Connection Domain Mutations in Treatment-Experienced Patients in the OPTIMA (Options in Management with Antiretrovirals) Trial Birgitt Dau, M.D. Postdoctoral.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Emerging patterns of drug resistance and viral tropism in cART-naïve and failing patients infected with HIV-1 subtype C Thumbi Ndung’u, BVM, PhD Associate.
Advertisements

Objective of the DAP A) Specify an analysis plan that can be applied to a wide variety of clinical HIV resistance studies. B) Include both Intervention.
Changing Therapy Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Adults and Adolescents published October 2006 AETC NRC Slide Set.
Salvage Antiretroviral Therapy Guiding Principles, Strategies and the Role of Resistance Testing.
NNRTI Resistance David H. Spach, MD Principal Investigator, NW AETC
The Unique Resistance Profile of Tipranavir Dr Kevin Curry Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracknell, UK.
ACTG 333 The Antiviral Effect of Switching from Saquinavir to the New Formulation of Saquinavir vs. Switching to Indinavir After >1 year of Saquinavir.
Persisting long term benefit of genotypic guided treatment in HIV infected patients failing HAART and Importance of Protease Inhibitor plasma levels. Viradapt.
JWM 11/99 Resistance Collaborative Group Re-Analysis of Studies and Review of Ongoing Prospective Studies John W. Mellors, MD Director, HIV/AIDS Program.
Future ART options for HIV-infected children exposed to maternal HAART Lee Kleynhans Experts Roundtable June 2008.
Global HIV Resistance: The Implications of Transmission
Failure Therapy VIRAL RESITANCE ADHERENCE!!!!!!!!!!! DRUG INTERACTION.
Prevalence of resistance mutations in a cohort of treatment-naïve people with chronic HIV infection in the U.S.: CPCRA 058 R M Novak 1, L Chen 2, R D MacArthur.
Catherine Kober Margaret Johnson Martin Fisher Caroline Sabin On behalf of UK-CHIC BHIVA/BASHH Manchester 2010 Non-uptake of HAART among patients with.
HIV i-Base: SMART Study & CROI Feedback UK-CAB - Feb 2006 UK-CAB 24 February 2006 CROI Feedback: SMART Study Simon Collins.
Antiretroviral Treatment Monitoring: A Canadian Case Example Antiretroviral Treatment Monitoring: A Canadian Case Example Robert Hogg, PhD BC Centre for.
Predicting NNRTI Resistance – do polymorphisms matter? Nicola E Mackie 1, Lucy Garvey 1, Anna Maria Geretti 2, Linda Harrison 3, Peter Tilston 4, Andrew.
Impact of Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy on the Incidence of HIV- encephalopathy among perinatally- infected children and adolescents. Kunjal Patel,
1 ARV Drug Resistance HAIVN Harvard Medical School AIDS Initiative in Vietnam.
Increased phenotypic susceptibility (hypersusceptibility, HS) to NNRTIs is observed in ~30% of viral isolates with NRTI- resistance mutations 1 and has.
1 Resistance and Tropism - Maraviroc Lisa K. Naeger, Ph.D. Division of Antiviral Products Food and Drug Administration April 24, 2007 FDA Antiviral Advisory.
Neurocognitive Impairment in HIV-Infected Subjects on HAART: Prevalence and Associations Kevin Robertson *1, Kunling Wu 2, Thomas Parsons 1, Ron Ellis.
Guidelines published as an update on 2003 guidelines. About 8-9 pages. New data only Guidelines published as an update on 2003 guidelines. About 8-9 pages.
INTRODUCTION Evaluation of Outcomes in Patients Starting Antiretroviral Therapy During Hospitalization Leigh E. Efird, PharmD 1, Manish Patel, PharmD 1,
TITAN = TMC114/r In Treatment-experienced pAtients Naïve to lopinavir
1 Atazanavir (ATV) With Ritonavir (RTV) or Saquinavir (SQV) vs Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in Patients With Multiple Virologic Failures 24-Week Results.
Combined PI and NNRTI Resistance Analysis of the Pooled DUET Trial: Towards a Regimen-Based Resistance Interpretation J. M. Schapiro, J. Vingerhoets, S.
A prospective, randomized, Phase III trial of NRTI-, PI-, and NNRTI-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection – ACTG 5142 Riddler S.A.,
Efficacy and Safety of Maraviroc in Treatment- Experienced (TE) Patients Infected with R5 HIV-1: 96-week Combined Analysis of the MOTIVATE 1 & 2 Studies.
1 The impact of ongoing illicit drug use on virologic suppression in HIV-infected injection drug users receiving HAART Authors: Harout Tossonian, Jesse.
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r  EFV vs LPV/r vs EFV + LPV/r –A5142 –Mexican Study  NVP vs ATV/r –ARTEN  EFV vs ATV/r –A5202.
Maintenance therapy with Trizivir® after 6 months induction with Trizivir® plus either efavirenz or lopinavir/r in naïve patients. Trizefal study J. Mallolas*
INTRODUCTION A previous cohort study from our unit suggested a benefit for the use of efavirenz compared to nevirapine in a group of patients initiating.
Mounir Ait-Khaled, The Predictive Quality of Genotype and Phenotype Data on Virological Response to Salvage Therapy in HIV-1 Infected Patients.
Potential Utility of Tipranavir in Current Clinical Practice Daniel R. Kuritzkes, MD Director of AIDS Research Brigham and Woman’s Hospital Division of.
Transmitted drug resistance Pat Cane. Questions What is the level of TDR and is it changing? Are we measuring TDR accurately? Are more sensitive methods.
Washington D.C., USA, July 2012www.aids2012.org Changing Patterns of NRTI and PI Resistance Mutations Between 2006 and 2011 in ART experienced SA.
Management of NRTI Resistance
Strategies for Management of Antiretroviral Therapy Study Wafaa El-Sadr and James Neaton for the SMART Study Team.
Switch to RAL-containing regimen  Canadian Study  CHEER  Montreal Study  EASIER  SWITCHMRK  SPIRAL  Switch ER.
The Impact of Darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) & Raltegravir (RAL) in the Clinic: A New Era for Treatment-Experienced Patients? M. Mugavero 1, H. Lin 1, J.
Long-Term Comparison of Nevirapine Versus Efavirenz When Combined with Other Antiretroviral Drugs in HIV-1 Positive Antiretroviral-Naïve Persons- The NNRTI.
Cumulative plasma HIV-1 level as a novel tool to evaluate antiretroviral therapy efficacy at the individual and public health levels Presented by Viviane.
Results From DUET-1 and DUET-2: ETR Plus DRV/RTV Associated With High Rates of Viral Suppression in Treatment-Experienced Patients This program is supported.
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI  ENCORE  EFV vs RPV –ECHO-THRIVE –STAR  EFV vs ETR –SENSE.
HAART Initiation Within 2 Weeks of Seroconversion Associated With Virologic and Immunologic Benefits Slideset on: Hecht FM, Wang L, Collier A, et al. A.
Neurologic Effects Associated With Efavirenz Generally Mild, Transient Slideset on: Clifford DB, Evans S, Yang Y, et al. Impact of efavirenz on neuropsychological.
Efavirenz Use Not Associated With Depressive Episodes, According to Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trial Outcomes Slideset on: Journot V, Chene G, De.
HIV co-receptor tropism in treatment-naïve patients: impact on CD4 decline and subsequent response to HAART Laura Waters, Sundhiya Mandalia, Adrian Wildfire,
POWER 3 Study Confirms Safety and Efficacy of Darunavir/Ritonavir in Treatment-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Molina JM, Cohen C, Katlama C, et al.
Entecavir Superior to Lamivudine for Treatment of Nucleoside-Naive, HBeAg- Negative Patients Slideset on: Lai CL, Shouval D, Lok AS, et al. Entecavir versus.
ACTG 5142: First-line Antiretroviral Therapy With Efavirenz Plus NRTIs Has Greater Antiretroviral Activity Than Lopinavir/Ritonavir Plus NRTIs Slideset.
First-Line Treatment of HIV Infection With Either NNRTI- or PI-Based Regimens Effective for Long-term Disease Control Slideset on: MacArthur RD, Novak.
Tipranavir/Ritonavir Superior to Comparator PI/Ritonavir at Week 48 in Multiclass-Experienced Patients Slideset on: Hicks CB, Cahn P, Cooper DA, et al.
Adefovir Suppresses HBV DNA Levels in Lamivudine-Resistant HIV/HBV Patients Slideset on: Benhamou Y, Thibault V, Vig P, et al. Safety and efficacy of adefovir.
Rilpivirine-TDF-FTC versus Efavirenz-TDF-FTC STaR Trial
Virological and immunological efficacy of regimen including MVC
Etravirine in Treatment Experienced DUET-2 (TMC125-C216)
Etravirine versus Protease Inhibitor in ARV-Experienced TMC 125-C227
Introduction Results Objectives Methods Conclusion Funding
Once Daily Etravirine versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive SENSE Trial
Etravirine in Treatment Experienced DUET-1 (TMC125-C206)
St Stephen’s Centre, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, United Kingdom
Long-Term Clinical and Immunologic Outcomes Are Similar in HIV-Infected Persons Randomized to NNRTI versus PI versus NNRTI+PI-based Antiretroviral Regimens.
Impact of Baseline NNRTI Mutations on the Virologic Response to TMC125 in the Phase III Clinical Trials DUET-1 and DUET-2 J Vingerhoets, A Buelens, M.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
Switch to RAL-containing regimen
Comparison of NNRTI vs NNRTI
A prospective, randomized, Phase III trial of NRTI-, PI-, and NNRTI-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection – ACTG 5142 Riddler S.A.,
Presentation transcript:

Connection Domain Mutations in Treatment-Experienced Patients in the OPTIMA (Options in Management with Antiretrovirals) Trial Birgitt Dau, M.D. Postdoctoral Fellow in Infectious Diseases US Department of Veterans Affairs and Stanford University

Connection Domain (CD) Background and Rationale for Analysis Codons of HIV reverse transcriptase Codons of HIV reverse transcriptase Connects the DNA polymerase (1-315) and RNase H ( ) domains Connects the DNA polymerase (1-315) and RNase H ( ) domains Most clinically available genotypic resistance tests have not sequenced the CD or RNase H domains Most clinically available genotypic resistance tests have not sequenced the CD or RNase H domains RNase H works during reverse transcription to degrade RNA from the DNA:RNA duplex RNase H works during reverse transcription to degrade RNA from the DNA:RNA duplex Mutations in RNase H slow its activity, allowing time for NRTI excision, and thus NRTI resistance 1 Mutations in RNase H slow its activity, allowing time for NRTI excision, and thus NRTI resistance 1 Mutations in the CD also affect RNase H efficiency 2 Mutations in the CD also affect RNase H efficiency 2 1. Nikolenko et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA Julias et al, J Virol 2003

HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase

In Vitro and In Vivo Data on CD Mutations Many CD mutations are associated with ARV resistance to zidovudine, lamivudine, nevirapine and efavirenz in vitro Many CD mutations are associated with ARV resistance to zidovudine, lamivudine, nevirapine and efavirenz in vitro CD mutations increase fold change caused by TAMS 1 and K103N 2 in vitro CD mutations increase fold change caused by TAMS 1 and K103N 2 in vitro Appearance of N348I was associated with an increase in viral load 3 Appearance of N348I was associated with an increase in viral load 3 A371V is associated with a history of AZT exposure 4 A371V is associated with a history of AZT exposure 4 1. GN Nikolenko et al, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Harrigan et al, J Virol SH Yap et al, PLoS Med Santos et al, PLoS One, 2008

Methods HIV-1 reverse transcriptase gene sequences (codons ) and virtual phenotypes were analyzed from 345 patients randomized in the OPTIMA trial HIV-1 reverse transcriptase gene sequences (codons ) and virtual phenotypes were analyzed from 345 patients randomized in the OPTIMA trial Phenotypic susceptibility scores (PSS) were calculated by adding the score for each drug in the patient’s initial on- study ARV regimen Phenotypic susceptibility scores (PSS) were calculated by adding the score for each drug in the patient’s initial on- study ARV regimen –0 = no activity (FC > CCO2), 0.5 = partial activity (FC > CCO1 and CCO2), 0.5 = partial activity (FC > CCO1 and < CCO2), 1 = full activity (< CCO1) Virologic response was defined as a HIV viral load reduction of > 1 log10/mL after 24 weeks of ARV treatment Virologic response was defined as a HIV viral load reduction of > 1 log10/mL after 24 weeks of ARV treatment Statistical analysis Statistical analysis –Fisher’s Exact Test, Logistic regression, Chi-square

OPTIMA Trial 1 : Introduction OPTIMA is a large treatment interruption trial from OPTIMA is a large treatment interruption trial from Open, randomized, prospective, multi-center management trial in patients with MDR who failed at least two ARV regimens Open, randomized, prospective, multi-center management trial in patients with MDR who failed at least two ARV regimens A 2 x 2 factorial design: A 2 x 2 factorial design: –randomized to ARV drug free period (ARDFP) for 3 months or not (no ARDFP); –and to treatment by either standard antiretroviral therapy (ART) ( 5 ARV drugs) Primary outcomes: time to a new or recurrent AIDS event or death Primary outcomes: time to a new or recurrent AIDS event or death Secondary outcomes: changes in CD4 count and HIV-1 viral load Secondary outcomes: changes in CD4 count and HIV-1 viral load Minimum follow-up = 1 year Minimum follow-up = 1 year 1. See Poster LBPE1145

OPTIMA 1 Trial: Results 368 subjects randomized: 98% male, mean age 49 years, mean CD4 130/mm3 and viral load 4.71 log 10 copies/mL 368 subjects randomized: 98% male, mean age 49 years, mean CD4 130/mm3 and viral load 4.71 log 10 copies/mL Prior ARV use Prior ARV use –96% > 3 NRTI (median 5) –97% 1 NNRTI (median 1) –63% > PIs (median 3) –2.5% were enfuvirtide experienced. Baseline PSS: standard ART 1.8, Mega-ART 2.4 Baseline PSS: standard ART 1.8, Mega-ART 2.4 Median ARDFP was 12 weeks (IQR: weeks) Median ARDFP was 12 weeks (IQR: weeks) Comparing standard vs. Mega-ART; or ARDFP vs. No- ARDFP Comparing standard vs. Mega-ART; or ARDFP vs. No- ARDFP –No significant difference in time to primary outcome for AIDS or death –No significant difference in CD4 count or HIV viral load changes between the treatment arms 1. See poster LBPE1145

Epidemiology of CD Mutations Mutation OPTIMA # (%) n=345 ARV Naïve 1 # (%) (sample size) P Value Frequency E312Q 2 (0.58%) 9 (0.9) (993) P = Y318F 11 (3.2%) 0 (0) (989) P < G333D 5 (1.5%) 4 (0.4) (910) P = G333E 40 (11.6%) 69 (7.6) (910) P = G335C 1 (0.3%) 7 (0.8) (851) P = G335D 13 (3.8%) 10 (1.2) (851) P = N348I 39 (11.3%) 1 (0.2) (358) P < A360I 2 (0.6%) 0 (0) (352) P = A360V 12 (3.5%) 6 (1.7) (352) P = V365I 23 (6.7%) 13 (3.6) (352) P = A371V 61 (17.7%) 19 (5.4) (349) P < A376S 43 (12.5%) 16 (4.5) (348) P = E399G 7 (2.0%) 1 (0.2) (352) P = Stanford HIV Database

Association of CD Mutations with Primary ARV Mutations Y118I30.5%M184V50.7%G190A6.5%L210W33.7%T215F14.6%T215Y49.2%219E7.3%219Q14.1% G333E11.6%P= P= P= P= P= P= P= N348I11.3%P=0.4437P<0.05P<0.05 P= P= P= P< V365I6.7%NSNSNSNSP<0.05NSNSP<0.05 A371V17.7%P<0.005P<0.05 P= P<0.001P=1.000P< A376S12.5%P< P<0.05P< P< * CD mutations were not significantly associated with each other

Univariate Analysis: Association of CD Mutations with Diminished Virologic Response to ART CDMutation P value for lack of virologic response (< 1log 10 /mL decrease at 24 weeks) G333E0.367 N348I1.000 V365I0.370 A371V0.047 A376S0.601 PSS0.0017

Multivariate Analysis: Factors Affecting Virologic Response P Value Baseline CD Baseline Viral Load Effect of Drug Free Period Effect of Standard vs. Mega HAART PSS Y118I G190S T215F Other RT and Connection Domain Mutations NS 1. The PSS incorporates CD and other mutations

Conclusions CD mutations are far more frequent in treatment-experienced populations than in untreated populations CD mutations are far more frequent in treatment-experienced populations than in untreated populations CD mutations are associated with primary RT mutations- CD mutations are associated with primary RT mutations- –Likely shared selection pressure (treatment history) –Functional dependency, i.e. compensatory mutations, is possible Additive effect of CD mutations above primary RT mutations in clinical practice is unknown Additive effect of CD mutations above primary RT mutations in clinical practice is unknown

Limitations Linkage of CD and primary ARV mutations cannot be directly established without clonal analysis Linkage of CD and primary ARV mutations cannot be directly established without clonal analysis Population sequencing underestimates the frequency of mutations present Population sequencing underestimates the frequency of mutations present RNase H mutations were not analyzed RNase H mutations were not analyzed The complicated background of mutations and suboptimal ARV treatment regimens made it hard to distinguish the effect of single mutations The complicated background of mutations and suboptimal ARV treatment regimens made it hard to distinguish the effect of single mutations Given extensive ARV resistance and limited treatment options, patients were unlikely to fully respond to any regimen, making it difficult to differentiate treatment response between groups of patients Given extensive ARV resistance and limited treatment options, patients were unlikely to fully respond to any regimen, making it difficult to differentiate treatment response between groups of patients

Future Directions Ultra deep sequencing Ultra deep sequencing Comparison of plasma vs. PBMC sample sequences Comparison of plasma vs. PBMC sample sequences Clonal analysis to establish linkage between CD mutations and primary ARV- associated HIV RT mutations Clonal analysis to establish linkage between CD mutations and primary ARV- associated HIV RT mutations

Acknowledgments Tri-National Trials Collaboration Tri-National Trials Collaboration –Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) –US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) –Medical Research Council (MRC) of the United Kingdom (UK). Collaborators Collaborators –Dieter Ayers –Joel Singer –Richard Harrigan –Sheldon Brown –Tassos Kyriakides –Bill Cameron –Brian Angus –Mark Holodniy