Infection

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 295–301 | Cite as

Efficacy of raltegravir switching strategies in HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia according to the genotypic sensitivity score

  • F. Caby
  • L. Schneider
  • C. Blanc
  • C. Soulié
  • M. Tindel
  • G. Peytavin
  • R. Agher
  • M. A. Valantin
  • R. Tubiana
  • M. Wirden
  • V. Calvez
  • A. G. Marcelin
  • C. Katlama
Clinical and Epidemiological Study
  • 286 Downloads

Abstract

Background and purpose

The lack of antiretroviral (ARV) backbone activity associated with raltegravir has been proposed as the main explanation for virological relapse observed in patients with undetectable viraemia who are switched from a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) to raltegravir. However ARV activity remains difficult to assess in this context. The aim of our study was to precisely assess the ARV backbone activity in patients with undetectable viraemia who underwent raltegravir switching strategies and to evaluate the efficacy of such switching strategies based on the genotypic sensitivity score (GSS).

Methods

Patients with a plasma human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level of  <50 copies/mL on a stable two ARV-class regimen were enrolled if they switched one of their ARV drugs to raltegravir 400 mg twice daily. The GSS was calculated using a genotyping test performed on the HIV-1 RNA of the last plasma measurement with a HIV-1 RNA level of >50 copies/mL before the switch and on the results of all previous genotyping tests. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of <50 copies/mL at week 24.

Results

Fifty-six patients were enrolled in this study. The proportion of patients with a plasma HIV-1 RNA level of <50 copies/mL at week 24 was 92.9 % (range 83.0–97.2 %) in the intent-to-treat analysis and 98.1 % (90.0–99.7 %) in per-protocol analysis. When the backbone was fully active, the proportion was 100.0 % (86.7–100.0 %) at week 24 and week 48 in the per-protocol analysis. We observed a decrease in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides of −12.7 % (p = 0.005) and −26.5 % (p = 0.001), respectively.

Conclusions

Raltegravir switching strategies are effective when the associated backbone is fully active according to the GSS. In the context of undetectable viraemia, where ARV activity remains difficult to assess, the determination of the GSS requires the entire ARV history of the patient and all previous HIV-RNA genotyping test results.

Keywords

Raltegravir Switching strategy Undetectable viraemia Genotypic sensitivity score 

References

  1. 1.
    De Castro N, Braun J, Charreau I, Pialoux G, Cotte L, Katlama C, et al. Switch from enfuvirtide to raltegravir in virologically suppressed multidrug-resistant HIV-1-infected patients: a randomized open-label trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(8):1259–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Towner W, Klein D, Kerrigan HL, Follansbee S, Yu K, Horberg M. Virologic outcomes of changing enfuvirtide to raltegravir in HIV-1 patients well controlled on an enfuvirtide based regimen: 24-week results of the CHEER study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2009;51(4):367–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eron JJ, Young B, Cooper DA, Youle M, Dejesus E, Andrade-Villanueva J, et al. Switch to a raltegravir-based regimen versus continuation of a lopinavir–ritonavir-based regimen in stable HIV-infected patients with suppressed viraemia (SWITCHMRK 1 and 2): two multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2010;375(9712):396–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Martinez E, Larrousse M, Llibre JM, Gutierrez F, Saumoy M, Antela A, et al. Substitution of raltegravir for ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients: the SPIRAL study. AIDS. 2010;24(11):1697–707.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caby F, Valin N, Marcelin AG, Schneider L, Andrade R, Guiguet M, et al. Raltegravir as functional monotherapy leads to virological failure and drug resistance in highly treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. Scand J Infect Dis. 2010;42(6–7):527–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cooper DA, Steigbigel RT, Gatell JM, Rockstroh JK, Katlama C, Yeni P, et al. Subgroup and resistance analyses of raltegravir for resistant HIV-1 infection. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(4):355–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marcelin AG, Ceccherini-Silberstein F, Perno CF, Calvez V. Resistance to novel drug classes. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2009;4(6):531–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vispo E, Barreiro P, Maida I, Mena A, Blanco F, Rodriguez-Novoa S, et al. Simplification from protease inhibitors to once- or twice-daily raltegravir: the ODIS trial. HIV Clin Trials. 2010;11(4):197–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Messiaen P, Wensing AM, Fun A, Nijhuis M, Brusselaers N, Vandekerckhove L. Clinical use of HIV integrase inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2013;8(1):e52562.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wirden M, Soulie C, Valantin MA, Fourati S, Simon A, Lambert-Niclot S, et al. Historical HIV-RNA resistance test results are more informative than proviral DNA genotyping in cases of suppressed or residual viraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(4):709–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jung BH, Rezk NL, Bridges AS, Corbett AH, Kashuba AD. Simultaneous determination of 17 antiretroviral drugs in human plasma for quantitative analysis with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Biomed Chromatogr. 2007;21(10):1095–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Flandre P DD, Morand-Joubert L, et al. (2009) Comparison of the use of last genotype versus all past genotypes to classify patients according to resistance algorithms. In: 12th European AIDS Conference/EACS. Abstract no. PS12/4. Cologne, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quercia R, Dam E, Perez-Bercoff D, Clavel F. Selective-advantage profile of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 integrase mutants explains in vivo evolution of raltegravir resistance genotypes. J Virol. 2009;83(19):10245–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Wesenbeeck L, Rondelez E, Feyaerts M, Verheyen A, Van der Borght K, Smits V, et al. Cross resistance profile determination of two second generation HIV-1 integrase inhibitors using a panel of recombinant viruses derived from raltegravir-treated clinical isolates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2011;55(1):321–5.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Malet I, Delelis O, Valantin MA, Montes B, Soulie C, Wirden M, et al. Mutations associated with failure of raltegravir treatment affect integrase sensitivity to the inhibitor in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2008;52(4):1351–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosenblum M, Deeks SG, van der Laan M, Bangsberg DR. The risk of virologic failure decreases with duration of HIV suppression, at greater than 50 % adherence to antiretroviral therapy. PLoS One. 2009;4(9):e7196.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reekie J, Mocroft A, Ledergerber B, Beniowski M, Clotet B, van Lunzen J, et al. History of viral suppression on combination antiretroviral therapy as a predictor of virological failure after a treatment change. HIV Med. 2010;11(7):469–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Scherrer AU, von Wyl V, Boni J, Yerly S, Klimkait T, Burgisser P, et al. Viral suppression rates in salvage treatment with raltegravir improved with the administration of genotypic partially active or inactive nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011;28(57):24–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wirden M, Soulie C, Valantin MA, Fourati S, Simon A, Lambert-Niclot S, et al. Historical HIV-RNA resistance test results are more informative than proviral DNA genotyping in cases of suppressed or residual viraemia. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2011;66(4):709–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lennox JL, Dejesus E, Berger DS, Lazzarin A, Pollard RB, Ramalho Madruga JV, et al. Raltegravir versus efavirenz regimens in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week efficacy, durability, subgroup, safety, and metabolic analyses. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;15(55):39–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Samaras K, Richardson R, Carr A. Postprandial lipid effects of low-dose ritonavir vs. raltegravir in HIV-uninfected adults. AIDS. 2010;24(11):1727–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Worm SW, Sabin C, Weber R, Reiss P, El-Sadr W, Dabis F, et al. Risk of myocardial infarction in patients with HIV infection exposed to specific individual antiretroviral drugs from the 3 major drug classes: the data collection on adverse events of anti-HIV drugs (D:A:D) study. J Infect Dis. 2010;201(3):318–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Friis-Moller N, Reiss P, Sabin CA, Weber R, Monforte A, El-Sadr W, et al. Class of antiretroviral drugs and the risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(17):1723–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lang S, Mary-Krause M, Cotte L, Gilquin J, Partisani M, Simon A, et al. Impact of individual antiretroviral drugs on the risk of myocardial infarction in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients: a case-control study nested within the French Hospital Database on HIV ANRS cohort CO4. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(14):1228–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Caby
    • 1
    • 2
  • L. Schneider
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Blanc
    • 1
    • 2
  • C. Soulié
    • 2
    • 3
  • M. Tindel
    • 1
    • 2
  • G. Peytavin
    • 4
  • R. Agher
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. A. Valantin
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Tubiana
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Wirden
    • 2
    • 3
  • V. Calvez
    • 2
    • 3
  • A. G. Marcelin
    • 2
    • 3
  • C. Katlama
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Service des Maladies Infectieuses et TropicalesGroupe Hospitalier Pitié-SalpêtrièreParis Cedex 13France
  2. 2.Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U943ParisFrance
  3. 3.Service de Virologie, Groupe hospitalier Pitié-SalpêtrièreAP-HPParisFrance
  4. 4.Service de Pharmacologie, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard AP-HPParisFrance

Personalised recommendations