Dose-response curve slope sets class-specific limits on inhibitory potential of anti-HIV drugs

Article metrics

Abstract

Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) can control HIV-1 replication1,2, but suboptimal treatment allows for the evolution of resistance and rebound viremia3,4,5,6,7,8. A comparative measure of antiviral activity under clinically relevant conditions would guide drug development and the selection of regimens that maximally suppress replication. Here we show that current measures of antiviral activity, including IC50 and inhibitory quotient, neglect a key dimension, the dose-response curve slope. Using infectivity assays with wide dynamic range, we show that this slope has noteworthy effects on antiviral activity. Slope values are class specific for antiviral drugs and define intrinsic limitations on antiviral activity for some classes. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and integrase inhibitors have slopes of 1, characteristic of noncooperative reactions, whereas non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, protease inhibitors and fusion inhibitors unexpectedly show slopes >1. Instantaneous inhibitory potential (IIP), the log reduction in single-round infectivity at clinical drug concentrations, is strongly influenced by slope and varies by >8 logs for anti-HIV drugs. IIP provides a more accurate measure of antiviral activity and in general correlates with clinical outcomes. Only agents with slopes >1 achieve high-level inhibition of single-round infectivity, a finding with profound implications for drug and vaccine development.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Effect of slope (m) on dose-response curves of antiretroviral drugs.
Figure 2: Measurement of IC50, m and IIP.
Figure 3: Comparison of indices used to describe antiviral activity for five classes of anti–HIV-1 drugs.
Figure 4: Correlation of IIP with clinical outcome.

References

  1. 1

    Gulick, R.M. et al. Treatment with indinavir, zidovudine and lamivudine in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection and prior antiretroviral therapy. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 734–739 (1997).

  2. 2

    Hammer, S.M. et al. A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 cell counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. AIDS Clinical Trials Group 320 Study Team. N. Engl. J. Med. 337, 725–733 (1997).

  3. 3

    Ho, D.D. et al. Rapid turnover of plasma virions and CD4 lymphocytes in HIV-1 infection. Nature 373, 123–126 (1995).

  4. 4

    Wei, X. et al. Viral dynamics in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Nature 373, 117–122 (1995).

  5. 5

    Preston, B.D., Poiesz, B.J. & Loeb, L.A. Fidelity of HIV-1 reverse transcriptase. Science 242, 1168–1171 (1988).

  6. 6

    Roberts, J.D., Bebenek, K. & Kunkel, T.A. The accuracy of reverse transcriptase from HIV-1. Science 242, 1171–1173 (1988).

  7. 7

    Larder, B.A., Darby, G. & Richman, D.D. HIV with reduced sensitivity to zidovudine (AZT) isolated during prolonged therapy. Science 243, 1731–1734 (1989).

  8. 8

    Coffin, J.M. HIV population dynamics in vivo: implications for genetic variation, pathogenesis, and therapy. Science 267, 483–489 (1995).

  9. 9

    Chou, T.C. Derivation and properties of Michaelis-Menten type and Hill type equations for reference ligands. J. Theor. Biol. 59, 253–276 (1976).

  10. 10

    Chou, T.C. & Talalay, P. Quantitative analysis of dose-effect relationships: the combined effects of multiple drugs or enzyme inhibitors. Adv. Enzyme Regul. 22, 27–55 (1984).

  11. 11

    Hill, A.V. The possible effects of the aggregation of the molecules of haemoglobin on its dissociation curves. J. Physiol. (Lond.) 40, iv–vii (1910).

  12. 12

    Hoefnagel, J.G., Koopmans, P.P., Burger, D.M., Schuurman, R. & Galama, J.M. Role of the inhibitory quotient in HIV therapy. Antivir. Ther. 10, 879–892 (2005).

  13. 13

    Morse, G.D., Catanzaro, L.M. & Acosta, E.P. Clinical pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: use of inhibitory quotients to optimise pharmacotherapy. Lancet Infect. Dis. 6, 215–225 (2006).

  14. 14

    Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adult and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. AIDSinfo http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf (2008).

  15. 15

    Zhang, H. et al. Novel single-cell–level phenotypic assay for residual drug susceptibility and reduced replication capacity of drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J. Virol. 78, 1718–1729 (2004).

  16. 16

    McMahon, M.A. et al. The HBV drug entecavir—effects on HIV-1 replication and resistance. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 2614–2621 (2007).

  17. 17

    Ferguson, N.M., Fraser, C. & Anderson, R.M. Viral dynamics and anti-viral pharmacodynamics: rethinking in vitro measures of drug potency. Trends Pharmacol. Sci. 22, 97–100 (2001).

  18. 18

    Acosta, E.P., Gerber, J.G. & Kuritzkes, D.R. in Antiretroviral Pharmacokinetics, Resistance Testing and Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (eds. Libman, H. & Makadon, H.J.) 115–136 (American College of Physicians Therapy Series: HIV, Philadelphia, 2007).

  19. 19

    Bartlett, J.G. & Gallant, J.E. in 2007 Medical Management of HIV Infection 510 (Johns Hopkins Medicine Health Publishing Business Group, Baltimore, MD, 2007).

  20. 20

    Madruga, J.V. et al. Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir compared with that of lopinavir-ritonavir at 48 weeks in treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients in TITAN: a randomised controlled phase 3 trial. Lancet 370, 49–58 (2007).

  21. 21

    Clotet, B. et al. Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials. Lancet 369, 1169–1178 (2007).

  22. 22

    Ortiz, R. et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1–infected patients at week 48. AIDS (in the press).

  23. 23

    Sedaghat, A.R., Dinoso, J.B., Shen, L., Wilke, C.O. & Siliciano, R.F. Decay dynamics of HIV-1 depend on the inhibited stages of the viral life cycle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 4832–4837 (2008).

  24. 24

    Weiss, J.N. The Hill equation revisited: uses and misuses. FASEB J. 11, 835–841 (1997).

  25. 25

    Hoffman, A. & Goldberg, A. The relationship between receptor-effector unit heterogeneity and the shape of the concentration-effect profile: pharmacodynamic implications. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 22, 449–468 (1994).

  26. 26

    Ambrose, Z., Julias, J.G., Boyer, P.L., Kewalramani, V.N. & Hughes, S.H. The level of reverse transcriptase (RT) in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 particles affects susceptibility to nonnucleoside RT inhibitors but not to lamivudine. J. Virol. 80, 2578–2581 (2006).

  27. 27

    Pommier, Y., Johnson, A.A. & Marchand, C. Integrase inhibitors to treat HIV/AIDS. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 4, 236–248 (2005).

  28. 28

    Pandey, K.K. et al. Inhibition of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 concerted integration by strand transfer inhibitors which recognize a transient structural intermediate. J. Virol. 81, 12189–12199 (2007).

  29. 29

    Talal, A.H. et al. Pharmacodynamics of PEG-IFN-α differentiate HIV/HCV coinfected sustained virological responders from nonresponders. Hepatology 43, 943–953 (2006).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank healthy blood donors for their participation. We thank the AIDS Research and Reference Reagent Program of the US National Institutes of Health and Merck for providing anti–HIV-1 drugs. We thank C. Flexner, A. Mildvan, J. Gallant, G. Lucas, J. Cofrancesco, J. Bartlett, D. Hazuda and R. Moore for helpful discussions and critical review of the manuscript. This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health grants AI43222 and AI51178, by the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation and by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

Author information

L.S. and R.F.S. designed the experiments. L.S. conducted the experiments. S.P., M.A.M., M.C., H.Z., Y.Z. and E.P. contributed to the development of the single-round infectivity assay. L.S., A.R.S. and R.F.S. conducted the data analysis. E.P.A. provided pharmacokinetic data used in the analysis. K.S.A. provided reagents used in the experiments. All of the authors contributed to the manuscript preparation. R.F.S. supervised the project.

Correspondence to Robert F Siliciano.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Text and Figures

Supplementary Figs.1 and 2, Supplementary Table 1 and Supplementary Notes (PDF 199 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading