Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Alerts
• About ASM
• Contact us
• Tech Support
• Journals.ASM.org

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Masquelier, B. Articles by Fleury, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Masquelier, B. Articles by Fleury, H.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, September 2002, p. 2926-2932, Vol. 46, No. 9
0066-4804/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.46.9.2926-2932.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Genotypic and Pharmacokinetic Determinants of the Virological Response to Lopinavir-Ritonavir-Containing Therapy in Protease Inhibitor-Experienced Patients

Bernard Masquelier,^1* Dominique Breilh,² Didier Neau,³ Sylvie Lawson-Ayayi,^4,5 Valérie Lavignolle,⁵ Jean-Marie Ragnaud,³ Michel Dupon,³ Philippe Morlat,³ F. Dabis,⁵ H. Fleury,¹ and the Groupe d'Epidémiologie Clinique du SIDA en Aquitaine

Laboratoire de Virologie, Hôpital Pellegrin,¹ Laboratoire de Pharmacocinétique, Hôpital Haut Levêque,² Service de Maladies Infectieuses, CHU de Bordeaux,³ Centre d'Information et de Soins de l'Immunodéficience Humaine de Bordeaux,⁴ INSERM U330, Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2, Bordeaux, France⁵

Received 7 February 2002/ Returned for modification 4 April 2002/ Accepted 10 June 2002

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The response to regimens including lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) in patients who have received multiple protease (PR) inhibitors (PI) can be analyzed in terms of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) genotypic and pharmacokinetic (pK) determinants. We studied these factors and the evolution of HIV-1 resistance in response to LPV/r in a prospective study of patients receiving LPV/r under a temporary authorization in Bordeaux, France. HIV-1 PR and reverse transcriptase sequences were determined at baseline LPV/r for all the patients and at month 3 (M3) and M6 in the absence of response to treatment. pK measurements were determined at M1 and M3. Virological failure (VF) was defined as a plasma viral load 400 copies/ml at M3. A multivariate analysis of the predictors of VF, including clinical and biological characteristics and the treatment history of the patients, was performed. The PR gene sequence at M0, including individual mutations or a previously defined LPV mutation score (D. J. Kempf, J. D. Isaacson, M. S. King, S. C. Brun, Y. Xu, K. Real, B. M. Bernstein, A. J. Japour, E. Sun, and R. A. Rode, J. Virol. 75:7262-7269, 2001), and the individual exposure to LPV were also included covariates. Sixty-eight patients were enrolled. Thirty-four percent had a virological response at M3. An LPV mutation score of >5 mutations, the presence of the PR I54V mutation at baseline, a high number of previous PIs, prior therapy with ritonavir or indinavir, absence of coprescription of efavirenz, and a lower exposure to LPV or lower LPV trough concentrations were independently associated with VF on LPV/r. Additional PI resistance mutations, including primary mutation I50V, could be selected in patients failing on LPV/r. Genotypic and pK parameters should be used to optimize the virological response to LPV/r in PI-experienced patients and to avoid further viral evolution.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals with combination therapy including protease inhibitors (PI) results in a significant suppression of HIV replication (1, 2, 3, 11) and in improvement in clinical outcomes, with marked reductions in HIV-associated morbidity and mortality (5, 9). However, the efficacy of antiretroviral (ARV) treatment can be impaired by several factors, including poor compliance with treatment regimens, suboptimal antiviral potency and drug concentrations, and selection of ARV-resistant HIV quasispecies (6). Resistance to PI is driven by the selection of primary mutations located close to the active site of the HIV type 1 (HIV-1) protease, producing significant changes in the affinity of the binding of the inhibitor to the mutant active site (4) and often occurs early during virological rebound. Secondary resistance mutations may be selected later and may compensate for the initial decrease of viral fitness related to the appearance of primary mutations. These secondary mutations tend to be common to all PI, facilitating the emergence of resistance to the whole PI class.

Lopinavir (LPV)-ritonavir (LPV/r) is a coformulation of lopinavir, an HIV PI, and low-dose ritonavir, which inhibits LPV metabolism and which enhances plasma LPV levels (12). LPV/r has shown significant potency in treatment-naive and in PI-experienced patients. Few data concerning the determinants and the emergence of drug resistance in LPV/r-treated patients are available. In the LPV/r arm of a first-line ARV therapy protocol, all virological failures (VF) were shown to correspond to rebounds with wild-type HIV-1 (B. Bernstein, J. Moseley, D. Kempf, M. King, K. Gu, E. Bauer, and E. Sun, Abstr. 8th Conf. Retrovir. Opportunistic Infect., abstr. 453, 2001). A panel of viral isolates from patients failing therapy with other PI were used to show that 11 amino acid mutations in the protease were associated with a reduced sensitivity to LPV (7). The number of baseline mutations out of the cumulative number of these mutations (LPV mutation score) was shown to be predictive of the virological response to a regimen including LPV/r in PI-experienced, nonnucleoside HIV-1 reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-naive patients (D. Kempf, S. Brun, R. Rode, J. Isaacson, M. King, Y. Xu, K. Real, A. Hsu, R. Granneman, Y. Lie, N. Hellmann, B. Bernstein, and E. Sun, 4th Int. Workshop HIV Drug Resist. Treatment Strategies, 12 to 16 June 2000, Sitges, Spain, abstr. 89, 2000). In this study, the overall virological response was important, since efavirenz (a NNRTI) was systematically coadministered, enhancing the efficacy of the ARV therapy. We thought it important to precisely identify the virological and pharmacological determinants of the virological response to LPV/r-containing regimens in the context of a salvage therapy in multiple-PI-experienced, frequently NNRTI-experienced patients.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Study design. From May to November 2000, patients followed up at the Bordeaux University Hospital by the Aquitaine Cohort of the Groupe d'Epidémiologie Clinique du SIDA en Aquitaine and receiving LPV/r in the setting of the French Drug Agency temporary authorization for use (ATU) were prospectively enrolled into this study. Patients were PI experienced, and there were strict ATU entrance criteria (CD4 cells < 200/µl and log₁₀ copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA/ml > 4) when enrollment began, with a progressive enlargement to authorize the use of LPV/r in a larger PI-experienced population. At baseline of LPV/r therapy (month 0 [M0]) demographic data, prior and current ARV regimens, HIV-1 RNA, and CD4⁺ cell count were collected, as well as HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase (RT) gene sequences. In two patients, on treatment interruption at M0, preinterruption parameters measured 2 (for one patient) and 3 months (for the other) before beginning LPV/r were considered for the analysis. Patients were followed up at M1, M3, and M6 with viral load and CD4 measurements and additional HIV-1 genotype determination in case of VF, defined as plasma HIV-1 RNA level of 400 copies/ml.

Virological analyses. Plasma HIV-1 RNA was quantitated using the bDNA Quantiplex assay, version 3.0 (Chiron Bayer, Emeryville, Calif.). The RT and protease gene sequences were determined from plasma samples by the Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA (ANRS; Paris, France) consensus method (10) with a CEQ L sequencer (Beckman Coulter) as previously described (8). All individual ARV resistance mutations reported by the International AIDS Society-USA (IAS-USA) panel (http://www.iasusa.org) were considered. For each patient at baseline LPV/r an LPV mutation score was defined as the number of protease mutations out of the following 11 mutations: L10F/I/R/V, K20M/R, L24I, M46I/L, F53L, I54L/T/V, L63P, A71I/L/V/T, V82A/F/T, I84V, and L90M. The virology laboratory of Bordeaux participates to the ANRS quality control assessment of HIV-1 drug resistance sequencing (F. Brun-Vezinet, D. Descamps, V. Calvez, M. L. Chaix, J. Izopet, B. Masquelier, A. Ruffault, C. Tamalet, P. Dehertogh, C. Loveday, L. Perrin, D. Costagliola, and The ANRS Resistance Group, 5th Int. Workshop HIV Drug Resist. Treatment Strategies, 4 to 8 June 2001, Scottsdale, Ariz., abstr. 157, 2001).

Pharmacokinetic analysis. (i) Data preparation and pharmacokinetic analysis. Patient data files were created from observed data for LPV plasma concentrations by using the PASTRX program in USC*PACK PC clinical programs (R. Jelliffe, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.). Clinical, pharmacokinetic, and demographic data and treatment history relevant to the pharmacokinetic analysis were obtained. At entry and each follow-up visit, the patient filled in a questionnaire seeking information on the dates, times, and doses of nucleoside RT inhibitors (NRTI) and PI taken and recent over-the-counter medication used. Each individual provided one blood sample per visit: a predose trough sample (for trough LPV plasma concentration [C_min]) or a postdose sample (maximum concentration of the drug in plasma [C_max]) collected between 2 and 5 h after the dose taken during the visit. Blood samples for the pharmacokinetic study were drawn at M1 (steady state) and then at M3. For the analysis of possible relationships between pharmacokinetic and virologic parameters, areas under the plasma concentration-time curve over a 12-h dosing interval (LPV AUC_0-12) were used, with a cutoff value defined as the median LPV AUC_0-12 obtained in the study.

(ii) Plasma sample analysis. Plasma LPV/r concentrations were measured by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method and UV detection. The lower and upper limits of LPV quantification were 0.05 and 50 mg/liter, respectively. For that study, assay correlation coefficients (20 analytical runs) exceeded 0.998 for LPV. Based on quality control samples, interday accuracy for the two analytes ranged from 99 to 101% of a known concentration and interday variability was <8%. In total, 59 blood samples were drawn at M1 versus 65 at M3, with 0.87 sample per patient at M1 and 0.96 sample per patient at M3.

(iii) Pharmacokinetic model. The pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by nonparametric method NPEM2 (R. Jelliffe), which considered only LPV concentrations. NPEM2 used a model having absorptive, central, and peripheral compartments. Parameters included K_a (absorption rate constant), V (volume of distribution), K_cp, and K_pc (constants between central and peripheral compartments), K_e (elimination rate constant), and F (fraction orally absorbed). A one-compartment model with first-order absorption and first-order elimination was used to fit the data. Assay variability was determined, and the absorption rate constant and the ratio of the volume of distribution to the fraction orally absorbed (V/F) were fixed. Individual K_e was calculated, and ratio of clearance (CL) to F was extrapolated from the equation CL/F = K_e x V/F. Individual CL/F was used to determine individual exposure to LPV by calculating AUC_0-12 from the equation CL/F = (dose x F)/AUC_0-12.

Statistical analysis. For comparison of qualitative variables, we used the Pearson chi-square or Fisher test and Student's test or the nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test for quantitative variables. All variables associated with the outcome (VF at M3, defined as 400 copies of plasma HIV-1 RNA/ml) with a P value of <0.25 in the univariate analysis were included in multivariate models by using a descending stepwise logistic regression. The variables significant at the 0.05 level were kept in the final models to study first the significance of the LPV mutation score and then the significance of individual protease mutations and pharmacokinetic parameters for the virological response. Four different models were used because of the colinearity between the LPV mutation score and individual mutations and the lower number of patients with pharmacokinetic measurements. Analyses were performed using Stata (College Station, Tex.) statistical software.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Baseline characteristics. Sixty-eight patients were included in the study. Their biological and clinical characteristics are described in Table 1. Most of the patients were multiple-PI and NNRTI experienced, with a high viral load at baseline. The HIV-1 genotypes for 66 patients were obtained, the other two patients having a viral load below 500 copies/ml at baseline. The prevalence figures of baseline protease resistance mutations, as reported by the IAS-USA panel (6) are summarized in Fig. 1A in the format of categories of the LPV mutation score. The mean (± standard deviation [SD]) number of protease resistance mutations was 7 ± 3 (median, 7; range, 1 to 19), the mean LPV score was 5 ± 2 (median, 5; range, 1 to 9). The RT gene sequences for 65 patients were determined; the prevalences of the baseline RT resistance mutations are shown in Fig. 1B. The mean number of NRTI resistance mutations was 5 ± 2 (median, 5; range, 0 to 9), and the mean number of nucleoside-associated mutations (NAMS; formerly zidovudine resistance mutations; M41L, D67N, K70R, L210W, T215Y/F, and K219Q/E) was 3 ± 1 (median, 3; range, 0 to 5). Ten patients had no NNRTI resistance mutation.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 1. Clinical and biological characteristics of the patients at baseline LPV/r therapy, Aquitaine Cohort, 2000 to 2001

View larger version (39K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 1. (A) Mutations in the HIV-1 protease in 66 patients at baseline therapy with LPV/r. Protease mutations are those reported by the IAS-USA panel (http://www.iasusa.org). LPV mutations, mutations included in the LPV mutation score, i.e., the number of baseline protease mutations out of 11 possible mutations: L10F/I/R/V, K20M/R, L24I, M46I/L, F53L, I54L/T/V, L63P, A71I/L/V/T, V82A/F/T, I84V, and L90 M; other R mutations, mutations not included in the LPV mutation score; % of patients, percentage of patients with the corresponding mutation at baseline LPV/r. (B) Mutations in the HIV-1 RT in 65 patients at baseline LPV/r. NRTI and NNRTI resistance mutations are those reported by the IAS-USA panel.

Description of the LPV/r-containing regimens and virological and immunological responses. The NRTI combined with LPV/r were zidovudine, didanosine, zalcitabine, lamivudine, stavudine, and abacavir in 5 (7%), 45 (67%), 7 (10%), 32 (48%), 28 (42%), and 18 (27%) of the 68 patients, respectively. Nevirapine and efavirenz were prescribed in eight (12%) and seven (10%) patients, respectively. LPV/r-containing regimens associated three drugs in 53 patients, four drugs in 13 patients, and five drugs in 2 patients. The patients exhibited a median decrease of plasma HIV-1 RNA of 1.16 (0.40 to 2.37) log₁₀ copies/ml at M3 (n = 62) and of 0.90 (0.42 to 1.80) log₁₀ copies/ml at M6 (n = 63) and mean increases of 64 (range, 35 to 107) CD4⁺ cells/µl at M3 (n = 48) and of 81 (range, 34 to 140) CD4⁺ cells/µl at M6 (n = 35). The proportion of patients with a plasma HIV-1 RNA below 400 copies/ml was 34% at M3 (n = 65) and 28% at M6 (n = 61). With a less strict definition (plasma HIV-1 RNA of <400 copies/ml and/or a decrease of plasma HIV-1 RNA of 1 log₁₀ copy/ml), the proportion of virological response reached 55% at M3 and 46% at M6. Between M0 and M3, four patients stopped LPV/r therapy and one died of an AIDS-related syndrome. Two patients stopped LPV/r between M3 and M6.

Pharmacokinetic results. Sixty-eight patients were included in this pharmacokinetic study. At pharmacokinetic steady state, the mean LPV plasma concentrations and times to reach these concentrations at M1 and M3, respectively, were as follows: C_min, 3.88 ± 1.97 and 4.22 ± 2.66 mg/liter; T_min (time to reach LPV C_min), 12.19 ± 2.56 and 12.49 ± 1.99 h; C_max, 9.79 ± 5.09 and 9.10 ± 5.09 mg/liter; T_max (time to reach LPV C_max), 3.26 ± 1.42 and 2.29 ± 0.68 h.

The LPV exposures determined from the individual AUC_0-12 were 87 ± 21 and 77 ± 53 mg/liter · h at M1 and M3, respectively. The median LPV AUC_0-12 in the whole study was at 80 mg/liter · h and defined the cutoff value for comparisons. The mean calculated C_min values at M1 and M3 were 3.37 ± 0.86 and 2.93 ± 0.80 mg/liter, respectively.

Determinants of the response to LPV/r. The univariate analysis showed that the following were associated with a poor virological response (P < 0.250): the presence of baseline protease substitutions M46I, I54V, and V82A; an LPV mutation score >5; a large total number of protease mutations; a low LPV AUC_0-12; a low LPV C_min at M1 and M3; prior exposure to didanosine, abacavir, nevirapine, ritonavir, indinavir, or amprenavir; a high number of previous PI, a high number of treatment lines; and prior exposure to NNRTI. On the other hand, the coprescription of efavirenz, the presence of baseline protease mutation V77I, D30N, or N88D, an older age at inclusion, and the female gender were associated with a better virological response. The characteristics of the RT gene sequence (total number of NRTI and NNRTI mutations, number of NAMS) were not associated with the virological outcome at M3.

The median LPV AUC_0-12 values at M1 in patients with virological response and in patients with VF were 104 (interquartile range [IQR], 97 to 114) and 79 (IQR, 67 to 90) mg/liter · h, respectively (P < 0.0001). The median LPV C_min values at M1 in patients with virological response and in patients with VF were 4.01 (IQR, 3.76 to 4.23) and 3.08 (IQR, 2.65 to 3.81) mg/liter, respectively (P < 0.0001).

The results of the multivariate analysis of the determinants of the virological response, according to four different models, are shown in Table 2. In the first model, a higher number of prior PI, prior therapy with at least one NNRTI, and an LPV mutation score higher than 5 were associated with VF; on the other hand, the female gender and the presence of efavirenz within the LPV/r-including regimen were associated with a better virological response. Four of six patients who received efavirenz with LPV/r had a virological response, with a baseline NNRTI resistance genotype encoding the following mutational patterns: V106A, K101E plus Y181I, wild type, and Y181C plus G190A. The other two patients had VF, one with a G190A mutation and one with a Y181C at baseline.

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 2. Multivariate analysis of the factors associated with VF under LPV/r therapy, Aquitaine Cohort, 2000 to 2001

To explain the protective effect of the female gender found in our analysis, we compared the different characteristics of the patients according to gender. No statistically significant difference was observed, but the median LPV C_min at M1 tended to be higher in women than in men (3.93 versus 3.23 mg/liter; P = 0.08).

The second model was constructed to evaluate the role of individual protease mutations. The presence of the I54V mutation was independently associated with a poor virological response at M3. The I77V mutation was associated with a better virological response at M3.

The third model included pharmacokinetic parameters and the detailed description of prior PI use. Prior treatment with ritonavir or indinavir was associated with a worse response; a higher LPV AUC_0-12 at M1 was associated with a better response. In a model including the number of prior PI but not the details of the prior PI, LPV AUC_0-12 was still a predictive factor (data not shown). The fourth model shows that higher calculated LPV C_min at M1 was also associated with a better response. The LPV mutation score remained predictive of the virological response in all the multivariate models. The virological response according to the LPV mutation score is shown in Fig. 2, with a reduced response in the patients with six or more mutations, particularly using a strict definition of the virological response.

View larger version (47K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 2. Virological response to LPV/r-containing regimens at M3 according to the LPV mutation score (n = 65). <400 copies/ml, patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of <400 copies/ml at M3; <400 c/ml or -1log10, patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of <400 copies/ml at M3 and/or with a decrease of plasma HIV-1 RNA by >1 log10 unit between M0 and M3; LPV mutation score, number of baseline protease mutations out of 11 mutations: L10F/I/R/V, K20M/R, L24I, M46I/L, F53L, I54L/T/V, L63P, A71I/L/V/T, V82A/F/T, I84V, and L90M.

Evolution of the protease genotype in patients failing on LPV/r. The protease gene sequence could be determined at M3 and/or M6 on an LPV/r-containing regimen for 48 patients without virological response at these points of follow-up. We determined the variations for any amino acid between baseline and M3 and M6. Fifteen patients exhibited no change between M0 and M3 or M6. For the other 33 patients, at least one residue was changed. As shown (Table 3), different PI resistance mutations appeared on LPV/r, corresponding to mutations included or not included in the LPV mutation score. Interestingly, one primary resistance mutation (I50V) formerly described to be associated with resistance to amprenavir, was selected in four patients, three of whom had no prior amprenavir therapy. Other changes were selected at 13 different positions not involved so far in resistance to PI, with low frequencies (one or two patients for each amino acid); for four patients only changes within these 13 positions were detected. In 38 patients without virological response at M3 and M6 and with a calculated LPV AUC_0-12 at M1 or M3, the viral evolution in the protease (with at least one additional PI resistance mutation at M3 and/or M6) occurred in 4 of 12 (33%) patients with low (<80 mg/liter · h) LPV AUC_0-12 and in 22 of 25 (88%) patients with correct or high LPV AUC_0-12 (P < 0.001).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]

TABLE 3. Amino acid mutations selected in the HIV-1 protease in 48 patients on LPV/r-containing regimens, Aquitaine Cohort, 2000 to 2001

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
In this study, we described the determinants of the virological response to LPV/r-containing regimens in PI-experienced patients. The response to therapy in our study, using strict criteria (plasma HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/ml at M3), was lower than in the initial study (Kempf et al., 4th Int. Workshop HIV Drug Resist. Treatment Strategies, 2000, Sitges, Spain, abstr. 89) of the response to LPV/r in PI-experienced patients. This could be explained by the characteristics of our population: highly pretreated and NNRTI and multiple PI experienced, with a high number of PI resistance mutations at baseline. Nevertheless, the previously constructed LPV mutation score was shown to be predictive of the virological response in our multivariate analysis, with a higher risk for VF with a score at six or more mutations. Similar data were obtained in another study (V. Calvez, I. Cohen-Codar, A. G. Marcelin, E. Guillevic, J. Isaacson, R. Rode, B. Bernstein, E. Sun, D. Kempf, and J. P. Chauvin, 5th Int. Workshop HIV Drug Resist. Treatment Strategies, 2001, Scottsdale, Ariz., abstr. 82, 2001), suggesting that the LPV mutation score could be relevant for optimizing the use of LPV/r in salvage therapy. We also explored the implication of specific mutations in the response to LPV/r. The presence of the L54V protease mutation at baseline was associated with a higher risk of VF. Although this mutation can be considered a secondary PI resistance mutation, it seems to play an important role in resistance to LPV. In a study using correlations between reduced phenotypic sensitivity to LPV and the protease gene sequences from clinical isolates (P. R. Harrigan, C. Van Den Eynde, and B. A. Larder, Scottsdale workshop, abstr. 49, 2001) the L54Vmutation was associated with the highest decrease in susceptibility to LPV/r. This mutation also belonged to the mutations appearing on LPV/r in the followed-up patients without optimal virological response in our study. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the addition of the I54V mutation on a background of previously established PI mutations enables the virus to acquire high-level resistance to LPV without impairing its replication capacity.

Our finding that the use of efavirenz reduced the risk of treatment failure has to be interpreted with regard with the baseline pattern of NNRTI resistance mutations in patients who received efavirenz and had a virological response. The absence of mutation K103N, which is frequently found in efavirenz-resistant isolates, could explain a residual activity of efavirenz. A potential interpretation of these data, despite a limited number of patients, is that efavirenz could contribute significantly to the virologic success of a regimen, even in NNRTI-experienced patients, when administered as part of a sufficiently potent regimen.

The observed individual LPV pharmacokinetic parameters such as C_min, T_min, C_max, and T_max seemed to be stable when the LPV pharmacokinetic was in steady state. This observed stability between M1 and M3 should enable us in the future to monitor individual LPV plasma concentrations and to adapt LPV/r dosages when necessary. All our pharmacokinetic results were similar to previously reported data (R. Bertz, W. Lam, and S. Brun, Abstr. 39th Intersci. Conf. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother., abstr. 327, 1999). However, the C_min and AUC_0-12 levels found in the group of virological responders (about 4 mg/ml and 100 mg/ml · h, respectively) suggest that higher LPV concentrations than previously described in first-line drug-treated patients could be necessary to be active on the first-available-PI-resistant viruses. A lower LPV individual exposure (AUC_0-12), as well as lower LPV trough concentrations at M1, were associated with a higher risk of VF at M3; interestingly, the predictive value of the baseline LPV mutation score was strengthened in the multivariate models including the pharmacokinetics parameters, suggesting that both genotypic and pharmacokinetic follow-up are of interest for the monitoring of LPV/r-containing salvage regimens.

One striking finding was the protective effect of the female gender found in the multivariate analysis. The higher LPV C_min found in women could partially explain this effect. In a recent study, a lower clearance of saquinavir, resulting in an higher exposure to this drug, was found to be related to the female gender (R. C. Brundage, E. Acosta, R. Aubrich, D. Katzenstein, R. Culick, and C. V. Fletcher, Abstr. 9th Conf. Retrovir. Opportunistic Infect., abstr. 779, 2002). Although no data concerning the adherence to therapy, a putative confounding factor, were available in our study, a similar difference in LPV clearance could account for the observed effect of the female gender.

In a subset of patients with uncontrolled plasma HIV-1 RNA on LPV/r, we found evidence for the selection of additional PI resistance mutations. Neither a specific resistance pattern nor any new and frequent mutation could be inferred from these data, which are consistent with the evolution toward high-level resistance to LPV through the accumulation of greater numbers of changes in the protease. However, the appearance of the I50V mutation in four patients was of particular importance, since it was recently shown to mediate the emergence of viruses cross-resistant to both LPV and amprenavir (J. G. Prado, J. G., T. Wrin, J. Beauchaine, L. Ruiz, C. J. Petroupoulos, B. Clotet, R. D'Aquila, and J. Martinez-Picado, Scottsdale workshop, abstr. 67, 2001), precluding the possibility of use of the latter drug in patients on LPV/r in which this mutation is selected. These data also suggest that further studies should be done in order to evaluate the effect of the I50V mutation on the response to an LPV/r-containing regimen in an amprenavir-experienced population.

The correlations between pharmacokinetic parameters and the evolution of the HIV-1 protease in the patients on LPV/r without a complete virological response suggested that low plasma LPV concentrations favored the replication of unchanged PI-resistant viruses. In other patients, VF could occur despite normal LPV concentrations, with the selection of additional PI resistance mutations, leading to broader resistance patterns.

In conclusion, our results showed that, in multiple-PI-experienced patients, the virological response to LPV/r-containing salvage regimens can be predicted by the LPV mutation score, even if specific mutations can play a major role in LPV resistance. LPV plasma levels should then be optimized by using pharmacokinetics measurements in order to avoid the evolution of the virus toward high-level resistance to LPV and to other PI.

 
We thank all the patients who participated in the study. We are indebted to Valérie Birac, Pascal Bonot, and Didier Bachellerie for excellent technical assistance.

 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Laboratoire de Virologie, Place Amélie Raba Léon, 33076 Bordeaux cedex, France. Phone: 33 5 56 79 55 10. Fax: 33 5 56 79 56 73. E-mail: bernard.masquelier{at}chu-bordeaux.fr.

Participants in the Groupe d'Epidémiologie Clinique du SIDA en Aquitaine: J. Beylot, M. Dupon, M. Le Bras, J. L. Pellegrin, J. M. Ragnaud, R. Salamon, F. Dabis, G. Chêne, N. Bernard, D. Lacoste, D. Malvy, D. Neau, J.-F. Moreau, P. Morlat, P. Mercié, D. Commenges, H. Jacqmin-Gadda, R. Thiébaut, S. Lawson-Ayayi, V. Lavignolle, M. J. Blaizeau, M. Decoin, A. M. Formaggio, S. Delveaux, S. Labarerre, B. Uwamaliya, E. Vimard, L. Merchadou, G. Palmer, D. Touchard, D. Dutoit, F. Pereira, B. Boulant, P. Couzigou, H. Fleury, M. Bonarek, F. Bonnet, B. Coadou, P. Gelie, D. Jaubert, C. Nouts, B. Masquelier, I. Pellegrin, H. Dutronc, G. Cipriano, S. Lafarie, J. Y. Lacut, J. F. Viallard, I. Faure, P. Rispal, C. Cipriano, B. Leng, F. Djossou, J. P. Pivetaud, J. L. Taupin, C. De La Taille, T. Galperine, A. Ochoa, and D. Chambon.

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1
1. Carpenter, C. C., M. A. Fischl, S. M. Hammer, M. S. Hirsch, D. M. Jacobsen, D. A. Katzenstein, J. S. Montaner, D. D. Richman, M. S. Saag, R. T. Schooley, M. A. Thompson, S. Vella, P. G. Yeni, and P. A. Volberding. 1998. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in 1998: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA 280:78-86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2
2. Carpenter, C. C., D. A. Cooper, M. A. Fischl, J. M. Gatell, B. G. Gazzard, S. M. Hammer, M. S. Hirsch, D. M. Jacobsen, D. A. Katzenstein, J. S. Montaner, D. D. Richman, M. S. Saag, M. Schechter, R. T. Schooley, M. A. Thompson, S. Vella, P. G. Yeni, and P. A. Volberding. 2000. Antiretroviral therapy in adults: updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society-USA panel. JAMA 283:381-391.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3
3. Gulick, R. M., J. W. Mellors, D. Havlir, J. J. Eron, C. Gonzalez, D. McMahon, D. D. Richman, F. T. Valentine, L. Jonas, A. Meibohm, E. A. Emini, and J. A. Chodakewitz. 1997. Treatment with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection and prior antiretroviral therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 337:734-739.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
4
4. Gulnik, V., L. I. Surovov, B. S. Liu, B. Yu, B. Anderson, H. Mitsuya, and J. W. Erickson. 1995. Kinetic characterization and cross-resistance patterns of HIV-1 protease mutants selected under drug pressure. Biochemistry 34:9282-9287.[CrossRef][Medline]
5
5. Hammer, S. M., K. E. Squires, M. D. Hughes, J. M. Grimes, L. M. Demeter, J. S. Currier, J. J. Eron, Jr., J. E. Feinberg, H. H. Balfour, Jr., L. R. Deyton, J. A. Chodakewitz, and M. A. Fischl. 1997. A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. N. Engl. J. Med. 337:725-733.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6
6. Hirsch, M. S., F. Brun-Vézinet, R. T. D'Aquila, S. M. Hammer, V. A. Johnson, D. R. Kuritzkes, C. Loveday, J. W. Mellors, B. Clotet, B. Conway, L. M. Demeter, S. Vella, D. M. Jacobsen, and D. D. Richman. 2000. Antiretroviral drug testing in adult HIV-1 infection. JAMA 283:2417-2426.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
7
7. Kempf, D. J., J. D. Isaacson, M. S. King, S. C. Brun, Y. Xu, K. Real, B. M. Bernstein, A. J. Japour, E. Sun, and R. A. Rode. 2001. Identification of genotypic changes in human immunodeficiency virus protease that correlate with reduced susceptibility to the protease inhibitor lopinavir among viral isolates from protease inhibitor-experienced patients. J. Virol 75:7462-7469.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
8
8. Merel, P., I. Pellegrin, I. Garrigue, A. Caumont, M. H. Schrive, V. Birac, P. Bonot, and H. Fleury. 2001. Comparison of capillary electrophoresis sequencing with the new CEQ 2000 DNA analysis system to conventional gel based systems for HIV drug resistance analysis. J. Virol. Methods 98:9-16.[CrossRef][Medline]
9
9. Palella, F. J. J., K. M. Delaney, A. C. Moorman, M. O. Loveless, J. Fuhrer, G. A. Satten, D. J. Aschman, and S. D. Holmbergl. 1998. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 338:853-860.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10
10. Pasquier, C., N. Millot, R. Njouom, K. Sandres, M. Cazabat, J. Puel, and J. Izopet. 2001. HIV-1 subtyping using phylogenetic analysis of pol gene sequences. J. Virol Methods 94:45-54.[CrossRef][Medline]
11
11. Perelson, A. S., P. Essunger, Y. Cao, M. Vesanen, A. Hurley, K. Saksela, M. Markowitz, and D. D. Ho. 1997. Decay characteristics of HIV-1-infected compartments during combination therapy. Nature 387:188-191.[CrossRef][Medline]
12
12. Sham, H. L., D. J. Kempf, A. Molla, K. C. Marsh, G. N. Kumar, C. M. Chen, W. Kati, K. Stewart, R. Lal, A. Hsu, D. Betebenner, M. Korneyeva, S. Vasavanonda, E. McDonald, A. Saldivar, N. Wideburg, X. Chen, P. Niu, C. Park, V. Jayanti, B. Grabowski, G. R. Granneman, E. Sun, A. J. Japour, J. M. Leonard, J. J. Plattner, and D. W. Norbeck. 1998. ABT-378, a highly potent inhibitor of the human immunodeficiency protease. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 42:3218-3224.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

---

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, September 2002, p. 2926-2932, Vol. 46, No. 9
0066-4804/02/$04.00+0     DOI: 10.1128/AAC.46.9.2926-2932.2002
Copyright © 2002, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Jallow, S., Alabi, A., Sarge-Njie, R., Peterson, K., Whittle, H., Corrah, T., Jaye, A., Cotten, M., Vanham, G., McConkey, S. J., Rowland-Jones, S., Janssens, W. (2009). Virological Response to Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy in Patients Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 2 (HIV-2) and in Patients Dually Infected with HIV-1 and HIV-2 in The Gambia and Emergence of Drug-Resistant Variants. J. Clin. Microbiol. 47: 2200-2208 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Dekhtyar, T., Ng, T. I., Lu, L., Masse, S., DeGoey, D. A., Flosi, W. J., Grampovnik, D. J., Klein, L. L., Kempf, D. J., Molla, A. (2008). Characterization of a Novel Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Protease Inhibitor, A-790742. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 52: 1337-1344 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Bongiovanni, M., Chiesa, E., Di Biagio, A., Meraviglia, P., Capetti, A., Tordato, F., Cicconi, P., Biasi, P., Bini, T., d'Arminio Monforte, A. (2005). Use of lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected patients failing a first-line protease-inhibitor-containing HAART. J Antimicrob Chemother 55: 1003-1007 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Marcelin, A.-G., Cohen-Codar, I., King, M. S., Colson, P., Guillevic, E., Descamps, D., Lamotte, C., Schneider, V., Ritter, J., Segondy, M., Peigue-Lafeuille, H., Morand-Joubert, L., Schmuck, A., Ruffault, A., Palmer, P., Chaix, M.-L., Mackiewicz, V., Brodard, V., Izopet, J., Cottalorda, J., Kohli, E., Chauvin, J.-P., Kempf, D. J., Peytavin, G., Calvez, V. (2005). Virological and Pharmacological Parameters Predicting the Response to Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Heavily Protease Inhibitor-Experienced Patients. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 49: 1720-1726 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Mo, H., King, M. S., King, K., Molla, A., Brun, S., Kempf, D. J. (2005). Selection of Resistance in Protease Inhibitor-Experienced, Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1-Infected Subjects Failing Lopinavir- and Ritonavir-Based Therapy: Mutation Patterns and Baseline Correlates. J. Virol. 79: 3329-3338 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Gonzalez, L. M. F., Brindeiro, R. M., Tarin, M., Calazans, A., Soares, M. A., Cassol, S., Tanuri, A. (2003). In Vitro Hypersusceptibility of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Subtype C Protease to Lopinavir. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 47: 2817-2822 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Paulsen, D., Elston, R., Snowden, W., Tisdale, M., Ross, L. (2003). Differentiation of genotypic resistance profiles for amprenavir and lopinavir, a valuable aid for choice of therapy in protease inhibitor-experienced HIV-1-infected subjects. J Antimicrob Chemother 52: 319-323 [Full Text]  

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Masquelier, B. Articles by Fleury, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Masquelier, B. Articles by Fleury, H.