4.7 Article

Virologic Failure in Therapy-Naive Subjects on Aplaviroc plus Lopinavir-Ritonavir: Detection of Aplaviroc Resistance Requires Clonal Analysis of Envelope

Journal

ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY
Volume 53, Issue 3, Pages 1124-1131

Publisher

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AAC.01057-08

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. GlaxoSmithKline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The CCR100136 (EPIC) study evaluated the antiviral activity of the novel CCR5 entry inhibitor aplaviroc in combination with lopinavir-ritonavir in drug-naive human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected subjects. Although the trial was stopped prematurely due to idiosyncratic hepatotoxicity, 11 subjects met the protocol-defined virologic failure criteria. Clonal analyses of the viral envelope tropism, aplaviroc susceptibility, and env sequencing were performed on plasma at day 1 and at the time of virologic failure. Molecular evolutionary analyses were also performed. Treatment-emergent resistance to aplaviroc or lopinavir-ritonavir was not observed at the population level. However, aplaviroc resistance was detected prior to therapy at both the clonal and population levels in one subject with virologic failure and in six subjects in a minority (< 50%) of clones at day 1 or at the time of virologic failure. Reduced aplaviroc susceptibility manifested as a 50% inhibitory concentration curve shift and/or a plateau. Sequence changes in the clones with aplaviroc resistance were unique to each subject and scattered across the envelope coding region. Clones at day 1 and at the time of virologic failure were not phylogenetically distinct. Two subjects with virologic failure had a population tropism change from CCR5- to dual/mixed-tropic during treatment. Virologic failure during a regimen of aplaviroc and lopinavir-ritonavir may be associated with aplaviroc resistance, only at the clonal level, and/or, infrequently, tropism changes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available