Management of HIV/AIDS
Pg 8


Types of Antiretroviral Drugs


NRTIs






Nucleotide Inh

zidovudine
didanosine
stavudine
lamivudine
abacavir
emtracitabine

tenofovir

 

Retrovir, AZT
ddI, Videx
D4T, Zerit
3TC, Epivir
Ziagen
Emtriva

Viread

NNRTIs

delavirdine
nevirapine
efavirenz

 

Rescriptor
Viramune
Sustiva

PIs







Viral Fusion
Inbitors

saquinavir
ritonavir
indinavir
nelfinavir
amprenavir
lopinavir/ritonavir
atazanavir

enfuvirtide

Fortovase, Invirase
Norvir
Crixivan
Viracept
Agenerase
Kaletra
Reyataz

T-20, Fuzeon

At the present time, specific antiretroviral agents can be classified into two groups: reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors. Reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI's) work by preventing reverse transcription of viral RNA into host DNA, and include zidovudine (AZT), didanosine (ddI), zalcitabine (ddC), stavudine (d4T), lamivudine (3TC), abacavir, ziagen (ABC), and emtriva. Combination pills including AZT, 3TC and abacavir exist to enhance compliance. These are all considered nucleoside RTI's. Nevirapine, delavirdine and efavirenz are nonnucleoside RTI's available that work much the same way. Side effects recently described with some agents in this class include mitochondrial toxicity and lactic acidosis.

Protease inhibitors work by preventing the cleavage of protein precursors into viral particles, and include saquinavir, ritonavir, indinavir, nelfinavir and amprenavir. In combination with nucleosides, protease inhibitors can reduce viral load to undetectable levels in certain patients, but must be continually maintained at optimum doses to avoid the development of resistance. Unlike RTI's, where occasional skipped doses have minimal impact on viral resistance, protease inhibitors must be taken on a strict, and complicated, schedule to avoid resistance. Cross-resistance is likely to occur to most other protease inhibitors available. Other drawbacks to the protease inhibitors include poor solubility, drug interactions, inadequate CNS penetration and large number of pills to be taken. Fat redistribution, insulin resistance and hyperlipidemia have been associated with protease inhibitor use with variable frequency. Combining low-dose ritonavir with other protease inhibitors allows for administering a lower dose of the other agent, because ritonavir increases the other drug's concentration level. This not only reduces number of pills taken and the degree of side effects seen but will increase the concentration and efficacy of the other protease inhibitor as well.

 

When starting therapy in a patient who has not been on any antiretroviral agents (treatment naive), begin with a regimen that is expected to reduce viral replication to undetectable levels. Strongly recommended regimens include either efavirenz, or a boosted (combined with low-dose priming ritonavir) protease inhibitor combination with two NRTI agents such as zidovudine/lamivudine, abacavir/lamivudine, stavudine/lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir. Tenofovir has also been considered as part of an initial regimen.

 

 

 

Changing regimens is predicated on toxicity, intolerance, nonadherence, or treatment failure, which can initially be signalled by an increase in viral load of 0.5 to 1.0 log and confirmed through resistance testing. When drug failure or resistance is an issue, new regimens should include all new drugs to which the virus is susceptible, much like that of tuberculosis treatment practices.

Logarithmic Changes in Clinical Practice/b>

Log Drop

Change

Change (copies) for Pt w/100,000 copies HIV RNA

0.3
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.3

2-fold
3-fold
4-fold
10-fold
30-fold
100-fold
200-fold

50,000
33,000
25,000
10,000
3300
1000
500

 

Indications for changing therapy:

  • Treatment failure, as suggested by a confirmed rising plasma HIV RNA level or failure to achieve the desired reduction in plasma viral load; declining CD4+ cell count; or clinical disease progression
  • Unacceptable toxicity of, intolerance of, or nonadherence to the regimen
  • Current use of suboptimal treatment regimens, as reflected by resistance assay findings, or using fewer than three agents21

Decisions regarding changes in antiretroviral therapy because of treatment failure not due to noncom-pliance should ideally be guided by results of resistance testing. Specific criteria that should prompt consideration for changing therapy include: less than a 1 log reduction by 8 weeks; failure to suppress plasma HIV RNA to undetectable levels within 20 - 24 weeks of initiating therapy; repeated detection of virus in plasma after initial suppression to undetectable levels, (suggesting the development of resistance); any reproducible significant increase (3-fold or greater) from the nadir of plasma HIV RNA not attributable to intercurrent infection, vaccination or test methodology; persistently declining CD4 T-cell count, clinical deterioration, toxicity, intolerance, non-adherence or suboptimal current regimen. (20)(21)

Virologic failure, defined as an increase in viral load from previously undetectable levels, can be assessed through antiretroviral resistance assays. Testing for HIV resistance to antiretroviral drugs is a prudent way to guide antiretroviral therapy. The two types of resistance testing are genotypic, in which the patient's HIV genome strain is defined, and phenotypic, where the patient's HIV virus is subjected to various medications and its growth characteristics are studied. HIV resistance testing is currently recommended for patients with virologic failure during HAART as well as suboptimal suppression of viral load after initiation of antiretroviral therapy. Testing should be considered for acute HIV infection, but is not generally recommended for chronic HIV infection prior to initiation of therapy or for patients with a viral load less than 1000 HIV RNA copies/ml. Testing should be performed on the patient's "failing" regimen, since virus usually reverts to its native "wild" form when antiviral medications are discontinued. Insurance reimbursement can still be problematic with some resistance assay products. Genotypic assays are, in general, more difficult to interpret, but provide more insight into the clinical relevancy of different mutation patterns and tend to have a more rapid turnaround time than phenotypic assays.

 

When viral load should be measured:

Baseline, 3-4 weeks, 3-6 months, 3-4 weeks after changing therapy

Guidelines for interpreting viral load:

- Long-term goals: sustain the decrease   in viral load
- A decrease of 0.5 log - 1.0 log = therapy is working

- An increase of 0.5 - 1.0 log = treatment failure = need to change therapy regimen

T cells and viral load should be done at baseline, and repeated at 4, 8-12 and 16-24 weeks after initiating or changing therapy. Unlike CD4 cell counts, which may take several months to respond, response rate with viral load testing occurs within 4 weeks. The CD4 T-cell count and HIV-RNA viral load tests each provide specific information, and one should not be used in lieu of the other.

Viral load can be influenced by vaccinations and viral illness. If a particular test result increases out of proportion to clinical symptoms or even CD4 counts, it is advisable to repeat the test before switching regimens. Two assays, the branched chain DNA and RT-PCR methods, are commercially available for viral load testing, although only the RT-PCR method has been approved by the FDA. The test is also complicated to run: blood needs to be spun down, frozen and received by a processing laboratory within four hours. As such, it should only be drawn in centers equipped to handle this procedure.

As is readily apparent with the above recommendations, the medical management of HIV infection is a very complex matter. Improper, inadequate and inconsistent therapy can irreversibly jeopardize an HIV-infected person's chances of prolonged survival by allowing the virus to develop resistance and subsequent cross-resistance to the agents available in providing viral suppression. It is within reason to suggest that no treatment--at least initially--would be better than inappropriate treatment. As such, referral to a physician with expertise in the management of HIV-infected persons, or at least with access to the latest developments in this disease, should be seriously considered in all cases.

Continue to next page


Back to Course Listing | AMNJ homepage