Archived HIV-1 DNA resistance mutations to rilpivirine and etravirine in successfully treated HIV-1-infected individuals pre-exposed to efavirenz or nevirapine.

OBJECTIVES: Efavirenz and nevirapine failure is associated with a rapid selection of resistance-associated mutations (RAMs), which may impact on etravirine or rilpivirine susceptibility. However, RAMs for rilpivirine and etravirine cannot be reported on previous resistance genotypes because these specific RAMs were not analyzed at that time. Therefore, our objective was to determine, in virologically suppressed HIV-1-infected individuals, the presence of RAMs to rilpivirine, etravirine and the combination of tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine in HIV-1 DNA from individuals previously exposed to efavirenz and/or nevirapine. METHODS: The studied population included 169 treatment-experienced individuals enrolled in the ANRS 138-EASIER trial who previously failed on and/or were intolerant to efavirenz and/or nevirapine and who had plasma HIV-1 RNA<400 copies/mL. Resistance to rilpivirine, etravirine, tenofovir and emtricitabine by bulk sequencing was performed on extracted HIV-1 DNA from whole blood collected at the time of trial inclusion. RESULTS: Reverse transcriptase gene amplification was successful in 128/169 (76%) individuals and 95% of HIV-1 were infected with subtype B. Rilpivirine RAMs were detected in 41 (32%) individuals, with highest frequency for the mutations Y181C/I/V (18%), K101E/P (7%) and E138A/G/K/Q/R/S (6%) and the association L100I+K103N/S (5%). Etravirine RAMs were detected in five (4%) individuals. Resistance to emtricitabine, tenofovir and at least one drug included in the combination of tenofovir/emtricitabine/rilpivirine were detected in 72 (56%), 12 (9%) and 88 (69%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In individuals with suppressed viraemia under antiretroviral therapy (ART), but who had been previously exposed to an efavirenz and/or nevirapine-based regimen, rilpivirine RAMs are frequent and etravirine RAMs are rare. This finding suggests that the switch to a rilpivirine-based regimen should not be recommended.

HIV-1 subtype influences susceptibility and response to monotherapy with the protease inhibitor lopinavir/ritonavir.

OBJECTIVE: PI susceptibility results from a complex interplay between protease and Gag proteins, with Gag showing wide variation across HIV-1 subtypes. We explored the impact of pre-treatment susceptibility on the outcome of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy. METHODS: Treatment-naive individuals who experienced lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy failure from the MONARK study were matched (by subtype, viral load and baseline CD4 count) with those who achieved virological response ('successes'). Successes were defined by viral load <400 copies/mL after week 24 and <50 copies/mL from week 48 to week 96. Full-length Gag-protease was amplified from patient samples for in vitro phenotypic susceptibility testing, with susceptibility expressed as fold change (FC) relative to a subtype B reference strain. RESULTS: Baseline lopinavir susceptibility was lower in viral failures compared with viral successes, but the differences were not statistically significant (median lopinavir susceptibility: 4.4 versus 8.5, respectively, P = 0.17). Among CRF02_AG/G patients, there was a significant difference in lopinavir susceptibility between the two groups (7.1 versus 10.4, P = 0.047), while in subtype B the difference was not significant (2.7 versus 3.4, P = 0.13). Subtype CRF02_AG/G viruses had a median lopinavir FC of 8.7 compared with 3.1 for subtype B (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We report an association between reduced PI susceptibility (using full-length Gag-protease sequences) at baseline and subsequent virological failure on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in antiretroviral-naive patients harbouring subtype CRF02_AG/G viruses. We speculate that this may be important in the context of suboptimal adherence in determining viral failure.