Preserving future therapeutic options: should we limit the lamivudine use in young HIV-1 infected children initiating first-line HAART?

Frange, Pierrea,b; Chaix, Marie-Laureb,c; Blanche, Stephanea,b

doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835a99f1
Author Information

aUnité d’Immunologie, Hématologie et Rhumatologie pédiatriques, AP-HP, Hôpital Necker – Enfants malades

bEA3620, Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité

cLaboratoire de Virologie, AP-HP, Hôpital Necker-Enfants malades, Paris, France.

Correspondence to Pierre Frange, Unité d’Immunologie, hématologie et rhumatologie pédiatriques, Hôpital Necker – Enfants maladies, 149 rue de Sèvres, Paris, France. E-mail:

Received 26 June, 2012

Revised 17 September, 2012

Accepted 20 September, 2012

Article Outline

In resourced settings with access to HAART, perinatally acquired HIV-1 infection has become a chronic disease with increasing numbers of adolescents surviving to adulthood. However, attaining long-term good therapeutic adherence and viral suppression remains a challenge in children, whose overall rate of virologic failure is over two-times higher than in adults, even in high resource countries [1,2]. Suboptimum virologic suppression might lead to the emergence of drug-resistant viruses, the consequences of which are particularly important for children who will need antiretrovirals (ART) for longer period than adults.

Sigaloff et al.[1] have recently described that the M184V mutation was the most frequent nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-resistance-associated mutation after failure of first-line HAART in children living in resource-poor regions. Restricting the analysis to children treated with a first-line lamivudine (3TC)-based regimen, the frequency of M184V/I mutation was reported in 55.6–100.0% of virologic failure in previous HIV-1 drug resistance studies, as summarized in Table 1[3–17]. Similar frequencies of M184V/I mutation were reported in resource-poor and high-income countries, and whatever the type of ART combination used: three NRTI, two NRTI + one non-NRTI (NNRTI), two NRTI + one protease inhibitor, two NRTI + one protease inhibitor with ritonavir (PI/r). This mutation was often selected a few weeks after the onset of the virologic failure: M184V/I was detected in 36.6–88.9% of virologic failure in the first 6 months after the initiation of the treatment [4,8,10,12]. This rapid selection of M184V/I reflects the low-genetic barrier of 3TC and differs from what is usually observed for the thymidine analog mutations (TAMs), which required prolonged viral replication to be selected in case of zidovudine (ZDV) or stavudine (D4T)-based therapy. These findings will have major consequences on the future therapeutic options in children. Indeed, all the antiviral fixed coformulations, which are now available or currently in development to treat HIV-infected adolescents and adults, include emtricitabine (FTC) or 3TC, and cannot be fully active in case of M184V/I mutation. Limited data in adults with virologic failure have suggested that continuation of 3TC could contribute to decrease the HIV replication despite the presence of 3TC-resistance mutations [18–20]. However, this potential benefit was not seen in the prospective randomized COLATE trial, which found that continuing (versus discontinuing) 3TC in a new treatment combination after failure of a 3TC-containing regimen does not provide additional virologic or immunological benefit in case of M184V/I mutation [21]. Moreover, as strongly recommended in the American, European and French pediatric guidelines, a combination of three fully active drugs should be preferred in case of virologic failure [22–24]. Thus, the only strategy to ensure future access to fully active fixed combined ART during adolescence and adulthood should be a preferred 3TC-sparing first-line HAART in children, as many of them will experience a virologic failure during early infancy.

These findings should influence the choice of first-line NRTI backbone in HIV-1 infected young children. According to the PENTA 5 randomized trial [25,26], the PENTA 2009 guidelines recommend preferring 3TC+abacavir (ABC) as first-line NRTI backbone [23]. On the contrary, the WHO and American guidelines consider as alternative preferred regimens NRTI backbones which all include 3TC or FTC [22,27]. However, the studies comparing the virologic and immunological efficacies of different NRTI combinations are sparse in HIV-infected adults and children [25,26,28], except the recent reports comparing TDF+FTC and 3TC+ABC, whose results could not influence therapeutic strategies in young children because TDF is not licensed in this population. The only pediatric trial comparing several NRTI backbones was the PENTA 5 study, which suggested the virologic superiority of 3TC+ABC over ZDV+ABC and ZDV+3TC. However, the included children received two NRTI with nelfinavir (NFV) or a placebo, and no similar trial has been performed with a currently recommended first-line regimen in children, that is, a HAART including a NNRTI or a PI/r (lopinavir/ritonavir or atazanavir/ritonavir). Thus, we cannot exclude that ZDV+ABC could be at less equally potent than 3TC+ABC in combination with a NNRTI or a PI/r in young children.

Advantages and disadvantages of the three main nucleoside backbones available in young children are summarized in Table 2. All of them are available as palatable liquid formulations. Moreover, coformulated pills are available for ZDV+3TC and 3TC+ABC combinations, but the acceptability of such formulations is usually poor under the age of 6–7 years. For this population, no liquid coformulation has been licensed and the three NRTI backbones harbor similar acceptability.

The three main nucleoside combinations seem to have similar rates of toxicity, although large prospective trials comparing their toxicity profiles in young children remain sparse. In a large retrospective study of 2233 perinatally infected children, Van Dyke et al.[29] concluded that ZDV-based backbones had less toxicity than D4T-based regimens, with a similar toxicity profile of the D4T+3TC, D4T+didanosine (DDI) and DDI+3TC combinations. However, the small number of patients receiving ABC in this PACTG 219C study prevented their inclusion in the safety analysis. In the only prospective pediatric study comparing the safety of the ZDV+3TC, ABC+3TC and ZDV+ABC combinations, no major difference between the three regimens was reported [25,26]. To summarize, although additional prospective studies are needed to fully define the toxicity profile of these backbones when used in combination with a NNRTI or a PI/r, published data suggested similar safety profiles of these regimens in young children, except the risk of hypersensitivity reaction to ABC in case of HLA genotype B*5701, which is rarely found in African-originated patients.

To conclude, further randomized studies are needed to compare ZDV+3TC-based, ZDV+ABC-based and 3TC+ABC-based HAART in ART-naïve HIV-1 infected young children. To date, there is no compelling evidence for the superiority of one of these combinations concerning the virologic response, the immunological efficacy, the formulation and the safety profile. However, because the risk of virologic failure is dramatically high in young children and lead to the frequent and rapid selection of the M184V/I mutation in case of 3TC-based first-line regimen, no fixed antiviral coformulation – all of them containing 3TC or FTC – will be fully active throughout the life of many children after an early episode of virologic failure. Thus, we suggest to include the ZDV+ABC combination in preferred NRTI backbones in this population, as currently recommended in the French guidelines [24]. Such regimen, which avoids an early use of 3TC/FTC, will preserve a wide choice of future therapeutic options in perinatally HIV-1 infected children.

Back to Top | Article Outline


P.F., S.B. and M.L.C. have contributed to the report's conception, have read, reviewed and approved the article.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Conflicts of interest

Conflict of interests and source of funding: P.F. received grants from French National Agency for Research on AIDS and viral hepatitis (ANRS) (to his institution) and from SIDACTION, payment for development of educational presentation from BMS and travel supports from MSD. MLC received travel supports from ViiV Healthcare. S.B. received consulting fee from Boehringer (expertise on Pediatric tipranavir) and payments from Pfizer (French coordination of trial A4001031) and Tibotec (participation to the trial DIONE TMC114C232).

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Sigaloff KCE, Calis JCJ, Geelen SP, van Vugt M, Rinke de Wit TF. HIV-1-resistance-associated mutations after failure of first-line antiretroviral treatment among children in resource-poor regions: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 2011; 11:769–779.
2. Pursuit Later Treatment Options II (PLATO II) project team for the Collaboration of Observational HIV Epidemiological Research Europe (COHERE); Castro H, Judd A, Gibb DM, Butler K, Lodwick RK. Risk of triple-class failure in children with HIV: a retrospective cohort study.Lancet 2011; 377:1580–1587.
3. Gibb DM, Walker AS, Kaye S, De Rossi A, Ait-Khaled M, Pillay D, et al. Evolution of antiretroviral phenotypic and genotypic drug resistance in antiretroviral-naïve HIV-1-infected children treated with abacavir/lamivudine, zidovudine/lamivudine or abacavir/zidovudine, with or without nelfinavir (the PENTA 5 trial). Antivir Ther 2002; 7:293–303.
4. Lihana RW, Lwembe RM, Bi X, Ochieng W, Panikulam A, Palakudy T, et al. Efficient monitoring of HIV-1 vertically infected children in Kenya on first-line antiretroviral therapy. J Clin Virol 2011; 52:123–128.
5. Fokam J, Salpini R, Santoro MM, Cento V, Perno CF, Colizzi V, et al. Drug resistance among drug-naive and first-line antiretroviral treatment-failing children in Cameroon. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:1062–1068.
6. Puthanakit T, Jourdain G, Hongsiriwon S, Suntarattiwong P, Chokephaibulkit K, Sirisanthana V, et al. HIV-1 drug resistance mutations in children after failure of first-line nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy. HIV Med 2010; 11:565–572.
7. Jittamala P, Puthanakit T, Chaiinseeard S, Sirisanthana V. Predictors of virologic failure and genotypic resistance mutation patterns in Thai children receiving non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor–based antiretroviral therapy. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2009; 28:826–830.
8. Taylor BS, Hunt G, Abrams EJ, Coovadia A, Meyers T, Sherman G, et al. Rapid development of antiretroviral drug resistance mutations in HIV-infected children less than two years of age initiating protease inhibitor-based therapy in South Africa. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2011; 27:945–956.
9. Barth RE, Tempelman HA, Smelt E, Wensing AMJ, Hoepelman AI, Geelen SP. Long-term outcome of children receiving antiretroviral treatment in rural South Africa. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:52–56.
10. Germanaud D, Derache A, Traore M, Madec Y, Toure S, Dicko F, et al. Level of viral load and antiretroviral resistance after 6 months of nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor first-line treatment in HIV-1-infected children in Mali. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65:118–124.
11. Vaz P, Chaix ML, Jani I, Macassa E, Bila D, Vubil A, et al. Risk of extended viral resistance in human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected Mozambican children after first-line treatment failure. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2009; 28:283–287.
12. Ruel TD, Kamya MR, Li P, Pasutti W, Charlebois ED, Liegler TL, et al. Early virological failure and the development of antiretroviral drug resistance mutations in HIV-infected Ugandan children. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 56:44–50.
13. Frange P, Briand N, Avettand-Fenoel V, Veber F, Moshous D, Mahlaoui N, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus-type 1-infected naive children: rare protease inhibitor resistance mutations but high lamivudine/emtricitabine resistance at the time of virologic failure. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2011; 30:684–688.
14. Janssens B, Raleigh B, Soeung S, Akao K, Te V, Gupta J, et al. Effectiveness of highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-positive children: evaluation at 12 months in a routine program in Cambodia. Pediatrics 2007; 120:e1134–e1140.
15. Gody JC, Charpentier C, Mbitikon O, Si-Mohamed A, LeGoff J, Gresenguet G, et al. High prevalence of antiretroviral drug resistance mutations in HIV-1 non-B subtype strains from African children receiving antiretroviral therapy regimen according to the 2006 revised WHO recommendations. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008; 49:566–569.
16. Chaix ML, Rouet F, Kouakoussui KA, Laguide R, Fassinou P, Montcho P, et al. Genotypic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance in highly active antiretroviral therapy-treated children in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2005; 24:1072–1076.
17. Gupta RK, Ford D, Mulenga V, Walker AS, Kabamba D, Kalumbi M, et al. Drug resistance in human immunodeficiency virus type-1 infected Zambian children using adult fixed combination stavudine, lamivudine, and nevirapine. Pediatr Infect Dis J 2010; 29:e57–e62.
18. Campbell TB, Shulman NS, Johnson SC, Zolopa AR, Young RK, Bushman L, et al. Antiviral activity of lamivudine in salvage therapy for multidrug-resistant HIV-1 infection. Clin Infect Dis 2005; 41:236–242.
19. Nijhuis M, Schuurman R, de Jong D, van Leeuwen R, Lange J, Danner S, et al. Lamivudine-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 variants (184 V) require multiple amino acid changes to become co-resistant to zidovudine in vivo. J Infect Dis 1997; 176:398–405.
20. Ross L, Parkin N, Chappey C, Fisher R, Clair MS, Bates M, et al. Phenotypic impact of HIV reverse transcriptase M184I/V mutations in combination with single thymidine analog mutations on nucleoside reverse trancriptase inhibitor resistance. AIDS 2004; 18:1691–1696.
21. Fox Z, Dragsted UB, Gerstoft J, Phillips AN, Kjaer J, Mathiesen L, et al. A randomized trial to evaluate continuation versus discontinuation of lamivudine in individuals failing a lamivudine-containing regimen: the COLATE trial. Antivir Ther 2006; 11:761–770.
22. Panel on Antiretroviral therapy and medical management of HIV-infected children. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in pediatric infection 2011. pp. 1–268. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
23. Welsh S, Sharland M, Lyall EG, Tudor-Williams G, Niehues T, Wintergerst U, et al. PENTA Steering CommitteePENTA 2009 guidelines for the use of antiretroviral therapy in paediatric HIV-1 infection. HIV Med 2009; 10:591–613.
24. Groupe d’experts sous la direction de Patrick Yeni. Rapport 2010 sur la prise en charge médicale des personnes infectées par le VIH. http:// [Accessed 17 September 2012].
25. Paediatric European Network for the Treatment of AIDS (PENTA); Green H, Gibb DM, Walker AS, Pillay D, Butler K, Candeias G, et al. Comparison of dual nucleoside-analogue reverse-transcriptase inhibitor regimens with and without nelfinavir in children with HIV-1 who have not previously been treated: the PENTA 5 randomised trial.Lancet 2002; 359:733–740.
26. Green H, Gibb DM, Walker AS, Pillay D, Butler K, et al. Lamivudine/abacavir maintains virological superiority over zidovudine/lamivudine and zidovudine/abacavir beyond 5 years in children. AIDS 2007; 21:947–955.
27. WHO. Antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection in infants and children: towards universal access. Recommendations for a public health approach. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010. [Accessed 17 September 2012].
28. DeJesus E, Herrera G, Teofilo E, Gersthoft J, Buendia CB, Brand JD, et al. Abacavir versus zidovudine combined with lamivudine and efavirenz, for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected adults. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:1038–1046.
29. Van Dyke RB, Wang L, Williams PL. Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group 219C TeamToxicities associated with dual nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor regimens in HIV-infected children. J Infect Dis 2008; 198:1599–1608.

antiretroviral-naive children; first-line HAART; HIV-1; lamivudine

© 2013 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.