The selection of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs for treatment of HIV-1 infection is based on several factors including potency, toxicity, resistance and ease of administration. Emtricitabine (FTC) or lamivudine (3TC), components of recommended initial ARV regimens, are structurally related and share the same resistance mutation (M184V/I). However they differ with respect to potency and incidence of M184V/I.
Methods
Resistance-associated mutation (RAM) prevalence data were obtained from genotype test results performed in a large reference laboratory from 2003–2010; subsets of data were defined by mutation pattern to resemble those following failure of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based combination therapy. Mutational trend data were compared to contemporaneous ARV prescription information.
Results
In the unfiltered data set (n=107,231), the prevalence in 2010 decreased compared to 2003 for all nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) RAMs, such as M184V/I (44.0% to 17.9%), T215Y (22.7% to 4.1%), and K65R (4.3% to 2.1%). Among samples resembling those typical of first-line NNRTI-based failures, prevalence of K103N increased slightly, but prevalence of M184V/I decreased (49.8% to 36.8%), as did other NRTI RAMs. These decreases were coincident with a shift in ARV prescriptions away from zidovudine and 3TC towards tenofovir and FTC, and an increase in use of fixed-dose combinations.
Conclusions
RAM prevalence decreased substantially since 2003 among samples submitted for resistance testing in the US. The causes of this decrease are multifactorial, but our results suggest a possible role of increased use of potent ARVs that are available as fixed-dose combinations or as single-tablet regimens.
References
1.
CihlarT., RayA.S.Nucleoside and nucleotide HIV reverse transcriptase inhibitors: 25 years after zidovudine. Antiviral Res2010; 85: 39–58.
DHHS Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents.Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. US Department of Health and Human Services. (Updated 10 January 2011. Accessed 14 October 2011.) Available from http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf.
4.
SchinaziR.F., McMillanA., CannonD.Selective inhibition of human immunodeficiency viruses by racemates and enantiomers of cis-5-fluoro-1-[2-(hydroxymethyl)-1,3-oxathiolan-5-yl]cytosine. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1992; 36: 2423–2431.
5.
FengJ.Y., ShiJ., SchinaziR.F., AndersonK.S.Mechanistic studies show that (-)-FTC-TP is a better inhibitor of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase than 3TC-TP. FASEB J1999; 13: 1511–1517.
6.
RousseauF.S., WakefordC., Mommeja-MarinH.Prospective randomized trial of emtricitabine versus lamivudine short-term monotherapy in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. J Infect Dis2003; 188: 1652–1658.
7.
PozniakA.L., GallantJ.E., DeJesusE.Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and efavirenz versus fixed-dose zidovudine/lamivudine and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive patients: virologic, immunologic, and morphologic changes – a 96-week analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2006; 43: 535–540.
8.
SaxP.E., TierneyC., CollierA.C.Abacavir-lamivudine versus tenofovir-emtricitabine for initial HIV-1 therapy. N Engl J Med2009; 361: 2230–2240.
9.
HillA., SawyerW.Effects of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone on the efficacy of first-line boosted highly active antiretroviral therapy based on protease inhibitors: meta-regression analysis of 12 clinical trials in 5168 patients. HIV Med2009; 10: 527–535.
10.
TanD.H., ChanK., RaboudJ.Comparison of abacavir/ lamivudine and tenofovir/emtricitabine among treatment-naive HIV-infected patients initiating therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2011; 58: 38–46.
11.
WangL.H., BegleyJ., St ClaireR.L.III, HarrisJ., WakefordC., RousseauF.S.Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of emtricitabine support its once daily dosing for the treatment of HIV infection. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses2004; 20: 1173–1182.
12.
MooreK.H., BarrettJ.E., ShawS.The pharmacokinetics of lamivudine phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients infected with HIV-1. AIDS1999; 13: 2239–2250.
13.
BoucherC.A.B., CammackN., SchipperP.High-level resistance to (-) enantiomeric 2′-deoxy-3′-thiacytidine in vitro is due to one amino acid substitution in the catalytic site of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1993; 37: 2231–2234.
14.
SchuurmanR., NijhuisM., van LeeuwenR.Rapid changes in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 RNA load and appearance of drug-resistant virus populations in persons treated with lamivudine (3TC). J Infect Dis1995; 171: 1411–1419.
15.
TisdaleM., AlnadafT., CousensD.Combination of mutations in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase required for resistance to the carbocyclic nucleoside 1592U89. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1997; 41: 1094–1098.
16.
GuZ., GaoQ., LiX., ParniakM.A., WainbergM.A.Novel mutation in the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase gene that encodes cross-resistance to 2′, 3′-dideoxyinosine and 2′, 3′-dideoxycytidine. J Virol1992; 66: 7128–7135.
17.
LarderB.A.3′-Azido-3′-deoxythymidine resistance suppressed by a mutation conferring human immunodeficiency virus type 1 resistance to nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother1992; 36: 2664–2669.
18.
WhitcombJ.M., ParkinN.T., ChappeyC., HellmannN.S., PetropoulosC.J.Broad nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor cross-resistance in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clinical isolates. J Infect Dis2003; 188: 992–1000.
19.
TisdaleM., KempS.D., ParryN.R., LarderB.A.Rapid in vitro selection of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 resistant to 3′-thiacytidine inhibitors due to a mutation in the YMDD region of reverse transcriptase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A1993; 90: 5653–5656.
20.
WainbergM.A., MillerM.D., QuanY.In vitro selection and characterization of HIV-1 with reduced susceptibility to PMPA. Antivir Ther1999; 4: 87–94.
21.
WhiteK.L., MargotN.A., WrinT., PetropoulosC.J., MillerM.D., NaegerL.K.Molecular mechanisms of resistance to human immunodeficiency virus type 1 with reverse transcriptase mutations K65R and K65R+M184V and their effects on enzyme function and viral replication capacity. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2002; 46: 3437–3446.
22.
DevalJ., WhiteK.L., MillerM.D.Mechanistic basis for reduced viral and enzymatic fitness of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase containing both K65R and M184V mutations. J Biol Chem2004; 279: 509–516.
23.
DeeksS.G., HohR., NeilandsT.B.Interruption of treatment with individual therapeutic drug classes in adults with multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. J Infect Dis2005; 192: 1537–1544.
24.
MarcelinA.G., CharpentierC., WirdenM.Resistance profiles of emtricitabine and lamivudine in tenofovir-containing regimens.18th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 27 February–2 March 2011, Boston, MA, USA. Abstract 617.
25.
SvicherV., AlteriC., ArteseA.Different evolution of genotypic resistance profiles to emtricitabine versus lamivudine in tenofovir-containing regimens. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2010; 55: 336–344.
26.
MolinaJ.M., Andrade-VillanuevaJ., EchevarriaJ.Once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir compared with twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir, each in combination with tenofovir and emtricitabine, for management of antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week efficacy and safety results of the CASTLE study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2010; 53: 323–332.
27.
GallantJ.E., StaszewskiS., PozniakA.L.Efficacy and safety of tenofovir DF vs stavudine in combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients: a 3-year randomized trial. JAMA2004; 292: 191–201.
28.
KempfD.J., KingM.S., BernsteinB.Incidence of resistance in a double-blind study comparing lopinavir/ ritonavir plus stavudine and lamivudine to nelfinavir plus stavudine and lamivudine. J Infect Dis2004; 189: 51–60.
29.
WalmsleyS., BernsteinB., KingM.Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection. N Engl J Med2002; 346: 2039–2046.
30.
MargotN.A., EnejosaJ., ChengA.K., MillerM.D., McCollD.J.Development of HIV-1 drug resistance through 144 weeks in antiretroviral-naive subjects on emtricitabine, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and efavirenz compared with lamivudine/zidovudine and efavirenz in study GS-01-934. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2009; 52: 209–221.
31.
MargotN.A., LuB., ChengA., MillerM.D.Resistance development over 144 weeks in treatment-naive patients receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate or stavudine with lamivudine and efavirenz in Study 903. HIV Med2006; 7: 442–450.
32.
MaseratiR., De SilvestriA., UgliettiA.Emerging mutations at virological failure of HAART combinations containing tenofovir and lamivudine or emtricitabine. AIDS2010; 24: 1013–1018.
33.
LehmannE.L., D'AbreraH.J.M.Nonparametrics: statistical methods based on ranks. San Francisco: Holden-Day1975.
34.
FlandreP., O'QuigleyJ.Predictive strength of Jonckheere's test for trend: an application to genotypic scores in HIV infection. Stat Med2007; 26: 4441–4454.
35.
AntaL., CorralA., González-LahozJ., SorianoV., de MendozaC.Drastic reduction in the prevalence of RT mutations in HIV antiretroviral-experienced patients After 2006 in Spain.Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 17–20 September 2011, Chicago, IL, USA. Abstract H2-795.
36.
World Health Organization.Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in adults and adolescents: recommendations for a public health approach. 2010 Revision. Geneva, Switzerland. (Updated 2010. Accessed 30 Sept 2011.) Available from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241599764_eng.pdf.
37.
TheysK., VercauterenJ., AbecasisA.B.The rise and fall of K65R in a Portuguese HIV-1 drug resistance database, despite continuously increasing use of tenofovir. Infect Genet Evol2009; 9: 683–688.
