TY - JOUR
T1 - Discordances between interpretation algorithms for genotypic resistance to protease and reverse transcriptase inhibitors of human immunodeficiency virus are subtype dependent
AU - Snoeck, Joke
AU - Kantor, Rami
AU - Shafer, Robert W.
AU - Van Laethem, Kristel
AU - Deforche, Koen
AU - Carvalho, Ana Patricia
AU - Wynhoven, Brian
AU - Soares, Marcelo A.
AU - Cane, Patricia
AU - Clarke, John
AU - Pillay, Candice
AU - Sirivichayakul, Sunee
AU - Ariyoshi, Koya
AU - Holguin, Africa
AU - Rudich, Hagit
AU - Rodrigues, Rosangela
AU - Bouzas, Maria Belen
AU - Brun-Vézinet, Françoise
AU - Reid, Caroline
AU - Cahn, Pedro
AU - Brigido, Luis Fernando
AU - Grossman, Zehava
AU - Soriano, Vincent
AU - Sugiura, Wataru
AU - Phanuphak, Praphan
AU - Morris, Lynn
AU - Weber, Jonathan
AU - Pillay, Deenan
AU - Tanuri, Amilcar
AU - Harrigan, Richard P.
AU - Camacho, Ricardo
AU - Schapiro, Jonathan M.
AU - Katzenstein, David
AU - Vandamme, Anne Mieke
PY - 2006/2
Y1 - 2006/2
N2 - The major limitation of drug resistance genotyping for human immunodeficiency virus remains the interpretation of the results. We evaluated the concordance in predicting therapy response between four different interpretation algorithms (Rega 6.3, HIVDB-08/04, ANRS [07/04], and VGI 8.0). Sequences were gathered through a worldwide effort to establish a database of non-B subtype sequences, and demographic and clinical information about the patients was gathered. The most concordant results were found for nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors (93%), followed by protease inhibitors (84%) and nucleoside RT inhibitor (NRTIs) (76%). For therapy-naive patients, for nelfinavir, especially for subtypes C and G, the discordances were driven mainly by the protease (PRO) mutational pattern 82I/V + 63P + 36I/V for subtype C and 82I + 63P + 36I + 20I for subtype G. Subtype F displayed more discordances for ritonavir in untreated patients due to the combined presence of PRO 20R and 10I/V. In therapy-experienced patients, subtype G displayed a lot of discordances for saquinavir and indinavir due to mutational patterns involving PRO 90 M and 82I. Subtype F had more discordance for nelfinavir attributable to the presence of PRO 88S and 82A + 54V. For the NRTIs lamivudine and emtricitabine, CRF01_AE had more discordances than subtype B due to the presence of RT mutational patterns 65R + 115 M and 118I + 215Y, respectively. Overall, the different algorithms agreed well on the level of resistance scored, but some of the discordances could be attributed to specific (subtype-dependent) combinations of mutations. It is not yet known whether therapy response is subtype dependent, but the advice given to clinicians based on a genotypic interpretation algorithm differs according to the subtype.
AB - The major limitation of drug resistance genotyping for human immunodeficiency virus remains the interpretation of the results. We evaluated the concordance in predicting therapy response between four different interpretation algorithms (Rega 6.3, HIVDB-08/04, ANRS [07/04], and VGI 8.0). Sequences were gathered through a worldwide effort to establish a database of non-B subtype sequences, and demographic and clinical information about the patients was gathered. The most concordant results were found for nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors (93%), followed by protease inhibitors (84%) and nucleoside RT inhibitor (NRTIs) (76%). For therapy-naive patients, for nelfinavir, especially for subtypes C and G, the discordances were driven mainly by the protease (PRO) mutational pattern 82I/V + 63P + 36I/V for subtype C and 82I + 63P + 36I + 20I for subtype G. Subtype F displayed more discordances for ritonavir in untreated patients due to the combined presence of PRO 20R and 10I/V. In therapy-experienced patients, subtype G displayed a lot of discordances for saquinavir and indinavir due to mutational patterns involving PRO 90 M and 82I. Subtype F had more discordance for nelfinavir attributable to the presence of PRO 88S and 82A + 54V. For the NRTIs lamivudine and emtricitabine, CRF01_AE had more discordances than subtype B due to the presence of RT mutational patterns 65R + 115 M and 118I + 215Y, respectively. Overall, the different algorithms agreed well on the level of resistance scored, but some of the discordances could be attributed to specific (subtype-dependent) combinations of mutations. It is not yet known whether therapy response is subtype dependent, but the advice given to clinicians based on a genotypic interpretation algorithm differs according to the subtype.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=31944440917&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1128/AAC.50.2.694-701.2006
DO - 10.1128/AAC.50.2.694-701.2006
M3 - Article
C2 - 16436728
AN - SCOPUS:31944440917
SN - 0066-4804
VL - 50
SP - 694
EP - 701
JO - Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
JF - Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
IS - 2
ER -