A Direct Comparison of Drug Susceptibility to HIV Type 1 from Antiretroviral Experienced Subjects as Assessed by the Antivirogram and PhenoSense Assays and by Seven Resistance Algorithms
- 1 November 2005
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Mary Ann Liebert Inc in AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses
- Vol. 21 (11) , 933-939
- https://doi.org/10.1089/aid.2005.21.933
Abstract
HIV-1 drug resistance methodologies are being increasingly utilized to guide treatment decisions; however, information comparing the various assays is limited. Duplicate plasma samples from 70 ART-experienced subjects were analyzed by both the Antivirogram and PhenoSense phenotypic assays and the results compared. HIV genotypes were also obtained and analyzed using seven different resistance algorithms. These results were also compared with the phenotypic assay results. Concordances between the phenotypic tests and between each algorithm, and between the two phenotypic assays were calculated and kappa coefficients (KC) determined. Overall agreement between the two phenotypic assays was good (86.9% concordance; KC 0.621). The highest concordance by drug class was seen for protease inhibitors (93.4%; KC 0.679) and the lowest (79.8%; KC 0.549) for nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Concordance between the two phenotypic assays, when evaluating individual drugs, was good for all drugs tested except for abacavir, zalcitabine, and indinavir. Agreement between the seven algorithms and each phenotypic assay was variable, though most had good or excellent agreement. The highest overall level of agreement for an individual drug was observed when comparing lamivudine susceptibility to either assay. Concordance for abacavir, didanosine, zalcitabine, and saquinavir was generally problematic when comparing one or more phenotypic assays to the drug resistance predictive algorithms. In conclusion, results comparing these two phenotypic tests were mostly similar, but comparisons of the predictive resistance algorithms for specific drugs, as well as to specific phenotypic assays, were more inconsistent.Keywords
This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Interpretation systems for genotypic drug resistance of HIV-1Scandinavian Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Impact of different HIV resistance interpretation by distinct systems on clinical utility of resistance testingCurrent Opinion in Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Non‐parametric methods to predict HIV drug susceptibility phenotype from genotypeStatistics in Medicine, 2003
- Antiretroviral Drug Resistance Testing in Adults Infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1: 2003 Recommendations of an International AIDS Society–USA PanelClinical Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Variable Prediction of Antiretroviral Treatment Outcome by Different Systems for Interpreting Genotypic Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 Drug ResistanceThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2003
- Algorithm Specification Interface for Human Immunodefiency Virus Type 1 Genotypic InterpretationJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2003
- Comparative Analysis of Two Commercial Phenotypic Assays for Drug Susceptibility Testing of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2002
- Thymidine Analog and Multinucleoside Resistance Mutations Are Associated with Decreased Phenotypic Susceptibility to Stavudine in HIV Type 1 Isolated from Zidovudine-Naive Patients Experiencing Viremia on Stavudine-Containing RegimensAIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 2001
- Clinical and laboratory guidelines for the use of HIV-1 drug resistance testing as part of treatment management: recommendations for the European settingAIDS, 2001
- Activities of cefepime and five other antibiotics against nosocomial PER-1-type and/or OXA-10-type beta-lactamase-producing Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Acinetobacter spp.Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 1998