2009Current HIV ResearchRequires access

Quadruple Nucleos(t)ide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors-Only Regimen of Tenofovir Plus Zidovudine/Lamivudine/Abacavir in Heavily Pre-Treated HIV-1 Infected Patients: Salvage Therapy or Backbone Only?

Christoph Stephan, Brenda Dauer, Pavel Khaykin, M. Stuermer, Peter Gute, Stephan Klauke, Schlomo Staszewski

Open publisher page 10 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND: We investigated the virologic and immunologic responses to a mono-class, nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor - combination therapy consisting of tenofovir and zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir in therapy experienced patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of 122 patients. Primary analysis was performed at 48 weeks. Virologic response was defined as viral load levels less than 400 copies/ml. RESULTS: About half of the patients had switched to tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir for simplification purposes or toxicity while the other half had experienced virologic failure. 80/122 (66%) responded. Median viral load decreased to 78 copies/ml at week 48; median CD4 count increased to 321 cells/mm(3). Of the 42 virologic failures, only 3 patients failed after week 24. 24/35 patients who had been on a non-suppressive zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir-only regimen at baseline and added tenofovir to intensify, responded. 41/53 patients who switched from any nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-only regimen improved or maintained suppression. Genotypes were available for 85/122 patients. The only predictor of virologic failure was the combination 41L+210W+215Y/F mutational pattern. 16 of the patients who failed on tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir therapy selected new primary nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations that they previously did not have. 48/85 (56%) patients with genotype tests had at least 3 (3-10; median 4) nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations in the past. CONCLUSIONS: Patients heavily pre-treated with nucleoside analogues may show response to mono-class tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir therapy despite having a history of failure with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Lower baseline viral load, higher baseline CD4 count were significant predictors for response. Archived 41L+210W+215Y/F mutational pattern was significantly associated with non-response.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

BACKGROUND: We investigated the virologic and immunologic responses to a mono-class, nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor - combination therapy consisting of tenofovir and zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir in therapy experienced patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of 122 patients. Primary analysis was performed at 48 weeks. Virologic response was defined as viral load levels less than 400 copies/ml. RESULTS: About half of the patients had switched to tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir for simplification purposes or toxicity while the other half had experienced virologic failure. 80/122 (66%) responded. Median viral load decreased to 78 copies/ml at week 48; median CD4 count increased to 321 cells/mm(3). Of the 42 virologic failures, only 3 patients failed after week 24. 24/35 patients who had been on a non-suppressive zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir-only regimen at baseline and added tenofovir to intensify, responded. 41/53 patients who switched from any nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-only regimen improved or maintained suppression. Genotypes were available for 85/122 patients. The only predictor of virologic failure was the combination 41L+210W+215Y/F mutational pattern. 16 of the patients who failed on tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir therapy selected new primary nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations that they previously did not have. 48/85 (56%) patients with genotype tests had at least 3 (3-10; median 4) nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations in the past. CONCLUSIONS: Patients heavily pre-treated with nucleoside analogues may show response to mono-class tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir therapy despite having a history of failure with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Lower baseline viral load, higher baseline CD4 count were significant predictors for response. Archived 41L+210W+215Y/F mutational pattern was significantly associated with non-response.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

BACKGROUND: We investigated the virologic and immunologic responses to a mono-class, nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor - combination therapy consisting of tenofovir and zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir in therapy experienced patients. METHODS: Retrospective study of 122 patients. Primary analysis was performed at 48 weeks. Virologic response was defined as viral load levels less than 400 copies/ml. RESULTS: About half of the patients had switched to tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir for simplification purposes or toxicity while the other half had experienced virologic failure. 80/122 (66%) responded. Median viral load decreased to 78 copies/ml at week 48; median CD4 count increased to 321 cells/mm(3). Of the 42 virologic failures, only 3 patients failed after week 24. 24/35 patients who had been on a non-suppressive zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir-only regimen at baseline and added tenofovir to intensify, responded. 41/53 patients who switched from any nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-only regimen improved or maintained suppression. Genotypes were available for 85/122 patients. The only predictor of virologic failure was the combination 41L+210W+215Y/F mutational pattern. 16 of the patients who failed on tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir therapy selected new primary nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations that they previously did not have. 48/85 (56%) patients with genotype tests had at least 3 (3-10; median 4) nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations in the past. CONCLUSIONS: Patients heavily pre-treated with nucleoside analogues may show response to mono-class tenofovir+ zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir therapy despite having a history of failure with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Lower baseline viral load, higher baseline CD4 count were significant predictors for response. Archived 41L+210W+215Y/F mutational pattern was significantly associated with non-response.

Key concepts: Abacavir, Lamivudine, Zidovudine, Regimen, Reverse-transcriptase inhibitor, Virology, Medicine, Reverse transcriptase

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Quadruple Nucleos(t)ide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors-Only Regimen of Tenofovir Plus Zidovudine/Lamivudine/Abacavir in Heavily Pre-Treated HIV-1 Infected Patients: Salvage Therapy or Backbone Only? — Research Paper | ScholarLens