PLoS ONE (Jan 2014)

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 Rudich,
  • Daniela Ram,
  • Shlomo Maayan,
  • Nancy Agmon-Levin,
  • Zev Sthoeger

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086239
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9, no. 1
p. e86239

Abstract

Read online

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.