Article

[Short term benefit of genotype resistance testing].

Medicina Clínica (Impact Factor: 1.4). 03/2001; 116(5):199.
Source: PubMed
0 Bookmarks
 · 
47 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Growing evidence has linked HIV-1 resistance mutations and drug failure. The use of genotypic-resistance analysis to assist therapeutic decision-making in patients failing therapy has not been investigated. We assessed the virological and immunological impact of genotypic-resistance testing. We did a prospective, open, randomised, controlled study of HIV-1-infected patients in whom combination therapy was not successful. We randomly assigned patients standard care (control, n=43) or treatment according to the resistance mutations in protease and reverse-transcriptase genes (genotypic group, n=65). The major endpoint was the change in HIV-1 RNA viral load. Analysis was by intention to treat. 108 patients were enrolled. All patients were similar for risk factors, age, sex, previous treatment, CD4-cell count (214/microL [SD14]) and log HIV-1 RNA viral load at baseline (4.7 copies/mL [0.1]). At month 3, the mean change in HIV-1 RNA was -1.04 log (0.14) in the study group compared with -0.46 log (0.17) in the control group (mean difference 0.58 log [95% CI 0.14-1.02], p=0.01). At month 6, changes were -1.15 (0.15) log copies/mL, and -0.67 (0.19) log copies/mL in the genotypic group and the control group, respectively (mean difference 0.48 log [0.01-0.97], p=0.05). Difference in the drop in viral load combined at 3 months and 6 months was significant (p=0.015). At month 3, HIV-1 RNA was lower than detection level (200 copies/mL) in 29% (19/65) of patients in the genotypic group versus 14% (6/43) in the control group (p=0.017). At month 6, the values were 32% (21/65) and 14% (6/43) (p=0.067) for the genotypic group and the control group, respectively. Therapy was generally well tolerated, with ten patients (six in the genotypic group, four in the control group) requiring toxic-effect-related drug modification. We found genotypic-resistance testing to have a significant benefit on the virological response when choosing a therapeutic alternative. Further study of the use of genotypic-resistance testing in assisting clinical decision-making is warranted.
    The Lancet 07/1999; 353(9171):2195-9. · 39.21 Impact Factor
  • Medicina Clínica 11/2000; 115(11):428-30. · 1.40 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Assays for drug resistance testing in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection are now available and clinical studies suggest that viral drug resistance is correlated with poor virologic response to new therapy. The International AIDS Society-USA sought to update prior recommendations to provide guidance for clinicians regarding indications for HIV-1 resistance testing. An International AIDS Society-USA 13-member physician panel with expertise in basic science, clinical research, and patient care involving HIV resistance to antiretroviral drugs was reconvened to provide recommendations for the clinical use of drug resistance testing. EVIDENCE AND CONSENSUS PROCESS: The full panel met regularly between January and October 1999. Resistance and resistance testing data appearing in the last decade through April 2000 and presentations at national and international research conferences were reviewed. Recommendations and considerations were developed by 100% group consensus, acknowledging that definitive data to support final recommendations are not yet available. Emerging data indicate that despite limitations, resistance testing should be incorporated into patient management in some settings. Resistance testing is recommended to help guide the choice of new regimens after treatment failure and for guiding therapy for pregnant women. It should be considered in treatment-naive patients with established infection, but cannot be firmly recommended in this setting. Testing also should be considered prior to initiating therapy in patients with acute HIV infection, although therapy should not be delayed pending the results. Expert interpretation is recommended given the complexity of results and assay limitations.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 06/2000; 283(18):2417-26. · 29.98 Impact Factor