October 30, 2004
The possibility of the rapid development of viral resistance with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy has been a major concern with this approach, since this has been seen to occur with other agents. The primary mutations associated with lopinavir resistance in protease inhibitor-naive patients have not been established. This presentation provides genotypic and phenotypic resistance observations from patients who experienced virologic failure while on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy and participating in 2 ongoing studies.
Virologic Failure on Lopinavir/Ritonavir Monotherapy
Virologic failure was defined as 2 consecutive HIV-RNA levels above 400 copies/mL or failure to achieve a viral load below 400 copies/mL. Thirty-three patients from 2 ongoing studies of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy were evaluated. Eight patients experienced virologic failure; 4 were from a 15-patient retrospective cohort and 4 were from a prospective study of 18 patients switched to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy from a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based regimen. Five out of 8 failing patients had genetic sequences and phenotypes available for comparison, both from baseline and time of virologic failure.
The 15 patients in the retrospective cohort had been on therapy for a mean of 131 weeks. At the start of this study, 6 of the patients had discontinued and 9 had stayed on therapy. Of the 6 patients discontinuing, 3 were lost to follow-up (1 met virologic failure criteria but no genotype or phenotype was available) and 3 were virologic failures.
Nine patients remained on therapy. Their viral loads were under 400 for a mean of 131 weeks; with 6 patients who had a viral load of under 75 copies/mL and 3 patients who were at 75-400 copies/mL at last lab draw.
The 24-week data from this study was presented at the XV International AIDS Conference in Bangkok;2 in this presentation, 48-week data was available on most subjects in the prospective trial. Thirteen out of 18 of the patients were on therapy or were 48-week completers. Ten of them had viral loads under 75 copies/mL at all measurements, 1 had a non-adherence-related blip at week 40, and 2 met criteria for virologic failure secondary to non-adherence, with both resuppressing to under 75 copies/mL after support was provided. No genotype or phenotype was available on these 2 patients. Five discontinued therapy, 3 due to diarrhea and 2 due to virologic failure.
Genotypic and Phenotypic Results
Genotypic and phenotypic data were available on 3 of the 5 patients (referred to as Cases 1 through 3) from the retrospective cohort; their mean time on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy was 111 weeks. Data were also available on 2 of the 5 patients (referred to as Cases 4 and 5) from the prospective trial; their mean time on lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy was 22 weeks.
The results are summarized in the following chart:
| Weeks of Viremia | Genotypic Mutations | Phenotypic Susceptibility (Fold) | |
| Case 1 | 100 | L63A/S, I64I/M | 0.92 |
| Case 2 | 14 | V03I, S37N | 0.8 |
| Case 3 | 67 | I54V, A71V, L76V | 5.7* |
| Case 4 | 3** | M36I | 0.8 |
| Case 5 | 4 | V03L, S37N | 0.57 |
| * = replication capacity reduced to 1.4%
** = patient resuppressed on original therapy | |||
These 2 small studies show a rate of virologic failure similar to that seen in larger trials using lopinavir/ritonavir as part of a triple-HAART regimen. When virologic failure occurred, rapid selection of resistance to lopinavir/ritonavir was not observed. In one case with prolonged viremia of 67 weeks, a moderate loss in susceptibility to lopinavir was seen, with the selection of the primary protease mutation I54I/V as well as secondary mutations. In most of the cases, non-adherence was associated with the development of viremia. The lengthy delay in the development of protease resistance mutations in Case 3 despite ongoing viral replication for over a year -- and in the presence of adequate plasma lopinavir levels -- remains unexplained.
Conclusion
These 2 cohort studies add to a small but steadily increasing body of literature showing continued efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy over time. Three issues, however, indicate that this regimen is not yet ready for prime time: the lack of an identified pathway for development of resistance; the need for large clinical trials in multiple, varied populations; and the need to assure adequate drug distribution and lack of compartmental sequestration given that lopinavir is highly protein bound. Still, this promising data -- as well as several other small trials on this monotherapy regimen -- means we're sure to hear more about lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy in the future. If proven successful, this regimen could potentially decrease the burden of cost and toxicity and improve compliance with HAART.
Footnotes