HIV type-1 drug resistance in treatment-naive patients monitored using minority species assays: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Centre for Infections, Health Protection Agency, London, UK. Antiviral therapy
(Impact Factor: 3.02).
01/2011; 16(1):9-16. DOI: 10.3851/IMP1687
The detection of mutations associated with drug resistance in HIV type-1 might be increased by applying minority species assays capable of identifying low frequency mutations in comparison with the use of population sequencing alone. Because minority species assays are mutation-specific, the benefit of this approach differs depending on the mutation being detected.
We performed a systematic review of published data reporting detection of genotypic drug resistance using allele-specific (AS)-PCR minority assays and by standard DNA sequencing in drug-naive populations. We calculated the fold increase of mutation detection for each study and pooled these via meta-analysis, displaying results using Forest plots.
Our studies revealed an increase in detection of 1.9-fold (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.3-2.7; P < 0.0005) for K103N, 4.4-fold (95% CI 1.2-16.6; P = 0.026) for Y181C, 4.8-fold (95% CI 1.5-15.1; P = 0.008) for L90M and 8.7-fold (95% CI 4.0-18.6; P < 0.0005) for M184V. We found no relationship between AS-PCR assay sensitivity and frequency of additional mutation detection.
Additional detection of drug resistance mutations using AS-PCR minority mutation assays vary significantly depending on the mutation examined; however, the most marked increase in detection of resistance mutations was observed for M184V, a mutation seldom detected by standard techniques in drug-naive patients. We suggest that the presence of drug resistance mutations can be more accurately estimated using a combination of AS-PCR and standard genotyping.
Available from: Dimitrios Paraskevis
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The European HIV Drug Resistance Guidelines Panel, established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists, felt that sufficient new information has become available to warrant an update of its recommendations, explained in both pocket guidelines and this full paper. The Panel makes the following recommendations concerning the indications for resistance testing: for HIV-1 (i) test earliest sample for protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance in drug-naive patients with acute or chronic infection; (ii) test protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance at virologic failure, and other drug targets (integrase and envelope) if such drugs were part of the failing regimen; (iii) consider testing for CCR5 tropism at virologic failure or when a change of therapy has to be made in absence of detectable viral load, and in the latter case test DNA or last detectable plasma RNA; (iv) consider testing earliest detectable plasma RNA when a successful nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing therapy was inappropriately interrupted; (v) genotype source patient when postexposure prophylaxis is considered; for HIV-2, (vi) consider resistance testing where treatment change is needed after treatment failure. The Panel recommends genotyping in most situations, using updated and clinically evaluated interpretation systems. It is mandatory that laboratories performing HIV resistance tests take part regularly in external quality assurance programs, and that they consider storing samples in situations where resistance testing cannot be performed as recommended. Similarly, it is necessary that HIV clinicians and virologists take part in continuous education and discuss problematic clinical cases. Indeed, resistance test results should be used in the context of all other clinically relevant information for predicting therapy response.
AIDS reviews 01/2011; 13(2):77-108. · 3.79 Impact Factor
Available from: Lemonia Skoura
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the contribution of transmission clusters to transmitted drug resistance (TDR) in newly diagnosed antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients in Northern Greece during 2000-07.
The prevalence of TDR was estimated in 369 individuals who were diagnosed with HIV-1 infection in the period 2000-07 at the National AIDS Reference Laboratory of Northern Greece. Phylogenetic analysis was performed using a maximum likelihood method on partial pol sequences. TDR was defined in accordance with the surveillance drug resistance mutation list (2009 update).
The overall prevalence of TDR in our population was 12.5% [46/369, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.1%-15.8%], comprising 7.6% (28/369) resistant to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, 5.4% (20/369) resistant to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and 3.3% (12/369) resistant to protease inhibitors. Dual class resistance was identified in 3.8% (14/369). Infection with subtype A was the sole predictor associated with TDR in multivariate analysis (odds ratio 2.15, 95% CI 1.10-4.19, P = 0.025). Phylogenetic analyses revealed three statistically robust transmission clusters involving drug-resistant strains, including one cluster of 12 patients, 10 of whom were infected with a strain carrying both T215 revertants and Y181C mutations.
Our findings underline the substantial impact of transmission networks on TDR in our population.
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy 09/2011; 66(12):2831-7. DOI:10.1093/jac/dkr386 · 5.31 Impact Factor
Available from: Giuliano Rizzardini
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: 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.
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.
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.
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.
The Journal of Infectious Diseases 02/2012; 205(4):557-67. DOI:10.1093/infdis/jir821 · 6.00 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.