Different genotypic HIV resistance algorithms are based on different rules. They may therefore result in different drug-resistance interpretations for the same patient sample. In particular, for early periods of new retroviral inhibitors or classes, sequence interpretation is expected to vary. One would, however, assume that those differences between systems wane with growing experience and that different algorithms yield similar results for well-established drugs.
Methods
To assess the concordance of the Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le SIDA (ANRS), Rega and Stanford-HIVdb algorithms and their evolution over time, we analysed 284 routine samples with the current versions of each algorithm in 2004 and 2013. For 446 recent clinical sequences the differences for actual drugs were analysed. Scoring as ‘susceptible’ by one algorithm and ‘resistant’ by a second one defined a discordance.
Results
The longitudinal analysis showed similar overall discordances for both time points as well as an evolution over time. The actual analysis demonstrated a higher overall discordance rate, mainly for certain drugs. Most deviations refected differences between the ANRS and the other two algorithms.
Conclusions
This study demonstrates discordances between three most commonly used interpretation tools even for long-available drugs. It thereby reveals a need for further adjustment and improvement of current interpretation tools and may point at a possibly crucial role of subtype-specific information.
References
1.
de BoerI.M., PrinsJ.M., SprangersM.A., SmitC., NieuwkerkP.T.Self-reported symptoms among HIV-infected patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy in the ATHENA cohort in the Netherlands.HIV Clin Trials2011; 12: 161–170.
2.
BitnunA., SamsonL., ChunT.W.Early initiation of combination antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1-infected newborns can achieve sustained virologic suppression with low frequency of CD4+ T cells carrying HIV in peripheral blood.Clin Infect Dis2014; 59: 1012–1019.
3.
ByakwagaH., PetoumenosK., AnanworanichJ.Predictors of clinical progression in HIV-1-infected adults initiating combination antiretroviral therapy with advanced disease in the Asia-Pacific region: results from the TREAT Asia HIV observational database.J Int Assoc Provid AIDS Care2013; 12: 270–277.
4.
LiH., ZhongM., GuoW.Prevalence and mutation patterns of HIV drug resistance from 2010 to 2011 among ART-failure individuals in the Yunnan Province, China.PLoS ONE2013; 8: e72630.
5.
FranzettiM., ViolinM., AntinoriA.Trends and correlates of HIV-1 resistance among subjects failing an antiretroviral treatment over the 2003-2012 decade in Italy.BMC Infect Dis2014; 14: 398.
6.
FehrJ., GlassT.R., LouvelS.Replicative phenotyping adds value to genotypic resistance testing in heavily pre-treated HIV-infected individuals–the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.J Transl Med2011; 9: 14.
7.
MeynardJ.L., VrayM., Morand-JoubertL.Phenotypic or genotypic resistance testing for choosing antiretroviral therapy after treatment failure: a randomized trial.AIDS2002; 16: 727–736.
8.
SnoeckJ., KantorR., ShaferR.W.Discordances between interpretation algorithms for genotypic resistance to protease and reverse transcriptase inhibitors of human immunodeficiency virus are subtype dependent.Antimicrob Agents Chemother2006; 50: 694–701.
9.
SantosA.F., AbecasisA.B., VandammeA.M., CamachoR.J., SoaresM.A.Discordant genotypic interpretation and phenotypic role of protease mutations in HIV-1 subtypes B and G.J Antimicrob Chemother2009; 63: 593–599.
10.
KijakG.H., RubioA.E., PampuroS.E.Discrepant results in the interpretation of HIV-1 drug-resistance genotypic data among widely used algorithms.HIV Med2003; 4: 72–78.
11.
MargolisA.M., HeverlingH., PhamP.A., StolbachA.A review of the toxicity of HIV medications.J Med Toxicol2014; 10: 26–39.
12.
ShahI., ParikhS.HIV genotype resistance testing in antiretroviral (ART) exposed Indian children–a need of the hour.Indian J Pediatr2013; 80: 340–342.
13.
VercauterenJ., VandammeA.M.Algorithms for the interpretation of HIV-1 genotypic drug resistance information.Antiviral Res2006; 71: 335–342.
14.
Van LaethemK., De LucaA., AntinoriA., CingolaniA., PernaC.F., VandammeA.M.A genotypic drug resistance interpretation algorithm that significantly predicts therapy response in HIV-1-infected patients.Antivir Ther2002; 7: 123–129.
15.
ShaferR.W., JungD.R., BettsB.J.Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase and protease mutation search engine for queries.Nat Med2000; 6: 1290–1292.
16.
ColonnoR.J., ThiryA., LimoliK., ParkinN.Activities of atazanavir (BMS-232632) against a large panel of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 clinical isolates resistant to one or more approved protease inhibitors.Antimicrob Agents Chemother2003; 47: 1324–1333.
SchapiroJ.M., SchererJ., BoucherC.A.Improving the prediction of virological response to tipranavir: the development and validation of a tipranavir-weighted mutation score.Antivir Ther2010; 15: 1011–1019.
19.
DeshpandeA., JauvinV., MagninN.Resistance mutations in subtype C HIV type 1 isolates from Indian patients of Mumbai receiving NRTIs plus NNRTIs and experiencing a treatment failure: resistance to AR.AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses2007; 23: 335–340.
20.
YashikS., MauriceM.Predicting a single HIV drug resistance measure from three international interpretation gold standards.Asian Pac J Trop Med2012; 5: 566–572.
