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

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 re...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:AIDS research and human retroviruses 2005-11, Vol.21 (11), p.933-939
Hauptverfasser: ROSS, Lisa, BOULME, Ronan, FISHER, Robin, HERNANDEZ, Jaime, FLORANCE, Allison, SCHMIT, Jean-Claude, WILLIAMS, Vanessa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 939
container_issue 11
container_start_page 933
container_title AIDS research and human retroviruses
container_volume 21
creator ROSS, Lisa
BOULME, Ronan
FISHER, Robin
HERNANDEZ, Jaime
FLORANCE, Allison
SCHMIT, Jean-Claude
WILLIAMS, Vanessa
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1089/aid.2005.21.933
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69050703</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>69050703</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-c2ff83f6c3d7c197221a9d63676b4da9e2229fc6eba0d99894a26dcbccf51fff3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkU1r3DAURUVpaaZp190VbZqdJ_oYy9YyhDYJBLppuzWy9DSjYFuunhwyf62_rnIykGXhgUCcexb3EvKZsy1nrb40wW0FY_VW8K2W8g3ZcC151e5Y_ZZsWNvqSgihz8gHxAfGmBaifk_OuJKt4kxvyN8r6kICm6mN42xSwDjR6KlLy57ighbmHPowhHykOdLbu980H2egnPoUR2qmXNI5xceQzEDhaYYUYLLgSrh_KF6kZj2Eco72xXKA51hJxH0yq8PR-QBTRJgQVtYc8fm30AiPMNEEGDCb4qVm2McU8mHEj-SdNwPCp9N7Tn59__bz-ra6_3Fzd311X1lZq1xZ4X0rvbLSNZbrRghutFNSNarfOaNhLchbBb1hTutW74xQzvbW-pp77-U5uXjxzin-WQBzN4bSyzCYCeKCndKsZg2T_wV5sxNSKV3AyxfQpoiYwHdzCqNJx46zbt21K7t2666d4F3ZtSS-nNRLP4J75U9DFuDrCTBozeBTKSvgK9fIWjLO5D8X9bEv</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>17423669</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>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</title><source>Mary Ann Liebert Online Subscription</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>ROSS, Lisa ; BOULME, Ronan ; FISHER, Robin ; HERNANDEZ, Jaime ; FLORANCE, Allison ; SCHMIT, Jean-Claude ; WILLIAMS, Vanessa</creator><creatorcontrib>ROSS, Lisa ; BOULME, Ronan ; FISHER, Robin ; HERNANDEZ, Jaime ; FLORANCE, Allison ; SCHMIT, Jean-Claude ; WILLIAMS, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0889-2229</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1931-8405</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1089/aid.2005.21.933</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16386109</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ARHRE7</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Larchmont, NY: Liebert</publisher><subject>Adult ; AIDS/HIV ; Algorithms ; Biological and medical sciences ; Drug Resistance, Viral ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Genotype ; HIV Infections - drug therapy ; HIV Infections - virology ; HIV-1 - drug effects ; HIV-1 - genetics ; Human immunodeficiency virus 1 ; Human viral diseases ; Humans ; Infectious diseases ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Microbial Sensitivity Tests - methods ; Microbiology ; Miscellaneous ; Phenotype ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Sequence Analysis, DNA ; Viral diseases ; Viral Proteins - genetics ; Virology</subject><ispartof>AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2005-11, Vol.21 (11), p.933-939</ispartof><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-c2ff83f6c3d7c197221a9d63676b4da9e2229fc6eba0d99894a26dcbccf51fff3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-c2ff83f6c3d7c197221a9d63676b4da9e2229fc6eba0d99894a26dcbccf51fff3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,3046,27933,27934</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=17353010$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16386109$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>ROSS, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOULME, Ronan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FISHER, Robin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HERNANDEZ, Jaime</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FLORANCE, Allison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHMIT, Jean-Claude</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WILLIAMS, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><title>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</title><title>AIDS research and human retroviruses</title><addtitle>AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>AIDS/HIV</subject><subject>Algorithms</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Drug Resistance, Viral</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Genotype</subject><subject>HIV Infections - drug therapy</subject><subject>HIV Infections - virology</subject><subject>HIV-1 - drug effects</subject><subject>HIV-1 - genetics</subject><subject>Human immunodeficiency virus 1</subject><subject>Human viral diseases</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Microbial Sensitivity Tests - methods</subject><subject>Microbiology</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Phenotype</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Sequence Analysis, DNA</subject><subject>Viral diseases</subject><subject>Viral Proteins - genetics</subject><subject>Virology</subject><issn>0889-2229</issn><issn>1931-8405</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkU1r3DAURUVpaaZp190VbZqdJ_oYy9YyhDYJBLppuzWy9DSjYFuunhwyf62_rnIykGXhgUCcexb3EvKZsy1nrb40wW0FY_VW8K2W8g3ZcC151e5Y_ZZsWNvqSgihz8gHxAfGmBaifk_OuJKt4kxvyN8r6kICm6mN42xSwDjR6KlLy57ighbmHPowhHykOdLbu980H2egnPoUR2qmXNI5xceQzEDhaYYUYLLgSrh_KF6kZj2Eco72xXKA51hJxH0yq8PR-QBTRJgQVtYc8fm30AiPMNEEGDCb4qVm2McU8mHEj-SdNwPCp9N7Tn59__bz-ra6_3Fzd311X1lZq1xZ4X0rvbLSNZbrRghutFNSNarfOaNhLchbBb1hTutW74xQzvbW-pp77-U5uXjxzin-WQBzN4bSyzCYCeKCndKsZg2T_wV5sxNSKV3AyxfQpoiYwHdzCqNJx46zbt21K7t2666d4F3ZtSS-nNRLP4J75U9DFuDrCTBozeBTKSvgK9fIWjLO5D8X9bEv</recordid><startdate>20051101</startdate><enddate>20051101</enddate><creator>ROSS, Lisa</creator><creator>BOULME, Ronan</creator><creator>FISHER, Robin</creator><creator>HERNANDEZ, Jaime</creator><creator>FLORANCE, Allison</creator><creator>SCHMIT, Jean-Claude</creator><creator>WILLIAMS, Vanessa</creator><general>Liebert</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20051101</creationdate><title>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</title><author>ROSS, Lisa ; BOULME, Ronan ; FISHER, Robin ; HERNANDEZ, Jaime ; FLORANCE, Allison ; SCHMIT, Jean-Claude ; WILLIAMS, Vanessa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-c2ff83f6c3d7c197221a9d63676b4da9e2229fc6eba0d99894a26dcbccf51fff3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>AIDS/HIV</topic><topic>Algorithms</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Drug Resistance, Viral</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Genotype</topic><topic>HIV Infections - drug therapy</topic><topic>HIV Infections - virology</topic><topic>HIV-1 - drug effects</topic><topic>HIV-1 - genetics</topic><topic>Human immunodeficiency virus 1</topic><topic>Human viral diseases</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Microbial Sensitivity Tests - methods</topic><topic>Microbiology</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Phenotype</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Sequence Analysis, DNA</topic><topic>Viral diseases</topic><topic>Viral Proteins - genetics</topic><topic>Virology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ROSS, Lisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>BOULME, Ronan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FISHER, Robin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HERNANDEZ, Jaime</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>FLORANCE, Allison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>SCHMIT, Jean-Claude</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>WILLIAMS, Vanessa</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>AIDS research and human retroviruses</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ROSS, Lisa</au><au>BOULME, Ronan</au><au>FISHER, Robin</au><au>HERNANDEZ, Jaime</au><au>FLORANCE, Allison</au><au>SCHMIT, Jean-Claude</au><au>WILLIAMS, Vanessa</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>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</atitle><jtitle>AIDS research and human retroviruses</jtitle><addtitle>AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses</addtitle><date>2005-11-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>933</spage><epage>939</epage><pages>933-939</pages><issn>0889-2229</issn><eissn>1931-8405</eissn><coden>ARHRE7</coden><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.</abstract><cop>Larchmont, NY</cop><pub>Liebert</pub><pmid>16386109</pmid><doi>10.1089/aid.2005.21.933</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0889-2229
ispartof AIDS research and human retroviruses, 2005-11, Vol.21 (11), p.933-939
issn 0889-2229
1931-8405
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69050703
source Mary Ann Liebert Online Subscription; MEDLINE; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adult
AIDS/HIV
Algorithms
Biological and medical sciences
Drug Resistance, Viral
Female
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
Genotype
HIV Infections - drug therapy
HIV Infections - virology
HIV-1 - drug effects
HIV-1 - genetics
Human immunodeficiency virus 1
Human viral diseases
Humans
Infectious diseases
Male
Medical sciences
Microbial Sensitivity Tests - methods
Microbiology
Miscellaneous
Phenotype
Predictive Value of Tests
Sequence Analysis, DNA
Viral diseases
Viral Proteins - genetics
Virology
title 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
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-11-29T22%3A35%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20direct%20comparison%20of%20drug%20susceptibility%20to%20HIV%20type%201%20from%20antiretroviral%20experienced%20subjects%20as%20assessed%20by%20the%20antivirogram%20and%20phenosense%20assays%20and%20by%20seven%20resistance%20algorithms&rft.jtitle=AIDS%20research%20and%20human%20retroviruses&rft.au=ROSS,%20Lisa&rft.date=2005-11-01&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=933&rft.epage=939&rft.pages=933-939&rft.issn=0889-2229&rft.eissn=1931-8405&rft.coden=ARHRE7&rft_id=info:doi/10.1089/aid.2005.21.933&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69050703%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=17423669&rft_id=info:pmid/16386109&rfr_iscdi=true