webs01 drug resistance a bridge from basic to operations research n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
WEBS01 Drug Resistance: A Bridge from Basic to Operations Research PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
WEBS01 Drug Resistance: A Bridge from Basic to Operations Research

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 41

WEBS01 Drug Resistance: A Bridge from Basic to Operations Research - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 66 Views
  • Uploaded on

WEBS01 Drug Resistance: A Bridge from Basic to Operations Research . Pathogenesis of HIV Resistance: current knowledge and new methodologies Francesca Ceccherini Silberstein Cattedra di Virologia Università di Roma Tor Vergata.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'WEBS01 Drug Resistance: A Bridge from Basic to Operations Research' - ohio


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
webs01 drug resistance a bridge from basic to operations research
WEBS01 Drug Resistance: A Bridge from Basic to Operations Research

Pathogenesis of HIV Resistance: current knowledge and new methodologies

Francesca Ceccherini Silberstein

Cattedra di Virologia

Università di Roma Tor Vergata

slide2

The emergence of resistance is the inevitable consequence of incomplete suppression of HIV replication by the current antiretroviral drugs, and is a frequent and major limitation of antiviral therapy.

slide3

A total of 207 deaths were identified among 1,138 participants over the followup period, with an all cause mortality rate of 18.2%. Among the 679 patients with HIV-drug resistance genotyping done before initiating HAART, HIV-drug resistance to any class was observed in 7.8% of the patients. During follow-up, HIV-drug resistance to any class was observed in 302 (26.5%) participants. Emergence of any resistance was associated with mortality (hazard ratio: 1.75 [95% CI: 1.27, 2.43]). When considered each class of resistance separately, persons who exhibited resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors had the highest risk: mortality rates were 3.02 times higher (95% CI: 1.99, 4.57) for these patients than for those who did not exhibit this type of resistance.

slide4

Similarly…..

Poor survival in drug-class multi-resistance

0 DCMR

1 DCMR

2 DCMR

P at log-rank <0.001

3 DCMR

Zaccarelli,et al., AIDS 2005

slide5

And…..

Poor survival in drug-class multi-resistance

Zaccarelli,et al., AIDS 2007

slide6

For treatment-naïve participants (N=1360), the risk of AIDS or death is increased for those who failed virologically with solitary NNRTI resistance and those who failed with no known drug resistance compared to those with no virologic failure.

And…..

Kozal,et al., HIV Clin Trials 2007

slide7

2007

And…..

slide9

In 1989 ….

4 RT mutations

were associated

with

drug-resistance

slide10

Today more than 100 mutations…

IAS Dec 2010

Johnson VA, et al. Top HIV Medicine 2010

slide11

Knowledge of HIV-1 resistance

is continuously evolving

During the years, with the increasing number of new PIs, the number of PR mutations associated with PI-resistance is highly increased.

  • IAS

Evolution of HIV-1 resistance profiles follows improvements in regimens’ settings

  • IAS

2010 IAS and Novel

slide12

Genotyping resistance tests, N

Improved genotypic drug resistance testing

Update from Ceccherini Silberstein, et al. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2010

  • More targets
testing for minority resistant variants
Testing for minority resistant variants

Paredes and Clotet, Eur Infect Dis 2008

  • More sensitive approaches
  • New technologies
remember
Due to the intrinsic characteristics of HIV, the selection of the first therapeutic regimen is crucial for the success of the following regimensRemember…..
virological factors to be considered for a correct approach to first line therapies
Virological factors to be considered for a correct approach to first line therapies
  • Limit as much as possible the use of drugs against whom the virus has already selected primary mutations
transmitted drug resistance
Transmitted drug resistance

Studies report prevalence of drug resistance in ARV-naïve patients

in USA and Europe:

5 to 15% in newly diagnosed persons

10 to 25% in acutely infected persons

Persistence of transmitted resistant virus (median follow-up 2.1 years)

NNRTI resistance in 10/14 patients

Resistant virus persistently detectable in 13/14 patients

Mean time to first detectable wt/resistant mixture was 103 weeks (95% CI: 49–216)

Response to therapy in patients with transmitted resistance

NNRTI (n=67), PI (n=18), NRTI (n=25): some with MDR virus

45% (38/84) failed to suppress, best response in those receiving >2 active drugs (p=0.01)

Little S, et al. 14th CROI, Los Angeles 2007, #60

slide17

Time to first virologic failure in the subcohort was substantially shorter for subjects with preexisting NNRTI-resistant virus than for those without

Weighted Cox proportional hazard models including baseline NNRTI resistance showed a significantly increased risk of virologic failure for subjects with NNRTI-resistant virus at baseline compared with those without (intent-to-treat: HR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.15–4.49]; P .018) (as-treated: HR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.30 –5.20]; P .007)

Kuritzkes et al JID 2008

slide19

TDR was associated with a poorer virological response when patients received cART containing ≥1 drug not fully active

VF rates at M12 were 6.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.5; 6.5), 6.3% (4.2; 9.3) and 16.2% (13.0; 20.1) for no TDR group, TDR and fully active group and TDR and resistant group, respectively.

Wittkop et al Lancet 2011

slide20

TDR was associated with a poorer virological response when patients received cART containing ≥1 drug not fully active

Wittkop et al Lancet 2011

slide21

When an active regimen was used with TDR, the use of a 2NRTI/NNRTI combination was associated with a higher risk for VF, possibly due to the presence of minority resistant species.

Wittkop et al Lancet 2011

slide22

Today it is possible to detect resistant quasispecies before the treatment starting.

It could be important to detect as soon as possible before starting treatment

Improved detection methods

for HIV drug-resistance

Drug-susceptible quasispecies

Drug-resistant quasispecies

Treatment begins

Selection of resistant

quasispecies

  • Incomplete suppression
  • First-line monotherapy
  • No Adherence
  • Bioavailability
  • Pre-existing resistance
  • Reservoir

Viral load

Time

slide26

While these recently developed methodologies point to the exciting potential for a new quantum of ability in the detection of ARV drug resistance, much work remains to be done to assess the clinical relevance of these “minority” variants…

slide29

Paredes et al., The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010; 201:662–671

Halvas et al., The Journal of Infectious Diseases 2010; 201:672–680

slide30

Systematic Review and Baseline Characteristics

Ten studies with 985 patients were identified as meeting the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The median CD4 cell count was 229 cells/mm3 and mean plasma HIV-1 RNA level was 5.0 log10 copies/mL.

All studies evaluated the presence of K103N. Other commonly evaluated minority variants included Y181C (N=435) and the NRTI mutations M184V (N=228) and K65R (N=163).

Low-Frequency HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations

and Risk of NNRTI-BasedAntiretroviral Treatment Failure

A Systematic Review and Pooled Analysis

  • Minority drug-resistant variants were found in 14% (117/808).
  • 35% of those with detectable minority variants experienced virologic failure
  • as compared to 15% of those without minority variants.

Li et al JAMA 2011

slide31

Presence of minority variants at ≥1% conferred a significantly higher risk of virologic failure as compared to minority variants present at ≤1%.

A dose-dependent effect on the risk of virologic failure was found when subjects were categorized by the absolute copy numbers of minority variants per mL of plasma.

Li et al JAMA 2011

slide32

The detection of minority variants was associated with an increased risk of virologic failure at either high or low levels of medication adherence

Li et al JAMA 2011

slide33

The presence of K103N mutant virus in plasma above 2000 copies/ml prior to therapy in treatment-naive individuals correlated with increased risk of virologic failure of efavirenz-containing triple-drug regimens

  • Multivariate logistic regression to predict risk of VF with predictors treated as categorical variables
  • K103N >2% was also predictive of VF with Odds Ratio = 25.5 and P = 0.0002
  • Sixteen of 476 (3.4%) evaluable participants had low-level K103N at baseline by AS-PCR (0.8-15%).

Svarovskaia et al XVIII Inter HIV Drug Resist 2009

Goodman et al AIDS 2011

slide34

Mean virological response of patients

Receiving 300mg BID Maraviroc in study 1029

Change

in viral

load

10-30% X4

>30% X4

<10% X4

% X4 using PSSM -6.95 cut-off

Swenson et al, CROI 2009, Abstract 680

summary
Summary
  • HIV drug-resistance is both a major consequence and cause of HIV treatment failure.
summary1
Summary
  • HIV drug-resistance is both a major consequence and cause of HIV treatment failure.
  • Drug resistance (NNRTI and 3-class) is associated with HIV disease progression and death.
summary2
Summary
  • HIV drug-resistance is both a major consequence and cause of HIV treatment failure.
  • Drug resistance (NNRTI and 3-class) is associated with HIV disease progression and death.
  • Transmitted drug resistance is associated with a poorer virological response, particularly for NNRTI mutations.
summary3
Summary
  • HIV drug-resistance is both a major consequence and cause of HIV treatment failure.
  • Drug resistance (NNRTI and 3-class) is associated with HIV disease progression and death.
  • Transmitted drug resistance is associated with a poorer virological response, particularly for NNRTI mutations.
  • The presence of minority HIV-1 drug-resistance mutations is associated with more than a two times the risk of virologic failure in patients receiving an initial NNRTI-based ART regimen.
summary4
Summary
  • HIV drug-resistance is both a major consequence and cause of HIV treatment failure.
  • Drug resistance (NNRTI and 3-class) is associated with HIV disease progression and death.
  • Transmitted drug resistance is associated with a poorer virological response, particularly for NNRTI mutations.
  • The presence of minority HIV-1 drug-resistance mutations is associated with more than a two times the risk of virologic failure in patients receiving an initial NNRTI-based ART regimen.
  • The association with virologic failure was most prominent for NNRTI-resistance mutations and was dose-dependent:
    • ≥1% conferred a significantly higher risk of virologic failure as compared to minority variants present at ≤1%.

- when subjects were categorized by the absolute copy numbers of minority variants per

mL of plasma (>1000/>2000 copies/ml).

conclusions
Conclusions
  • The upcoming routine availability of new and exciting technologies, such as the deep sequencing, may let scientists and clinician improve the tailoring of therapy to each single patient, by selecting those drugs and strategies able to hit at best the virus of each particular patient.
  • Quantity, rather than just presence, of minority resistant (or X4) quasispecies, plays a game in regulating the efficacy of NNRTI-based first line therapies (or CCR5 antagonists).
slide41

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

L. Sacco University Hospital

G. Rizzardini

V. Micheli

A. Capetti

P. Meraviglia

M. Moroni

University of Rome “Tor Vergata”

C.F. Perno

V. Svicher

M.M. Santoro

A. Bertoli

D. Armenia

S. Dimonte

V. Cento

C. Alteri

L. Fabeni

R. Cammarota

R. Salpini

F. Stazi

F. Mercurio

M. Andreoni

Max Planck Institute of Saarbrucken

T. Sing

N. Beerenwinkel

T. Lengauer

Virco BVBA

K. Van Baelen, I. Vandenbroucke

H. Van Marck, V. Van Eygen

M. Van Houtte,L. Stuyver, M. Tuohy

INMI “L. Spallanzani”

A. Antinori

P. Narciso

C. Gori

R. d’Arrigo

F. Forbici

M.P. Trotta

A. Ammassari

R. Bellagamba

M. Zaccarelli

G. Liuzzi

V. Tozzi

P. Sette

N. Petrosillo

F. Antonucci

E. Boumis

E. Nicastri

U. Visco

P. De Longis

G. D’Offizi

M.R. Capobianchi

I. Abbate

G. Rozera

A. Bruselles

B. Bartolini

G. Ippolito

San Gallicano Hospital

G. Palamara

M. Giuliani

Resistance

Study

Group

  • The I.CO.N.A. Study Group
  • A. d’Arminio Monforte

Infectious Diseases Unit Florence

S. Lo Caputo

F. Mazzotta

San Martino Hospital, Genoa

B. Bruzzone

A. Di Biagio

University of Turin

G. Di Perri

S. Bonora

V. Ghisetti

University of Catanzaro

S. Alcaro

A. Artese

Thank you for your attention !

ISS Rome

M. Ciccozzi

G. Rezza

S. Vella

Catholic University of Rome, Sacro Cuore

A. De Luca

R. Cauda

HôpitalPitié-Salpetrière, Paris, France

V. Calvez

A.G. Marcelin

I. Malet

P. Flandre

Modena and Ferrara

Infectious Diseases Center

CHU de Bordeaux, France

B. Masquelier

C. Mussini

V. Borghi

L. Sighinolfi

European Project CHAIN,

No. 223131