonavir, abacavir or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). RESULTS: 4306 patients were followed; 1436 (33%) started with a single PI, 279 (6%) with a PI plus ritonavir, 156 (4%) with triple nucleosides and 2435 (57%) with an NNRTI. The overall cumulative risk of viral load failure was 38% by 6 years. Risk of > or =1 major IAS-USA mutation was 27% by 6 years; risk of mutations from at least two of the three main drug classes was 20% over the same period. These are lower limit estimates as test results were not available for many with viral load failure. Risk of PI mutations being detected in people who started ART with regimens containing a PI with ritonavir was significantly lower than the risk of NNRTI mutations being detected in those starting with NNRTI-containing regimens (relative hazard 0.3195% CI 0.15-0.61; p = 0.0008). CONCLUSION: In routine practice, rates of viral load failure and of resistance detection in patients who started ART with three or four drugs are appreciable.

Estimating HIV-1 drug resistance in antiretroviral-treated individuals in the United Kingdom.

Good estimates of the prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus drug resistance are important for assessing requirements for new drug classes and modeling the spread of resistance. However, little consensus exists on optimal methodologies to generate such data. To compare methodologies, we used the national data set of resistance tests from >4000 patients in the United Kingdom performed between 1998 and 2002. When single-time-point analysis (method 1) was used, the proportion of tests with any form of resistance was approximately 80%, with little time trend. When a cumulative model of resistance (method 2) was used and placed in the context of all treated patients, the prevalence of any resistance increased by year, reaching 17% of treated patients in 2002. Method 2 also nearly doubles estimates of numbers of individuals infected with multiclass drug-resistant virus. Our results identify an urgent need for new drugs within existing classes and new classes of antiretroviral therapy.

Treatment exhaustion of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) among individuals infected with HIV in the United Kingdom: multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether there is evidence that an increasing proportion of HIV infected patients is starting to experience increases in viral load and decreases in CD4 cell count that are consistent with exhaustion of available treatment options. DESIGN: Multicentre cohort study. SETTING: Six large HIV treatment centres in southeast England. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals seen for care between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2002. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Exposure to individual antiretroviral drugs and drug classes, CD4 count, plasma HIV RNA burden. RESULTS: Information is available on 16,593 individuals (13,378 (80.6%) male patients, 10,340 (62.3%) infected via homosexual or bisexual sex, 4426 (26.7%) infected via heterosexual sex, median age 34 years). Overall, 10,207 of the 16,593 patients (61.5%) have been exposed to any antiretroviral therapy. This proportion increased from 41.2% of patients under follow up at the end of 1996 to 71.3% of those under follow up in 2002. The median CD4 count and HIV RNA burden of patients under follow up in each year changed from 270 cells/mm3 and 4.34 log10 copies/ml in 1996 to 408 cells/mm3 and 1.89 log10 copies/ml, respectively, in 2002. By 2002, 3060 (38%) of patients who had ever been treated with antiretroviral therapy had experienced all three main classes. Of these, around one quarter had evidence of "viral load failure" with all these three classes. Patients with three class failure were more likely to have an HIV RNA burden > 2.7 log10 copies/ml and a CD4 count < 200 cells/mm3. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of individuals with HIV infection in the United Kingdom who have been treated has increased gradually over time. A substantial proportion of these patients seem to be in danger of exhausting their options for antiretroviral treatment. New drugs with low toxicity, which are not associated with cross resistance to existing drugs, are urgently needed for such patients.

The rate of viral rebound after attainment of an HIV load <50 copies/mL according to specific antiretroviral drugs in use: results from a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Relatively few data are available on the association between the use of specific antiretroviral drugs and the rate of viral rebound in those attaining a viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL while receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). METHODS: Patients achieving a VL <50 copies/mL for the first time while receiving HAART were followed until viral rebound (2 consecutive VLs >500 copies/mL). Pre-HAART antiretroviral-naive patients were analyzed separately from those with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) experience. RESULTS: Of 3565 suppressed antiretroviral-naive patients, 381 experienced viral rebound (rate, 6.26 events/100 person-years of follow-up [pyrs] [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.63-6.89 events/100 pyrs]). For those receiving efavirenz, the rate was 4.08 (95% CI, 3.16-5.01) events/pyrs. Compared with this, the rebound rate for those receiving indinavir was 1.52 times higher (rate ratio [RR], 1.52 [95% CI, 0.82-2.84]). RRs (95% CIs) for other drugs were: soft-gel saquinavir, 0.54 (0.07-3.97); nelfinavir, 2.44 (1.68-3.54); indinavir/ritonavir, 1.96 (1.02-3.77); saquinavir/ritonavir, 1.12 (0.48-2.61); lopinavir/ritonavir, 1.23 (0.58-2.59); nevirapine, 1.53 (1.11-2.10); and abacavir, 2.03 (1.26-3.25). Of 810 NRTI-exposed patients, 145 experienced viral rebound (rate, 8.29 [95% CI, 6.94-9.64] events/pyrs). For those receiving efavirenz, the rate was 5.25 (95% CI, 3.11-8.30) events/pyrs. Compared with this, the RRs (95% CIs) were: indinavir, 1.75 (0.82-3.73); hard-gel saquinavir, 3.48 (0.36-33.37); nelfinavir, 2.64 (1.37-5.08); indinavir/ritonavir, 0.32 (0.04-2.49); saquinavir/ritonavir, 0.64 (0.23-1.80); nevirapine, 1.65 (0.90-3.02); and abacavir, 1.82 (0.73-4.52). CONCLUSIONS: We must make comparisons of antiretroviral outcomes in observational data with caution; however, our results suggest that, in those with VLs <50 copies/mL, certain drugs may be associated with higher rebound rates than others.