Genotypic resistance testing in routine clinical care

Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 251-257

  Dunn, David T ^a   Coughlin, Kate ^a   Cane, Patricia A ^b  

^a MRC CLINICAL TRIALS UNIT   (United Kingdom)

^b PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

drug resistance; genotypic interpretation systems; minority species; prediction engines

Indexed keywords

ABACAVIR; AMPRENAVIR; DARUNAVIR; DIDANOSINE; ETRAVIRINE; GAG PROTEIN; INTEGRASE; LAMIVUDINE; LOPINAVIR; MARAVIROC; NEVIRAPINE; PROTEINASE; RALTEGRAVIR; RNA DIRECTED DNA POLYMERASE; SAQUINAVIR; STAVUDINE; TENOFOVIR; TIPRANAVIR; ZIDOVUDINE;

ALLELE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; GENE MUTATION; GENE SEQUENCE; GENETIC SCREENING; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION AND TRANSLATION; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE; POLYMERASE CHAIN REACTION; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TROPISM; VIRUS LOAD;

ANTI-HIV AGENTS; DRUG RESISTANCE, VIRAL; GENOTYPE; HIV; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMANS; MICROBIAL SENSITIVITY TESTS; RNA, VIRAL;

EID: 79959338709     PISSN: 1746630X     EISSN: 17466318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32834732e8     Document Type: Review

References (58)

1. Dunn DT, Gibb DM, Babiker AG, et al. HIV drug resistance testing: is the evidence really there? Antivir Ther 2004; 9:641-648.
2. Panidou ET, Trikalinos TA, Ioannidis JP. Limited benefit of antiretroviral resistance testing in treatment-experienced patients: a meta-analysis. AIDS 2004; 18:2153-2161. (Pubitemid 39463680)
3. Grant PM, Zolopa AR. The use of resistance testing in the management of HIV-1-infected patients. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2009; 4:474-480.
4. Fehr J, Glass TR, Louvel S, et al. Replicative phenotyping adds value to genotypic resistance testing in heavily pretreated HIV-infected individuals: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. J Transl Med 2011; 9:14.
5. Cane P. HIV drug resistance testing. Methods Mol Biol 2011; 665:123-132.
6. Lee KJ, Dunn D, Porter K, et al. Treatment switches among HIV-infected adults on initial antiretroviral regimens with confirmed viral rebound. AIDS 2008;22:1943-1950.
7. Bansi L, Smith C, Phillips A, et al. The impact of HIV drug resistance testing on changes to treatment. AIDS 2011;25:603-610. One of very few articles to investigate the clinical decisions made in routine practice after a resistance test is reported.
8. von Wyl V, Yerly S, Bürgisser P, et al. Long-term trends of HIV type 1 drug resistance prevalence among antiretroviral treatment-experienced patients in Switzerland. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:979-987.
9. Thompson IR, Bidgood P, Petróczi A, et al. An alternative methodology for the prediction of adherence to anti HIV treatment. AIDS Res Ther 2009; 6:9.
10. European HIV Drug Resistance Guidelines Panel. European HIV drug resistance guidelines 2009 update. 2009. http://www.europeanaidsclinicalsociety. org/download%20documents/TheEuropeanHIVDrugResistance%20-Guidelines2009.pdf. [Accessed 10 February 2011].
11. Lengauer T, Sing T. Bioinformatics-assisted anti-HIV therapy. Nat Rev Microbiol 2006; 4:790-797. (Pubitemid 44420130)
12. Frentz D, Boucher CA, Assel M, et al. Comparison of HIV-1 genotypic resistance test interpretation systems in predicting virological outcomes over time. PLoS One 2010; 5:e11505.
13. Altmann A, Sing T, Vermeiren H, et al. Advantages of predicted phenotypes and statistical learning models in inferring virological response to antiretroviral therapy from HIV genotype. Antivir Ther 2009; 14:273-283.
14. Assoumou L, Cozzi-Lepri A, Brun-Vézinet F, et al. Development of a didanosine genotypic resistance interpretation system based on large derivation and validation datasets. AIDS 2010; 24:365-371. This careful statistical analysis revealed mutations that affect response to ddI that expert-based interpretation systems had not taken into account.
15. Talbot A, Grant P, Taylor J, et al. Predicting tipranavir and darunavir resistance using genotypic, phenotypic, and virtual phenotypic resistance patterns: an independent cohort analysis of clinical isolates highly resistant to all other protease inhibitors. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2010; 54:2473-2479.
16. Larder BA, Wang D, Revell AD, et al. The development of computational models that accurately predict virological response to HIV therapy to power an online treatment selection tool [abstract 72]. In: International HIV & Hepatitis Drug Resistance Workshop & Curative Strategies; June 2010; Dubrovnik, Croatia.
17. Prosperi MC, Rosen-Zvi M, Altmann A, et al. Antiretroviral therapy optimisation without genotype resistance testing: a perspective on treatment history based models. PLoS One 2010; 5:e13753. Using TCEs from the EuResist database, the authors found that a complete treatment history is as powerful as a resistance test in predicting short-term virological response. They suggest this is an encouraging result for settings in which resistance testing may not be available.
18. Rosen-Zvi M, Altmann A, Prosperi M, et al. Selecting anti-HIV therapies based on a variety of genomic and clinical factors. Bioinformatics 2008; 24:i399-i406. (Pubitemid 351911696)
19. Larder BA, Revell A, Mican JM, et al. Clinical evaluation of the potential utility of computational modeling as an HIV treatment selection tool by physicians with considerable HIV experience. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2011; 25:29-36. This study found that one third of clinicians altered their treatment decision when provided with a report from a therapy optimization program. However, this was largely based on patient details presented retrospectively to clinicians and may not reflect its actual impact.
20. Zazzi M, Kaiser R, Sönnerborg A, et al. Prediction of response to antiretroviral therapy by human experts and by the EuResist data-driven expert system (the EVE study). HIV Med 2010;12:211-218.
21. Goicoechea M, Jain S, Bi L, et al. Abacavir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate co-administration results in a nonadditive antiviral effect in HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS 2010; 24:707-716.
22. Canducci F, Marinozzi MC, Sampaolo M, et al.Genotypic/phenotypic patterns of HIV-1 integrase resistance to raltegravir. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010;65:425-433. This article identified two patterns of viral evolution driving the variants toward either a fast or progressive increase in resistance to RAL. A wide range of resistance levels to RAL (10-770-fold change in IC50 levels) were found.
23. Fransen S, Gupta S, Danovich R, et al. Loss of raltegravir susceptibility by human immunodeficiency virus type 1 is conferred via multiple nonoverlapping genetic pathways. J Virol 2009; 83:11440-11446.
24. Ferns RB, Kirk S, Bennett J, et al. The dynamics of appearance and disappearance of HIV-1 integrase mutations during and after withdrawal of raltegravir therapy. AIDS 2009; 23:2159-2164.
25. Fun A, Van BK, van Lelyveld SF, et al. Mutation Q95K enhances N155H-mediated integrase inhibitor resistance and improves viral replication capacity. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65:2300-2304.
26. Geretti AM, Fearnhill E, Ceccherini-Silberstein F, et al. Prevalence and patterns of raltegravir resistance in treated patients in Europe [abstract 62]. In: International HIV & Hepatitis Virus Drug Resistance Workshop & Curative Strategies; June 2010; Dubrovnik, Croatia. http://www.intmedpress.com/ serveFile.cfm?sUID=c10a93ca-a12a-4ff9-980d-07561299189b. This large European collaborative study quantified the frequency of different mutational patterns observed in patients failing RAL-containing therapy.
27. Parry CM, Kohli A, Boinett CJ, et al. Gag determinants of fitness and drug susceptibility in protease inhibitor-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Virol 2009; 83:9094-9101.
28. Dam E, Quercia R, Glass B, et al. Gag mutations strongly contribute to HIV-1 resistance to protease inhibitors in highly drug-experienced patients besides compensating for fitness loss. PLoS Pathog 2009; 5:e1000345.
29. Gupta RK, Kohli A, McCormick AL, et al. Full-length HIV-1 Gag determines protease inhibitor susceptibility within in vitro assays. AIDS 2010; 24:1651-1655. This article found that wild-type viruses can contribute as much as 14-fold reduction in susceptibility to LPV and that cognate protease can balance this by partially restoring susceptibility.
30. Whitcomb JM, Huang W, Fransen S, et al. Development and characterization of a novel single-cycle recombinant-virus assay to determine human immunodeficiency virus type 1 coreceptor tropism. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2007; 51:566-575. (Pubitemid 46185274)
31. Reeves JD, Coakley E, Petropoulos CJ, et al. An enhanced-sensitivity Trofile™ assay. J Viral Entry 2009; 3:94-102.
32. Harrigan PR, Geretti AM. Genotypic tropism testing: evidence-based or leap of faith? AIDS 2011; 25:257-264. An excellent state-of-the-art review of genotypic tropism testing including speculation on future developments.
33. Low AJ, Dong W, Chan D, et al. Current V3 genotyping algorithms are inadequate for predicting X4 coreceptor usage in clinical isolates. AIDS 2007; 21:F17-F24. (Pubitemid 47329758)
34. Sing T, Low AJ, Beerenwinkel N, et al. Predicting HIV coreceptor usage on the basis of genetic and clinical covariates. Antivir Ther 2007; 12:1097-1106. (Pubitemid 350114990)
35. Sánchez V, Masiá M, Robledano C, et al. A highly sensitive and specific model for predicting HIV-1 tropism in treatment-experienced patients combining interpretation of V3 loop sequences and clinical parameters. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011; 56:51-58.
36. Prosperi MC, Bracciale L, Fabbiani M, et al. Comparative determination of HIV-1 co-receptor tropism by enhanced sensitivity Trofile, gp120 V3-loop RNA and DNA genotyping. Retrovirology 2010; 30:56.
37. Soulie C, Fourati S, Lambert-Niclot S, et al. Factors associated with proviral DNA HIV-1 tropism in antiretroviral therapy-treated patients with fully suppressed plasma HIV load: implications for the clinical use of CCR5 antagonists. J Antimicrob Chemother 2010; 65:749-751.
38. McGovern RA, Thielen A, Mo T, et al. Population-based V3 genotypic tropism assay: a retrospective analysis using screening samples from the A4001029 and MOTIVATE studies. AIDS 2010; 24:2517-2525. The key finding in this article was that virological responses were consistently similar between Trofile and V3 genotype for patients categorized as R5.
39. McGovern R, Dong W, Zhong X, et al. Population-based sequencing of the V3-loop is comparable to the enhanced sensitivity Trofile assay in predicting virologic response to maraviroc of treatment-naive patients in the MERIT trial [abstract 92]. In: 17th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 2010; San Francisco, California. http://www.retroconference. org/2010/Abstracts/39053.htm.
40. Swenson LC, Moores A, Low AJ, et al. Improved detection of CXCR4-using HIV by V3 genotyping: application of population-based and 'deep' sequencing to plasma RNA and proviral DNA. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2010; 54:506-510.
41. Obermeier MJ, Carganico A, Bieniek B, et al. Genotypic tropism testing from proviral DNA: test characteristics and clinical outcome. Antivir Ther 2010; 15 (Suppl 2):A132.
42. Vandekerckhove LPR, Wensing AMJ, Kaiser R, et al. European guidelines on the clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing. Lancet Infect Dis 2011 [Epub ahead of print]. A consensus statement from an expert group on indications for HIV tropism testing, as well as discussion of some technical issues.
43. Tilton JC, Wilen CB, Didigu CA, et al. A maraviroc-resistant HIV-1 with narrow cross-resistance to other CCR5 antagonists depends on both N-terminal and extracellular loop domains of drug-bound CCR5. J Virol 2010; 84:10863-10876.
44. Cane PA, Kaye S, Smit E, et al. Genotypic antiretroviral drug resistance testing at low viral loads in the UK. HIV Med 2008; 9:673-676.
45. Mackie N, Phillips A, Kaye S, et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance in HIV-1 infected patients with low-level viraemia. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:1303-1307. This article provided the first substantive evidence that genotypic resistance testing at low viral levels may be helpful in clinical management.
46. Buckton AJ, Prabhu D, Murphy G, et al. The potential role of minority mutation assays in surveillance of transmitted drug resistance. Antivir Ther 2009; 14 (Suppl 1):A121.
47. Toni TA, Asahchop EL, Moisi D, et al. Detection of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 M184V and K103N minority variants in patients with primary HIV infection. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2009; 53:1670-1672.
48. Johnson JA, Li JF, Wei X, et al. Minority HIV-1 drug resistance mutations are present in antiretroviral treatment-naive populations and associated with reduced treatment efficacy. PLoS Med 2008; 5:e158.
49. Metzner KJ, Giulieri SG, Knoepfel SA, et al. Minority quasispecies of drug-resistant HIV-1 that lead to early therapy failure in treatment-naive and adherent patients. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48:239-247.
50. Simen BB, Simons JF, Hullsiek KH, et al. Low-abundance drug-resistant viral variants in chronically HIV-infected, antiretroviral treatment-naive patients significantly impact treatment outcomes. J Infect Dis 2009; 199:693-701.
51. Geretti AM, Fox ZV, Booth CL, et al. Low-frequency K103N strengthens the impact of transmitted drug resistance on virologic responses to first-line efavirenz or nevirapine-based highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 52:569-573.
52. Metzner KJ, Rauch P, Braun P, et al. Prevalence of key resistance mutations K65R, K103N, and M184V as minority HIV-1 variants in chronically HIV-1 infected, treatment-naive patients. J Clin Virol 2011; 50:156-161. The article found that minority drug-resistant HIV-1 variants can be frequently detected in treatment-naive, chronically HIV-1-infected patients. However, most of the patients with minority variants were successfully treated.
53. Paredes R, Lalama CM, Ribaudo HJ, et al. Preexisting minority drug-resistant HIV-1 variants, adherence, and risk of antiretroviral treatment failure. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:662-671. Using a case-control design, the investigators demonstrated a negative impact of pre-existing minority Y181C mutants.
54. Halvas EK, Wiegand A, Boltz VF, et al. Low frequency nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-resistant variants contribute to failure of efavirenz-containing regimens in treatment-experienced patients. J Infect Dis 2010; 201:672-680. This article found that minor NNRTI-resistant variants were more prevalent in NNRTI-experienced patients and were associated with reduced virologic response to efavirenz-containing regimens.
55. Hedskog C, Mild M, Jernberg J, et al. Dynamics of HIV-1 quasispecies during antiviral treatment dissected using ultra-deep pyrosequencing. PLoS One 2010; 5:e11345. Using a highly sensitive UDPS protocol, pre-existing drug resistance was infrequently observed; only M184I, T215A, and T215I were detected at very low levels. Similarly, drug-resistant variants in plasma quickly decreased to undetectable levels after treatment interruption.
56. Varghese V, Wang E, Babrzadeh F, et al. Nucleic acid template and the risk of a PCR-induced HIV-1 drug resistance mutation. PLoS One 2010; 5:e10992.
57. D'Aquila RT, Geretti AM, Horton JH, et al. Tenofovir (TDF)-selected or abacavir (ABC)-selected low-frequency HIV type 1 subpopulations during failure with persistent viremia as detected by ultradeep pyrosequencing. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2011;27:201-209.
58. Hughes G, Fearnhill E, Dunn D, et al. Molecular phylodynamics of the heterosexual HIV epidemic in the United Kingdom. PLoS Pathog 2009; 5:e1000590.