Persistent low-level viraemia in antiretroviral treatment-experienced patients is not linked to viral resistance or inadequate drug concentrations.

OBJECTIVES: To assess genotypic sensitivity scores (GSSs), plasma antiretroviral concentrations (PACs) and immunovirological outcomes at Week 96 (W96) in patients with persistent low-level viraemia (LLV). METHODS: On 1 January 2017, we analysed data from patients on three-drug regimens with persistent LLV defined as at least two consecutive plasma viral loads (pVLs) between 21 and 200 copies/mL (including one pVL of ≥50 copies/mL), at the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital. Outcomes were: GSS, PACs and HIV-DNA load at study entry; and virological status and proportion of patients with resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) at W96. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were included, with median age of 52.6 years (IQR 45.2-57.9), last CD4 count of 658 cells/mm3 (IQR 462-909) and total ART duration of 10.2 years (IQR 5.7-15.2). LLV duration was 14.0 months (IQR 5.5-22.3). GSS was 3 in 46/57 (81%) patients and PACs were adequate in 53/57 (93%) patients. Median total HIV-DNA was 2.65 log10 copies/106 cells (IQR 2.44-2.86). During follow-up, 26/57 (46%) had experienced ART modifications. At W96, 38/57 (67%) patients remained with LLV, 15/60 (26%) had achieved confirmed pVL of <20 copies/mL and 4/57 (7%) had virological failure. The four virological failures were due to three ART interruptions and one incomplete adherence (selection of Y181C RAM). No factors (patient characteristics at study entry, GSS, PACs, total HIV-DNA load and ART modification) were associated with W96 viral outcome, except for time from HIV diagnosis and the LLV duration at study entry. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients harbouring LLV had no resistance to ART and adequate PACs. Two-thirds of these patients remained with this LLV status.

Prevalence and clinical impact of minority resistant variants in patients failing an integrase inhibitor-based regimen by ultra-deep sequencing.

Background: Integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs) are recommended by international guidelines as first-line therapy in antiretroviral-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Objectives: This study aimed at evaluating the prevalence at failure of INSTI-resistant variants and the impact of baseline minority resistant variants (MiRVs) on the virological response to an INSTI-based regimen. Methods: Samples at failure of 134 patients failing a raltegravir-containing (n = 65), an elvitegravir-containing (n = 20) or a dolutegravir-containing (n = 49) regimen were sequenced by Sanger sequencing and ultra-deep sequencing (UDS). Baseline samples of patients with virological failure (VF) (n = 34) and of those with virological success (VS) (n = 31) under INSTI treatment were sequenced by UDS. Data were analysed using the SmartGene platform, and resistance was interpreted according to the ANRS algorithm version 27. Results: At failure, the prevalence of at least one INSTI-resistant variant was 39.6% by Sanger sequencing and 57.5% by UDS, changing the interpretation of resistance in 17/134 (13%) patients. Among 53 patients harbouring at least one resistance mutation detected by both techniques, the most dominant INSTI resistance mutations were N155H (45%), Q148H/K/R (23%), T97A (19%) and Y143C (11%). There was no difference in prevalence of baseline MiRVs between patients with VF and those with VS. MiRVs found at baseline in patients with VF were not detected at failure either in majority or minority mutations. Conclusions: UDS is more sensitive than Sanger sequencing at detecting INSTI MiRVs at treatment failure. The presence of MiRVs at failure could be important to the decision to switch to other INSTIs. However, there was no association between the presence of baseline MiRVs and the response to INSTI-based therapies in our study.

Prevalence of HIV-1 drug resistance in treated patients with viral load >50 copies/mL: a 2014 French nationwide study.

Background: Surveillance of HIV-1 resistance in treated patients with a detectable viral load (VL) is important to monitor, in order to assess the risk of spread of resistant viruses and to determine the proportion of patients who need new antiretroviral drugs with minimal cross-resistance. Methods: The HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase (RT) and integrase genes were sequenced in plasma samples from 782 consecutive patients on failing antiretroviral regimens, seen in 37 specialized centres in 2014. The genotyping results were interpreted using the ANRS v24 algorithm. Prevalence rates were compared with those obtained during a similar survey conducted in 2009. Results: The protease and RT sequences were obtained in 566 patients, and the integrase sequence in 382 patients. Sequencing was successful in 60%, 78%, 78% and 87% of patients with VLs of 51-200, 201-500, 501-1000 and >1000 copies/mL, respectively. Resistance to at least one antiretroviral drug was detected in 56.3% of samples. Respectively, 3.9%, 8.7%, 1.5% and 3.4% of patients harboured viruses that were resistant to any NRTI, NNRTI, PI and integrase inhibitor (INI). Resistance rates were lower in 2014 than in 2009. Resistance was detected in 48.5% of samples from patients with a VL between 51 and 200 copies/mL. Conclusion: In France in 2014, 90.0% of patients in AIDS care centres were receiving antiretroviral drugs and 12.0% of them had VLs >50 copies/mL. Therefore, this study suggests that 6.7% of treated patients in France might transmit resistant strains. Resistance testing may be warranted in all treated patients with VL > 50 copies/mL.

Disparities in HIV-1 transmitted drug resistance detected by ultradeep sequencing between men who have sex with men and heterosexual populations.

OBJECTIVES: Transmitted drug resistance (TDR) can impair the response to first-line antiretroviral therapy. In treatment-naïve patients chronically infected with HIV type 1 (HIV-1), it was previously shown through Sanger sequencing that TDR was more common in men who have sex with men (MSM) than in other transmission risk groups. We aimed to compare two HIV-1 transmission groups in terms of the presence of TDR mutations. METHODS: We investigated, through Sanger sequencing and ultradeep sequencing (UDS), the presence of resistance mutations, both in majority (> 20%) and in minority (1-20%) proportions, in 70 treatment-naïve MSM and 70 treatment-naïve heterosexual patients who recently screened positive for HIV-1. RESULTS: The global prevalence of TDR was not significantly different between the two groups, either by Sanger or by UDS. Nevertheless, a higher frequency of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor TDR was observed among heterosexual patients (P = 0.04). There was also a trend for a higher frequency of TDR among MSM infected with HIV-1 subtype B compared with MSM infected with HIV-1 non-B subtypes (P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Ultradeep sequencing UDS allowed sensitive monitoring of TDR, and highlighted some disparities between transmission groups.

Usefulness of an HIV DNA resistance genotypic test in patients who are candidates for a switch to the rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate combination.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of a rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate switch in HIV-1-infected patients with at least 1 year of virological success, we determined whether proviral DNA is an alternative to plasma HIV RNA for resistance genotyping. METHODS: Resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) in DNA after at least 1 year of virological success [viral load (VL) <50 copies/mL] were compared with those identified in the last plasma RNA genotype available. Rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate RAMs studied were K65R, L100I, K101E/P, E138A/G/K/R/Q, V179L, Y181C/I/V, M184V/I, Y188L, H221Y, F227C and M230I/L in the RT. We studied patients without virological failure (VF) and with at least 1 VF (two consecutive VLs >50 copies/mL). Kappa's coefficient was used to measure agreement between the DNA and RNA genotypes. RESULTS: In patients without VF (n = 130) and with VF (n = 114), RNA and DNA showed resistance to at least one drug of the rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate combination in 8% and 9% and in 60% and 45%, respectively. For rilpivirine RAMs, correlation between RNA and DNA was higher in patients without VF than in patients with VF (kappa = 0.60 versus 0.19, P = 0.026). Overall, the prevalence of RAMs was lower in DNA than in RNA. CONCLUSIONS: Incomplete information provided by the DNA genotypic test is more notable in patients with VF, suggesting that all resistance mutations associated with prior VF have not been archived in the proviral DNA or decreased to a level below the threshold of detection. In the case where no historical plasma genotypic test is available, DNA testing might be useful to rule out switching to rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir resistance in HIV-1-infected rilpivirine-naive patients failing antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of simplification strategies, it is essential to know the feasibility of a switch to a rilpivirine-based therapy. The aim of this study was to describe rilpivirine, tenofovir and emtricitabine resistance in HIV-1-infected patients who experienced virological failure during their previous antiretroviral treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The studied population included two groups of patients, all rilpivirine naive, tested for resistance by bulk sequencing from 2008 to 2011: the first group (n = 998) failing a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) plus boosted protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen and the second group (n = 3733) failing an NRTI plus non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimen. RESULTS: In the first group, the frequency of rilpivirine mutations and resistance to rilpivirine (5.1%) was similar to that in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients. Among the 1605 patients from the second group with at least one NNRTI mutation in their HIV, the prevalence of viruses 'resistant' or 'possibly resistant' to efavirenz, nevirapine and etravirine was 78%, 79% and 74%, respectively, while 59% were resistant to rilpivirine. Resistance to rilpivirine was significantly more frequent in non-B subtype versus B subtype viruses. Among pretreated patients with viruses with at least one NNRTI mutation (other than for rilpivirine), 22% of sequences were susceptible to the combination rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. CONCLUSIONS: In patients failing an NRTI plus NNRTI-based regimen, to know the feasibility of a switch to rilpivirine/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, reliable resistance information should be available at the time of use of concurrent NNRTI therapy.

Efficacy of raltegravir switching strategies in HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia according to the genotypic sensitivity score.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The lack of antiretroviral (ARV) backbone activity associated with raltegravir has been proposed as the main explanation for virological relapse observed in patients with undetectable viraemia who are switched from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) to raltegravir. However ARV activity remains difficult to assess in this context. The aim of our study was to precisely assess the ARV backbone activity in patients with undetectable viraemia who underwent raltegravir switching strategies and to evaluate the efficacy of such switching strategies based on the genotypic sensitivity score (GSS). METHODS: Patients with a plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level of <50 copies/mL on a stable two ARV-class regimen were enrolled if they switched one of their ARV drugs to raltegravir 400 mg twice daily. The GSS was calculated using a genotyping test performed on the HIV-1 RNA of the last plasma measurement with a HIV-1 RNA level of >50 copies/mL before the switch and on the results of all previous genotyping tests. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of <50 copies/mL at week 24. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled in this study. The proportion of patients with a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 92.9 % (range 83.0-97.2 %) in the intent-to-treat analysis and 98.1 % (90.0-99.7 %) in per-protocol analysis. When the backbone was fully active, the proportion was 100.0 % (86.7-100.0 %) at week 24 and week 48 in the per-protocol analysis. We observed a decrease in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides of -12.7 % (p = 0.005) and -26.5 % (p = 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Raltegravir switching strategies are effective when the associated backbone is fully active according to the GSS. In the context of undetectable viraemia, where ARV activity remains difficult to assess, the determination of the GSS requires the entire ARV history of the patient and all previous HIV-RNA genotyping test results.

Prevalence of pre-existing resistance-associated mutations to rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir in antiretroviral-naive patients infected with B and non-B subtype HIV-1 viruses.

OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir resistance-associated mutations (RAMs), described in vitro and in vivo, was determined in antiretroviral-naive patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2008 to 2011, 1729 treatment-naive patients were tested for resistance by bulk sequencing. We studied the primary rilpivirine RAMs (K101E/P, E138A/G/K/Q/R, V179L, Y181C/I/V, H221Y, F227C and M230I/L) and other potential rilpivirine-associated mutations (V90I, L100I, K101T, E138S, V179D/I, Y188L, V189I, G190A/E/S and M230V). We also studied the M184V/I and K65R mutations for emtricitabine and tenofovir, respectively. RESULTS: Among 1729 sequences, half of patients had B-subtype viruses and the other half non-B (with 26.7% CRF02, n=461). Primary rilpivirine RAMs were infrequent (4.6%, n=79) and the most prevalent were E138A (3%, n=52), E138K, (0.3%, n=5), H221Y (0.3%, n=5), E138G (0.2%, n=4) and Y181C (0.2%, n=4). The frequency of the primary rilpivirine RAMs was similar between B and non-B subtypes. The other potential rilpivirine-associated mutations that were most prevalent were V179I (8.4%, n=145), V90I (3.8%, n=65) and V189I (2.3%, n=40). The common V179I, V189I and V90I polymorphisms have not been associated with virological failure in Phase 3 clinical studies. By the ANRS algorithm, 4.9% (n=84) of samples were resistant to rilpivirine, 3.7% (n=32) of B-subtype viruses versus 6% (n=52) of non-B-subtype viruses (P=0.02, χ(2) test). The prevalence of K65R and M184I/V was 0.06% (1/1729) and 1% (18/1729), respectively. The prevalence of K103N was 2% (35/1729). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of rilpivirine, emtricitabine and tenofovir resistance mutations was very low in antiretroviral-naive patients. The prevalence of resistance to rilpivirine (4.9%, n=84) was not statistically different from the prevalence of efavirenz and nevirapine resistance in our population.

Genetic barrier to the development of resistance to rilpivirine and etravirine between HIV-1 subtypes CRF02_AG and B.

OBJECTIVES: It has been demonstrated for some drugs that the genetic barrier, defined as the number of genetic transitions and/or transversions needed to produce a resistance mutation, can differ between HIV-1 subtypes. We aimed to assess differences in the genetic barrier for the evolution of resistance to the second-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors etravirine and rilpivirine in subtypes B and CRF02_AG in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS: An analysis was undertaken of 25 substitutions associated with etravirine and rilpivirine resistance at 12 amino acid positions in 267 nucleotide sequences (136 HIV-1 B and 131 HIV-1 CRF02_AG subtypes) of the reverse transcriptase gene. RESULTS: The majority (7/12) of amino acid positions studied were conserved between the two HIV-1 subtypes, leading to a similar genetic barrier. Different predominant codons between the subtypes were observed in 5/12 positions (90, 98, 179, 181 and 227), with an effect on the calculated genetic barrier only at the V179D and V179F codons (2.5 versus 3.5 for V179D, and 2.5 versus 5 for V179F, respectively, for subtype B versus subtype CRF02_AG). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of amino acids involved in etravirine and rilpivirine resistance showed a high degree of conservation of the predominant codon between the B and CRF02_AG subtypes. For rilpivirine, the genetic barrier was the same between the two subtypes. Nevertheless, subtype CRF02_AG showed a higher genetic barrier to acquiring mutations V179D and V179F (mutations associated with resistance to etravirine) compared with subtype B, suggesting that it would be more difficult to produce resistance to etravirine in the CRF02_AG subtype than the B subtype.

Resistance profiles of emtricitabine and lamivudine in tenofovir-containing regimens.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the frequency of the selection of the M184V/I resistance mutation in HIV-infected patients who experienced virological failure while receiving emtricitabine (FTC) or lamivudine (3TC), administered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and either efavirenz (EFV) or a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI; lopinavir or atazanavir). METHODS: Patient data held at two clinical centres in France were analysed retrospectively. Eligible patients had experienced virological suppression (plasma HIV RNA <200 copies/mL) for ≥ 6 months before experiencing their first virological failure (at least two measurements of plasma HIV RNA ≥ 200 copies/mL). RESULTS: Of the 880 patients eligible for the study, 278 patients had experienced virological failure while receiving FTC + TDF + ritonavir-boosted PI, 257 while receiving FTC + TDF + EFV, 178 while receiving 3TC + TDF + EFV and 167 while receiving 3TC + TDF + ritonavir-boosted PI. Proportions of patients harbouring the M184V/I mutation were 24% (n = 62) for those who received FTC + TDF + EFV versus 51% (n = 91) for 3TC + TDF + EFV (P < 0.0001; Fisher's exact test); proportions were 11% (n = 30) for FTC + TDF + ritonavir-boosted PI versus 22% (n = 37) for 3TC + TDF + ritonavir-boosted PI (P = 0.002; Fisher's exact test). The use of lamivudine versus emtricitabine (P = 0.001), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors versus ritonavir-boosted PIs (P = 0.01) and the level of viral load at the time of virological failure (P = 0.01) were associated with selection of the M184V/I mutation (logistic regression analysis). CONCLUSIONS: Emtricitabine and lamivudine showed differing resistance profiles when administered in combination with tenofovir disproxil fumarate and either efavirenz or a ritonavir-boosted PI. The prevalence of the M184V/I resistance mutation was significantly lower in patients who received emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate than in those who received lamivudine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate.

Upgraded Cobas Ampliprep-Cobas TaqMan version 2.0 HIV-1 RNA quantification assay versus first version: correction of underestimations.

The large underestimations of HIV RNA quantification observed in 17 patients with the first version of Cobas TaqMan assay have been successfully corrected in the upgraded version 2.0. In comparison with the Abbott RealTime assay, the mean difference that was 1.18 log(10) copies/ml is now zero. The discrepancies have disappeared.

Pharmacokinetics, protein-binding-adjusted inhibitory quotients for atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg in treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have shown the importance of having a high protein-binding-adjusted inhibitory quotient (IQ) for protease inhibitors (PIs) boosted with ritonavir. The objective of this study was to explore the virological response when combination atazanavir/ritonavir was administered to treatment-nai¨ve patients. METHODS: Protein-binding-adjusted IQs were calculated in 100 treatment-nai¨ve patients initiating therapy with atazanavir 300 mg/ritonavir 100 mg plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. RESULTS: The median atazanavir trough level was 635 ng/mL [interquartile range (IQR) 342-1000] and the median atazanavir protein-binding-adjusted IQ was 45 (IQR 24-71). Eighty-four per cent of patients had a successful virological response, and those who failed did not develop resistance. The IQ for boosted atazanavir is high, resulting in rare treatment failure without resistance mutations. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that the protein-binding-adjusted IQ of atazanavir is close to those measured for lopinavir and darunavir used once daily in first-line treatment. Finally the selection of resistance in the case of virological failure (plasma viral load 4400 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL) to atazanavir/ritonavir used in first-line therapy seems uncommon, as it is for all boosted PIs.

Impact of discrepancies between the Abbott realtime and cobas TaqMan assays for quantification of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 group M non-B subtypes.

Viral loads in 249 clinical samples from individual patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 non-B subtypes were determined with both the Abbott RealTime and Cobas TaqMan assays. The differences exceeded 0.5 log for about 20% of samples and 1 log for 3%, with higher values always from the Abbott assay in the latter cases.

Effects of cyclosporine and hydrocortisone on Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus genome replication and cell apoptosis induction.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic immunosuppressed patients are at increased risk for development of various cancers that comprise Kaposi's sarcoma (KS). METHODS: To investigate the direct impact of immunosuppressive agents on Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) and KS development, we quantified the effects of cyclosporine (CsA) and hydrocortisone (HC) on KSHV genome replication and the consequences on the cell survival. RESULTS: In the presence of phorbol ester 12-O-tetradecanoyl phorbol-13-acetate, we observed an increase of intracellular and extracellular KSHV DNA concomitantly with an increase of gp (glycoprotein) K8.1 expression, indicating KSHV genome replication. This replication was accompanied by cell apoptosis. In comparison, in the presence of CsA, HC, or both, we did not observe any effect on KSHV replication or gp K8.1 expression. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that immunosuppressive agents such as HC and CsA do not activate the lytic cycle of KSHV and do not modify the cell survival thus promoting cancer progression by a direct cellular effect.

[Significance of post-partum diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis primary maternal infection at the end of the pregnancy]. / Intérêt du dépistage en post-partum de la toxoplasmose congénitale après primo-infection maternelle en fin de grossesse.

We report two cases of congenital toxoplasmosis following maternal primary infection occurring late during pregnancy. These congenital infections are often asymptomatic at birth and can be recognized only by an appropriate serological screening program performed in mothers after delivery.

NRTI-sparing regimens yield higher rates of drug resistance than NRTI-based regimens for HIV-1 treatment.

To treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients, international guidelines recommend the combination of two nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs] and a third agent [non-NRTI (NNRTI), boosted protease inhibitor (r/PI) or integrase inhibitor (INI)] for initial treatment. The objective of this study was to compare the selection of resistance to antiretrovirals (ARVs) for regimens containing or lacking N(t)RTIs in patients experiencing their first virological failure. Eligible patients had a first virological failure, defined as the occurrence of two consecutive HIV plasma viral loads ≥50copies/mL. Genotypic resistance testing was performed at the time of virological failure (on the second sample with detectable viral load ≥50copies/mL) in patients failing regimens of N(t)RTIs+r/PI or NNRTI or INI, r/PI+NNRTI or INI, and INI+NNRTI. Among 434 virological failures analysed, resistance testing results were available in 416 cases (95.9%). Higher rates of drug resistance were observed in patients receiving N(t)RTI-sparing regimens. When the combination of N(t)RTIs+r/PI was used, PIs protect themselves and the associated N(t)RTIs from the selection of resistance; however, this was not observed with the NNRTI+r/PI combination. The same phenomenon was observed for raltegravir: when used in combination with N(t)RTIs, INI resistance mutations were less frequently selected compared with its use in combination with PIs or NNRTIs. In conclusion, regimens of the ARV classes combined impact the frequency of resistance development. Lower resistance is observed for N(t)RTI-based regimens, with more therapeutic options for subsequent regimens after failure.