Next Article in Journal
Geospatial Social Determinants of Health Correlate with Disparities in Syphilis and Congenital Syphilis Cases in California
Next Article in Special Issue
Probe Capture Enrichment Methods for HIV and HCV Genome Sequencing and Drug Resistance Genotyping
Previous Article in Journal
Antimicrobial Resistance and Virulence Characteristics of Klebsiella pneumoniae Isolates in Kenya by Whole-Genome Sequencing
Previous Article in Special Issue
HIV Pretreatment Drug Resistance Trends in Mexico City, 2017–2020
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Pathogens
Volume 11
Issue 5
10.3390/pathogens11050546
pathogens-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Spectrum of Atazanavir-Selected Protease Inhibitor-Resistance Mutations

by
Soo-Yon Rhee
1,*,
Michael Boehm
2,
Olga Tarasova
3,
Giulia Di Teodoro
4,
Ana B. Abecasis
5,
Anders Sönnerborg
6,
Alexander J. Bailey
1,
Dmitry Kireev
7,
Maurizio Zazzi
8,
the EuResist Network Study Group
† and
Robert W. Shafer
1
1
Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
2
Institute of Virology, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital of Cologne, University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany
3
Department of Bioinformatics, Institute of Biomedical Chemistry, 119121 Moscow, Russia
4
Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering Antonio Ruberti, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
5
Global Health and Tropical Medicine, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 1349-008 Lisboa, Portugal
6
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine Huddinge, Karolinska Institute, Huddinge, 14186 Stockholm, Sweden
7
Central Research Institute of Epidemiology, 111123 Moscow, Russia
8
Department of Medical Biotechnologies, University of Siena, 53100 Siena, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Collaborators/Membership of the EuResist Network Study Group is provided in the Supplementary Material.
Pathogens 2022, 11(5), 546; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11050546
Submission received: 23 March 2022 / Revised: 26 April 2022 / Accepted: 3 May 2022 / Published: 5 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Collection Current Research on HIV Drug Resistance)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ritonavir-boosted atazanavir is an option for second-line therapy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We analyzed publicly available HIV-1 protease sequences from previously PI-naïve patients with virological failure (VF) following treatment with atazanavir. Overall, 1497 patient sequences were identified, including 740 reported in 27 published studies and 757 from datasets assembled for this analysis. A total of 63% of patients received boosted atazanavir. A total of 38% had non-subtype B viruses. A total of 264 (18%) sequences had a PI drug-resistance mutation (DRM) defined as having a Stanford HIV Drug Resistance Database mutation penalty score. Among sequences with a DRM, nine major DRMs had a prevalence >5%: I50L (34%), M46I (33%), V82A (22%), L90M (19%), I54V (16%), N88S (10%), M46L (8%), V32I (6%), and I84V (6%). Common accessory DRMs were L33F (21%), Q58E (16%), K20T (14%), G73S (12%), L10F (10%), F53L (10%), K43T (9%), and L24I (6%). A novel nonpolymorphic mutation, L89T occurred in 8.4% of non-subtype B, but in only 0.4% of subtype B sequences. The 264 sequences included 3 (1.1%) interpreted as causing high-level, 14 (5.3%) as causing intermediate, and 27 (10.2%) as causing low-level darunavir resistance. Atazanavir selects for nine major and eight accessory DRMs, and one novel nonpolymorphic mutation occurring primarily in non-B sequences. Atazanavir-selected mutations confer low-levels of darunavir cross resistance. Clinical studies, however, are required to determine the optimal boosted PI to use for second-line and potentially later line therapy in LMICs.

1. Introduction

Ritonavir-boosted atazanavir has become increasingly important as an option for second-line therapy in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1]. Although it appears to have comparable efficacy to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (lopinavir/r) [2,3], there are few data on the mutations arising in patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir compared with the extensive data available for lopinavir/r [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Characterizing the spectrum of mutations arising in patients receiving atazanavir, whether boosted or unboosted, provides an insight into the genetic barrier to atazanavir resistance and into the use of boosted darunavir (darunavir/r) for third line therapy in LMICs.
Therefore, in this paper, we analyze publicly available protease sequences from previously protease inhibitor (PI)-naïve patients with virological failure (VF) on a boosted or unboosted atazanavir-containing regimen. We compare the spectrum of protease mutations observed in patients with subtype B as opposed to non-B viruses, in patients receiving boosted as opposed to unboosted atazanavir, and in patients with early PI resistance (e.g., harboring few PI-associated drug-resistance mutations (DRMs)) with advanced PI resistance (e.g., harboring four or more PI-associated DRMs). We also examine the predicted susceptibility of the different patterns of atazanavir-selected mutations to lopinavir/r and darunavir/r.

2. Results

2.1. Studies

Overall, 1763 protease sequences from 1497 patients reported in 30 studies who received either boosted or unboosted atazanavir as their first PI were available for the analysis (Table 1). These sequences included 773 sequences from 740 patients in 27 studies from Stanford HIV Drug Resistance Database (HIVDB) [13], and previously unpublished sequences, including (i) 741 sequences from 562 patients from the EuResist Integrated Database (EIDB) [14]; (ii) 206 sequences from 152 patients from the Stanford University Hospital (SUH); and (iii) 43 sequences from 43 patients from the RHIVDB [15], a freely accessible database of HIV-1 sequences and clinical data of infected patients. Of the 184 patients with more than 1 sequence, 17 had sequences that differed from one another by one or more DRMs. For these patients, we selected the sequence containing the largest number of PI-associated DRMs. The complete set of 1497 one-per-person HIV-1 group M sequences from persons receiving atazanavir was provided in Table S1.
The 30 studies were published between 2004 and 2021. The median number of patients per study was 12 (IQR: 1–39). The distribution of studies and patients by region included Africa (10 studies; 119 patients), North America (5 studies; 383 patients), Europe (4 studies; 565 patients), Latin America (4 studies; 199 patients), Eastern Europe (3 studies; 55 patients), and Asia (2 studies; 38 patients). Two studies included 138 patients from 1 or more regions.
The median sample year was 2011 (IQR: 2007–2015). Approximately 99% of sequences were obtained from plasma and 1% from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Next-generation sequencing (NGS) was performed in 1 of the 30 studies. The most common subtypes were B (61.9%), C (13.6%), A (6.7%), G (6.1%), 02_AG (4.9%), F (3.1%) and D (1.1%). Of 1497 patients, 62.7% (n = 939) received boosted atazanavir and 37.3% (n = 558) received unboosted atazanavir. A higher proportion of patients with subtype B (70.4% of 927) compared with non-subtype B (50.2% of 570) viruses received boosted (p < 0.001). Table 2 summarizes the numbers of patients according to the administration of atazanavir (boosted vs. unboosted), subtype (B vs. non-subtype B), previous antiretroviral therapy (ART) (naïve vs. experienced), and year of ART initiation.

2.2. Mutation Prevalence

Of the 1497 patients, 264 (17.6%) had 1 or more PI-associated DRMs. Of the 57 HIVDB PI-associated DRMs, 48 occurred in ≥1 patient, 38 in ≥2 patients, and 24 in ≥5 patients. The most commonly occurring major DRMs were I50L (34.1%), M46I (32.6%), V82A (22.3%), L90M (19.3%), I54V (16.3%), N88S (10.2%), M46L (7.6%), V32I (6.4%), and I84V (6.1%) (Table 3). The most common accessory DRMs were L33F (20.8%), Q58E (15.9%), K20T (14.4%), G73S (11.7%), L10F (9.8%), F53L (9.8%), K43T (8.7%), and L24I (6.1%).
Of the 264 sequences with 1 or more PI-associated DRMs, the proportions of the sequences containing 1 DRM, 2–3 DRMs and ≥4 DRMs were 33.7%, 31.4% and 34.9%, respectively. The distribution of DRMs differed according to the total number of DRMs per sequence (Figure 1). Among sequences with a single DRM, the most common major DRMs were I50L, M46I/L, L90M, and N88S, while the most common accessory DRMs were Q58E, K20T, G73S, and L33F. In contrast, among sequences with ≥4 DRMs, the most common major DRMs were M46I/L, V82A, L90M, I54V, I50L, and N88S, while the most common accessory DRMs were unchanged. The major DRMs V32I and I84V occurred in approximately 5% to 6% of sequences regardless of the total number of DRMs.
An additional 197 mutations, previously classified as nonpolymorphic treatment selected mutations (NP-TSMs), occurred in 149 sequences, including in 109 of the 264 sequences containing a PI-associated DRM and 40 of the 1215 sequences without a PI-associated DRM. There were 33 different NP-TSMs of which the most common were L89T (34.9% of 149 sequences), K55R (15.4%), I85V (11.4%), A71I (9.4%), and E34Q (7.4%) (Table S2). These mutations were not classified as DRMs because they do not receive an HIVDB mutation penalty score.

2.3. Unboosted versus Boosted Atazanavir

PI-associated DRMs occurred in 21.0% of 558 patients receiving unboosted atazanavir and 15.7% of 939 patients receiving boosted atazanavir (p = 0.01) (Table 2). However, among patients with a DRM, the median number of DRMs was not significantly greater in those receiving unboosted atazanavir (3 DRMs; IQR: 1–4) compared with boosted atazanavir (2 DRMs; IQR: 1–4; p = 0.1). Of the 48 reported DRMs, I50L was the only DRM that occurred more commonly in patients receiving unboosted as compared with boosted atazanavir (10.4% vs. 3.4%; adjusted p < 0.001).
Sequences from patients receiving unboosted atazanavir were also slightly more likely to have one or more NP-TSMs compared with sequences from patients receiving boosted atazanavir (12.2% of 558 vs. 8.6% of 939; p = 0.03). Each of the 33 reported NP-TSMs occurred in similar proportions in patients receiving unboosted and boosted atazanavir.

2.4. Subtypes

The proportion of sequences containing one or more PI-associated DRMs was similar in subtype B (20.0% of 570) versus non-subtype B (16.2% of 927; p = 0.07) sequences (Table 2). Of the 48 reported PI-associated DRMs, G73S was significantly more common in subtype B (3.1% of 927) than non-subtype B (0.4% of 570; adjusted p = 0.005) sequences. Of the 33 reported NP-TSMs, only L/M89T was significantly more common in non-subtype B than in subtype B sequences (8.4% of 570 vs. 0.4% of 927; adjusted p < 0.001). In subtypes A, C, G, CRF01_AE, and CRF02_AG, the consensus amino acid at position 89 is methionine (M) [41] and 89T requires just a single transition in these subtypes (ATG => ACG). In contrast, changing to 89T requires a one transition plus one transversion change in subtype B (CTN or TTR => ACN).

2.5. ART Experience

Among the 1497 patients receiving atazanavir, 907 (60.6%) were previously ART-naïve and 590 (39.4%) were ART-experienced (Table 2). The proportion of sequences containing one or more PI-associated DRMs was 21.7% in previously ART-experienced patients and 15.0% in previously ART-naïve patients (p = 0.001). Among those with one or more PI-associated DRMs, the number of DRMs was not significantly different in previously ART-experienced patients (median 2 DRMs; IQR: 1–4 DRMs) compared with previously ART-naïve patients (median 3 DRMs; IQR: 1–4 DRMs; p = 0.3).
Among the 907 previously ART-naïve patients, atazanavir was administered with 2 nucleoside RT inhibitors (NRTIs) in 840 (92.6%) patients. Among the remaining 67 patients, the co-administered antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) were not provided for 44 (4.9%), while 23 (2.5%) received a variety of other ARVs.
Among the 590 previously ART-experienced patients, atazanavir was administered with 2 NRTIs in 345 (58.5%) patients. Among the remaining 245 patients, the co-administered ARVs were not provided for 163 (27.6%), while 82 (13.9%) received a variety of other ARVs. Only four patients received atazanavir plus one additional ARV.
The year of ART-initiation was available for 1127 (75.3%) of all patients. The patients could be pooled into four time periods containing approximately equal numbers spanning the years between 1993 and 2018 (Table 2). The proportion of patients with one or more PI-associated DRMs decreased over time (binomial coefficient = −0.26; 95% CI: −0.45 to −0.07; p = 0.007), but the number of DRMs in patients with one or more DRMs did not change.
Using just those patients for whom the year of ART initiation was available, a multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between four factors and the development of a PI-associated DRM. The four factors included the year of ART initiation, subtype (B vs. non-subtype B), the use boosted vs. unboosted atazanavir, and previous ART (naïve vs. experienced). The analysis found that a later year of ART initiation (OR: 0.62; 95%CI: 0.49–0.79; p = 0.0001) and the administration of boosted atazanavir (OR: 0.57; 95%CI: 0.35–0.93; p = 0.02) were associated with a decreased risk of developing a PI-associated DRM.

2.6. Bayesian Network Analysis of Correlated Mutations

We used the 1437 (96%) sequences containing 0 to 4 PI-associated DRMs (i.e., sequences with ≥5 PI-associated DRMs were excluded) to calculate Jaccard similarity coefficients and their standard Z scores for all pairs of DRMs and NP-TSMs. Eleven pairs of mutations comprising six major DRMs (M46I, I50L, I54V, V82A, N88S and L90M), three accessory DRMs (K20T, L33F and G73S), and the NP-TSM L89T participated in one or more significant pairwise correlations (p < 0.01). We then performed a Bayesian network analysis to determine the conditional dependency between the mutations in each of the pairwise correlations (Figure 2).

2.7. Estimated Cross Resistance to LPV/r and DRV/r

Among the 264 sequences with 1 or more PI-associated DRMs, there were 182 distinct DRM patterns, including 124 patterns (164 sequences; 62.1% of 264) interpreted by HIVDB as causing high-level atazanavir resistance, 19 patterns (20 sequences; 7.6% of 264) as causing intermediate atazanavir resistance, and 29 patterns (51 sequences; 19.3% of 264) as causing low- or potential low-level atazanavir resistance. The remaining 10 DRM patterns (n = 29 sequences patterns; 11.0% of 264) consisting primarily of singe accessory DRMs (e.g., K20T, Q58E) were not interpreted as causing reduced atazanavir susceptibility.
A total of 56 distinct DRM patterns (58 sequences; 22.0% of 264) were interpreted as causing high-level lopinavir resistance, 40 patterns (43 sequences; 16.3% of 264) as causing intermediate lopinavir resistance, and 44 patterns (62 sequences; 23.5% of 264) as causing low- or potential low-level lopinavir resistance. A total of 3 distinct DRM patterns (3 sequences; 1.1% of 264) were interpreted as causing high-level darunavir resistance, 14 patterns (14 sequences; 5.3% of 264) as causing intermediate darunavir resistance, and 32 patterns (34 sequences; 12.9% of 264) as causing low- or potential low-level darunavir resistance.

2.8. Virological Failure with Resistance

Five of the thirty studies included participants from three clinical trials and from two clinical cohorts for which genotypic resistance testing was routinely available (Table 1). Together, these five studies included 1037 (69.3%) of all 1497 patients from whom sequences were available. Of these 1037 patients, 63.0% and 37.0% received boosted and unboosted atazanavir, respectively. In these studies, the proportion of sequences containing one or more PI-associated DRMs ranged from 2.9% to 14.5% and the overall proportion of sequences containing one or more PI-associated DRMs in patients receiving boosted and unboosted atazanavir were 7.2% and 13.5%, respectively.

2.9. Studies Not Included in the Analysis

We identified 32 additional studies reporting sequences from 1089 previously PI-naïve patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir-containing regimens (Table S3). Approximately 10% of the sequences in these studies were reported to contain one or more PI-associated DRMs. However, as the sequences were not available and as different mutations were reported in different studies, we did not include the data from these studies in our analysis.

3. Discussion

The spectrum of atazanavir-selected mutations has been largely influenced by data published in the earliest in vitro passage experiments and clinical trials. During in vitro passage experiments with three subtype B clones, the most commonly emerging DRMs were V32I, M46I, I50L, I84V, and N88S [42]. The initial reports of the in vivo selection of PI-associated DRMs, based on the use of unboosted atazanavir in ART-naïve patients, demonstrated that I50L and G73S were the most commonly occurring mutations in patients with VF [24,43]. A few cases of VF and emergent PI-associated DRMs have been reported in the clinical trials of ART-naïve patients receiving boosted atazanavir [16,44], consistent with the hypothesis that PI-resistance mutations develop only in viruses exposed to a narrow window of suboptimal drug concentrations that both exert selective pressure on the virus and allow virus replication [45]. Nonetheless, PI resistance in previously PI-naïve patients receiving lopinavir/r for second-line therapy has increasingly been reported, usually beginning after 12–18 months of therapy [46]. In addition, phenotypic studies have shown that DRMs selected by other PIs confer atazanavir cross resistance particularly when they occur in combination [47,48].
In the years since atazanavir has been introduced, there has been a gradual accumulation of data on the spectrum of mutations emerging in previously PI-naïve patients with VF on an ART-regimen containing boosted and less commonly unboosted atazanavir. In contrast to the earliest clinical trials of boosted atazanavir, these studies included cohorts of patients who were ART experienced at the time atazanavir was administered and who may not have been monitored as closely for VF thus enabling their viruses to evolve for longer period of time under atazanavir selection pressure. Moreover, these studies have included an increasing proportion of sequences from patients with non-subtype B viruses.
Our analysis confirmed that the five major DRMs selected in vitro by atazanavir (V32I, M46I, I50L, I84V, and N88S) were among the most commonly occurring major DRMs. Four additional DRMs also occurred commonly, including M46L, I54V, V82A, and L90M. I50L is a signature atazanavir-associated DRM because it has only been reported in patients receiving atazanavir and it increases susceptibility to PIs other than atazanavir [48,49]. N88S is also considered a signature atazanavir-associated DRM because it is rarely selected by other PIs and it does not significantly reduce susceptibility to other PIs, with the exception of nelfinavir and indinavir [48]. L/M89T may also be a signature atazanavir-associated mutation because it appears to occur more commonly in patients receiving atazanavir than in patients receiving any other PI; for example, it has only been reported in three previously PI-naïve patients receiving lopinavir/r (https://hivdb.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/Mutations.cgi?Gene=PR; accessed on 1 November 2021). In contrast, each of the remaining atazanavir-selected mutations appear to be commonly selected by other PIs, in particular lopinavir/r.
With the exception of L10F and L33F, each of the above 17 most commonly selected major or accessory DRMs was significantly associated with reduced atazanavir susceptibility in a previously published weighted least squares regression analysis of 1644 sequences [48]. Few published phenotypic data are available on sequences containing L89T.
Some limitations of our review should be discussed. First, most of the sequences that we reviewed were obtained from retrospective cohort studies and case series. For these studies, the duration of therapy, accompanying ARVs, frequency of virological monitoring and genotypic resistance testing, and duration of virological failure were generally not available. Therefore, the extent to which these factors were associated with emergent PI-associated DRMs could not be explored. Second, the dataset contained an under-representation of subtypes other than subtype B. Third, we could not be sure that every sequence was obtained from a patient receiving atazanavir as his/her first PI as treatment histories are often incomplete. Nonetheless, we emailed the authors of those studies containing the largest numbers of DRMs and received confirmation that, to the authors’ knowledge, the patients had just received atazanavir. Fourth, at least 32 studies in PubMed that contained sequences from 1000 patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir could not be included in our analysis because the primary sequence data and complete list of protease mutations were not available.
In conclusion, to our knowledge, this is the only comprehensive analysis of atazanavir-selected mutations. Our analysis shows that the spectrum of atazanavir-selected mutations extends beyond those mutations observed in the earliest clinical trials in which patients received either boosted or unboosted atazanavir. The expanded spectrum is likely due to the large number of sequences in our analysis and the likelihood that many of the patients in the studies we reviewed had prolonged VF and ongoing replication while receiving atazanavir. The study also identified one novel nonpolymorphic atazanavir-selected mutation that predominantly occurred in non-subtype B sequences. The relatively low cross-resistance to darunavir/r combined with preliminary data suggests that boosted atazanavir can be an efficacious regimen for second-line therapy. However, comparative clinical trials are required to determine the optimal boosted PI to use for second-line and potentially later-line therapy in LMICs.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Study Selection Criteria

We analyzed publicly available HIV-1 group M protease nucleotide sequences obtained from previously PI-naïve patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir. Sequences were obtained from HIVDB, which is populated with sequences from GenBank annotated with the ART history of the patients from whom the sequences were obtained [13]. The analysis was last updated 31 December 2021. We supplemented the data in HIVDB with previously unpublished sequences performed at SUH and with previously unpublished sequences from two collaborating research groups: the EIDB [14] and the RHIVDB [15]. Additionally, we performed a PubMed search to identify studies describing HIV-1 group M protease sequences that were not present either in HIVDB or GenBank.
Publications reporting eligible protease sequences were reviewed to determine the treatment history of the patient from whom each sequence was obtained to confirm that the patient had received no PI prior to atazanavir and to distinguish those patients receiving unboosted atazanavir from boosted atazanavir. Each sequence was annotated with the year and country of virus isolation, the type of sample (e.g., PBMCs), the sequencing method (Sanger dideoxynucleoside sequencing versus NGS), and the nature of the study population. HIV-1 subtype was determined using the HIVDB subtyping program [50].
We also characterized each study according to whether it included patients in a clinical trial or in a treatment cohort for whom genotypic resistance testing was routinely available for patients with VF as opposed to a case series or case reports for which the indications for genotypic resistance testing were not reported. Studies that performed routine genotypic resistance testing on all patients with VF provide information on how often PI resistance arises in patients receiving atazanavir. In contrast, the remaining studies were considered likely to be enriched for patients with acquired PI resistance.

4.2. Mutations

PI-associated DRMs were defined as those with an HIVDB drug resistance program penalty score for ≥1 PI as of December 31, 2021 [51]. The DRMs included 57 mutations at 24 positions: L10F, K20T, L23I, L24I/F/M, D30N, V32I, L33F, K43T, M46I/L/V, I47A/V, G48A/L/M/Q/S/T/V, I50I/L, F53L, I54A/L/M/S/T/V, Q58E, G73A/C/D/S/T/V, T74P, L76V, V82A/C/F/L/M/S/T, N83D, I84A/C/V, N88D/G/S/T, L89V, and L90M. Major mutations were defined as those with a greater effect on the susceptibility to one or more PIs, an increased occurrence in patients with VF on PI-containing regimens, and a low likelihood of occurring without selective drug pressure. Additional PI-associated NP-TSMs that are not classified as DRMs were also examined [52]. The NP-TSMs included 56 mutations at 31 positions: L10R/Y, V11L, K20A, A22V, L33M, E34D/N/Q/R/V, M36A, L38W, K43I/N/P/Q/S, K45I/Q/V, G48E, G51A, F53I/W/Y, K55R/N, I66F/L/V, C67F/L, A71I/L, I72K/L, G73I/N, T74E, P79N, V82G, N83S, I85V, L89P/T, T91C/S, Q92R, C95F/L/V, and T96S.

4.3. Analyses

The Fisher’s Exact Test was used to compare the proportion of each mutation in sequences from patients receiving boosted versus unboosted atazanavir, from patients who were previously ART-naïve versus ART-experienced, and from patients according to whether they had subtype B versus non-subtype B sequences. The Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test was used to compare the median number of mutations between two groups. The Holm’s method was used to control for the familywise error rate for multiple hypothesis testing [53].
A binomial regression model was used to examine the relationship between the year of ART initiation and the presence or absence of PI-associated DRMs. To assess the association of covariates with the presence or absence of PI-associated DRMs, a multivariate generalized linear mixed logistic regression analysis was performed using the R package lme4. To account for study heterogeneity, study was included in the model as a random effect.
To identify the patterns of covariation among DRMs and NP-TSMs, we calculated Jaccard similarity coefficients and their standard Z scores for all pair of mutations [54]. To capture conditional dependency among the significantly co-occurring mutation pairs, defined as those pairs that had Jaccard similarity coefficient p < 0.01, we constructed a Bayesian network with a hill-climbing search using the R package bnlearn [55] and created a directed edge network graph using the R package visNetwork [56]. To learn the structure of the Bayesian network of core mutations associated with atazanavir, we excluded sequences containing more than four DRMs in this analysis.
For each sequence containing one or more DRMs, we determined the level of predicted resistance to atazanavir and the levels of predicted cross resistance to lopinavir/r and darunavir/r using the HIVDB drug resistance interpretation system.

4.4. Accession Numbers

Sequences in this study had been submitted to GenBank (accession numbers ON058287-ON058987).

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/pathogens11050546/s1, Text S1: The EuResist Network Study Group; Table S1: The complete set of 1497 one-per-person HIV-1 group M protease sequences from persons receiving atazanavir; Table S2: Nonpolymorphic PI treatment-selected mutations (NP-TSMs) occurring in ≥1 sequences from patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir (ATV) as their first PI; Table S3: Studies in PubMed containing sequences from previously PI-naïve patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir (ATV) for which the sequences were not available.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.W.S.; Methodology, S.-Y.R. and R.W.S.; Validation, S.-Y.R., R.W.S. and M.Z.; Formal Analysis, S.-Y.R.; Resources, M.B., O.T., A.B.A., A.S. and D.K.; Data Curation, G.D.T., A.J.B. and S.-Y.R.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.-Y.R. and R.W.S.; Writing—Review and Editing, S.-Y.R., O.T., D.K., A.B.A., M.Z. and R.W.S.; Visualization, S.-Y.R.; Funding Acquisition, R.W.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

S.-Y.R., A.J.B. and R.W.S. were supported in part by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) (award number AI136618). The work of O.T. and D.K. was supported by the Russian Science Foundation Grant No. 19-75-10097. A.B.A. received funding from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through projects PTDC/SAU-INF/31990/2017 (INTEGRIV) and PTDC/SAU-PUB/4018/2021 (MARVEL). G.D.T. was supported by EuResist Network GEIE.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Stanford University review board approved this study (IRB-13900; approved on 30 June 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived by the IRB because the study involved the analysis of anonymized data that had already been collected.

Data Availability Statement

Datasets used in the present study are available in Table 1 and Table S1.

Conflicts of Interest

A.S. received research grants from Gilead Sciences, and personal fees for advisory boards from Gilead Sciences, MSD, and ViiV Healthcare, all outside the present work. M.Z. received research grants from Gilead Sciences, MSD, Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare and personal fees for advisory boards from Gilead Sciences, Janssen-Cilag, MSD, Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare, all outside the present work. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. WHO Consolidated Guidelines on the Use of Antiretroviral Drugs for Treating and Preventing HIV Infection. 2016. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241549684 (accessed on 10 February 2022).
  2. Laker, E.A.O.; Nabaggala, M.S.; Kaimal, A.; Nalwanga, D.; Castelnuovo, B.; Musubire, A.; Kiragga, A.; Lamorde, M.; Ratanshi, R.P. An Observational Study in an Urban Ugandan Clinic Comparing Virological Outcomes of Patients Switched from First-Line Antiretroviral Regimens to Second-Line Regimens Containing Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir or Ritonavir-Boosted Lopinavir. BMC Infect. Dis. 2019, 19, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Engamba, D.C.; Wester, C.W.; Mutinta, M.M.; Kumar, A.P.; Chirwa, B.; Phiri, G.; Sinkala, E.; Kampamba, D.; Mpanji, S.; Mbewe, N.; et al. Predictors of Viral Suppression Following Enhanced Adherence Counseling: VISEND Trial. In Proceedings of the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, Virtual, 12–16 February 2022; p. 490. [Google Scholar]
  4. Barber, T.J.; Harrison, L.; Asboe, D.; Williams, I.; Kirk, S.; Gilson, R.; Bansi, L.; Pillay, D.; Dunn, D.; UK HIV Drug Resistance Database and UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (UK CHIC) Study Steering Committees. Frequency and Patterns of Protease Gene Resistance Mutations in HIV-Infected Patients Treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir as Their First Protease Inhibitor. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 2012, 67, 995–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Van Zyl, G.U.; Liu, T.F.; Claassen, M.; Engelbrecht, S.; de Oliveira, T.; Preiser, W.; Wood, N.T.; Travers, S.; Shafer, R.W. Trends in Genotypic HIV-1 Antiretroviral Resistance between 2006 and 2012 in South African Patients Receiving First- and Second-Line Antiretroviral Treatment Regimens. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e67188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Rawizza, H.E.; Chaplin, B.; Meloni, S.T.; Darin, K.M.; Olaitan, O.; Scarsi, K.K.; Onwuamah, C.K.; Audu, R.A.; Chebu, P.R.; Imade, G.E.; et al. Accumulation of Protease Mutations among Patients Failing Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy and Response to Salvage Therapy in Nigeria. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e73582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Nerrienet, E. HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors Resistance Profiles in Patients with Virological Failure on LPV/r-Based 2nd Line Regimen in Cambodia. J. AIDS Clin. Res. 2013, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Grossman, Z.; Schapiro, J.M.; Levy, I.; Elbirt, D.; Chowers, M.; Riesenberg, K.; Olstein-Pops, K.; Shahar, E.; Istomin, V.; Asher, I.; et al. Comparable Long-Term Efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Similar Drug-Resistance Profiles in Different HIV-1 Subtypes. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Steegen, K.; Bronze, M.; Papathanasopoulos, M.A.; van Zyl, G.; Goedhals, D.; Van Vuuren, C.; Macleod, W.; Sanne, I.; Stevens, W.S.; Carmona, S.C. Prevalence of Antiretroviral Drug Resistance in Patients Who Are Not Responding to Protease Inhibitor-Based Treatment: Results From the First National Survey in South Africa. J. Infect. Dis. 2016, 214, 1826–1830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. De Faria Romero Soldi, G.; Ribeiro, I.C.; Ahagon, C.M.; Coelho, L.P.O.; Cabral, G.B.; Lopes, G.I.S.L.; de Paula Ferreira, J.L.; de Macedo Brígido, L.F.; Salvage Therapy Working Group. Major Drug Resistance Mutations to HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors (PI) among Patients Exposed to PI Class Failing Antiretroviral Therapy in São Paulo State, Brazil. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Thompson, J.A.; Kityo, C.; Dunn, D.; Hoppe, A.; Ndashimye, E.; Hakim, J.; Kambugu, A.; van Oosterhout, J.J.; Arribas, J.; Mugyenyi, P.; et al. Evolution of Protease Inhibitor Resistance in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infected Patients Failing Protease Inhibitor Monotherapy as Second-Line Therapy in Low-Income Countries: An Observational Analysis Within the EARNEST Randomized Trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2019, 68, 1184–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Posada-Céspedes, S.; Van Zyl, G.; Montazeri, H.; Kuipers, J.; Rhee, S.-Y.; Kouyos, R.; Günthard, H.F.; Beerenwinkel, N. Comparing Mutational Pathways to Lopinavir Resistance in HIV-1 Subtypes B versus C. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2021, 17, e1008363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rhee, S.-Y.; Gonzales, M.J.; Kantor, R.; Betts, B.J.; Ravela, J.; Shafer, R.W. Human Immunodeficiency Virus Reverse Transcriptase and Protease Sequence Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31, 298–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. EuResist Network|Research in HIV|HIV Resistance Database. Available online: https://www.euresist.org (accessed on 1 March 2022).
  15. Tarasova, O.; Rudik, A.; Kireev, D.; Poroikov, V. RHIVDB: A Freely Accessible Database of HIV Amino Acid Sequences and Clinical Data of Infected Patients. Front. Genet. 2021, 12, 679029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Mollan, K.; Daar, E.S.; Sax, P.E.; Balamane, M.; Collier, A.C.; Fischl, M.A.; Lalama, C.M.; Bosch, R.J.; Tierney, C.; Katzenstein, D.; et al. HIV-1 Amino Acid Changes among Participants with Virologic Failure: Associations with First-Line Efavirenz or Atazanavir plus Ritonavir and Disease Status. J. Infect. Dis. 2012, 206, 1920–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kantor, R.; Smeaton, L.; Vardhanabhuti, S.; Hudelson, S.E.; Wallis, C.L.; Tripathy, S.; Morgado, M.G.; Saravanan, S.; Balakrishnan, P.; Reitsma, M.; et al. Pretreatment HIV Drug Resistance and HIV-1 Subtype C Are Independently Associated with Virologic Failure: Results from the Multinational PEARLS (ACTG A5175) Clinical Trial. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2015, 60, 1541–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Lennox, J.L.; Landovitz, R.J.; Ribaudo, H.J.; Ofotokun, I.; Na, L.H.; Godfrey, C.; Kuritzkes, D.R.; Sagar, M.; Brown, T.T.; Cohn, S.E.; et al. Efficacy and Tolerability of 3 Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor-Sparing Antiretroviral Regimens for Treatment-Naive Volunteers Infected with HIV-1: A Randomized, Controlled Equivalence Trial. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014, 161, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Kouamou, V.; Manasa, J.; Katzenstein, D.; McGregor, A.M.; Ndhlovu, C.E.; Makadzange, A.T. Drug Resistance and Optimizing Dolutegravir Regimens for Adolescents and Young Adults Failing Antiretroviral Therapy. AIDS 2019, 33, 1729–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. De Carvalho Lima, E.N.; Lima, R.S.A.; Piqueira, J.R.C.; Sucupira, M.C.; Camargo, M.; Galinskas, J.; Diaz, R.S. Evidence of Genomic Information and Structural Restrictions of HIV-1 PR and RT Gene Regions from Individuals Experiencing Antiretroviral Virologic Failure. Infect. Genet. Evol. 2020, 78, 104134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Acharya, A.; Vaniawala, S.; Shah, P.; Misra, R.N.; Wani, M.; Mukhopadhyaya, P.N. Development, Validation and Clinical Evaluation of a Low Cost in-House HIV-1 Drug Resistance Genotyping Assay for Indian Patients. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Ndashimye, E.; Avino, M.; Kyeyune, F.; Nankya, I.; Gibson, R.M.; Nabulime, E.; Poon, A.F.Y.; Kityo, C.; Mugyenyi, P.; Quiñones-Mateu, M.E.; et al. Absence of HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations Supports the Use of Dolutegravir in Uganda. AIDS Res. Hum. Retrovir. 2018, 34, 404–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gulick, R.M.; Ribaudo, H.J.; Shikuma, C.M.; Lustgarten, S.; Squires, K.E.; Meyer, W.A.; Acosta, E.P.; Schackman, B.R.; Pilcher, C.D.; Murphy, R.L.; et al. Triple-Nucleoside Regimens versus Efavirenz-Containing Regimens for the Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2004, 350, 1850–1861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Colonno, R.; Rose, R.; McLaren, C.; Thiry, A.; Parkin, N.; Friborg, J. Identification of I50L as the Signature Atazanavir (ATV)-Resistance Mutation in Treatment-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients Receiving ATV-Containing Regimens. J. Infect. Dis. 2004, 189, 1802–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Chimukangara, B.; Varyani, B.; Shamu, T.; Mutsvangwa, J.; Manasa, J.; White, E.; Chimbetete, C.; Luethy, R.; Katzenstein, D. HIV Drug Resistance Testing among Patients Failing Second Line Antiretroviral Therapy. Comparison of in-House and Commercial Sequencing. J. Virol. Methods 2017, 243, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Makwaga, O.; Adhiambo, M.; Mulama, D.H.; Muoma, J.; Adungo, F.; Wanjiku, H.; Ongaya, A.; Maitha, G.M.; Mwau, M. Prevalence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 Drug-Resistant Mutations among Adults on First- and Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy in a Resource-Limited Health Facility in Busia County, Kenya. Pan Afr. Med. J. 2020, 37, 311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. De Sa-Filho, D.J.; da Silva Soares, M.; Candido, V.; Gagliani, L.H.; Cavaliere, E.; Diaz, R.S.; Caseiro, M.M. HIV Type 1 Pol Gene Diversity and Antiretroviral Drug Resistance Mutations in Santos, Brazil. AIDS Res. Hum. Retrovir. 2008, 24, 347–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Kolomeets, A.N.; Varghese, V.; Lemey, P.; Bobkova, M.R.; Shafer, R.W. A Uniquely Prevalent Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor Resistance Mutation in Russian Subtype A HIV-1 Viruses. AIDS 2014, 28, F1–F8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Alves, B.M.; Siqueira, J.D.; Prellwitz, I.M.; Botelho, O.M.; Da Hora, V.P.; Sanabani, S.; Recordon-Pinson, P.; Fleury, H.; Soares, E.A.; Soares, M.A. Estimating HIV-1 Genetic Diversity in Brazil through Next-Generation Sequencing. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, M.H.; Song, J.E.; Ahn, J.Y.; Kim, Y.C.; Oh, D.H.; Choi, H.; Ann, H.W.; Kim, J.K.; Kim, S.B.; Jeong, S.J.; et al. HIV Antiretroviral Resistance Mutations among Antiretroviral Treatment-Naive and -Experienced Patients in South Korea. AIDS Res. Hum. Retrovir. 2013, 29, 1617–1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Karkashadze, E.; Dvali, N.; Bolokadze, N.; Sharvadze, L.; Gabunia, P.; Karchava, M.; Tchelidze, T.; Tsertsvadze, T.; DeHovitz, J.; Del Rio, C.; et al. Epidemiology of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Drug Resistance in HIV Patients with Virologic Failure of First-Line Therapy in the Country of Georgia. J. Med. Virol. 2019, 91, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Armenia, D.; Bouba, Y.; Gagliardini, R.; Gori, C.; Bertoli, A.; Borghi, V.; Gennari, W.; Micheli, V.; Callegaro, A.P.; Gazzola, L.; et al. Evaluation of Virological Response and Resistance Profile in HIV-1 Infected Patients Starting a First-Line Integrase Inhibitor-Based Regimen in Clinical Settings. J. Clin. Virol. 2020, 130, 104534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. El-Khatib, Z.; Ekstrom, A.M.; Ledwaba, J.; Mohapi, L.; Laher, F.; Karstaedt, A.; Charalambous, S.; Petzold, M.; Katzenstein, D.; Morris, L. Viremia and Drug Resistance among HIV-1 Patients on Antiretroviral Treatment: A Cross-Sectional Study in Soweto, South Africa. AIDS 2010, 24, 1679–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hoffmann, C.J.; Ledwaba, J.; Li, J.-F.; Johnston, V.; Hunt, G.; Fielding, K.L.; Chaisson, R.E.; Churchyard, G.J.; Grant, A.D.; Johnson, J.A.; et al. Resistance to Tenofovir-Based Regimens during Treatment Failure of Subtype C HIV-1 in South Africa. Antivir. Ther. 2013, 18, 915–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Mziray, S.R.; Kumburu, H.H.; Assey, H.B.; Sonda, T.B.; Mahande, M.J.; Msuya, S.E.; Kiwelu, I.E. Patterns of Acquired HIV-1 Drug Resistance Mutations and Predictors of Virological Failure in Moshi, Northern Tanzania. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Neogi, U.; Engelbrecht, S.; Claassen, M.; Jacobs, G.B.; van Zyl, G.; Preiser, W.; Sonnerborg, A. Mutational Heterogeneity in P6 Gag Late Assembly (L) Domains in HIV-1 Subtype C Viruses from South Africa. AIDS Res. Hum. Retrovir. 2016, 32, 80–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Riddler, S.A.; Haubrich, R.; DiRienzo, A.G.; Peeples, L.; Powderly, W.G.; Klingman, K.L.; Garren, K.W.; George, T.; Rooney, J.F.; Brizz, B.; et al. Class-Sparing Regimens for Initial Treatment of HIV-1 Infection. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 2095–2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Rosen-Zvi, M.; Altmann, A.; Prosperi, M.; Aharoni, E.; Neuvirth, H.; Sönnerborg, A.; Schülter, E.; Struck, D.; Peres, Y.; Incardona, F.; et al. Selecting Anti-HIV Therapies Based on a Variety of Genomic and Clinical Factors. Bioinformatics 2008, 24, i399–i406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Svärd, J.; Mugusi, S.; Mloka, D.; Neogi, U.; Meini, G.; Mugusi, F.; Incardona, F.; Zazzi, M.; Sönnerborg, A. Drug Resistance Testing through Remote Genotyping and Predicted Treatment Options in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infected Tanzanian Subjects Failing First or Second Line Antiretroviral Therapy. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0178942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Vergani, B.; Cicero, M.L.; Vigano’, O.; Sirianni, F.; Ferramosca, S.; Vitiello, P.; Di Vincenzo, P.; Pia De Pasquale, M.; Galli, M.; Rusconi, S. Evolution of the HIV-1 Protease Region in Heavily Pretreated HIV-1 Infected Patients Receiving Atazanavir. J. Clin. Virol. 2008, 41, 154–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Abecasis, A.B.; Deforche, K.; Snoeck, J.; Bacheler, L.T.; McKenna, P.; Carvalho, A.P.; Gomes, P.; Camacho, R.J.; Vandamme, A.-M. Protease Mutation M89I/V Is Linked to Therapy Failure in Patients Infected with the HIV-1 Non-B Subtypes C, F or G. AIDS 2005, 19, 1799–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gong, Y.F.; Robinson, B.S.; Rose, R.E.; Deminie, C.; Spicer, T.P.; Stock, D.; Colonno, R.J.; Lin, P.F. In Vitro Resistance Profile of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Protease Inhibitor BMS-232632. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 2319–2326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Malan, D.R.N.; Krantz, E.; David, N.; Yang, R.; Mathew, M.; Iloeje, U.H.; Su, J.; McGrath, D.; 089 Stuy Group. 96-Week Efficacy and Safety of Atazanavir, with and without Ritonavir, in a HAART Regimen in Treatment-Naive Patients. J. Int. Assoc. Physicians AIDS Care 2010, 9, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Molina, J.-M.; Andrade-Villanueva, J.; Echevarria, J.; Chetchotisakd, P.; Corral, J.; David, N.; Moyle, G.; Mancini, M.; Percival, L.; Yang, R.; et al. Once-Daily Atazanavir/Ritonavir versus Twice-Daily Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Each in Combination with Tenofovir and Emtricitabine, for Management of Antiretroviral-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients: 48 Week Efficacy and Safety Results of the CASTLE Study. Lancet 2008, 372, 646–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rosenbloom, D.I.S.; Hill, A.L.; Rabi, S.A.; Siliciano, R.F.; Nowak, M.A. Antiretroviral Dynamics Determines HIV Evolution and Predicts Therapy Outcome. Nat. Med. 2012, 18, 1378–1385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Stockdale, A.J.; Saunders, M.J.; Boyd, M.A.; Bonnett, L.J.; Johnston, V.; Wandeler, G.; Schoffelen, A.F.; Ciaffi, L.; Stafford, K.; Collier, A.C.; et al. Effectiveness of Protease Inhibitor/Nucleos(t)Ide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor-Based Second-Line Antiretroviral Therapy for the Treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2018, 66, 1846–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Colonno, R.J.; Thiry, A.; Limoli, K.; Parkin, N. Activities of Atazanavir (BMS-232632) against a Large Panel of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Clinical Isolates Resistant to One or More Approved Protease Inhibitors. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 1324–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Rhee, S.-Y.; Taylor, J.; Fessel, W.J.; Kaufman, D.; Towner, W.; Troia, P.; Ruane, P.; Hellinger, J.; Shirvani, V.; Zolopa, A.; et al. HIV-1 Protease Mutations and Protease Inhibitor Cross-Resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2010, 54, 4253–4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Yanchunas, J.; Langley, D.R.; Tao, L.; Rose, R.E.; Friborg, J.; Colonno, R.J.; Doyle, M.L. Molecular Basis for Increased Susceptibility of Isolates with Atazanavir Resistance-Conferring Substitution I50L to Other Protease Inhibitors. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2005, 49, 3825–3832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Rhee, S.-Y.; Shafer, R.W. Geographically-Stratified HIV-1 Group M Pol Subtype and Circulating Recombinant Form Sequences. Sci. Data 2018, 5, 180148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Stanford HIV Drug Resistance Database HIV Drug Resistance Database. Available online: https://hivdb.stanford.edu/pages/documentPage/PI_mutationClassification.html (accessed on 2 March 2022).
  52. Rhee, S.-Y.; Sankaran, K.; Varghese, V.; Winters, M.A.; Hurt, C.B.; Eron, J.J.; Parkin, N.; Holmes, S.P.; Holodniy, M.; Shafer, R.W. HIV-1 Protease, Reverse Transcriptase, and Integrase Variation. J. Virol. 2016, 90, 6058–6070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Holm, S. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scand. J. Stat. 1979, 6, 65–70. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rhee, S.-Y.; Liu, T.F.; Holmes, S.P.; Shafer, R.W. HIV-1 Subtype B Protease and Reverse Transcriptase Amino Acid Covariation. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2007, 3, e87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Scutari, M. Learning Bayesian Networks with the Bnlearn R Package. J. Stat. Soft. 2010, 35, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Almende, B.V.; Benoit, T.; Titouan, R. VisNetwork: Network Visualization Using “vis.Js” Library. Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=visNetwork (accessed on 2 March 2022).
Pathogens 11 00546 g001 550
Figure 1. Prevalence of PI-associated drug-resistance mutations (DRMs) in 264 sequences containing 1 or more DRMs from previously PI-naïve patients receiving a boosted or unboosted atazanavir-containing regimen. The distribution of DRMs is plotted separately according to the number of PI-associated DRMs in the sequence: (A) 1 DRM, (B) 2 to 3 DRMs, and (C) ≥4 DRMs. The DRMs shown are those occurring in ≥5% of the sequences, including 9 major DRMs indicated in red and 8 accessory DRMs indicated in yellow.
Figure 1. Prevalence of PI-associated drug-resistance mutations (DRMs) in 264 sequences containing 1 or more DRMs from previously PI-naïve patients receiving a boosted or unboosted atazanavir-containing regimen. The distribution of DRMs is plotted separately according to the number of PI-associated DRMs in the sequence: (A) 1 DRM, (B) 2 to 3 DRMs, and (C) ≥4 DRMs. The DRMs shown are those occurring in ≥5% of the sequences, including 9 major DRMs indicated in red and 8 accessory DRMs indicated in yellow.
Pathogens 11 00546 g001
Pathogens 11 00546 g002 550
Figure 2. Bayesian network analysis of positively correlated mutation pairs with a hill-climbing search. The Bayesian network analysis yielded 11 mutation pairs, including 6 major DRMs (red), 3 accessory DRMs (yellow), and an additional nonpolymorphic treatment-selected mutation (light blue) with a significant Jaccard correlation coefficient (p < 0.01). The thickness of the arrows indicates the strength of the probabilistic relationship of the two mutations. The direction of the probabilistic causation is shown with an arrowhead. For the direction between V82A and I54V for which the probabilistic causation is not greater than the probabilistic causation of the opposite direction by 0.1, the arrowhead is not shown.
Figure 2. Bayesian network analysis of positively correlated mutation pairs with a hill-climbing search. The Bayesian network analysis yielded 11 mutation pairs, including 6 major DRMs (red), 3 accessory DRMs (yellow), and an additional nonpolymorphic treatment-selected mutation (light blue) with a significant Jaccard correlation coefficient (p < 0.01). The thickness of the arrows indicates the strength of the probabilistic relationship of the two mutations. The direction of the probabilistic causation is shown with an arrowhead. For the direction between V82A and I54V for which the probabilistic causation is not greater than the probabilistic causation of the opposite direction by 0.1, the arrowhead is not shown.
Pathogens 11 00546 g002
Table
Table 1. Studies containing publicly available sequences from previously PI-naïve patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir (ATV).
Table 1. Studies containing publicly available sequences from previously PI-naïve patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir (ATV).
AuthorYrStudy Type#
Total ATV		#
bATV		#
ATV		%
DRMs 1		Median YearCountrySubtypes
(%) 2
Large clinical trials and cohorts for which genotypic resistance testing was routinely available at virological failure
EuResist Network [14]Cohort56228627610.32012EuropeB (57.8), G (16.2), 02_AG (12)
Stanford University HospitalCohort152142109.22010U.S.B (96.7)
Mollan12 [16]ACTG A520213713705.82006U.S.B (97.1)
Kantor15 [17]ACTG A5175117199814.52006Multi-continentsC (55.6), B (41.9)
Lennox14 [18]ACTG A5257696902.92010U.S.B (97.1)
Case series and cohorts for which genotypic resistance testing may not have been routinely available at virological failure
Soldi19 [10]Cohort149816830.22015BrazilB (75.8), F (12.8)
Tarasova21 [15]Cohort43162737.22017RussiaA (90.7)
Kouamou19 [19]Cohort4040012.52017ZimbabweC (100)
de Carvalho Lima20 [20]Cohort3728954.12010BrazilB (81.1), F (16.2)
Acharya14 [21]Cohort3535048.62013IndiaC (80), A (20)
Ndashimye18 [22]Cohort3333042.42016UgandaA (57.6), D (24.2), B (15.2)
Gulick04 [23]ACTG A5095241238.32003U.S.B (100)
Colonno04 [24]Case series from clinical trials 3210211002000Multi-continentsB (71.4), C (28.6)
Chimukangara16 [25]Cohort1717029.42015ZimbabweC (100)
Posada Cespedes21 [12]Cohort13767.72015South AfricaC (100)
Makwaga20 [26]Cohort1111036.42020KenyaA (63.6), B (18.2), D (18.2)
de Sa Filho08 [27]Cohort1082802006BrazilB (80), F (20)
Kolomeets14 [28]Cohort10010302012RussiaA (70), 02_AG (30)
Alves19 [29]Cohort32102017BrazilC (66.7), B (33.3)
Kim13 [30]Cohort31233.32011KoreaB (100)
Karkashadze19 [31]Cohort2021002015Republic Of GeorgiaA (50), B (50)
Armenia20 [32]Cohort11002012ItalyB (100)
El-Khatib10 [33]Cohort1101002008South AfricaC (100)
Hoffmann13 [34]Cohort10102010South AfricaC (100)
Mziray20 [35]Cohort11002018TanzaniaC (100)
Neogi16 [36]Cohort10102013South AfricaC (100)
Riddler08 [37]ACTG A514211002004U.S.D (100)
Rosen-Zvi08 [38]Cohort11002006GermanyB (100)
Svard17 [39]Cohort11002013TanzaniaA (100)
Vergani08 [40]Cohort10102006ItalyB (100)
Footnotes: 1 DRMs were defined as those with a Stanford HIV drug resistance program penalty score for ≥1 PI. 2 Subtypes with ≥10% sequences were listed. 3 Colonno04 contained sequences from previously PI-naïve patients with virological failure with resistance on ATV-containing regimens in three clinical trial, AI424-007/041, AI424-008/044, and AI424-034. Additional notes: All studies used the Sanger dideoxynucleoside sequencing method, except for Alves19 in which next-generation sequencing was used; samples from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were used in Alves19, Makwaga20, and Mziray20, and from both PBMC and plasma in Kim13. In the remaining studies, plasma was used. Abbreviation: b-ATV—boosted atazanavir.
Table
Table 2. Proportion of patients with PI-associated drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and median number of DRMs per patient according to ART history and HIV-1 subtype.
Table 2. Proportion of patients with PI-associated drug resistance mutations (DRMs) and median number of DRMs per patient according to ART history and HIV-1 subtype.
# Patients,
(% of Total;
n = 1437)		# Patients
with ≥1 DRMs 1,
(% of Row Total)		Median # DRMs in
Patients with ≥1 DRM (IQR)
Unboosted vs. boosted
Unboosted558 (37.3)117 (21.0)3.0 (1.0–4.0)
Boosted939 (62.7) 147 (15.7)2.0 (1.0–4.0)
Subtype B vs. non-subtype B
Subtype B570 (38.1) 150 (16.2)3.0 (1.0–4.0)
Non-subtype B927 (61.9) 114 (20.0)3.0 (1.0–4.0)
ART-naïve vs. ART-experienced
ART-naïve907 (60.6)136 (15.0)3.0 (1.0–4.0)
ART-experienced590 (39.4) 128 (21.7)2.0 (1.0–4.0)
Year of ART initiation2
1993–2004134 (11.9) 24 (17.9)2.0 (1.0–2.1)
2005–2006 362 (32.1) 44 (12.1)1.0 (1.0–2.4)
2007–2009 316 (28.0) 26 (8.2)2.0 (1.0–2.8)
2010–2018315 (28.0) 29 (9.2)2.0 (1.0–2.3)
Footnotes: 1 DRMs were defined as those with an HIVDB drug resistance program penalty score for ≥1 PI. 2 Patients with available year of ART initiation (n = 1127) were grouped into four time periods containing approximately equal numbers of patients.
Table
Table 3. Drug resistance mutations (DRMs) occurring in ≥1 sequences from patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir as their first PI.
Table 3. Drug resistance mutations (DRMs) occurring in ≥1 sequences from patients receiving boosted or unboosted atazanavir as their first PI.
DRM 1Classification 2% in the 264 Patients with a PI-Associated DRMMedian # Co-Occurring DRMs (IQR)
I50LMajor34.12 (0.2–3)
M46IMajor32.63 (2–5)
V82AMajor22.34 (3–5)
L90MMajor19.33 (2–4.5)
I54VMajor16.34 (3–5)
N88SMajor10.23 (2–4)
M46LMajor7.63 (2–4)
V32IMajor6.43 (2–5)
I84VMajor6.13 (2–5)
I54LMajor4.23 (3–4.5)
G48VMajor3.43 (2–3)
I47VMajor2.75 (4.5–7)
I50VMajor2.34 (3–5)
L76VMajor2.35.5 (4.2–6)
I47AMajor1.53.5 (2–5)
V82MMajor1.52 (1.7–3)
V82TMajor1.54.5 (3.5–5.5)
D30NMajor1.14 (3.5–7)
G48AMajor1.16 (4.5–6.5)
V82FMajor1.16 (5–6.5)
V82LMajor1.13 (1.5–4.5)
I54AMajor0.83.5 (3.2–3.7)
V82SMajor0.83 (3–3)
G48MMajor0.42 (2–2)
I54MMajor0.45 (5–5)
I54SMajor0.42 (2–2)
I54TMajor0.42 (2–2)
V82CMajor0.44 (4–4)
N88TMajor0.43 (3–3)
L33FAccessory20.84 (2–5)
Q58EAccessory15.93 (1–5)
K20TAccessory14.42 (1–4)
G73SAccessory11.73 (1–4)
L10FAccessory9.84 (2–5)
F53LAccessory9.83.5 (2–5)
K43TAccessory8.74 (2–5)
L24IAccessory6.14 (2–4.2)
L23IAccessory4.23 (1.5–4.5)
T74PAccessory33 (2–4)
G73TAccessory1.53.5 (2.7–4.5)
L89VAccessory1.53.5 (2–5.2)
N83DAccessory1.13 (3–4)
N88DAccessory1.13 (2.5–6.5)
G73CAccessory0.83.5 (2.2–4.7)
L24FAccessory0.40 (0–0)
M46VAccessory0.42 (2–2)
G73AAccessory0.46 (6–6)
G73VAccessory0.48 (8–8)
1 DRMs were defined as those with a Stanford HIVDB drug resistance program penalty score for ≥1 PI. 2 See the method for DRM classification.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rhee, S.-Y.; Boehm, M.; Tarasova, O.; Di Teodoro, G.; Abecasis, A.B.; Sönnerborg, A.; Bailey, A.J.; Kireev, D.; Zazzi, M.; the EuResist Network Study Group; et al. Spectrum of Atazanavir-Selected Protease Inhibitor-Resistance Mutations. Pathogens 2022, 11, 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11050546

AMA Style

Rhee S-Y, Boehm M, Tarasova O, Di Teodoro G, Abecasis AB, Sönnerborg A, Bailey AJ, Kireev D, Zazzi M, the EuResist Network Study Group, et al. Spectrum of Atazanavir-Selected Protease Inhibitor-Resistance Mutations. Pathogens. 2022; 11(5):546. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11050546

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rhee, Soo-Yon, Michael Boehm, Olga Tarasova, Giulia Di Teodoro, Ana B. Abecasis, Anders Sönnerborg, Alexander J. Bailey, Dmitry Kireev, Maurizio Zazzi, the EuResist Network Study Group, and et al. 2022. "Spectrum of Atazanavir-Selected Protease Inhibitor-Resistance Mutations" Pathogens 11, no. 5: 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11050546

APA Style

Rhee, S. -Y., Boehm, M., Tarasova, O., Di Teodoro, G., Abecasis, A. B., Sönnerborg, A., Bailey, A. J., Kireev, D., Zazzi, M., the EuResist Network Study Group, & Shafer, R. W. (2022). Spectrum of Atazanavir-Selected Protease Inhibitor-Resistance Mutations. Pathogens, 11(5), 546. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11050546

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop