Docking Analysis and Resistance Evaluation of Clinically Relevant Mutations Associated with the HIV-1 Non-nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors Nevirapine, Efavirenz and Etravirine

n/

Impact of Low-Level-Viremia on HIV-1 Drug-Resistance Evolution among Antiretroviral Treated-Patients

to determine the emergence and evolution of DRAM during LLV in HIV-1-infected patients while receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART).Retrospective analysis of patients presenting a LLV episode defined as pVL between 40 and 500 c/mL on at least 3 occasions during a 6-month period or longer while on the same ART. Resistance genotypic testing was performed at the onset and at the end of LLV period. Emerging DRAM was defined during LLV if never detected on baseline genotype or before.48 patients including 4 naive and 44 pretreated (median 9 years) presented a LLV episode with a median duration of 11 months. Current ART included 2NRTI (94%), ritonavir-boosted PI (94%), NNRTI (23%), and/or raltegravir (19%). Median pVL during LLV was 134 c/mL. Successful resistance testing at both onset and end of the LLV episode were obtained for 37 patients (77%), among who 11 (30%) acquired at least 1 DRAM during the LLV period: for NRTI in 6, for NNRTI in 1, for PI in 4, and for raltegravir in 2. During the LLV period, number of drugs with genotypic resistance increased from a median of 4.5 to 6 drugs. Duration and pVL level of LLV episode, duration of previous ART, current and nadir CD4 count, number of baseline DRAM and GSS were not identified as predictive factors of resistance acquisition during LLV, probably due to limited number of patients.Persistent LLV episodes below 500 c/ml while receiving ART is associated with emerging DRAM for all drug classes and a decreasing in further therapeutic options, suggesting to earlier consider resistance monitoring and ART optimization in this setting

Statistical Methods in Recent HIV Noninferiority Trials: Reanalysis of 11 Trials

Background: In recent years the ‘‘noninferiority’ ’ trial has emerged as the new standard design for HIV drug development among antiretroviral patients often with a primary endpoint based on the difference in success rates between the two treatment groups. Different statistical methods have been introduced to provide confidence intervals for that difference. The main objective is to investigate whether the choice of the statistical method changes the conclusion of the trials. Methods: We presented 11 trials published in 2010 using a difference in proportions as the primary endpoint. In these trials, 5 different statistical methods have been used to estimate such confidence intervals. The five methods are described and applied to data from the 11 trials. The noninferiority of the new treatment is not demonstrated if the prespecified noninferiority margin it includes in the confidence interval of the treatment difference. Results: Results indicated that confidence intervals can be quite different according to the method used. In many situations, however, conclusions of the trials are not altered because point estimates of the treatment difference were too far from the prespecified noninferiority margins. Nevertheless, in few trials the use of different statistical methods led to different conclusions. In particular the use of ‘‘exact’ ’ methods can be very confusing. Conclusion: Statistical methods used to estimate confidence intervals in noninferiority trials have a strong impact on th

Antiretroviral-naive and -treated HIV-1 patients can harbour more resistant viruses in CSF than in plasma

Objectives The neurological disorders in HIV-1-infected patients remain prevalent. The HIV-1 resistance in plasma and CSF was compared in patients with neurological disorders in a multicentre study. Methods Blood and CSF samples were collected at time of neurological disorders for 244 patients. The viral loads were >50 copies/mL in both compartments and bulk genotypic tests were realized. Results On 244 patients, 89 and 155 were antiretroviral (ARV) naive and ARV treated, respectively. In ARV-naive patients, detection of mutations in CSF and not in plasma were reported for the reverse transcriptase (RT) gene in 2/89 patients (2.2%) and for the protease gene in 1/89 patients (1.1%). In ARV-treated patients, 19/152 (12.5%) patients had HIV-1 mutations only in the CSF for the RT gene and 30/151 (19.8%) for the protease gene. Two mutations appeared statistically more prevalent in the CSF than in plasma: M41L (P = 0.0455) and T215Y (P = 0.0455). Conclusions In most cases, resistance mutations were present and similar in both studied compartments. However, in 3.4% of ARV-naive and 8.8% of ARV-treated patients, the virus was more resistant in CSF than in plasma. These results support the need for genotypic resistance testing when lumbar puncture is performe

Weighted log-rank test to compare two survival functions in the presence of dependent censoring

International audienceComparing survival functions with the log-rank test in the presence of dependent censoring can produce an invalid test result. We extend our previous work on the estimation of the survival function using prognostic variables to adjust for dependent censoring to the comparison of two survival distributions. In these estimators, the weights of a censored individual is redistributed among either a subset of patients in the risk set or all patients in the risk set but giving more weight to patients having smallest distances from the censored subject. The distance is based on two risk scores obtained from two working models, one for the failure time and one for the censoring time. Based on the estimators, we suggest a weighted log-rank test to compare two survival distributions. A simulation study compared performance of our method with the analysis of the observed data without using auxiliary variables and with a recent method based on multiple imputation (KMIB method). With appropriate parameters, the weighted log-rank approach provides sizes of the test comparable to the nominal value but higher powers than the two other methods. The method is illustrated with data from a breast cancer study

Difference in success rates with confidence intervals in 9 trials presenting both an ITT and a non-ITT analyses.

<p>Difference in success rates with confidence intervals in 9 trials presenting both an ITT and a non-ITT analyses.</p

Width of confidence intervals for the 11 HIV noninferiority trials according to the different statistical methods.

<p>ITT: intent-to-treat.</p><p>Smaller value is underlined and larger value is bolded.</p