Hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation during immunosuppression can lead to severe acute hepatitis, fulminant liver failure, and death. Here, we investigated hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) genetic features underlying this phenomenon by analyzing 93 patients: 29 developing HBV reactivation and 64 consecutive patients with chronic HBV infection (as control). HBsAg genetic diversity was analyzed by population‐based and ultradeep sequencing (UDS). Before HBV reactivation, 51.7% of patients were isolated hepatitis B core antibody (anti‐HBc) positive, 31.0% inactive carriers, 6.9% anti‐HBc/anti‐HBs (hepatitis B surface antibody) positive, 6.9% isolated anti‐HBs positive, and 3.4% had an overt HBV infection. Of HBV‐reactivated patients, 51.7% were treated with rituximab, 34.5% with different chemotherapeutics, and 13.8% with corticosteroids only for inflammatory diseases. In total, 75.9% of HBV‐reactivated patients (vs. 3.1% of control patients; P < 0.001) carried HBsAg mutations localized in immune‐active HBsAg regions. Of the 13 HBsAg mutations found in these patients, 8 of 13 (M103I‐L109I‐T118K‐P120A‐Y134H‐S143L‐D144E‐S171F) reside in a major hydrophilic loop (target of neutralizing antibodies [Abs]); some of them are already known to hamper HBsAg recognition by humoral response. The remaining five (C48G‐V96A‐L175S‐G185E‐V190A) are localized in class I/II–restricted T‐cell epitopes, suggesting a role in HBV escape from T‐cell‐mediated responses. By UDS, these mutations occurred in HBV‐reactivated patients with a median intrapatient prevalence of 73.3% (range, 27.6%‐100%) supporting their fixation in the viral population as a predominant species. In control patients carrying such mutations, their median intrapatient prevalence was 4.6% (range, 2.5%‐11.3%; P < 0.001). Finally, additional N‐linked glycosylation (NLG) sites within the major hydrophilic loop were found in 24.1% of HBV‐reactivated patients (vs. 0% of chronic patients; P < 0.001); 5 of 7 patients carrying these sites remained HBsAg negative despite HBV reactivation. NLG can mask immunogenic epitopes, abrogating HBsAg recognition by Abs. Conclusion: HBV reactivation occurs in a wide variety of clinical settings requiring immune‐suppressive therapy, and correlates with HBsAg mutations endowed with enhanced capability to evade immune response. This highlights the need for careful patient monitoring in all immunosuppressive settings at reactivation risk and of establishing a prompt therapy to prevent HBV‐related clinical complications. (Hepatology 2015;61:823–833)

Background. We evaluated reliability and clinical usefulness of genotypic resistance testing (GRT) in patients for whom combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) was unsuccessful with viremia levels 50–1000 copies/mL, for whom GRT is generally not recommended by current guidelines.

Background. The dynamics of raltegravir-resistant variants and their impact on virologic response in 23 HIV-1–infected patients, who started a salvage raltegravir-containing regimen, were investigated. Methods. Integrase population sequencing and Ultra-Deep-454 Pyrosequencing (UDPS) were performed on plasma samples at baseline and at raltegravir failure. All integrase mutations detected at a frequency ≥1% were considered to be reliable for the UDPS analyses. Phylogenetic and phenotypic resistance analyses were also performed. Results. At baseline, primary resistance mutations were not detected by both population and UDPS genotypic assays; few secondary mutations (T97A-V151I-G163R) were rarely detected and did not show any statistically association either with virologic response at 24-weeks or with the development of resistant variants at failure. At UDPS, not all resistant variants appearing early during treatment evolved as major populations during failure; only specific resistance pathways (Y143R-Q148H/R-N155H) associated with an increased rate of fitness and phenotypic resistance were selected. Conclusions. Resistance to raltegravir in integrase strand transfer inhibitor–naive patients remains today a rare event, which might be changed by future extensive use of such drugs. In our study, pathways of resistance at failure were not predicted by baseline mutations, suggesting that evolution plus stochastic selection plays a major role in the appearance of integrase-resistance mutations, whereas fitness and resistance are dominant factors acting for the late selection of resistant quasispecies.

This review highlights recent data on the pathways of resistance that impact the clinical activity of first-generation and second-generation integrase inhibitors. Raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG) are highly efficacious in first-line antiretroviral therapy, with small numbers of virological failures observed in clinical trials. Durable activity in treatment-experienced patients requires a fully supportive background regimen. RAL and EVG show a low-to-moderate genetic barrier to resistance and extensive cross-resistance, which preclude their sequential use. Resistance to dolutegravir (DTG) is not selected as readily in vitro and has not emerged in studies of treatment-naïve patients to date. Both in vitro and in vivo, DTG retains activity against several RAL and EVG resistant strains, but susceptibility is variably impaired by multiple mutations within the G148 pathway, which are common after RAL or EVG failure. Cross-resistance can be partially overcome by doubling DTG dosing to twice daily, but durability of responses remains dependent on a supportive background regimen. There is variability in the integrase gene of circulating HIV strains, which does not appear to reduce drug activity, although it may influence the emergence and evolution of integrase resistance. Transmission of integrase resistance remains rare but surveillance is required. Integrase inhibitors provide a potent option for the treatment of HIV infection. Drug resistance remains a challenge, which may be partially overcome by the introduction of second-generation compounds. Prompt management of RAL and EVG failure is required to prevent the accumulation of multiple resistance mutations that reduce DTG susceptibility.

The goal of this study was to explore the presence of integrase strand transfer inhibitor (InSTI) resistance mutations in HIV-1 quasispecies present in InSTI-naïve patients and to evaluate theirin vitroeffects on phenotypic susceptibility to InSTIs and their replication capacities. The RT-RNase H-IN region was PCR amplified from plasma viral RNA obtained from 49 HIV-1 subtype B-infected patients (21 drug naïve and 28 failing highly active antiretroviral therapy [HAART] not containing InSTIs) and recombined with an HXB2-based backbone with RT and IN deleted. Recombinant viruses were tested against raltegravir and elvitegravir and for replication capacity. Three-hundred forty-four recombinant viruses from 49 patients were successfully analyzed both phenotypically and genotypically. The majority of clones were not phenotypically resistant to InSTIs: 0/344 clones showed raltegravir resistance, and only 3 (0.87%) showed low-level elvitegravir resistance. No primary resistance mutations for raltegravir and elvitegravir were found as major or minor species. The majority of secondary mutations were also absent or rarely present. Secondary mutations, such as T97A and G140S, found rarely and only as minority quasispecies, were present in the elvitegravir-resistant clones. A novel mutation, E92G, although rarely found in minority quasispecies, showed elvitegravir resistance. Preexisting genotypic and phenotypic raltegravir resistance was extremely rare in InSTI-naïve patients and confined to only a restricted minority of secondary variants. Overall, these results, together with others based on population and ultradeep sequencing, suggest that at this point IN genotyping in all patients before raltegravir treatment may not be cost-effective and should not be recommended until evidence of transmitted drug resistance to InSTIs or the clinical relevance of IN minor variants/polymorphisms is determined.

Most of the previous studies that explored the molecular basis of raltegravir resistance were conducted studying the HIV-1 B subtype. It has been shown that the CRF02_AG subtype in relation to its natural integrase (IN) sequence could develop different genetic pathways associated with raltegravir resistance. The aim of this study was to explore resistance pathways preferably used by CRF02_AG viruses compared with subtype B. Twenty-five HIV-1 CRF02_AG-infected patients failing a raltegravir-containing regimen were studied. IN gene sequences were examined for the presence of previously described IN inhibitor (raltegravir, elvitegravir, dolutegravir and MK-2048) resistance mutations at 20 amino acid positions. Among the 25 studied patients, 7 showed viruses harbouring major raltegravir resistance mutations mainly associated with the 155 genetic pathways and 18 showed viruses harbouring none of them; however, for 1 patient, we found a 118R mutation, associated with MK-2048 in vitro resistance, in a 74M background. For this patient, the phenotypic analysis showed that addition of only the G118R mutation conferred a high level of resistance to raltegravir (fold change = 25.5) and elvitegravir (fold change = 9.2). This study confirmed that mutation pathways for raltegravir resistance could be different between the two subtypes CRF02_AG and B with a preferential use of the 155 mutation in non-B subtypes. A new genetic pathway associated with raltegravir resistance, including the 118R mutation, has also been identified. This new genetic pathway, never described in subtype B, should be further evaluated for phenotypic susceptibility to dolutegravir and MK-2048.