HIV Drug Resistance in Well-Resourced Settings Vincent Marconi, MD.
-
Upload
solomon-ball -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of HIV Drug Resistance in Well-Resourced Settings Vincent Marconi, MD.
HIV Drug Resistance in Well-Resourced Settings
Vincent Marconi, MD
Outline
Transmitted Drug ResistanceAcquired Drug Resistance
Transmitted Drug Resistance
EuropeNorth AmericaJapanAustralia
Europe
23K pts from 75 studies in 20 countries
1985-2003 2004-20090tan28a566028
0tan1a56601
0tan3a56603
0tan5a56605
0tan7a56607
0tan9a56609
0tan11a566011
0tan13a566013
OverallNRTINNRTIPIPe
rcen
tage
Frentz 2012
Wittkop 2011
25 cohorts with >10K pts (after 1998) 9.5% TDR
*Trend for more NNRTI VF if TDR even when fully-active• Minority Resistance• PI durability• More NRTI
mutations
North America
Study Location Patients Period Overall NRTI NNRTI PI
Jain (Options) 2010
CA 372 acute/early
02-09 16 11 8 4-6
Wheeler 2010 10 states 2K newly diagnosed
2006 14.6 5.6 7.8 4.5
Poon (CFAR) 2011
WA, MA, CA
14K mostly chronic
03-08 14.2% 8.2% 8.3% 4.2%
Markovitz (CDC) 2011
WA, CO 506 recent/chronic
03-07 17 11 6 3
Frentz 2012* US + CAN 8K 93-08 12.9 7.4 5.7 3.2
*In contrast to Europe, TDR may have increased in North America from 11.6% in the early era to 14.3% in the late era, due to an increase in NNRTI TDR (4.1-
8.3%), while NRTI TDR decreased (8.0-6.4%)
Jain 2010 Poon 2011
Essentially unchanged despite improved ARTTransmission early in infection
TDR led to low CD4 and opposing effects to pVLSpecific mutations (67, 184) impacted VL & CD4
Japan
• New HIV pts TDR doubled 5.9% to 11.9% (2003-2010)• NRTI TDR most prevalent early (4% in 2003)• PI TDR most prevalent late (4.9% in 2010)• Less NNRTI resistance than Europe/NA (0.8%)
Hattori 2010, 2012 (CROI)
Australia
Sydney (1992-2001) 185 recent pts N/NRTI TDR peaked in 1990s and plateau of 10–15% 1999–2001Victoria (1996-2007) 466 recent pts TDR 16%, predominantly associated with NRTI and NNRTI; PI uncommon
Ammaranond 2003Russell 2009
RT
PR
1⁰2⁰
Acquired Drug Resistance
Factors contributing to trends are complexSpecific changes over the past 20 years
More tolerable & simpler first-line cART (FDC/STR)Improved strategies for adherenceBetter use of VL monitoring and resistance testingMore effective second-line and salvage agents (fewer single ARV additions, better ART mgt)Suboptimal ART (mono-/dual-Tx) cART, PI/r, TDFMaybe less transmitted drug resistance?
Less Virologic Failure and Drug Resistance
Cohort StudiesStudy Location Patients Period Findings
van de Vijver 2010
15 Euro sites
2K VF 00-04 80.7% > 1 DRM (NRTI 75.5%, NNRTI 48.5%, PI 35.8); predicted resistance to most PI/r was 25%
Prosperi (SEHERE) 2011
7 Euro sites
12K VF + 3K naïve controls
99-08 80.1% > 1 DRM (NRTI 67.2%, NNRTI 53.7%, PI 32.4%); with 17.2% triple-class; decline in overall resistance to NRTI and PI but not to NNRTI
Gill 2010 BC 5K VF 96-08 DRM 12-fold decrease from 1996 to 2008 (1.73 to 0.13 cases/pt mos tx); VS increased from 64.7% (2000) to 87.7% (2008)
Buchacz 2012
US – HOPS
906 > 4 mos ART VL >1000
99-08 DRM from 88% to 79% (esp PI/r), decrease in viremic pts
Europe
Prosperi 2011
United States
Buchasz 2011
Canada
Lima 2008Hull 2009Lima 2010
Clinical Trial Resistance 96 wks
Gupta 2008
ITT
Genotypes
Mortality
Hogg 2006Cozzi-LepriEUROSIDA 2008Deeks 2010
Summary
Transmitted Drug Resistance10-17% ARV-naïve patients in Europe, North America, Japan and Australia have DR > ARVNNRTI stable or increased over time
Acquired Drug ResistanceVS has increased over time, thus minimizing the emergence of acquired DR and its subsequent transmissionDR frequency following VF: NRTI > NNRTI > PIMortality association