Clinical Drug Investigation

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 267–285 | Cite as

Resistance to the HIV Protease Inhibitor Amprenavir In Vitro and in Clinical Studies

A Review
  • Margaret Tisdale
  • Richard Myers
  • Sharon Randall
  • Michael Maguire
  • Mounir Ait-Khaled
  • Rob Elston
  • Wendy Snowden
Clinical Review

Abstract

Amprenavir (APV) is a highly active and selective HIV protease inhibitor (PI) that is used for the treatment of HIV infection in adults and children. In this review we present data from extensive resistance studies undertaken during the development of amprenavir. These include in vitro and clinical studies where the phenotype and genotype of HIV protease was determined after treatment with amprenavir either as the single PI [alone or with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] or in combination with other PIs. In addition, cross-resistance with other PIs has been examined to help position use of amprenavir in the clinic.

The key signature amino acid substitution associated with amprenavir resistance that was identified from in vitro and subsequent in vivo studies was isoleucine to valine at position 50 (I50V) in HIV protease. This was a new mutation not observed as a natural variant or in PI-experienced patients. Additional mutations including M46I/L and I47V were required to produce high level resistance. Cross-resistance was limited and observed only with ritonavir.

In amprenavir/zidovudine/lamivudine combination therapy in PI-naive and lamivudine-naive patients, therapy failure is associated frequently with the reverse transcriptase M184V mutation, and not with amprenavir resistance. However, when amprenavir was added to NRTI therapy in NRTI-experienced and Pi-naive patients where treatment was compromised by baseline NRTI resistance, failure was more frequently associated with the development of amprenavir resistance. From these studies, four pathways of amprenavir resistance were identified, with the I50V pathway associated with the highest levels of resistance. Alternative pathways to amprenavir resistance involved key substitutions, either V32I + I47V, or I54L/M, or more rarely I84V Limited cross-resistance was observed to other PIs with each of these genetic mechanisms.

Similarly, in PI-experienced patients, cross-resistance to amprenavir is markedly lower than for the other four approved PIs. Markers of cross-resistance to amprenavir include the above mutations but not L90M or V82A/T/Y as observed for other PIs. These data suggest that amprenavir may have an important part to play in rescue therapy regimens.

In combination with other PIs, resistance development may be suppressed and key signature mutations, such as I50V (amprenavir), D30N (nelfinavir) and V82A/T/Y (ritonavir, indinavir) have not been observed in vitro. In addition, passage with saquinavir may resensitise amprenavir-resistant variants to amprenavir. Hypersensitivity to amprenavir has been reported for N88S variants occasionally observed after nelfinavir therapy. Differences in the resistance profile of amprenavir from that of other PIs suggest that amprenavir may add value to HIV combination therapy, particularly in PI combinations and in rescue therapy.

Keywords

Lamivudine Zidovudine Ritonavir Indinavir Saquinavir 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding for the majority of this work was provided by GlaxoWellcome and by Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Cambridge, USA.

References

  1. 1.
    Kohl NE, Emini EA, Schleif WA, et al. Active human immunodeficiency virus protease is required for viral infectivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1998; 85: 4686–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Navia MA, Fitzgerald PMD, McKeever BM, et al. Three-dimensional structure of aspartyl protease from human immunodeficiency virus HIV-1. Nature 1989 Feb; 337(6208): 615–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wlodawer A, Miller M, Jaskolski M, et al. Conserved folding in retroviral proteases: crystal structure of a synthetic HIV-1 protease. Science 1989 Aug; 245: 616–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wlodawer A, Erickson JW. Structure-based inhibitors of HIV-1 protease. Annu Rev Biochem 1993; 62: 543–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Painter GR, Ching S, Reynolds D, et al. 141W94 Anti-HIV. Drugs Future 1996; 21(4): 347–50Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Adkins JC, Faulds D. Amprenavir. Drugs 1998; 55: 837–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Navia MA, Sato VL, Tung RD. Design of VX-478, a potent inhibitor of HIV protease. Int Antiviral News 1995; 3: 143–5Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kim EE, Baker CT, Dwyer MD, et al. Crystal structure of HIV-1 protease in complex with VX-478, a potent and orally bioavailable inhibitor of the enzyme. J Am Chem Soc 1995; 117: 1181–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    St Clair M, Millard J, Rooney J, et al. In vitro antiviral activity of 141W94 (VX-478) in combination with other antiretroviral agents. Antiviral Res 1996; 29: 53–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flexner C. HIV protease inhibitors. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1281–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hertogs K, Bethune M, Miller V, et al. A rapid method for simultaneous detection of phenotypic resistance to inhibitors of protease and reverse transcriptase in recombinant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates from patients treated with antiretroviral drugs. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 269–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tremblay C, Merrill DP, Chou TC, et al. Two- and three-protease inhibitor combinations against zidovudine-sensitive and zidovudine-resistant HIV-1 isolates in vitro [abstract no. 41201]. 12th World AIDS Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 1998; 782Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Molla A, Chemyavskiy T, Vasavanonda S, et al. Synergistic anti-HIV activity of ritonavir and other protease inhibitors in the presence of human serum [abstract no. 12315]. 12thWorld ADS Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 1998; 76Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Drusano GL, D’Argenio DZ, Symonds W, et al. Nucleoside analogue 1592U89 and human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor 141W94 are synergistic in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 2153–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Livingston DJ, Pazhanisamy S, Porter DJT, et al. Weak binding of VX-478 to human plasma proteins and implications for anti-human immunodeficiency virus therapy. J Infect Dis 1995 Nov; 172: 1238–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Agenerase Product Monograph. GlaxoWellcome UK. In pressGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hoen B, Kinloch S, Phillips A, et al. Quadruple HAART (ZDV/3TC/abacavir/amprenavir) initiated during primary HIV infection (PHI) is associated with a sharp viremia decrease and increase in CD4 response [abstract no. 0685]. 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. San Francisco, USA, 1999; 486Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kelleher D, Mellors J, Lederman M, et al. Activity of abacavir (1592, ABC) combined with protease inhibitors (PI) in therapy-naive patients [abstract no. 12210]. 12th World AIDS Conference, Geneva, Switzerland, 1998 Jun 28–Jul 3; 53Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mellors JW, Lederman M, Haas D, et al. Durable activity of Ziagen (abacavir, 1592, ABC) combined with protease inhibitors (PI) in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients [abstract no. 625]. 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, USA, 1999; 185Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bart P-A, Rizzardi GP, Gallant S, et al. Combination Ziagen (abacavir, ABC)/amprenavir (141, APV-USAN) therapy in HIV-1 infected antiretroviral naive subjects with CD4+ counts >400 cells/µL and plasma HIV-1 RNA >5000 copies/ mL [abstract no. 626]. 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, USA, 1999; 185Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Doyon L, Croteau G, Thibeajly D, et al. Second locus involved in human deficiency virus type 1 resistance to protease inhibitors. J Virol 1996 Jun; 70(6): 3763–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tisdale M, Myers RE, Maschera B, et al. Cross-resistance analysis of HIV-1 variants individually selected for resistance to 5 different protease inhibitors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1995 Aug; 39(8): 1704–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Partaledis JA, Yamaguchi K, Tisdale M, et al. In vitro selection and characterisation of human immunodeficiency virus Type 1 (HIV-1) isolates with reduced sensitivity to hydroxyethylamino sulfonamide inhibitors of HIV-1 aspartyl protease. J Virol 1995 Sep; 69(9): 5228–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tisdale M. HIV protease inhibitors -resistance issues. Int Antiviral News 1996 Apr; 4(3): 41–2Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alford JL, McQuaid TJ, Partaledis JA, et al. Amprenavir resistant mutants show reduced viral fitness: correlation of protease mutations cleavage site mutations, enzyme kinetics, viral polyprotein processing and viral growth kinetics [abstract no. 44]. 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, 1999 Jun 23–26, San Diego US. Antivir Ther 4Suppl. 1: 30Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tisdale M, Myers R, Parry NR, et al. Comprehensive analysis of HIV-1 variants individually selected for resistance to six HIV protease inhibitors [abstract no. 14]. 3rd International Workshop of HIV Drug Resistance, 1994 Aug 2–5; Kauai, Hawaii, 14Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tisdale M. Analysis of resistance interactions with 141W94 (VX-478) and other HIV-1 protease inhibitors [abstract no. 27]. 5th International Workshop of HIV Drug Resistance 1996 Jul 3–6; Whistler, Canada, 16Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Elston R, Myers R, Randall S, et al. Agenerase in dual PI combination therapy with saquinavir, indinavir, or nelfinavir: emergence of resistance [abstract no. 727]. 7th International Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 2000 Jan 30–Feb 2; San Francisco, US, 211Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Markland W, Rao BG, Parsons JD, et al. Structural and kinetics analyses of the protease from an amprenavir-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 mutant rendered resistant to saquinavir and resensitized to amprenavir. J Virol 2000 Aug; 74(16): 7636–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Wit S, Cassano P, Hermans P, et al. Salvage therapy with ritonavir-saquinavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors in patients failing with amprenavir-zidovudine-lamivudine. AIDS 1999; 13(7): 864–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tisdale M, Myers RE, Blair E, et al. In vitro studies support combination therapy with HIV protease Inhibitors [abstract no. 14]. 4th International Workshop of HIV Drug Resistance, Sardinia, Italy, 1995 Jul 6–9. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol 1995; 10Suppl. 3: S30–S31Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Robinson LH, Myers RE, Snowden BW, et al. The influence of HIV-1 p7/pl and pl/p6 gag protease cleavage site mutations on the assessment of phenotypic susceptibility to protease inhibitors in the recombinant virus assay [abstract no. 48]. 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, San Diego, 1999 Jun 23–26. Antivir Ther 1999; 4Suppl. 1: 32Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Maschera B, Tisdale M, Darby G, et al. In vitro growth characteristics of HIV-1 variants with reduced sensitivity to saquinavir explain the appearance of L90M escape mutant in vivo [abstract no. 85]. 5th International Workshop of HIV Drug Resistance, Whistler, Canada, 1996 Jul 3–6; 53-4Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Martinez-Picado J, Savara AV, Sutton L, et al. Replicative fitness of protease inhibitor-resistant mutants of human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol 1999 May; 73(5): 3744–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Condra JH, Schleif WA, Blahy OM, et al. In vivo emergence of HIV-1 resistant variants to multiple proteases. Nature 1995 Apr 6; 374: 569–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Condra JH, Holde DJ, Schleif WA, et al. Genetic correlates of in vivo viral resistance to indinavir, a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor. J Virol 1996 Dec; 70(12): 8270–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Molla A, Korneyeva M, Gao Q, et al. Ordered accumulation of mutations in HIV protease confers resistance to ritonavir. Nature Med 1996 Jul 7; 2(7): 760–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Patick AK, Duran M, Cao Y, et al. Genotypic and phenotypic characterization of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 variants isolated from patients treated with the protease inhibitor nelfinavir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998 Oct; 42(10): 2637–44PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Craig C, Race E, Sheldon J, et al. HIV protease genotype and viral sensitivity to HIV protease inhibitors following saquinavir therapy. AIDS 1998; 12(13): 1611–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Race E, Gilbert SM, Sheldon JG, et al. Genotypic changes selected in vivo during phase III clinical trials with saquinavir in combination with reverse transcriptase inhibitors: frequencies and correlation with drug sensitivity and response to treatment. AIDS 1998; 12: 1465–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ziermann R, Limoli K, Das K, et al. A mutation in human immunodeficiency virus type=l protease, N88S, that causes in vitro hypersensitivity to amprenavir. J Virol 2000 May; 74(9): 4414–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yerly S, Kaiser L, Race E, et al. Transmission of antiretroviral drug-resistant HIV-1 variants. Lancet 1999 Aug; 354(9180): 729–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Palmer S, Shafer RW, Merigan TC. Highly drug-resistant HIV-1 clinical isolates are cross-resistant to many antiretroviral compounds in current clinical development. AIDS 1999; 13(6): 661–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maschera B, Furfine E, Blair ED. Matched bacterial expression and proviral infection vectors for direct cloning of PCR-generated wild-type and mutant (drug resistant) HIV-1 protease genes. J Virol 1995; 69(9): 5431–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Schooley RT, Clumeck N, Haubrich R, et al. A dose-ranging study to evaluate the antiretroviral activity of amprenavir alone and in combination with abacavir in HIV-infected adults with limited antiretroviral experience. UnpublishedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tisdale M, Myers RE, Harrigan PR, et al. Analyses of HIV genotype and phenotype during 4 weeks dose-escalating monotherapy with the HIV protease inhibitor 141W94 in HIV-infected patients with CD4 counts 150-400/mm3 [abstract no. 593]. 4th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Washington, US, 1997, Jan 22–26; 174Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Murphy RL, Gulick RM, DeGruttola V, et al. Treatment with amprenavir alone or amprenavir with zidovudine and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection. J Infect Dis 1999 Apr; 179: 808–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    De Pasquale MP, Murphy R, Gulick R, et al. Mutations selected in HIV plasma RNA during 141W94 therapy [abstract no. 406a]. 5th Conference on Retrovirus and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, US, 1998 Feb 1-5; 155Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Zhang Y-M, Imamichi H, Imamichi T, et al. Drug resistance during indinavir therapy is caused by mutations in the protease gene and in its gag substrate cleavage sites. J Virol 1997 Sep; 71(9): 6662–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    De Pasquale MP, Murphy R, Kuritzkes D, et al. Resistance during early virological rebound on amprenavir plus zidovudine plus lamivudine triple therapy or amprenavir monotherapy in ACTG protocol 347 [abstract no. 71]. 2nd International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, Lake Maggiore, Italy, 1998 Jun 24–27; 50-1Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Haubrich R, Thompson M, Schooley R, et al. A phase II safety and efficacy study of amprenavir in combination with zidovudine and lamivudine in HIV-infected patients with limited antiretroviral experience. AIDS 1999; 13: 2411–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Goodgame J, Stein A, Pottage J, et al. Amprenavir (141W94, APV)/3TC/ZDV is superior to 3TC/ZDV in HIV-1 infected antiretroviral therapy-naive subjects [abstract no. LB-29]. 38th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy San Diego, US, 1998 Sep 24–27; 19Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Goodgame J, Hanson C, Vafidis I, et al. Amprenavir (141W94, APV)/3TC/ZDV exerts durable antiviral activity in HIV-1 infected antiretroviral therapy-naive subjects through 48 weeks of therapy PROAB3001 [abstract no. 509]. Abstracts of the 39th Interscience Conference on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy San Francisco, US, 1999 Sep 26–29; 473Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Clumeck N, The PROA2002 International Study Group. Phase II study of 141W94, a novel protease inhibitor in combination with zidovudine/3TC [abstract no. LB-922]. 6th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection, Hamburg, Germany, 1997 Oct 11–15; 5Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Tisdale M, Myers RE, Ait-Khaled M, et al. HIV drug resistance analysis during clinical studies with the protease inhibitor amprenavir [abstract no. 118]. 6th Conference on Retro-viruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, US, 1999 Jan 31-Feb 4;89Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Murphy RL, Gulick R, Smeaton L, et al. Treatment with indinavir, nevirapine, stavudine, and 3TC following therapy with an amprenavir-containing regimen. AIDS 1998; 12: S9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Eron J, Haubrich R, Richman D, et al. Safety and efficacy of amprenavir in combination with other protease inhibitors. 4th International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection. AIDS 1998; 12Suppl. 4: 38Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Snowden W, Shortino D, Klein A, et al. Development of amprenavir resistance in NRTI-experienced patients: alternative medication and correlation with baseline resistance to concomitant NRTIs [abstract no. 108]. 4th International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, Sitges, Spain. 2000 Jun 12–16. Antivir Ther 2000; 5Suppl. 3: 121Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Maguire MF, Klein AP, Snowden BW, et al. Development of linked V32I and I47V HIV-1 protease substitutions in some NRTI-experienced amprenavir-treated subjects [abstract no. 43]. 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, San Diego, US. Antivir Ther 1999; 4Suppl. 1: 29–30Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yogev R, Church J, Flynn F, et al. Pediatric trial of combination therapy including the protease inhibitor amprenavir (APV) [abstract no. 430]. 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, US, 1999 Jan 31–Feb 4; 148Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Blanche S, Fetter A, Cox H, et al. A phase II study of amprenavir (APV, 141W94, AGENERASE™) in antiretroviral-experienced children with HIV-infection [abstract no. 695]. 7th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, San Francisco, US, 2000 Jan 30–Feb 4; 205Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ait-Khaled M, Rakik A, Thomas D, et al. HIV-1 baseline genotype/phenotype and virological response following salvage therapy with ziagen (abacavir (ABC), amprenavir (APV), and sustiva (efavirenz (EFV)) [abstract no. 133]. 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, US, 1999 Jan 31–Feb 4; 92Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Perez-Elias MJ, Garcia-Arata I, Blazquez J, et al. Protease inhibitor resistance in HIV: correlation between phenotype and genotype [abstract no. 441]. 39th International Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Francisco, US, 1999 Sep 26–29; 469Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Calvez V, Tamalet C, Molina JM, et al. Amprenavir (APV) shows less protease inhibitors (PI) cross resistance as compared with other PIs in a multiexperienced HIV cohort (CNAB3008, French virological substudy) [abstractno. 442]. 39th International Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Francisco, US, 1999 Sep 26–29; 469Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Race E, Dam E, Obry V, et al. Analysis of HIV phenotypic cross-resistance to protease inhibitors in patients failing on combination therapies [abstract no. 119]. 6th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, USA, 1999 Jan 31–Feb 4; 89Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Race E, Dam E, Obry V, et al. Analysis of HIV cross-resistance to protease inhibitors using a rapid single-cycle recombinant virus assay for patients failing on combination therapies. AIDS 1999; 13(15): 2061–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Goujard C, Boue F, Rousseau C, et al. A pilot study evaluating tolerance and efficacy of abacavir (ABC), amprenavir (APV), didanosine (DDI) and hydroxyurea (HU) in pretreated HIV-1 infected adults: CNAF3011 [abstract no. 461]. 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV Infection, Lisbon, Portugal, 1999 Oct 23–27; 89-90Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Haubrich R, Kemper C, Witt M, et al. Differences in protease inhibitor (PI) phenotypic susceptibility after failure of the first PI containing regimen [abstract no. 80]. 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drag Resistance & Treatment Strategies, San Diego US. 1999 Jun 23–26. Antivir Ther 1999; 4Suppl. 1: 55Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Eron J, Falloon J, Masur H, et al. Activity of combination abacavir/amprenavir/efavirenz therapy in HIV-1 infected subjects failing their current protease inhibitor containing regimen. 4th International Congress on Drag Therapy in HIV Infection. AIDS 1998; 12Suppl. 4: 13Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Masur H, Falloon J, Thomas D, et al. Durability of abacavir/ amprenavir/efavirenz combination salvage therapy: preliminary 48-week response (CNA2007) [abstract no. 206]. Abstracts of the 7th European Conference on Clinical Aspects and Treatment of HIV-Infection, Lisbon, Portugal, 1999 Oct 23-27; 19Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Piscitelli S, Vogel S, Sadler B, et al. Effect of efavirenz (DMP 266) on the pharmacokinetics of 141W94 in HIV-infected patients [abstract no. 346]. 5th Conference on Retrovirases and Opportunistic Infections, Chicago, US, 1998 Feb 1–5; 144Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Schmidt B. Cross-resistance to amprenavir in PI-treated patients [abstract no. 726]. 7th Annual Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, San Francisco, US, 2000 Jan 30–Feb 4; 211Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Yvon A, Descamps D, Delaugerre C, et al. Amprenavir genotype resistance profile in protease inhibitor multi-experienced patients [abstract no 42]. 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, San Diego, US, 1999 Jun 23–26. Antivir Ther 1999; 4Suppl. 1: 29Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Hirsch MS, Bran-Vezinet F, D’Aquila RT, et al. Antiretroviral drag resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection. Recommendations of an International Aids Society-USA Panel. JAMA 2000 May 10; 283(18): 2417–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Call S, Westfall A, Cloud G, et al. Predictive value of HIV phenotypic susceptibility testing in a clinical cohort [abstract no. LB-17]. 39th International Congress on Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, San Francisco, US, 1999 Sep 26–29Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Baxter JD, Mayers DL, Wentworth DN, et al. Final results of CPCRA046: a pilot study of antiretroviral management based on plasma genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing (GART) in patients failing antiretroviral therapy [abstract no. 61] 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, San Diego, US, 1999 Jun 23–26. Antivir Ther 1999; 4Suppl. 1: 43Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Clevenbergh P, Durant J, Halfon P, et al. Persisting long-term benefit of antiretroviral genotypic guided treatment for HIV-infected patients failing HAART: the Viradapt study, week 48 follow-up [abstract no. 60]. 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drug Resistance & Treatment Strategies, San Diego, US, 1999 Jun 23–26. Antivir Ther 1999; 4Suppl. 1: 42Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Durant J, Clevenbergh P, Halfon P, et al. Drug-resistance genotyping in HIV-1 therapy: the VIRADAPT randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999 Jun 26; 353: 2195–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Falloon J. Time to genotype for selection of antiretroviral regimens in previously treated patients. Lancet 1999 Jun 26; 353: 2173–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Piketty C, Race E, Castlel Ph, et al. Phenotypic resistance to protease inhibitors predicts outcome of a five drag combination including ritonavir, saquinavir and efavirenz in patients who failed on HAART [abstract no. 92]. 3rd International Workshop on HIV Drag Resistance & Treatment Strategies, San Diego, US, 1999 Jun 23–26. Antivir Ther 1999; 4Suppl. 1: 62Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Cohen C, Hunt S, Sension M, et al. Phenotypic resistance testing significantly improves response to therapy: an interim analysis of a randomized trial (VIRA3001) [abstract no. 19]. 2nd Frankfurt Symposium on the Clinical Implications of HIV Drug Resistance, Frankfurt, Germany, 2000 Feb 25–27; 23-4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margaret Tisdale
    • 1
  • Richard Myers
    • 1
  • Sharon Randall
    • 1
  • Michael Maguire
    • 1
  • Mounir Ait-Khaled
    • 1
  • Rob Elston
    • 1
  • Wendy Snowden
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Virology and Surrogates UnitGlaxoWellcome Research and DevelopmentStevenage, HertsEngland

Personalised recommendations