Raltegravir Treatment Response in an HIV-2 Infected Patient: a Case Report
Nigel Garrett,Xu Li,Erasmus Smit,Bridget Ferns,S M el-Gadi,Jane Anderson
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/qad.0b013e3282f9b165
IF: 4.632
2008-01-01
AIDS
Abstract:Raltegravir (RAL) (MK-0518), a novel and potent inhibitor of HIV-1 integrase, has been shown to be effective in reducing viral activity in both heavily antiretroviral treatment-experienced [1] and treatment-naïve [2] HIV-1 infected patients. In HIV-1, RAL appears to have a relatively low genetic barrier to resistance [3] but cross-resistance occurs with other drugs of the class [4]. Data exist on the mutation patterns associated with RAL failure with N155H and Q148H/R/K having been described to have a significant impact on HIV-1 RAL susceptibility [3,5]. HIV-2 differs substantially from HIV-1 in its structure and susceptibility to antiretroviral drugs [6–8], limiting the available therapeutic options. Consequently, there has been a great interest in new drug classes and their impact on HIV-2 infection. Little data are currently available on either the susceptibility of HIV-2 integrase to RAL or the mutation patterns associated with drug failure, although two groups have reported a lack of HIV-1 integrase resistance mutations in HIV-2 integrase inhibitor-I naïve patients [9,10]. Furthermore, 19 HIV-2 strains showed phenotypic in-vivo sensitivities to RAL and Elvitegravir (GS-9137) that were similar to HIV-1 [10]. Here, we describe the first use of RAL in a highly treatment experienced patient with HIV-2 infection. In March 2002, HIV-2 (subtype B) infection was diagnosed in a 41-year-old man from the Ivory Coast presenting with uveitis and retinal deposits and a CD4 count of 285 cells/μl. In June 2003, he started AZT/3TC and LPV/r, attended clinic regularly and reported good treatment adherence. In April 2005, HIV-2 genotypic resistance assays became available. Stored blood samples from earlier years were analysed and viral load showed no treatment response (Fig. 1). Further analysis at first therapy failure revealed additional resistance mutations M184V and V33I, V47A, against 3TC and LPV/r, respectively. He switched to TDF/FTC, FPV and SQV/r, which was modified to ABC, AZT, FPV and SQV/r due to toxicity to TDF. The viral load suppressed to less than 100 copies/ml but rebounded after 6 months with three additional protease inhibitor mutations (A47V, I84V, I89V) appearing.Fig. 1: Antiretroviral therapy, virological and immunological responses over time.In October 2006, treatment was interrupted to prevent further mutations. Integrase sequence analysis in February 2007 showed no evidence of HIV-1 associated primary RAL resistance mutations in the HIV-2 integrase gene but there were two secondary mutations (L74I and I203M). In addition, changes at four other HIV-1 described secondary integrase inhibitor-I codon sites (E138T, E157H and G163D and 230G) were present. Subsequently ABC, AZT, RAL and Darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) were started at a CD4 count of 80 cells/μl and HIV-2 viral load of 55 400 copies/ml. Two months after initiating therapy, the HIV-2 viral load was less than 100 copies/ml. Haematological and biochemical parameters remained within normal limits. However, after 4 months, despite continuing excellent adherence and therapeutic plasma drug levels, the viral load had risen to 5900 copies/ml, with a CD4 count of 250 cells/μl. Repeat HIV-2 viral load 1 and 2 months later was 4020 and 9300 copies/ml respectively. Integrase inhibitor-I genotypic resistance testing repeated on two separate samples confirmed a new primary N155H mutation in the integrase gene. No new protease inhibitor mutations were detected and there was a 215S to 215F change present in the reverse transcriptase. This case demonstrates that RAL in combination with DRV/r was effective in suppressing the viral load of a highly treatment experienced patient with HIV-2. However, the length of time that suppression was maintained was disappointingly short, although comparable to some of the early failures observed in heavily pretreated HIV-1 patients [3]. In treatment experienced patients with HIV-1 infection, RAL has been shown to have maximum benefit when introduced with at least one other active agent [1]. Given the complexity of protease polymorphisms in HIV-2, DRV/r may have contributed less to the regimen than what might have been the case for HIV-1 infection, perhaps making it a less robust partner for RAL. The argument would be to rather use RAL earlier, such as after first line failure than after second line therapy. This case illustrates that Raltegravir has adequate in-vivo potency and could be used as adjuvant HIV-2 therapy. The development of N155H in association with HIV-2 viral load rebound provides the first clinical and laboratory evidence that HIV-2 follows a similar path to integrase resistance as has been documented in HIV-1. Further clinical studies with longitudinal analysis are required to explicate the benefit of RAL or other integrase inhibitor-I containing regimen in treating HIV-2 infected patients.