PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jonathan M Schapiro

Publications and source records attributed to Jonathan M Schapiro.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2007

HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase mutations for drug resistance surveillance.

OBJECTIVES: Monitoring regional levels of transmitted HIV-1 resistance informs treatment guidelines and provides feedback on the success of HIV-1 prevention efforts. Surveillance programs for estimating the frequency of transmitted resistance are being developed in both industrialized and resource-poor countries. However, such programs will not produce comparable estimates unless a standardized list of drug-resistance mutations is used to define transmitted resistance. METHODS: In this paper, we outline considerations for developing a list of drug-resistance mutations for epidemiologic estimates of transmitted resistance. First, the mutations should cause or contribute to drug resistance and should develop in persons receiving antiretroviral therapy. Second, the mutations should not occur as polymorphisms in the absence of therapy. Third, the mutation list should be applicable to all group M subtypes. Fourth, the mutation list should be simple, unambiguous, and parsimonious. RESULTS: Applying these considerations, we developed a list of 31 protease inhibitor-resistance mutations at 14 protease positions, 31 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistance mutations at 15 reverse transcriptase positions, and 18 non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistance mutations at 10 reverse transcriptase positions. CONCLUSIONS: This list, which should be updated regularly using the same or similar criteria, can be used for genotypic surveillance of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2006

Genotypic changes in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease associated with reduced susceptibility and virologic response to the protease inhibitor tipranavir.

Tipranavir is a novel, nonpeptidic protease inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with activity against clinical HIV-1 isolates from treatment-experienced patients. HIV-1 genotypic and phenotypic data from phase II and III clinical trials of tipranavir with protease inhibitor-experienced patients were analyzed to determine the association of protease mutations with reduced susceptibility and virologic response to tipranavir. Specific protease mutations were identified based on stepwise multiple-regression analyses of phase II study data sets. Validation included analyses of phase III study data sets to determine if the same mutations would be selected and to assess how these mutations contribute to multiple-regression models of tipranavir-related phenotype and of virologic response. A tipranavir mutation score was developed from these analyses, which consisted of a unique string of 16 protease positions and 21 mutations (10V, 13V, 20M/R/V, 33F, 35G, 36I, 43T, 46L, 47V, 54A/M/V, 58E, 69K, 74P, 82L/T, 83D, and 84V). HIV-1 isolates displaying an increasing number of these tipranavir resistance-associated mutations had a reduced phenotypic susceptibility and virologic response to tipranavir. Regression models for predicting virologic response in phase III trials revealed that each point in the tipranavir score was associated with a 0.16-log10 copies/ml-lower virologic response to tipranavir at week 24 of treatment. A lower number of points in the tipranavir score and a greater number of active drugs in the background regimen were predictive of virologic success. These analyses demonstrate that the tipranavir mutation score is a potentially valuable tool for predicting the virologic response to tipranavir in protease inhibitor-experienced patients.

Drug Resistance, Viral↗
PubMed2006

HIV-1 pol mutation frequency by subtype and treatment experience: extension of the HIVseq program to seven non-B subtypes.

OBJECTIVE: HIVseq was developed in 2000 to make published data on the frequency of HIV-1 group M protease and reverse transcriptase (RT) mutations available in real time to laboratories and researchers sequencing these genes. Because most published protease and RT sequences belonged to subtype B, the initial version of HIVseq was based on this subtype. As additional non-B sequences from persons with well-characterized antiretroviral treatment histories have become available, the program has been extended to subtypes A, C, D, F, G, CRF01, and CRF02. METHODS: The latest frequency of each protease and RT mutation according to subtype and drug-class exposure was calculated using published sequences in the Stanford HIV RT and Protease Sequence Database. Each mutation was hyperlinked to published reports of viruses containing the mutation. RESULTS: As of September 2005, the mean number of protease sequences per non-B subtype was 534 from protease inhibitor-naive persons and 133 from protease inhibitor-treated persons, representing 13.2% and 2.3%, respectively, of the data available for subtype B. The mean number of RT sequences per non-B subtype was 373 from RT inhibitor-naive persons and 288 from RT inhibitor-treated persons, representing 17.9% and 3.8%, respectively, of the data available for subtype B. CONCLUSIONS: HIVseq allows users to examine protease and RT mutations within the context of previously published sequences of these genes. The publication of additional non-B protease and RT sequences from persons with well-characterized treatment histories, however, will be required to perform the same types of analysis possible with the much larger number of subtype B sequences.

Base Sequence↗
PubMed2006

Diminished selection for thymidine-analog mutations associated with the presence of M184V in Ethiopian children infected with HIV subtype C receiving lamivudine-containing therapy.

BACKGROUND: We retrospectively studied the effect of the lamivudine-induced reverse transcription mutation M184V on selection of thymidine analog mutations (TAMs) in HIV subtype C-infected children and on clinical outcome. METHODS: We genotyped 135 blood samples from 55 children. TAMs accumulation, viral load and clinical outcome were compared in children maintained on zidovudine/stavudine + lamivudine + protease inhibitor/nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (PI/NNRTI) despite loss of viral suppression and in children treated with, or switched to, other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). Drug susceptibility and replication capacity of selected samples were measured. RESULTS: M184V developed in 18 of 22 of children who had received only zidovudine/stavudine + lamivudine + PI/NNRTI during a mean of 23.2 +/- 3.2 months versus in 3 of 14 children treated with other drugs and/or having multiple regimen changes (P = 0.001). TAMs appeared, respectively, in 2 of 22 versus 12 of 14 (P < 0.0001). The 2 groups did not differ significantly in baseline HIV-RNA or CD4 count, sampling time, and follow-up period. In M184V-containing samples, we found large reductions in susceptibility to lamivudine and emtricitabine but not to other NRTIs. When T215Y was present without M184V, susceptibility to zidovudine was reduced 8-fold. When both M184V + T215Y occurred, susceptibility to zidovudine was substantially increased. Average inhibition concentration 50 values were similar to those documented in the Stanford database for subtype B HIV with these mutation patterns. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining a thymidine analog + lamivudine-based regimen reduced accumulation of TAMs and increased zidovudine susceptibility. This is likely the result of an increased susceptibility to thymidine analog (zidovudine) in the context of M184V documented here for the first time in subtype C-infected children. This retrospective study supports the strategy of maintaining lamivudine-containing therapy in subtype C-infected children. This strategy may be beneficially applied in the treatment of children in Africa, where thymidine analog + lamivudine-based regimen became available recently but further options are limited.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2006

Discordances between interpretation algorithms for genotypic resistance to protease and reverse transcriptase inhibitors of human immunodeficiency virus are subtype dependent.

The major limitation of drug resistance genotyping for human immunodeficiency virus remains the interpretation of the results. We evaluated the concordance in predicting therapy response between four different interpretation algorithms (Rega 6.3, HIVDB-08/04, ANRS [07/04], and VGI 8.0). Sequences were gathered through a worldwide effort to establish a database of non-B subtype sequences, and demographic and clinical information about the patients was gathered. The most concordant results were found for nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors (93%), followed by protease inhibitors (84%) and nucleoside RT inhibitor (NRTIs) (76%). For therapy-naive patients, for nelfinavir, especially for subtypes C and G, the discordances were driven mainly by the protease (PRO) mutational pattern 82I/V + 63P + 36I/V for subtype C and 82I + 63P + 36I + 20I for subtype G. Subtype F displayed more discordances for ritonavir in untreated patients due to the combined presence of PRO 20R and 10I/V. In therapy-experienced patients, subtype G displayed a lot of discordances for saquinavir and indinavir due to mutational patterns involving PRO 90 M and 82I. Subtype F had more discordance for nelfinavir attributable to the presence of PRO 88S and 82A + 54V. For the NRTIs lamivudine and emtricitabine, CRF01_AE had more discordances than subtype B due to the presence of RT mutational patterns 65R + 115 M and 118I + 215Y, respectively. Overall, the different algorithms agreed well on the level of resistance scored, but some of the discordances could be attributed to specific (subtype-dependent) combinations of mutations. It is not yet known whether therapy response is subtype dependent, but the advice given to clinicians based on a genotypic interpretation algorithm differs according to the subtype.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2005

HIV-1 Protease and reverse-transcriptase mutations: correlations with antiretroviral therapy in subtype B isolates and implications for drug-resistance surveillance.

Background. It is important, for drug-resistance surveillance, to identify human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) strains that have undergone antiretroviral drug selection.Methods. We compared the prevalence of protease and reverse-transcriptase (RT) mutations in HIV-1 sequences from persons with and without previous treatment with protease inhibitors (PIs), nucleoside RT inhibitors (NRTIs), and nonnucleoside RT inhibitors (NNRTIs). Treatment-associated mutations in protease isolates from 5867 persons and RT isolates from 6247 persons were categorized by whether they were polymorphic (prevalence, >0.5%) in untreated individuals and whether they were established drug-resistance mutations. New methods were introduced to minimize misclassification from transmitted resistance, population stratification, sequencing artifacts, and multiple hypothesis testing.Results. Some 36 established and 24 additional nonpolymorphic protease mutations at 34 positions were related to PI treatment, 21 established and 22 additional nonpolymorphic RT mutations at 24 positions with NRTI treatment, and 15 established and 11 additional nonpolymorphic RT mutations at 15 positions with NNRTI treatment. In addition, 11 PI-associated and 1 NRTI-associated established mutations were polymorphic in viruses from untreated persons.Conclusions. Established drug-resistance mutations encompass only a subset of treatment-associated mutations; some of these are polymorphic in untreated persons. In contrast, nonpolymorphic treatment-associated mutations may be more sensitive and specific markers of transmitted HIV-1 drug resistance.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2005

Impact of HIV-1 subtype and antiretroviral therapy on protease and reverse transcriptase genotype: results of a global collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The genetic differences among HIV-1 subtypes may be critical to clinical management and drug resistance surveillance as antiretroviral treatment is expanded to regions of the world where diverse non-subtype-B viruses predominate. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To assess the impact of HIV-1 subtype and antiretroviral treatment on the distribution of mutations in protease and reverse transcriptase, a binomial response model using subtype and treatment as explanatory variables was used to analyze a large compiled dataset of non-subtype-B HIV-1 sequences. Non-subtype-B sequences from 3,686 persons with well characterized antiretroviral treatment histories were analyzed in comparison to subtype B sequences from 4,769 persons. The non-subtype-B sequences included 461 with subtype A, 1,185 with C, 331 with D, 245 with F, 293 with G, 513 with CRF01_AE, and 618 with CRF02_AG. Each of the 55 known subtype B drug-resistance mutations occurred in at least one non-B isolate, and 44 (80%) of these mutations were significantly associated with antiretroviral treatment in at least one non-B subtype. Conversely, of 67 mutations found to be associated with antiretroviral therapy in at least one non-B subtype, 61 were also associated with antiretroviral therapy in subtype B isolates. CONCLUSION: Global surveillance and genotypic assessment of drug resistance should focus primarily on the known subtype B drug-resistance mutations.

Amino Acid Sequence↗
PubMed2005

Drug resistance and antiretroviral drug development.

As more drugs for treating HIV have become available, drug resistance profiles within antiretroviral drug classes have become increasingly important for researchers developing new drugs and for clinicians integrating new drugs into their clinical practice. In vitro passage experiments and comprehensive phenotypic susceptibility testing are used for the pre-clinical evaluation of drug resistance. Clinical studies are required, however, to delineate the full spectrum of mutations responsible for resistance to a new drug and to identify the settings in which a new drug is likely to be most useful for salvage therapy.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2004

Genetic variation at NNRTI resistance-associated positions in patients infected with HIV-1 subtype C.

OBJECTIVE: Genetic differences between subtypes of HIV-1, even when not associated with key resistance mutations, are known to affect baseline susceptibility to specific antiretroviral drugs and resistance-development pathways. We studied the prevalence and patterns of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-associated mutations in HIV-1 subtype C-infected patients. METHOD: We analysed the genetic variation at sites associated with NNRTI and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance in subtype C- versus B-infected patients, both drug-naive and -experienced. We extended the comparison to subtype B records from the Stanford database. RESULTS: A total of 150 subtype B and 341 subtype C-infected patients were studied. No significant differences were found in treatment and clinical parameters between the groups. In NNRTI-naive patients, changes in NNRTI positions were present in 9.3% of subtype B- versus 33.1% of subtype C-infected patients (P < 0.001). Differences were seen in both drug-naive (subtype B, 10.0% versus subtype C, 50.1%; P < 0.021) and drug-experienced NNRTI-naive patients (subtype B, 9.0% versus subtype C, 23.8%; P < 0.001). In NNRTI experienced patients, the number of A98G/S changes was significantly higher in subtype C patients treated with either efavirenz or nevirapine (P < 0.0001), and V106M was higher in efavirenz-treated subtype C-infected patients (P < 0.0001). The average mutation rates were 1.26 and 1.67 per patient for subtypes B and C, respectively (P = 0.036). The frequency of nucleoside associated mutations, but not M184V, in treated patients was significantly higher in subgroup B-infected patients (P = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Collectively, these data indicate that genetic variation at NNRTI resistance-associated positions such as V106M and A98S is substantially greater in subtype C-infected patients than in subtype B-infected patients. The natural structure of each subtype probably affects the frequency and pattern of drug resistance mutations selected under treatment.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Mutation D30N is not preferentially selected by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 subtype C in the development of resistance to nelfinavir.

Differences in baseline polymorphisms between subtypes may result in development of diverse mutational pathways during antiretroviral treatment. We compared drug resistance in patients with human immunodeficiency virus subtype C (referred to herein as "subtype-C-infected patients") versus subtype-B-infected patients following protease inhibitor (PI) therapy. Genotype, phenotype, and replication capacity (Phenosense; Virologic) were determined. We evaluated 159 subtype-C- and 65 subtype-B-infected patients failing first PI treatment. Following nelfinavir treatment, the unique nelfinavir mutation D30N was substantially less frequent in C (7%) than in B (23%; P = 0.03) while L90M was similar (P < 0.5). Significant differences were found in the rates of M36I (98 and 36%), L63P (35 and 59%), A71V (3 and 32%), V77I (0 and 36%), and I93L (91 and 32%) (0.0001 < P < 0.05) in C and B, respectively. Other mutations were L10I/V, K20R, M46I, V82A/I, I84V, N88D, and N88S. Subtype C samples with mutation D30N showed a 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) change in susceptibility to nelfinavir only. Other mutations increased IC(50) correlates to all PIs. Following accumulation of mutations, replication capacity of the C virus was reduced from 43% +/- 22% to 22% +/- 15% (P = 0.04). We confirmed the selective nature of the D30N mutation in C, and the broader cross-resistance of other common protease inhibitor mutations. The rates at which these mutational pathways develop differ in C and subtype-B-infected patients failing therapy, possibly due to the differential impact of baseline polymorphisms. Because mutation D30N is not preferentially selected in nelfinavir-treated subtype-C-infected patients, as it is in those infected with subtype B, the consideration of using this drug initially to preserve future protease inhibitor options is less relevant for subtype-C-infected patients.

Cohort Studies↗
PubMed2004

Antiretroviral drug resistance in non-subtype B HIV-1, HIV-2 and SIV.

Patients infected with HIV-1 of subtype other than B ('non-subtype B') or with HIV-2 are being treated with antiretroviral drugs in increasing numbers. In addition, healthcare providers and laboratory workers working with clinical specimens or animals infected with HIV, SIV or SHIV are at risk of being exposed to the virus and might require post-exposure prophylactic treatment. Thus, it is important to understand the inherent antiviral susceptibility of non-subtype B HIV-1, HIV-2 and SIV to currently available antiretroviral drugs, which have been developed with subtype B HIV-1-infected patients as the primary target population. In addition, knowledge about the consequences of treatment failure in non-subtype B HIV-1- and HIV-2-infected patients, with respect to the development of drug resistance, is crucial for designing optimal treatment strategies. This review summarizes the current state of knowledge in these areas. Non-subtype B group M HIV-1 appears to be susceptible to available agents, but follows several unique pathways to resistance to some drugs that have important clinical implications. Group O HIV-1 is naturally resistant to the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). HIV-2 and SIVsm are also naturally resistant to the NNRTIs as well as the protease inhibitor amprenavir. More research into the clinical responses to existing drugs and interpretation of genotypic information is needed, as well as development of diagnostic assays specific for non-subtype B HIV-1 and HIV-2.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2004

The influence of protease inhibitor resistance profiles on selection of HIV therapy in treatment-naive patients.

Although protease inhibitors (PIs) have dramatically improved outcomes in HIV-infected patients, half still fail treatment with PI-based combination therapy. Genetic pressure from incomplete viral suppression rapidly selects for HIV variants with protease gene mutations that confer reduced susceptibility to PI drugs. A number of specific amino acid substitutions have been associated with PI resistance. However, high-level resistance to individual PIs requires the accumulation of several primary and secondary mutations, developing along drug-specific, step-wise pathways. HIV variants resistant to saquinavir and ritonavir usually contain L90M and V82A substitutions, respectively. Indinavir resistance may be linked to substitutions at positions 46 or 82. Resistance to nelfinavir is primarily associated with D30N but may alternatively be found with L90M. Resistance during exposure to amprenavir can follow development of I50V, which also may confer resistance to lopinavir. Failure during treatment with atazanavir is closely linked to 150L. The overlapping of these pathways can lead to multiple-PI resistance, limiting therapeutic options in antiretroviral-experienced patients. Reduced susceptibility to more than one PI is most likely to be associated with amino acid substitutions at six positions: 10, 46, 54, 82, 84 and 90. Other mutations (D30N, G48V, I50V or I50L) are relatively specific for particular PIs and are less likely to produce cross resistance. Certain resistance mutations selected by exposure to one PI may actually increase susceptibility to others. Patients newly diagnosed with HIV infection are increasingly found to harbour virus that is resistant to the more commonly used drugs. Newer PIs may select for mutations that result in less cross resistance with older agents.

Amino Acid Substitution↗
PubMed2003

HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase mutation patterns responsible for discordances between genotypic drug resistance interpretation algorithms.

Several rules-based algorithms have been developed to interpret results of HIV-1 genotypic resistance tests. To assess the concordance of these algorithms and to identify sequences causing interalgorithm discordances, we applied four publicly available algorithms to the sequences of isolates from 2,045 individuals in northern California. Drug resistance interpretations were classified as S for susceptible, I for intermediate, and R for resistant. Of 30,675 interpretations (2,045 sequences x 15 drugs), 4.4% were completely discordant, with at least one algorithm assigning an S and another an R; 29.2% were partially discordant, with at least one algorithm assigning an S and another an I, or at least one algorithm assigning an I and another an R; and 66.4% displayed complete concordance, with all four algorithms assigning the same interpretation. Discordances between nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor interpretations usually resulted from several simple, frequently occurring mutational patterns. Discordances between protease inhibitor interpretations resulted from a larger number of more complex mutation patterns. Discordances between nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor interpretations were uncommon and resulted from a small number of individual drug resistance mutations. Determining the clinical significance of these mutation patterns responsible for interalgorithm discordances will improve interalgorithm concordance and the accuracy of genotypic resistance interpretation.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

Therapeutic drug monitoring: an aid to optimising response to antiretroviral drugs?

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been proposed as a means to optimise response to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV infection. Protease inhibitors (PIs) and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) efavirenz and nevirapine satisfy many criteria for TDM. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are not suitable candidates for TDM, since no clear plasma concentration-effect relationships have been established for these drugs. Several important limitations to the application of TDM for antiretroviral drugs should be recognised, including uncertainty about the best pharmacokinetic predictor of response and insufficient validation of target concentrations for individual PIs and NNRTIs. Data from two clinical trials support the use of TDM in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients who start with an indinavir- or nelfinavir-based regimen. TDM either prevented virological failures (presumably by preventing the development of resistance) or treatment discontinuations due to concentration-related toxicity. Application of routine TDM in other patient groups (treatment-experienced patients) or for drugs other than indinavir or nelfinavir (NNRTIs, other PIs, combination of PIs) is speculative at this moment. However, TDM can be used in selected patient groups (children, pregnant women, patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction) to confirm adequate drug concentrations, and for management of drug-drug interactions.TDM in treatment-experienced patients may be optimally used in conjunction with resistance testing. The integration of pharmacological and virological measures in the inhibitory quotient (IQ) needs to be standardised and elaborated further. TDM should be accompanied by careful assessment of adherence and can itself help identify non-adherence, although a drug concentration only reflects the last few drug doses taken by a patient. Additional clinical trials are needed before routine TDM can be adopted as standard of care in the treatment of HIV infection.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2002

Evolution of primary protease inhibitor resistance mutations during protease inhibitor salvage therapy.

In order to track the evolution of primary protease inhibitor (PI) resistance mutations in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) isolates, baseline and follow-up protease sequences were obtained from patients undergoing salvage PI therapy who presented initially with isolates containing a single primary PI resistance mutation. Among 78 patients meeting study selection criteria, baseline primary PI resistance mutations included L90M (42% of patients), V82A/F/T (27%), D30N (21%), G48V (6%), and I84V (4%). Despite the switching of treatment to a new PI, primary PI resistance mutations present at the baseline persisted in 66 of 78 (85%) patients. D30N persisted less frequently than L90M (50% versus 100%, respectively; P < 0.001) and V82A/F/T (50% versus 81%, respectively; P = 0.05). HIV-1 isolates from 38 (49%) patients failing PI salvage therapy developed new primary PI resistance mutations including L90M, I84V, V82A, and G48V. Common combinations of primary and secondary PI resistance mutations after salvage therapy included mutations at amino acid positions 10, 82, and 46 and/or 54 in 16 patients; 10, 90, and 71 and/or 73 in 14 patients; 10, 73, 84, 90, and 46 and/or 54 in 5 patients; 10, 48, and 82 in 5 patients; and 30, 88 and 90 in 5 patients. In summary, during salvage PI therapy, most HIV-1 isolates with a single primary PI resistance mutation maintained their original mutations, and 49% developed additional primary PI resistance mutations. The persistence of L90M, V82A/F/T, G48V, and I84V during salvage therapy suggests that these mutations play a role in clinical resistance to multiple PIs.

Drug Resistance, Microbial↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Drug resistance mutations in HIV-1.

The International AIDS Society-USA (IAS-USA) Drug Resistance Mutations Group is a volunteer panel of experts that meets regularly to review and interpret new data on HIV-1 resistance. The focus of the group is to identify mutations associated with clinical resistance to HIV-1. These mutations have been identified by 1 or more of the following criteria: (1) in vitro passage experiments or validation of contribution to resistance by using site-directed mutagenesis; (2) susceptibility testing of laboratory or clinical isolates; (3) genetic sequencing of viruses from patients in whom the drug is failing; (4) correlation studies between genotype at baseline and virologic response in patients exposed to the drug. Drugs that have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or available through expanded access protocols are included.

Anti-HIV Agents↗