S Palmer1, R W Shafer, T C Merigan. 1. Center for AIDS Research at Stanford, Stanford University Medical Center, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the in-vitro drug susceptibility of a panel of five well-characterized drug-resistant HIV variants to recently developed anti-HIV compounds including seven reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors and seven protease inhibitors. METHODS: Drug-resistant viral strains were selected on the basis of the prevalence of these mutants in patient samples from local area HIV clinics. The isolates included one multinucleoside-resistant virus containing the Q151M mutation, and four clinical isolates containing multiple RT and protease resistance mutations. The activity of the experimental compounds against these isolates was determined using drug susceptibility assays and measuring the viral antigen p24 end-point. RESULTS: These clinically relevant highly drug-resistant viruses were resistant to many of the new compounds in clinical development. In most cases the resistance mutations of the clinical isolate were different from those selected in vitro for the particular experimental compound. CONCLUSIONS: It is critical to expand the preclinical development of new drugs to include the assessment of their activity against currently circulating highly drug-resistant clinical strains, in order to develop appropriate salvage therapies for patients harboring resistant strains.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the in-vitro drug susceptibility of a panel of five well-characterized drug-resistant HIV variants to recently developed anti-HIV compounds including seven reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors and seven protease inhibitors. METHODS: Drug-resistant viral strains were selected on the basis of the prevalence of these mutants in patient samples from local area HIV clinics. The isolates included one multinucleoside-resistant virus containing the Q151M mutation, and four clinical isolates containing multiple RT and protease resistance mutations. The activity of the experimental compounds against these isolates was determined using drug susceptibility assays and measuring the viral antigen p24 end-point. RESULTS: These clinically relevant highly drug-resistant viruses were resistant to many of the new compounds in clinical development. In most cases the resistance mutations of the clinical isolate were different from those selected in vitro for the particular experimental compound. CONCLUSIONS: It is critical to expand the preclinical development of new drugs to include the assessment of their activity against currently circulating highly drug-resistant clinical strains, in order to develop appropriate salvage therapies for patients harboring resistant strains.
Authors: J W Mellors; H Z Bazmi; R F Schinazi; B M Roy; Y Hsiou; E Arnold; J Weir; D L Mayers Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: G Tachedjian; D J Hooker; A D Gurusinghe; H Bazmi; N J Deacon; J Mellors; C Birch; J Mills Journal: Virology Date: 1995-09-10 Impact factor: 3.616
Authors: J P Kleim; M Rösner; I Winkler; A Paessens; R Kirsch; Y Hsiou; E Arnold; G Riess Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1996-01-09 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J M Schapiro; M A Winters; F Stewart; B Efron; J Norris; M J Kozal; T C Merigan Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1996-06-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Z Gu; H Salomon; J M Cherrington; A S Mulato; M S Chen; R Yarchoan; A Foli; K M Sogocio; M A Wainberg Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1995-08 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: J P Kleim; R Bender; R Kirsch; C Meichsner; A Paessens; M Rösner; H Rübsamen-Waigmann; R Kaiser; M Wichers; K E Schneweis Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Niko Beerenwinkel; Barbara Schmidt; Hauke Walter; Rolf Kaiser; Thomas Lengauer; Daniel Hoffmann; Klaus Korn; Joachim Selbig Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2002-06-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Masanori Kobayashi; Tomokazu Yoshinaga; Takahiro Seki; Chiaki Wakasa-Morimoto; Kevin W Brown; Robert Ferris; Scott A Foster; Richard J Hazen; Shigeru Miki; Akemi Suyama-Kagitani; Shinobu Kawauchi-Miki; Teruhiko Taishi; Takashi Kawasuji; Brian A Johns; Mark R Underwood; Edward P Garvey; Akihiko Sato; Tamio Fujiwara Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: F Damond; F Brun-Vezinet; S Matheron; G Peytavin; P Campa; S Pueyo; F Mammano; S Lastere; I Farfara; F Simon; G Chene; D Descamps Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: A Hachiya; S Aizawa-Matsuoka; M Tanaka; Y Takahashi; S Ida; H Gatanaga; Y Hirabayashi; A Kojima; M Tatsumi; S Oka Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Daphne Monie; Rachel P Simmons; Richard E Nettles; Tara L Kieffer; Yan Zhou; Haili Zhang; Sharon Karmon; Roxann Ingersoll; Karen Chadwick; Hao Zhang; Joseph B Margolick; Thomas C Quinn; Stuart C Ray; Megan Wind-Rotolo; Michael Miller; Deborah Persaud; Robert F Siliciano Journal: J Virol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 5.103
Authors: Ravikiran S Yedidi; Zhigang Liu; Iulia A Kovari; Patrick M Woster; Ladislau C Kovari Journal: J Mol Graph Model Date: 2013-11-01 Impact factor: 2.518
Authors: Rebecca Rose; Susanna L Lamers; David J Nolan; Ekaterina Maidji; N R Faria; Oliver G Pybus; James J Dollar; Samuel A Maruniak; Andrew C McAvoy; Marco Salemi; Cheryl A Stoddart; Elyse J Singer; Michael S McGrath Journal: J Virol Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 5.103