Suboptimal use of HIV drug resistance testing in a universal health-care setting.

HIV drug resistance testing is recommended as routine part of clinical practice in HIV/AIDS treatment and care. Our objective is to assess the determinants of accessing HIV drug resistance testing and examine the factors associated with resistance testing prior to or after starting highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in a setting where access to HIV care is free and universal. The Longitudinal Investigation into Supportive and Ancillary health services (LISA) study is an open prospective cohort of HIV-positive persons on HAART in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Non-clinical data were collected through an interviewer-administered survey and clinical data were obtained through the BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS Drug Treatment Program. Independent associations between key explanatory variables and resistance testing were analyzed using logistic regression. We restricted our post-HAART analyses to those patients who met the criteria for resistance testing after HAART initiation. Of 359 LISA participants who started HAART after 2000 and at a time when resistance testing was available free of charge, almost half did not receive a baseline resistance test. Post-HAART initiation, 165 of 359 study subjects met the criteria for resistance testing based on current therapeutic guidelines due to virological failure. About 37.6% of them remain untested for resistance. Multivariable analyses show that baseline testing was less likely performed for persons of Aboriginal ethnicity and more likely performed for patients initiating HAART in 2004 or after. Additionally, persons initiating HAART in 2004 or after were less likely to have received a resistance test after virologic failure. Our results show that despite existing clinical guidelines, resistance testing is underused, even in an environment where the service is available free of charge. Further, resistance testing is particularly underutilized among vulnerable populations. Urgent efforts are needed to ensure the optimal use of resistance testing at baseline and at the time of virologic failure as recommended by current guidelines.

Full suppression of viral load is needed to achieve an optimal CD4 cell count response among patients on triple drug antiretroviral therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the relationship between plasma viral load (pVL) suppression and triple drug antiretroviral therapy, and the accompanying changes in CD4 cell counts. METHOD: Retrospective study of 465 participants in a HIV/AIDS Treatment Program who initiated triple drug therapy between August 1996 and May 1998. Participants were divided into three groups according to their pVL response: (i) non-responders (NR; n = 112) exhibited pVL persistently > 500 copies/ml over the study period; (ii) partial responders (PR; n = 100) achieved a pVL < 100 copies/ml at least once and subsequently rebounded to > 500 copies/ml; and (iii) full responders (FR; n = 253) achieved a pVL < 500 copies/ml and sustained this level for the remainder of the study period. For each group, the accompanying changes in absolute and fractional CD4 cell counts were evaluated. RESULTS: The median net change in pVL per person from baseline to the end of the observation period was -0.37, -2.27, and -2.56 log10 copies/ml for NR, PR and FR, respectively. During weeks 68-83, the median CD4 cell count (x 10(6) cells/l) was 150 [interquartile range (IQR) 90-370], 380 (IQR 300-480) and 525 (IQR 305-705) for NR, PR and FR, respectively. Median changes in CD4 cells (x 10(6) cells/l) were -20 (IQR -90 to 40), 150 (IQR 30-250) and 240 (IQR 110-365) for NR, PR, and FR, respectively. The net percentage change in CD4 cells per person was 0% (IQR -34-31), 54% (IQR 6-160), and 83% (IQR 39-173) for NR, PR, and FR, respectively. By weeks 68-83, the median fractional CD4 cells was 0.16 (IQR 0.07-0.22), 0.22 (IQR 0.15-0.28), and 0.26 (IQR 0.17-0.34) for NR, PR and FR respectively. CONCLUSIONS: An optimal CD4 cell count response appears to be coupled with continued pVL suppression. Our data indicate that maximal suppression of viral replication should remain the primary goal of therapy.

A dose-ranging study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of abacavir alone or in combination with zidovudine and lamivudine in antiretroviral treatment-naive subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To compare antiretroviral efficacy, safety and tolerance of three dosing regimens of the novel nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, abacavir (1592U89) over 24 weeks and its efficacy in open-label combination with zidovudine and lamivudine. DESIGN: Sixty HIV-1-infected antiretroviral therapy naive subjects (entry criteria; CD4+ cell count > or = 100 cells/mm(3), plasma HIV-1 RNA > or = 30 000 copies/ml), randomized into 20 subjects per cohort received 100, 300 or 600 mg abacavir twice daily. Subjects successfully completing 24 weeks' randomized therapy could switch to open label therapy (abacavir, zidovudine, lamivudine at 300, 300 and 150 mg twice daily, respectively) for a further 24 weeks of studly, as could subjects meeting one or more switch criteria. METHODS: Subjects were assessed for antiretroviral activity by measuring changes in plasma HIV-1 RNA load and CD4+ cell counts. Evaluation of safety and tolerance was based on clinical adverse events and laboratory analyses. RESULTS: At week 4, subjects receiving 300 or 600 mg abacavir twice daily had greater reductions in plasma HIV-1 RNA (median changes -1.55 and -1.61 log10) copies/ml, respectively); differences (P = 0.007 and P < or = 0.001, respectively) than subjects receiving 100 mg abacavir twice daily (median change, -0.63 log10 copies/ml). Differences between the 300 and 600 mg twice daily groups were not clinically or statistically significant. At 24 weeks, analysis showed a median change in plasma HIV-1 RNA of -0.70 and -1.30 log10 copies/ml in the 300 and 600 mg twice daily groups, respectively. During the open label phase in which zidovudine/lamivudine was added to 300 mg abacavir twice daily, a further median reduction in plasma HIV-1 RNA of 1.74 log10 copies/ml was seen. At 48 weeks pooled data from all abacavir-treated subjects showed a sustained reduction in plasma HIV-1 RNA of 2.8 log10) copies/ml; 65% and 43% of subjects had < or = 400 and < or = 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml, respectively, and a further median increase of 111 CD4+ cells/mm3 were seen. Abacavir was generally well tolerated with few clinically significant adverse events. Two subjects (3.3%) developed hypersensitivity reactions to abacavir. There were no differences between the groups with regard to serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of antiretroviral therapy naive subjects, treatment with 300 or 600 mg abacavir twice daily was statistically superior to a 100 mg twice daily dose at 4 weeks. Combinations therapy containing abacavir-zidovudine-lamivudine was a highly effective antiretroviral regimen, resulting in substantial reductions in plasma HIV-1 RNA which may be comparable to combinations containing protease inhibitors. Abacavir was generally tolerated.