Cargando…

Comparable Long-Term Efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Similar Drug-Resistance Profiles in Different HIV-1 Subtypes

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 inf...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grossman, Zehava, Schapiro, Jonathan M., Levy, Itzchak, Elbirt, Daniel, Chowers, Michal, Riesenberg, Klaris, Olstein-Pops, Karen, Shahar, Eduardo, Istomin, Valery, Asher, Ilan, Gottessman, Bat-Sheva, Shemer, Yonat, Elinav, Hila, Hassoun, Gamal, Rosenberg, Shira, Averbuch, Diana, Machleb-Guri, Keren, Kra-Oz, Zipi, Radian-Sade, Sara, Rudich, Hagit, Ram, Daniela, Maayan, Shlomo, Agmon-Levin, Nancy, Sthoeger, Zev
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3903498/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24475093
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086239
Descripción
Sumario: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/µl, 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.