Ca. Kemper et al., Sequencing of protease inhibitor therapy: insights from an analysis of HIVphenotypic resistance in patients failing protease inhibitors, AIDS, 15(5), 2001, pp. 609-615
Objective: To characterize the pattern of HIV-1 susceptibility to protease
inhibitors in patients failing an initial protease inhibitor-containing reg
imen.
Design: A cross-sectional analysis of antiretroviral susceptibility.
Setting: HIV clinics in six metropolitan areas.
Patients: Eighty-eight HIV-infected adults with HIV RNA > 400 copies/ml aft
er greater than or equal to 6 months of antiretroviral therapy, including t
he use of one protease inhibitor for greater than or equal to 3 months.
Measurements: The frequency and magnitude of decreased susceptibility, meas
ured with a phenotypic assay using recombinant constructs, to five protease
inhibitors. Decreased susceptibility was defined as > 2.5-fold increase in
the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC50) compared with drug sensitive contr
ol virus.
Results: At study entry patients were being treated with nelfinavir (63%),
indinavir (2.5%), or another protease inhibitor (11%). HIV isolates from th
ese patients were susceptible (fold change < 2.5) to all five protease inhi
bitors in 18% of patients and to none in 8%. Isolates from patients receivi
ng nelfinavir were less likely to have reduced susceptibility to other prot
ease inhibitors than isolates from patients treated with indinavir (P < 0.0
07) or one of the other three agents (P < 0.001), even after adjustment for
the duration of prior protease inhibitor use. Reduced susceptibility to sa
quinavir and amprenavir was observed significantly less frequently than for
the other protease inhibitors.
Conclusion: The frequency of protease inhibitor cross-resistance and the ma
gnitude of changes in susceptibility varied according to the initial protea
se inhibitor used in the failing treatment regimen. Significantly less prot
ease inhibitor cross-resistance was demonstrated for isolates from patients
failing a nelfinavir-containing regimen compared with those from patients
receiving other protease inhibitors. <(c)> 2001 Lippincott Williams & Wilki
ns.