Emtricitabine 
              May Lead to Less Resistance than Related Drug Lamivudine
              
              
              By 
                Liz Highleyman
                
                Emtricitabine and 
                lamivudine are 
                structurally related and have demonstrated similar efficacy in 
                clinical trials, so many clinicians consider them more or less 
                interchange. 
              Emtricitabine 
                is an ingredient in the Truvada 
                (tenofovir/emtricitabine) and Atripla 
                (tenofovir/emtricitabine) combination pills, while lamivudine 
                is included in the Epzicom 
                (lamivudine/abacavir), Combivir 
                (zidovudine/lamivudine), and Trizivir 
                (zidovudine/lamivudine/abacavir) coformulations.
                
                Valentina Svicher from the University of Rome and colleagues performed 
                a study comparing genotypic resistance profiles for emtricitabine 
                plus tenofovir and lamivudine plus tenofovir, both in vivo and 
                in vitro.
                
                The researchers analyzed a total of 352 HIV-1 subtype B pol gene 
                sequences from 42 patients taking emtricitabine/tenofovir, 40 
                people taking lamivudine/tenofovir, and 270 patients taking lamivudine 
                plus a NRTI other than tenofovir. All participants were taking 
                emtricitabine, lamivudine, and tenofovir for the first time and 
                experienced treatment failure, defined as 2 consecutive viral 
                load measurements < 50 copies/mL.
                
                Results
              
                 
                  |  | The 
                    key NRTI resistance mutation M184V was significantly less 
                    common among patients treated with emtricitabine/tenofovir 
                    (14.3%) compared with those receiving either lamivudine/tenofovir 
                    (40.0%) or lamivudine plus another NRTI (55.6%). | 
                 
                  |  | In 
                    a multivariate analysis, factors significantly associated 
                    with a lower probability of M184V emergence at the time of 
                    treatment failure were: | 
                 
                  |  | 
                       
                        |  | Use 
                          of emtricitabine rather than lamivudine: odds ratio 
                          (OR) 0.32, or 68% reduction in risk; |   
                        |  | Use 
                          of a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor: OR 0.20, 
                          or 80% reduction; |   
                        |  | Use 
                          of tenofovir versus another second NRTI: OR 0.47, or 
                          53% reduction. |  | 
                 
                  |  | Laboratory 
                    phenotypic testing showed that emtricitabine/tenofovir was 
                    significantly more likely than lamivudine/tenofovir to clear 
                    HIV in cell cultues. | 
                 
                  |  | Emtricitabine/tenofovir 
                    was found to have a higher "barrier to resistance" 
                    compared with lamivudine/tenofovir. | 
                 
                  |  | However, 
                    in vitro selection experiments and docking analysis 
                    showed that other reverse transcriptase (RT) mutations could 
                    be selected by both lamivudine/tenofovir and emtricitabine/tenofovir 
                    in the absence of M184V. | 
              
              Based 
                on these findings, the study authors concluded, "Our study 
                shows lower rates of M184V development in emtricitabine/tenofovir 
                regimens versus lamivudine/tenofovir and suggests a potential 
                role of boosted protease inhibitors and tenofovir in delaying 
                the M184V emergence."
                
                "The lower prevalence of M184V can be explained by the higher 
                potency" of emtricitabine compared with lamivudine, they 
                added.
                
                "Novel RT mutational patterns, more complex than currently 
                known, can contribute to lamivudine, emtricitabine, and tenofovir 
                resistance," they wrote. Understanding these patterns "is 
                crucial to maximize the opportunity for successful and subsequent 
                therapies after viral rebound, not only in western countries but 
                also in resource-limited settings."
                
                Investigator affiliations: Department of Experimental Medicine, 
                University of Rome "Tor Vergata," Rome, Italy; Department 
                of Pharmacobiological Sciences, University of Catanzaro "Magna 
                Graecia," Roccelletta di Borgia, Italy; I.N.M.I. "L. 
                Spallanzani," Rome, Italy; Department of Microbiology and 
                Immunology, Rega Institute for Medical Research, Katholieke Universiteit 
                Leuven, Belgium.
                
                10/8/10
              Reference
                V 
                Svicher, C Alteri, A Artese, and others. Different Evolution of 
                Genotypic Resistance Profiles to Emtricitabine Versus Lamivudine 
                in Tenofovir-Containing Regimens. Journal of Acquired Immune 
                Deficiency Syndromes (Abstract). 
                August 24, 2010 (Epub ahead of print).