Comparison of HIV-1 Genotypic Resistance Test Interpretation Systems in Predicting Virological Outcomes Over Time

Background Several decision support systems have been developed to interpret HIV-1 drug resistance genotyping results. This study compares the ability of the most commonly used systems (ANRS, Rega, and Stanford's HIVdb) to predict virological outcome at 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Methodology/Principal Findings Included were 3763 treatment-change episodes (TCEs) for which a HIV-1 genotype was available at the time of changing treatment with at least one follow-up viral load measurement. Genotypic susceptibility scores for the active regimens were calculated using scores defined by each interpretation system. Using logistic regression, we determined the association between the genotypic susceptibility score and proportion of TCEs having an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/ml) at 12 (8–16) weeks (2152 TCEs), 24 (16–32) weeks (2570 TCEs), and 48 (44–52) weeks (1083 TCEs). The Area under the ROC curve was calculated using a 10-fold cross-validation to compare the different interpretation systems regarding the sensitivity and specificity for predicting undetectable viral load. The mean genotypic susceptibility score of the systems was slightly smaller for HIVdb, with 1.92±1.17, compared to Rega and ANRS, with 2.22±1.09 and 2.23±1.05, respectively. However, similar odds ratio's were found for the association between each-unit increase in genotypic susceptibility score and undetectable viral load at week 12; 1.6 [95% confidence interval 1.5–1.7] for HIVdb, 1.7 [1.5–1.8] for ANRS, and 1.7 [1.9–1.6] for Rega. Odds ratio's increased over time, but remained comparable (odds ratio's ranging between 1.9–2.1 at 24 weeks and 1.9–2.2 at 48 weeks). The Area under the curve of the ROC did not differ between the systems at all time points; p = 0.60 at week 12, p = 0.71 at week 24, and p = 0.97 at week 48. Conclusions/Significance Three commonly used HIV drug resistance interpretation systems ANRS, Rega and HIVdb predict virological response at 12, 24, and 48 weeks, after change of treatment to the same extent.

[1]  Pierre-Marie Girard,et al.  Phenotypic or genotypic resistance testing for choosing antiretroviral therapy after treatment failure: a randomized trial , 2002, AIDS.

[2]  P. Narciso,et al.  Variable prediction of antiretroviral treatment outcome by different systems for interpreting genotypic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance. , 2003, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[3]  Giovanni Ulivi,et al.  Investigation of expert rule bases, logistic regression, and non-linear machine learning techniques for predicting response to antiretroviral treatment , 2008, Antiviral therapy.

[4]  T. Perneger,et al.  Impact of drug resistance mutations on virologic response to salvage therapy. Swiss HIV Cohort Study. , 1999, AIDS.

[5]  F. Baldanti,et al.  Rules-based HIV-1 genotypic resistance interpretation systems predict 8 week and 24 week virological antiretroviral treatment outcome and benefit from drug potency weighting. , 2009, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[6]  Lidia Ruiz,et al.  Clinical utility of HIV-1 genotyping and expert advice: the Havana trial , 2002, AIDS.

[7]  J. Schapiro,et al.  Drug-resistance genotyping in HIV-1 therapy: the VIRAD APT randomi sed controlled trial , 1999, The Lancet.

[8]  Soo-Yon Rhee,et al.  HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase mutations for drug resistance surveillance , 2007, AIDS.

[9]  Tommy F. Liu,et al.  Web resources for HIV type 1 genotypic-resistance test interpretation. , 2006, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[10]  Anne-Mieke Vandamme,et al.  Predictive value of HIV-1 genotypic resistance test interpretation algorithms. , 2009, The Journal of infectious diseases.

[11]  Brendan Larder,et al.  The Development of Artificial Neural Networks to Predict Virological response to Combination HIV Therapy , 2007, Antiviral therapy.

[12]  D. Richman,et al.  2022 update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1. , 2022, Topics in antiviral medicine.

[13]  A. Vandamme,et al.  A Genotypic Drug Resistance Interpretation Algorithm that Significantly Predicts Therapy Response in HIV-1-Infected Patients , 2001, Antiviral therapy.

[14]  Eric R. Ziegel,et al.  The Elements of Statistical Learning , 2003, Technometrics.

[15]  A. Antinori,et al.  Usefulness of monitoring HIV drug resistance and adherence in individuals failing highly active antiretroviral therapy: a randomized study (ARGENTA) , 2002, AIDS.

[16]  B. J. Betts,et al.  HIV-1 protease and reverse transcriptase mutation patterns responsible for discordances between genotypic drug resistance interpretation algorithms. , 2003, Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes.

[17]  Victor DeGruttola,et al.  Clinically Validated Genotype Analysis: Guiding Principles and Statistical Concerns , 2004, Antiviral therapy.

[18]  M A Peter.  Title HIV decision support : from molecule to man , 2009 .

[19]  Z. Fox,et al.  The ability of four genotypic interpretation systems to predict virological response to ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors , 2007, AIDS.