Spanish consensus conference on drug resistance testing in clinical practice. HIV drug resistance Spanish panel

Discrepant results in the interpretation of HIV-1 drug-resistance genotypic data among widely used algorithms

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the concordance on the interpretation of HIV-1 drug-resistance genotypic data by three widely used algorithms: Stanford University Database (SU), TruGene (Visible Genetics, Canada) (VG) and VirtualPhenotype (Virco, Belgium) (VP).

METHODS

Genotypic data from 293 HIV-1-infected individuals with treatment failure was interpreted for 14 antiretroviral drugs by the three algorithms.

RESULTS

Complete concordant results among the three systems for all the drugs studied were found in 40/293 (13.7%) samples. Low concordance in the interpretation was observed for most nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), while results agreed highly for all nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and most protease inhibitors (PIs). In pair-wise comparisons, discordant interpretations between SU and VP were found in over 50% of the samples for didanosine, zalcitabine, stavudine and abacavir, and the level of disagreement between VG and VP exceeded 40% for the same drugs. Major discrepancies (high-level resistance interpretation by one algorithm with sensitive interpretation by another) were observed between VG and VP in over 10% of the cases for didanosine, zalcitabine, stavudine and abacavir. On the other hand, the three algorithms had concordant results for lamivudine in over 90% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This work demonstrates the great level of discordance in the interpretation of genotyping results among algorithms, clearly showing the necessity for clinical validation. Moreover, these results suggest that a joint effort from the scientific community as well as national and international HIV societies is needed to achieve a consensus for the interpretation of genotypic data.

Evaluation of two commercial kits for the detection of genotypic drug resistance on a panel of HIV type 1 subtypes A through J

We compared the two commercially available sequencing kits for HIV-1 drug resistance testing, the ViroSeq Genotyping System (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, U.S.A.) and the TRUGENE HIV-1 Genotyping Kit (Visible Genetics, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada), with our in-house genotyping system. Fifteen viral isolates from African patients (6 treated and 9 untreated) covering a panel of HIV-1 subtypes A through J and 7 plasma samples from Belgian and African patients (2 treated and 5 untreated) were tested. All the samples could be amplified and sequenced by the three systems; however, for all systems, alternative amplification/sequencing primers had to be used for some samples belonging to subtype B as well as to other subtypes. The consensus sequence was partially derived from only one strand for the in-house system and for the ViroSeq Genotyping System. The TRUGENE HIV-1 Genotyping Kit scored the highest number of ambiguities, followed by the ViroSeq Genotyping System and the in-house system. For 11 samples, these differences in reporting mixtures affected 14 resistance-related positions, which altered the interpretation toward protease inhibitors for 2 samples when using version 1.2 RetroGram software (Virology Networks, Utrecht, The Netherlands). All three systems were able to sequence diluted samples with a viral load down to 10 3 or 10 4 RNA copies/ml. Our data therefore suggest that the performance of amplification and sequencing primers must be improved to allow fast and reliable resistance testing for all HIV-1 subtypes.

Primary genotypic and phenotypic HIV-1 drug resistance in recent seroconverters in Madrid

OBJECTIVE

Transmission of drug-resistant HIV-1 strains is increasing with widespread use of antiretroviral drugs in developed countries. This study examined the prevalence of resistant viruses in recent seroconverters in Madrid, Spain.

DESIGN

HIV isolates from 30 consecutive participants with positive or indeterminate HIV antibody test results and a negative test result at a mean of 6.6 months earlier were examined for HIV drug resistance. All study subjects admitted to having very recently engaged in high-risk practices. All were therapeutically naive and were recruited between 1997 and 1999 in a referring health care facility for sexually transmitted diseases.

METHODS

Population-based sequencing of the viral reverse transcriptase (RT) and protease (PR) regions derived from plasma viral RNA was performed. Phenotypic resistance was assessed by a recombinant virus assay.

RESULTS

Overall prevalence of genotypes associated with reduced susceptibility was 26.7% (8 of 30 participants). Resistance mutations were seen against nucleoside analogues in 7 (23.3%), nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1 (3.3%), and protease inhibitors in 2 (6.7%). Zidovudine-resistance mutations M41L and/or T215Y were the commonest, found in 20% (6 of 30 participants). Resistance mutations to at least two antiretroviral families (multidrug-resistance) were detected in 2 (6.7%) study subjects. A median infectious dose (IC50) increase of fourfold for any drug was found in 7 patients, and in 2 was > tenfold for zidovudine (genotype M41L + T215Y) and lamivudine (genotype M184V), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-resistant HIV variants were present in over one quarter of individuals recently diagnosed as infected in Madrid, Spain. Therefore, resistance testing at baseline should be considered for the optimal design of first-line antiretroviral combinations.

Genotyping in HIV drug resistance mutations: epidemiology in 145 patients

The epidemiology of HIV-1 genomic mutations causing antiretroviral drug resistance, in 145 HIV-1 infected patients were obtained using a new sequencing technique. All patients were in a follow up treatment for at least 4 months with all drugs available in clinical practice in accordance to international guidelines. The percentage of the mutations were calculated both on the number of all participants and on the number of patients who received the drugs selecting for that specific resistance. It was possible then to evaluate patients who showed the mutation without receiving the drug. We consider this new sequencing method reliable and hopeful in clinical practice, giving the opportunity for a guided therapy for the single patient and in detecting and monitoring the antiretroviral drug resistance mutations in the pertinent geographic area following a periodic surveillance program.