Comparable long-term efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir and similar drug-resistance profiles in different HIV-1 subtypes

Zehava Grossman, Jonathan M. Schapiro, Itzchak Levy, Daniel Elbirt, Michal Chowers, Klaris Riesenberg, Karen Olstein-Pops, Eduardo Shahar, Valery Istomin, Ilan Asher, Bat Sheva Gottessman, Yonat Shemer, Hila Elinav, Gamal Hassoun, Shira Rosenberg, Diana Averbuch, Keren Machleb-Guri, Zipi Kra-Oz, Sara Radian-Sade, Hagit RudichDaniela Ram, Shlomo Maayan, Nancy Agmon-Levin, Zev Sthoeger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Analysis of potentially different impact of Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) on non-B subtypes is confounded by dissimilarities in the conditions existing in different countries. We retrospectively compared its impact on populations infected with subtypes B and C in Israel, where patients infected with different subtypes receive the same treatment. Methods: Clinical and demographic data were reported by physicians. Resistance was tested after treatment failure. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS. Results: 607 LPV/r treated patients (365 male) were included. 139 had HIV subtype B, 391 C, and 77 other subtypes. At study end 429 (71%) were receiving LPV/r. No significant differences in PI treatment history and in median viral-load (VL) at treatment initiation and termination existed between subtypes. MSM discontinued LPV/r more often than others even when the virologic outcome was good (p = 0.001). VL was below detection level in 81% of patients for whom LPV/r was first PI and in 67% when it was second (P = 0.001). Median VL decrease from baseline was 1.9±0.1 logs and was not significantly associated with subtype. Median CD4 increase was: 162 and 92cells/ ml, respectively, for patients receiving LPV/r as first and second PI (P = 0.001), and 175 and 98, respectively, for subtypes B and C (P<0.001). Only 52 (22%) of 237 patients genotyped while under LPV/r were fully resistant to the drug; 12(5%) were partially resistant. In48%, population sequencing did not reveal resistance to any drug notwithstanding the virologic failure. No difference was found in the rates of resistance development between B and C (p = 0.16). Conclusions: Treatment with LPV/r appeared efficient and tolerable in both subtypes, B and C, but CD4 recovery was significantly better in virologically suppressed subtype-B patients. In both subtypes, LPV/r was more beneficial when given as first PI. Mostly, reasons other than resistance development caused discontinuation of treatment.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere86239
JournalPLoS ONE
Volume9
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 27 Jan 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparable long-term efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir and similar drug-resistance profiles in different HIV-1 subtypes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this