47
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Perspectives on the Barrier to Resistance for Dolutegravir + Lamivudine, a Two-Drug Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV-1 Infection

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In HIV-1-infected patients, virological failure can occur as a consequence of the mutations that accumulate in the viral genome that allow replication to continue in the presence of antiretrovirals (ARVs). The development of treatment-emergent resistance to an ARV can limit a patient's options for future therapy, prompting the need for ARV regimens that are resilient to the emergence of resistance. The genetic barrier to resistance refers to the number of mutations in an ARV's therapeutic target that are required to confer a clinically meaningful loss of susceptibility to the drug. The emergence of resistance can be affected by pharmacological aspects of the ARV, including its structure, inhibitory quotient, therapeutic index, and pharmacokinetic characteristics. Dolutegravir (DTG) has demonstrated a high barrier to resistance, including when used in a two-drug regimen (2DR) with lamivudine (3TC). In the GEMINI-1 and GEMINI-2 studies, DTG +3TC was noninferior to DTG + emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-naive participants, with similar proportions achieving HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL through 96 weeks. Furthermore, in the TANGO study, virological suppression was maintained at 48 weeks after switching to DTG +3TC from a tenofovir alafenamide (TAF)-based regimen compared with continuing a TAF-based regimen. Most other 2DRs with successful outcomes compared with three-drug regimens have been based on protease inhibitors (PIs); however, this class is associated with adverse metabolic effects and drug–drug interactions. In this review, we discuss the barrier to resistance in the context of a 2DR in which a boosted PI is replaced with DTG +3TC.

          Related collections

          Most cited references57

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Once-daily dolutegravir versus raltegravir in antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48 week results from the randomised, double-blind, non-inferiority SPRING-2 study.

          Dolutegravir (S/GSK1349572) is a once-daily HIV integrase inhibitor with potent antiviral activity and a favourable safety profile. We compared dolutegravir with HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir, as initial treatment for adults with HIV-1. SPRING-2 is a 96 week, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled, non-inferiority study that began on Oct 19, 2010, at 100 sites in Canada, USA, Australia, and Europe. Treatment-naive adults (aged ≥ 18 years) with HIV-1 infection and HIV-1 RNA concentrations of 1000 copies per mL or greater were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence to receive either dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or raltegravir (400 mg twice daily). Study drugs were given with coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine or abacavir/lamivudine. Randomisation was stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ 100,000 copies per mL or >100,000 copies per mL) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone. Investigators were not masked to HIV-1 RNA results before randomisation. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies per mL at 48 weeks, with a 10% non-inferiority margin. Main secondary endpoints were changes from baseline in CD4 cell counts, incidence and severity of adverse events, changes in laboratory parameters, and genotypic or phenotypic evidence of resistance. Our primary analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01227824. 411 patients were randomly allocated to receive dolutegravir and 411 to receive raltegravir and received at least one dose of study drug. At 48 weeks, 361 (88%) patients in the dolutegravir group achieved an HIV-1 RNA value of less than 50 copies per mL compared with 351 (85%) in the raltegravir group (adjusted difference 2·5%; 95% CI -2·2 to 7·1). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups. The most common events were nausea (59 [14%] patients in the dolutegravir group vs 53 [13%] in the raltegravir group), headache (51 [12%] vs 48 [12%]), nasopharyngitis (46 [11%] vs 48 [12%]), and diarrhoea (47 [11%] in each group). Few patients had drug-related serious adverse events (three [<1%] vs five [1%]), and few had adverse events leading to discontinuation (ten [2%] vs seven [2%] in each group). CD4 cell counts increased from baseline to week 48 in both treatment groups by a median of 230 cells per μL. Rates of graded laboratory toxic effects were similar. We noted no evidence of treatment-emergent resistance in patients with virological failure on dolutegravir, whereas of the patients with virologic failure who received raltegravir, one (6%) had integrase treatment-emergent resistance and four (21%) had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors treatment-emergent resistance. The non-inferior efficacy and similar safety profile of dolutegravir compared with raltegravir means that if approved, combination treatment with once-daily dolutegravir and fixed-dose nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors would be an effective new option for treatment of HIV-1 in treatment-naive patients. ViiV Healthcare. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            HIV-1 antiretroviral drug therapy.

            The most significant advance in the medical management of HIV-1 infection has been the treatment of patients with antiviral drugs, which can suppress HIV-1 replication to undetectable levels. The discovery of HIV-1 as the causative agent of AIDS together with an ever-increasing understanding of the virus replication cycle have been instrumental in this effort by providing researchers with the knowledge and tools required to prosecute drug discovery efforts focused on targeted inhibition with specific pharmacological agents. To date, an arsenal of 24 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs are available for treatment of HIV-1 infections. These drugs are distributed into six distinct classes based on their molecular mechanism and resistance profiles: (1) nucleoside-analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), (2) non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), (3) integrase inhibitors, (4) protease inhibitors (PIs), (5) fusion inhibitors, and (6) coreceptor antagonists. In this article, we will review the basic principles of antiretroviral drug therapy, the mode of drug action, and the factors leading to treatment failure (i.e., drug resistance).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Class-sparing regimens for initial treatment of HIV-1 infection.

              The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is recommended for initial therapy for patients with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection, but which of the two regimens has greater efficacy is not known. The alternative regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic effects associated with NRTIs. In an open-label study, we compared three regimens for initial therapy: efavirenz plus two NRTIs (efavirenz group), lopinavir-ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir-ritonavir group), and lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing group). We randomly assigned 757 patients with a median CD4 count of 191 cells per cubic millimeter and a median HIV-1 RNA level of 4.8 log10 copies per milliliter to the three groups. At a median follow-up of 112 weeks, the time to virologic failure was longer in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (P=0.006) but was not significantly different in the NRTI-sparing group from the time in either of the other two groups. At week 96, the proportion of patients with fewer than 50 copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA per milliliter was 89% in the efavirenz group, 77% in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 83% in the NRTI-sparing group (P=0.003 for the comparison between the efavirenz group and the lopinavir-ritonavir group). The groups did not differ significantly in the time to discontinuation because of toxic effects. At virologic failure, antiretroviral resistance mutations were more frequent in the NRTI-sparing group than in the other two groups. Virologic failure was less likely in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group. The virologic efficacy of the NRTI-sparing regimen was similar to that of the efavirenz regimen but was more likely to be associated with drug resistance. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00050895 [ClinicalTrials.gov].). Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses
                AIDS Res. Hum. Retroviruses
                aid
                AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses
                Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., publishers (140 Huguenot Street, 3rd FloorNew Rochelle, NY 10801USA )
                0889-2229
                1931-8405
                January 2020
                31 December 2019
                31 December 2019
                : 36
                : 1
                : 13-18
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ]Chelsea and Westminister Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
                [ 2 ]Mortimer Market Centre, London, United Kingdom.
                [ 3 ]Fundación Huésped, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
                [ 4 ]Hospital Germans Trias i Pujol, Catalonia, Spain.
                [ 5 ]ViiV Healthcare, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
                [ 6 ]ViiV Healthcare, Brentford, United Kingdom.
                Author notes
                [*]Address correspondence to: Romina Quercia, ViiV Healthcare, CN12, 980 Great West Road, Brentford, Middlesex, TW8 9GS, United Kingdom romina.p.quercia@ 123456viivhealthcare.com
                Article
                10.1089/aid.2019.0171
                10.1089/aid.2019.0171
                6944139
                31507204
                ff8d990d-af54-4915-983d-35a63b64b043
                © Marta Boffito et al. 2019; Published by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

                This Open Access article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Figures: 1, References: 53, Pages: 6
                Categories
                Review Articles

                hiv,antiretroviral,genetic barrier to resistance,two-drug regimen,integrase strand transfer inhibitor

                Comments

                Comment on this article