Selection of Antiretroviral Therapy Guided by Genotypic or Phenotypic Resistance Testing
- 1 December 2004
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
- Vol. 37 (5) , 1587-1598
- https://doi.org/10.1097/00126334-200412150-00011
Abstract
The phenotype/genotype (PhenGen) open-label, randomized, multicenter study evaluated the genotype/virtual phenotype (vPt) and real phenotype (rPt) for choosing a new highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen at failure. Patients with a plasma viral load (pVL) between 2000 and 200,000 copies/mL and a CD4 cell count >200/μL, failing ≥2 regimens (<6 drugs), were randomized for vPt or rPt. Three hundred three patients were enrolled: 111 and 108 patients received a new treatment in the vPt and rPt arms, respectively. The 2 groups were comparable for baseline patient characteristics and treatment history. The new therapy was in agreement with expert advice in 58.5% of cases. After 6 months, no statistical differences were found in the mean absolute change from baseline CD4+ cells (+55 and +46 cells/μL; P = 0.7), mean pVL log decrease (−1.35 and −1.37; P = 0.8), or proportion of patients with a pVL <400 copies/mL (54.8% in vPt arm and 52.6% in rPt arm; P = 0.9). At multivariate analysis, variables independently associated with failure of the new regimen were: pVL at baseline (odds ratio [OR] = 1.81; P < 0.021), number of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-associated mutations (OR = 1.21; P = 0.001), number of protease mutations (OR = 1.15; P < 0.001), and recycling of indinavir (OR = 4.63; P = 0.019). Patients' adherence to the prescribed regimen (OR = 0.23; P < 0.001), number of active drugs in the new regimen (OR = 0.55; P = 0.001), and adherence to expert advice (OR = 0.37; P < 0.001) predicted virologic response. The vPt is as predictive of treatment outcome as the rPT. Use of expert advice significantly improved the response to therapy.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- How Does Expert Advice Impact Genotypic Resistance Testing in Clinical Practice?Clinical Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Comparison between Rules‐Based Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Genotype Interpretations and Real or Virtual Phenotype: Concordance Analysis and Correlation with Clinical Outcome in Heavily Treated PatientsThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Genotype and Phenotype at Baseline and at Failure in Human Immunodeficiency Virus–Infected Antiretroviral?Naive Patients in a Randomized Trial Comparing Zidovudine and Lamivudine plus Nelfinavir or NevirapineThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Knowledge of Genotypic Resistance Mutations Among Providers of Care to Patients with Human Immunodeficiency VirusClinical Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Genotypic Testing for Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Drug ResistanceClinical Microbiology Reviews, 2002
- Extent of Cross-Resistance between Agents Used To Treat Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Infection in Clinically Derived IsolatesAntimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 2002
- Phenotypic Drug Susceptibility Testing Predicts Long‐Term Virologic Suppression Better than Treatment History in Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus InfectionThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2001
- Novel Four‐Drug Salvage Treatment Regimens after Failure of a Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Protease Inhibitor–Containing Regimen: Antiviral Activity and Correlation of Baseline Phenotypic Drug Susceptibility with Virologic OutcomeThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1999
- Impact of drug resistance mutations on virologic response to salvage therapyAIDS, 1999
- Development of Zidovudine Resistance Mutations in Patients Receiving Prolonged Didanosine MonotherapyThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 1995