Detection of clinically relevant antiretroviral drug resistance mutations among treated patients undergoing testing at low levels of viremia AM Geretti.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Background Surveillance data indicate a decline in the prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance among treated patients. Improved treatment strategies.
Advertisements

MODELING THE PROGRESSION AND TREATMENT OF HIV Presented by Dwain John, CS Department, Midwestern State University Steven M. Shechter Andrew J. Schaefer.
HIV in the United Kingdom: 2013 HIV and AIDS Reporting Section Centre for Infectious Disease Surveillance and Control (CIDSC) Public Health England London,
The hidden HIV epidemic: what do mathematical models tell us? The case of France Virginie Supervie, Jacques Ndawinz & Dominique Costagliola U943 Inserm.
6/28/00TPED1 Resistance Testing: What is it? What does it mean? How does drug resistance emerge? Overview of methods Advantages and disadvantages Current.
Feedback from Pregnancy research group UK CHIC / UK HIV Drug Resistance Database Meeting, 2 July 2010 Pregnancy Group: Jane Anderson, Loveleen Bansi, Susie.
Persisting long term benefit of genotypic guided treatment in HIV infected patients failing HAART and Importance of Protease Inhibitor plasma levels. Viradapt.
Validating five questions of antiretroviral non-adherence in a decentralized public-sector antiretroviral treatment program in rural South Africa Krisda.
1 Treatment Failure HAIVN Harvard Medical School AIDS Initiative in Vietnam.
Future ART options for HIV-infected children exposed to maternal HAART Lee Kleynhans Experts Roundtable June 2008.
Baseline Antiretroviral Resistance Testing among HIV-Positive Injection Drug Users in a Canadian Setting Nadia Fairbairn 1 M-J Milloy 1 Thomas Kerr 1,
Global HIV Resistance: The Implications of Transmission
Catherine Kober Margaret Johnson Martin Fisher Caroline Sabin On behalf of UK-CHIC BHIVA/BASHH Manchester 2010 Non-uptake of HAART among patients with.
Virological predictors of clinical outcome Anna Maria Geretti Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust & UCL Medical School London.
BHIVA Clinical Audit Management of patients who switch therapy; re-audit of patients starting therapy from naïve.
Linking HIV-1 and Antiretroviral Drug Resistance Surveillances: Low Prevalence of HIV-1 Drug Resistance in Peru Lama JR 1, Suarez L 2, Laguna A 3, Acuña.
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,
Life expectancy of patients treated with ART in the UK: UK CHIC Study Margaret May University of Bristol, Department of Social Medicine, Bristol.
EARLY CHILDHOOD OUTCOMES AT THE BOTSWANA- BAYLOR CHILDREN’S CLINICAL CENTRE OF EXCELLENCE: A REPORT TO THE WHO TECHNICAL REFERENCE GROUP ON PEDIATRIC CARE.
The Positive Predictive Value of World Health Organization (WHO) Immunologic Criteria for Treatment Failure in a Public Health Antiretroviral Delivery.
TITAN = TMC114/r In Treatment-experienced pAtients Naïve to lopinavir
The WHO HIV Drug Resistance Strategy Presented by Dr. Don Sutherland Prepared by: Dr. Don Sutherland Dr Silvia Bertagnolio Dr Diane Bennett HIV Drug Resistance.
Combined PI and NNRTI Resistance Analysis of the Pooled DUET Trial: Towards a Regimen-Based Resistance Interpretation J. M. Schapiro, J. Vingerhoets, S.
ZIMBABWE AIDS CARE FOUNDATION NEWLANDS CLINIC Virological Outcomes in Adult Patients on Second Line ART, at Newlands Clinic Dr S. Bote.
HIV Care Continuum New Diagnoses, 2011, Fulton County, Georgia.
HIV Care Continuum Persons Living With HIV, Georgia, 2012.
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.
Resistance Mutations Before and After Tenofovir Regimen Failure in HIV-1 Infected Patients. £ Background: Except for the K65R mutation, little is known.
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.
Switch to LPV/r monotherapy  Pilot LPV/r  M  LPV/r Mono  KalMo  OK  OK04  KALESOLO  MOST  HIV-NAT 077.
Supported by: NIAID/NHLBI R24 AI067039, NIAID R21 AI Viremia copy-years: A measure of cumulative HIV burden among patients initiating antiretroviral.
Maintenance therapy with Trizivir® after 6 months induction with Trizivir® plus either efavirenz or lopinavir/r in naïve patients. Trizefal study J. Mallolas*
Describing the risk of an event and identifying risk factors Caroline Sabin Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Research Department of Infection.
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.
Evaluation of the WHO immunologic criteria for treatment failure among adults on first-line HAART in south India Snigdha Vallabhaneni 1, Sara Chandy 2,
HIV and STI Department, Health Protection Agency - Colindale HIV and AIDS Reporting System The threshold for an ART secondary prevention effect on HIV.
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.
Annual Epidemiological Spotlight on HIV in London: 2014 data Field Epidemiology Services PHE Publications gateway number
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
Treatment Failure HAIVN Harvard Medical School AIDS Initiative in Vietnam.
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.
HIV Care Continuum New Diagnoses, 2011, Georgia. Persons with HIV Engaged in Selected Stages of the Continuum of Care, United States Percent
Date of download: 5/28/2016 Copyright © 2016 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. From: Low-Frequency HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations and.
Date of download: 6/3/2016 From: Report of the NIH Panel To Define Principles of Therapy of HIV Infection* Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(12_Part_2):
HAART Initiation Within 2 Weeks of Seroconversion Associated With Virologic and Immunologic Benefits Slideset on: Hecht FM, Wang L, Collier A, et al. A.
CD4 trajectory among HIV positive patients receiving HAART in a large East African HIV care centre Agnes N. Kiragga 1, Beverly Musick 2 Ronald Bosch, Ann.
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,
2 3 Population : 6,934,169 inhabitants 6 Sanitary regions UNAIDS (2014) - HIV prevalence : 2.5% = 110,000 PLHIV - Higher prevalence in southern regions.
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.
HIV Drug Resistance Surveillance Satellite Session: HIV Drug Resistance Surveillance and Control: a Global Concern Silvia Bertagnolio, MD WHO,
#AIDS2016 Dolutegravir (DTG) plus Rilpivirine (RPV) in Suppressed Heavily Pretreated HIV-Infected Patients A. Díaz, J.L. Casado, F.
PRESENTED AT THE 9TH IAS CONFERENCE ON HIV SCIENCE - PARIS, FRANCE
Earlier treatment and lower mortality in infants Initiating ART at
undetectable (undetectable-6.25)
ART and toxicities: CNS
Etravirine versus Protease Inhibitor in ARV-Experienced TMC 125-C227
Background Results Methods Conclusion
Introduction Results Objectives Methods Conclusion Funding
Better Retention Rates Observed in Patients on Lopinavir than Atazanavir in Uganda
St Stephen’s Centre, Chelsea & Westminster Hospital, United Kingdom
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.
Comparison of NNRTI vs PI/r
HVDRS STUDY RESISTANCE: WE CARE
Share your thoughts on this presentation with #IAS2019
Presentation transcript:

Detection of clinically relevant antiretroviral drug resistance mutations among treated patients undergoing testing at low levels of viremia AM Geretti 1, AN Phillips 1, S Kaye 2, C Booth 1 and NE Mackie 2 on behalf of the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database and the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) Study 1 Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust & UCL Medical School and 2 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK Abstract OBJECTIVES: We previously reported that among patients undergoing routine genotypic resistance testing, the detection of ≥1 drug-resistance mutation (RAM), both overall and drug class-specific, was most frequent at 300–10000 and declined >10000 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml. Here we compared the number and patterns of RAMs in patients undergoing testing at viral load (VL) above or below 1000 copies/ml, the recommended threshold for resistance testing in routine practice. METHODS: Genotypic resistance results with linked clinical data were obtained from the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database and CHIC Study, including 1001/7861 (12.7%) performed at VL <1000 copies/ml. Treatment regimens comprised ≥2 NRTIs with either an NNRTI (29.8%), a ritonavir-boosted PI (PI/r; 29.1%), a third NRTI (18.1%) or a non-boosted PI (15.1%), or other combinations (7.9%). RESULTS: Overall 5088/7861 (65%) resistance tests showed ≥1 RAM. Independent predictors of the detection of resistance included earlier calendar year of testing, use of NNRTI-containing regimens, increasing numbers of previously failed drugs, and never having achieved a VL <50 copies/ml (P<0.0001). In patients with ≥1 RAM, the median (IQR) number of mutations was 3 (1–5), 3 (2–6), 3 (2–5), 3 (2–6), 4 (2–6), 3 (2–6) and 3 (1–6) for the VL strata <300, 300–999, 1000–2999, 3000–9999, 10000–29999, 30000–99999 and ≥ copies/ml, respectively (P=0.015). Among 6136 patients experiencing NRTI failure, the most common RAMs were the TAMs M41L, D67N, K70R, L210W, T215Y/F, K219Q/E; M184V; K65R; and L74V; only M41L, L210W, T215Y, and L74V were significantly less prevalent at VL <1000 copies/ml than at higher levels. Among 1864 patients experiencing NNRTI failure, the most common RAMs were K103N, Y181C, G190A and V108I, with no significant difference in prevalence according to VL. Among 2759 patients experiencing PI failure (66% on a PI/r), the most common mutations were L90M, V82A, M46I, I84V and D30N; only I84V and L90M were significantly less prevalent at VL <1000 copies/ml than at higher levels. CONCLUSIONS: Several clinically relevant mutations can be detected at high frequency at low levels of viremia. Genotypic resistance testing at low VL is informative and can guide a timely and optimized therapeutic change in patients failing antiretroviral therapy (ART). References 1. Hammer SM, et al. JAMA 2008; 2. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adult and Adolescents. USA Department of Health and Human Sciences 2008; 3. Gazzard B, et al. HIV Med 2008; 4. Vandamme AM, et al. Antivir Ther 2004; 5. Mackie N, et al. J Virol Meth 2004; 6. Cane PA, et al. HIV Med 2008; 7. Stone C, et al, 4 th European HIV Drug Resistance Workshop. Monte Carlo, Monaco. March [Abstract 63]; 8. Parkin NT, et al. AIDS 2000; 9. Aleman S, et al. AIDS 2002; 10. Nettles RE, et al. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 11. The UK Drug Resistance Database. Available at The UK Collaborative HIV Cohort Steering Committee. HIV Med 2004; 13. Waters L, et al. AIDS Methods  Study population. Genotypic resistance test results were obtained from the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database, which collates results of tests performed at most centres in the UK 11. Results are provided in the form of plasma pol sequences, and amino acid sequences and mutations (relative to HXB2) are derived via the Stanford Algorithm web service (Sierra). Resistance test results were linked to clinical data from the UK CHIC study, an observational cohort collating data from 10 clinics 12. Patients eligible for inclusion in this analysis had a resistance test performed after the start of antiretroviral therapy (ART) and underwent a VL test within 2 weeks before to 4 weeks after the date of the resistance test. If patients had >1 resistance test performed after the start of ART all tests were included. RAMs were scored according to the IAS-USA list (Oct. 2007). The majority (856/1001, 86%) of tests performed at VL <1000 copies/ml came from 3 centres where either the VircoType (Virco, Belgium) or in- house methodologies including a nested PCR step were used. The sequencing success rates in these 3 centres were 70% for the VircoType 13 and 85-92% for the in-house methodologies (Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust).  Data analysis. The analysis considered the relationship between VL at the time of the resistance test and the probability of detection of RAMs. Virological failure of a drug was defined by a VL >400 copies/ml after >4 months of continuous use of the drug. Generalized linear models with log link and Poisson error (using generalised estimating equations) were used to assess multivariable (adjusted) relative risks (RR) for the association between various covariates and a risk of a RAM being present (SAS 9.1). The same approach was used for analyses of detection of resistance to any drug class and class-specific. All analyses were repeated excluding and including those off ART at the time of the resistance test. Aim To characterize the population undergoing genotypic resistance testing at VL <1000 copies/ml, describe their resistance profiles, identify factors associated with the detection of RAMs according to the VL level, and specifically compare the numbers and patterns of RAMs detected at VL above and below 1000 copies/ml. Results-1  There were 7861 resistance tests from 3791 patients with 1 test, 1814 patients with 2 tests and 2256 patients with ≥3 tests. For 5738 (73%) tests, the VL was measured on the same day of the test, for 865 (11%) within the previous 2 weeks and for 1258 (16%) within the subsequent 4 weeks.  Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1. At the time of testing, 1611 (20.5%) patients were not on ART having discontinued therapy a median of 542 (IQR ) days previously. Excluding these patients from the analyses did not significantly alter the findings.  The total number of tests per year was broadly constant: < , , , , , , , , and Overall 1001 (12.7%) tests were performed at low VL, and their number as a proportion of all tests increased over time (Fig 1).  Factors associated with undergoing testing at low VL comprised centre of care, more recent calendar year of testing, a previous undetectable VL, no previous virological failure, and receiving PI/r+NRTIs (p< for all). Table 1. Cohort undergoing resistance testing at VL above and below 1000 copies/ml Conclusions  This study provides substantive evidence that several clinically relevant RAMs are as likely to be detected at VL <1000 copies/ml as above this level. These include the NAMs K65R, M184V and pathway 2 TAMs, major nNAMs, and the PRAMs D30N, M46I, and V82A. Consistent with this high detection yield, there has been increased uptake of resistance testing at VL <1000 copies/ml over recent years in the UK. Nearly a quarter of all resistance tests performed in routine care in 2006 were at low VL.  The prevalence of ≥1 RAM was 65% overall. The highest detection rates were observed at VL between 300 and 10,000 copies/ml. The prevalence of resistance declined progressively when the VL exceeded 10,000 copies/ml for NAMs and PRAMs, and 30,000 copies/ml for nNAMs. This is likely to reflect the effect of declining levels of adherence, although this is difficult to assess because of the lack of formally collected adherence data in our cohort.  The higher frequency of TAMs at VL >1000 copies/ml may be expected as TAMs will accumulate with prolonged virological failure. However it is unclear why our observation was only relevant to TAM 1 pathway mutations. We were unable to infer from this analysis whether the presence of RAMs at low VL should be interpreted as the early emergence of these mutations within the quasispecies, or rather as a possible effect on VL of a reduced viral fitness. Whereas significant fitness effects have been reported for several NAMs including K65R and M184V, nNAMs such as K103N do not appear to diminish viral fitness.  Overall, our data indicate that whilst overall rates of drug-resistance are declining amongst treatment-experienced patients undergoing resistance testing in routine practice, genotypic resistance testing at VL <1000 copies/ml did not significantly reduce the likelihood of detecting resistance compared to testing at higher levels. The finding of clinically significant RAMs supports the practice of genotypic resistance testing at VL <1000 copies/ml in order to guide the choice of an effective alternative regimen in patients experiencing treatment failure. Although data do not yet exist regarding the utility of resistance testing at low VL in terms of clinical outcomes, guidelines exist which recommend prompt switching in patients with detectable viremia. The use of genotypic resistance testing at low VL may be helpful in clinical practice to allow a timely and optimised therapeutic change, and may improve outcomes. MSM = Men who have sex with men; Hetero = heterosexual; IDU = injecting drug user; UK = unknown Figure 1. Resistance tests performed at VL <1000 copies/ml as a proportion of all tests Background  Current treatment guidelines recommend that virological failure should be managed promptly by the design of a new regimen containing ≥2, and ideally 3, fully active drugs, as guided by resistance testing and treatment history 1-3.  In treated patients with detectable viremia and remaining therapy options, switching therapy is more likely to be successful when the CD4 count is higher and the VL is lower. The importance of detecting drug-resistance may therefore be paramount in patients with low-level viremia in order to allow a timely and optimized therapeutic change.  Current genotypic resistance assays are validated for a VL >1000 copies/ml and both treatment guidelines 1,4 and assay manufacturers recommend this as the optimal threshold for testing. Routine genotypic assays can however be adapted to perform well at lower levels of viremia, with high (>75%) levels of success 5,6. Although some debate ensues as to whether the sequences obtained are fully representative of the dominant virus species 7, many centres perform resistance tests at VL levels <1000 copies/ml as part of routine care 6. There are limited data however supporting the tool of drug-resistance testing as an aid to selecting active drugs at VL <1000 copies/ml Cohort (%) Viral load copies/ml P >1000 no (%) <1000 no (%) Total no of tests Gender Male Female 6182 (78.6) 1679 (21.4) 5426 (79.1) 1433 (20.9) 755 (75.4) 246 (24.6) 0.03 Age (yrs) (8.5) 5415 (68.9) 1775 (22.6) 604 (69.3) 4754 (69.3) 1502 (21.9) 67 (6.7) 661 (66.0) 273 (27.3) Risk group MSM Hetero IDU Other/UK 4755 (60.5) 2273 (28.9) 355 (4.5) 478 (6.1) 4184 (61.0) 1954 (28.5) 321 (4.7) 401 (5.8) 571 (57.0) 319 (31.9) 34 (3.4) 77 (7.7) ART regimen at time of testing NNRTI+NRTIs PI/r+NRTIs PI+NRTIs NRTIs only Other None 1864 (23.7) 1816 (23.1) 943 (12.0) 1131 (14.4) 496 (6.3) 1611 (20.5) 1577 (23.0) 1482 (21.6) 847 (12.4) 974 (14.2) 442 (6.4) 1538 (22.4) 287 (28.7) 334 (33.3) 157 (15.7) 96 (9.6) 54 (5.4) 73 (7.3) < Number of drugs previously failed > (12.8) 2514 (32.0) 2464 (31.3) 1372 (17.5) 503 (6.4) 826 (12.0) 2240 (32.7) 2159 (31.5) 1189 (17.3) 446 (6.5) 182 (18.2) 274 (27.4) 305 (30.5) 183 (18.3) 57 (5.7) < Time since start of ART (yrs) ≥ (35.4) 2402 (30.6) 1617 (20.6) 1059 (13.4) 2453 (35.8) 2118 (30.9) 1412 (20.6) 877 (12.7) 330 (33.0) 284 (28.4) 205 (20.5) 182 (18.2) < VL ever <50 copies/ml Yes No 4484 (57.0) 3377 (43.0) 3718 (54.2) 3142 (45.8) 766 (76.5) 235 (23.5) < < Year of test Proportion (%) of tests Viral load copies/ml Whole cohorton NRTIsOn NNRTIsOn PIs no no (%) with RAM RR (95% CI)no no (%) with NAMs RR (95% CI)no no (%) with nNAMs RR (95% CI)no no (%) with PRAMs RR (95% CI) < (60)0.94 ( ) (53)0.89 ( ) (48)0.87 ( )19355 (29)0.85 ( ) (72)0.99 ( ) (68)1.01 ( ) (77)1.07 ( )23790 (38)1.00 ( ) (76) (72) (77) (43) (77)1.01 ( ) (75)1.01 ( ) (77)1.02 ( ) (46)0.89 ( ) (67)0.90 ( ) (70)0.92 ( ) (73)0.97 ( ) (44)0.87 ( ) (60)0.84 ( ) (59)0.79 ( ) (60)0.84 ( ) (42)0.85 ( ) ≥ (48)0.69 ( ) (45)0.61 ( ) (48)0.68 ( ) (31)0.64 ( ) Results-2  Overall 5088/7861 (65%) tests showed ≥1 RAM. Independent predictors of the detection of RAMs comprised earlier calendar year of testing, receiving NNRTI-based ART, increasing numbers of previously failed drugs, no previous undetectable VL (p< for all), and, marginally, longer time since starting ART (p=0.02). The prevalence of RAMs varied according to the VL, but testing at low VL did not significantly reduce the likelihood of detecting resistance compared to testing at higher levels (Table 2). There was also no convincing evidence of a significant difference in the number of RAMs detected according to the VL, among those with ≥1 RAM (Fig 2).  Table 3 shows the prevalence of RAMs stratified by VL for RAMs occurring at a prevalence >5%, and stratified by class of drugs received at the time of testing. In 6136 tests performed at NRTI failure, the most common NAMs were the TAMs, M184V, K65R and L74V; the prevalence of pathway 1 TAMs (M41L, L210W and T215Y) and L74V was significantly lower at low VL than at higher levels, but there were no significant difference in the prevalence of other NAMs. In 1864 tests performed at NNRTI failure, the most common nNAMs were K103N, V108I, Y181C and G190A, with no significant difference in prevalence according to VL. In Of 2759 tests performed at PI failure (66% PI/r, mostly lopinavir/r), the most common PRAMs were D30N, M46I, V82A, I84V, and L90M; of these, I84V and L90M were less prevalent at low VL than at higher VL levels. The significant differences persisted when PI/r regimens were analysed separately from overall PI regimens. Table 2. Prevalence and relative risk (RR) of detection of RAMs according to VL and ART regimen, following adjustment for variables shown in Table 1 NAMs = NRTI RAMs; nNAMs = NNRTI RAMs; PRAMs = PI RAMs Figure 2. Median number of RAMs detected according to VL, in tests with ≥1 RAM* *Global test for differences p=0.015 (Kruskall Wallis test) RAM and ART regimen Viral load (copies/ml) P <1000>1000 On NRTIs M41L < K65R D67N K70R L74V M184V L210W T215Y < T215F K219Q K219E On NNRTI K103N V108I Y181C G190A On PI/PI/r D30N M46I V82A I84V L90M Table 3. Prevalence of individual RAMs according to VL and ART regimen* * Mutations with prevalence >5% in either or both VL groups Median no of RAMs (IQR)