Comparison of algorithms that interpret genotypic HIV-1 drug resistance to determine the prevalence of transmitted drug resistance

University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California 92093-0679, USA.
AIDS (London, England) (Impact Factor: 5.55). 05/2008; 22(7):835-9. DOI: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3282f5ff71
Source: PubMed


We compared eight genotypic interpretation methods to determine whether the method used would affect the rates of reported transmitted drug resistance.
Retrospective cohort study.
For the International AIDS Society-USA method we classified a mutation as resistant if it was a 'major' resistance-associated mutation. For the Stanford algorithm, we classified a mutation as resistant if the score was at least 60 (Stanford 60), and alternatively, if the score was at least 30 (Stanford 30). For Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA and Rega, we interpreted resistance as either 'intermediate resistance' or 'resistance' (ANRS 1 and Rega 1), and 'resistance' only (ANRS 2 and Rega 2). We also used the calibrated population resistance algorithm. We then determined the rates of transmitted drug resistance within the Acute Infection Early Disease Research Program cohort (n = 1311) enrolled between March 1995 and August 2006 using each method; agreement was assessed using kappa coefficients.
Differences in estimated rates of transmitted drug resistance using International AIDS Society-USA, calibrated population resistance, Stanford 30, ANRS 1, Rega 1 and Rega 2 methods were mostly minor for resistance to protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (1% range) and more pronounced for nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (5% range). For these methods kappa agreement was substantial or almost perfect across all drug classes. The Stanford 60 was most conservative.
The persistent high rates of transmitted drug resistance support the need for continued genotypic surveillance. The currently available interpretation algorithms can be used for this purpose.

Download full-text


Available from: Christopher H Woelk,
  • Source
    • "The results from the 2-level comparison suggest that the lowest level of agreement belongs to the NNRTI drug class. This is in contrast to previous studies [15-19] where NRTIs were found to have lowest concordances. Of note, the majority of the patients in this cohort harboured CRF01_AE subtype virus, whereas B subtype was predominant in preceding studies [16,17,19]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Accurate interpretation of HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) testing is challenging, yet important for patient care. We compared genotyping interpretation, based on the Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance Database (Stanford HIVdb), and virtual phenotyping, based on the Janssen Diagnostics BVBA’s vircoTYPE™ HIV-1, and investigated their level of agreement in antiretroviral (ARV) naive patients in Asia, where non-B subtypes predominate. Methods Sequences from 1301 ARV-naive patients enrolled in the TREAT Asia Studies to Evaluate Resistance – Monitoring Study (TASER-M) were analysed by both interpreting systems. Interpretations from both Stanford HIVdb and vircoTYPE™ HIV-1 were initially grouped into 2 levels: susceptible and non-susceptible. Discrepancy was defined as a discordant result between the susceptible and non-susceptible interpretations from the two systems for the same ARV. Further analysis was performed when interpretations from both systems were categorised into 3 levels: susceptible, intermediate and resistant; whereby discrepancies could be categorised as major discrepancies and minor discrepancies. Major discrepancy was defined as having a susceptible result from one system and resistant from the other. Minor discrepancy corresponded to having an intermediate interpretation in one system, with a susceptible or resistant result in the other. The level of agreement was analysed using the prevalence adjusted bias adjusted kappa (PABAK). Results Overall, the agreement was high, with each ARV being in “almost perfect agreement”, using Landis and Koch’s categorisation. Highest discordance was observed for efavirenz (75/1301, 5.8%), all arising from susceptible Stanford HIVdb versus non-susceptible vircoTYPE™ HIV-1 predictions. Protease Inhibitors had highest level of concordance with PABAKs all above 0.99, followed by Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors with PABAKs above 0.97 and non-NRTIs with the lowest PABAK of 0.88. The 68/75 patients with discordant efavirenz results harboured the V179D/E mutations compared to 7/1226 with no efavirenz discrepancy (p-value <0.001). In the 3-level comparison, all but one of the discrepancies was minor. Conclusions The two systems agreed well with lowest concordance observed for efavirenz. When interpreting HIVDR, especially in non-B subtypes, clinical correlation is crucial, in particular when efavirenz resistance is interpreted based on V179D/E.
    BMC Research Notes 10/2012; 5(1):582. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-5-582
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Resistance to the first-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors nevirapine and efavirenz is characterized by rapid selection of viruses carrying one or several mutations in the reverse transcriptase gene, which immediately confer high-level resistance as well as cross-resistance to the two drugs. Such mutations have been detected close to the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor binding site and also in the connection domain of HIV reverse transcriptase. They lead to a loss of drug affinity without affecting viral fitness. As a single mutation is enough to confer high-level resistance, transmission of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant viruses (currently 2-7% of cases) is strongly associated with virologic failure of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based first-line regimens. The development of second-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors is a major challenge. The most promising compounds, etravirine and rilpivirine, are active on mutant viruses and possess a relatively high genetic barrier for resistance. Data on etravirine resistance in patients already exposed to first-generation non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors show that, among 17 mutations in the reverse transcriptase gene, at least three must be present simultaneously in order to diminish etravirine activity. Recent studies of the prevalence of resistance in large databases of patients already exposed to nevirapine and efavirenz show that more than three-quarters of strains will still be sensitive to etravirine in both the southern and northern hemispheres. The first data on rilpivirine resistance are encouraging, but still too preliminary.
    AIDS reviews 11/2008; 11(3):165-73. · 3.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [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. DOI:10.1001/jama.283.18.2417 · 35.29 Impact Factor
Show more