Journal Information
Vol. 14. Issue 5.
Pages 489-494 (September - October 2010)
Share
Share
Download PDF
More article options
Vol. 14. Issue 5.
Pages 489-494 (September - October 2010)
Original article
Open Access
HIV-1 resistance testing influences treatment decision-making
Visits
2486
Ricardo Sobhie Diaz1,
Corresponding author
rsdiaz@catg.com.br

Correspondence to: Retrovirology Laboratory, Universidade Federal de São Paulo - EPM, R. Pedro de Toledo, 781, Sao Paulo, SP - 04039 - Brazil Phone: +55-110-9109-0445, Phone/fax: +55-11-5579- 8226, +55-11-5571-2130, +55-11-5084-4262.
, Maria Cecilia A. Sucupira1, Tania R.C. Vergara1, Carlos Brites2, Rosana Del Bianco3, Francisco Bonasser Filho3, Geova Keny B. Colares4, Estevão Portela5, Lia Adler Cherman6, Nemora Tregnago Barcelos7, Unai Tupinambas8, Gilberto Turcato Jr.1, Lisa Allamasey9, Lee Bacheler10, Martin Tuohy9, Brazilian Network Reference Physicians Working Group 6
1 Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
2 Universidade Federal de Bahia, Brazil
3 Hospital Emilio Ribas, São Paulo, SP, Brazil
4 Universidade de Fortaleza, CE, Brazil
5 Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, RJ, Brazil
6 Network Reference Physicians Working Group
7 Secretaria Estadual de Saúde do Rio Grande do Sul, RS, Brazil
8 Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, MG, Brasil
9 Virco BVBA, Mechelen, Belgium
10 VircoLab Inc, Durham, NC, USA
Ver más
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Abstract
Objective

To investigates how the use of HIV-1 resistance tests influences physician decision-making.

Methods

Ten experienced reference physicians from the Brazilian Network for Drug Resistance each received ten patients’ case histories. The selected patients had experienced at least two virological failures. First, reference physicians were asked to empirically select a new regimen for each patient. Second, after genotype report (ViroSeq 2.6) was provided, and physicians were again asked to select a new regimen considering this additional information. Finally, they were asked to select a regimen after receiving a virtual phenotype result (vircoTYPE 3.9.00).

Results

In 79% of the cases, physicians changed their empirical choice of regimen after receiving the genotype report, resulting in an increase in the mean number of active drugs from 1.8 to 2.2 (p = 0.0003), while the average number of drugs/regimen remained at 4.0. After receipt of the virtual phenotype report, additional changes were made in 75% of the patient cases, resulting in an increase in the number of active drugs to 2.8 (p < 0.0001), while the average number of drugs/ regimen remained at 4.0. After receipt of the genotype report, 48% of the changes were in NRTIs, 29% were in NNRTIs and 60% were in PIs; after consideration of the virtual phenotype, 61%, 10% and 49% of the changes, respectively, were in these categories of drugs. Fourteen percent of the physicians rated the genotype report as “extremely useful”, whereas 34% rated the subsequent virtual phenotype report as “extremely useful” (p = 0.0003).

Conclusions

Resistance testing has a significant impact on physicians’ choices of antiretroviral salvage therapies, and it promotes the selection of more active drugs.

Keywords:
genotype
virtual phenotype
antiretroviral resistance
Brazil
Full text is only aviable in PDF
References
[1]
S.G. Deeks, R. Hoh, T.B. Neilands, et al.
Interruption of treatment with individual therapeutic drug classes in adults with multidrug- resistant HIV-1 infection.
J Infect Dis, 192 (2005), pp. 1537-1544
[2]
R. Medeiros, R.S. Diaz, A.C. Filho.
Estimating the length of the first antiretroviral therapy regimen durability in São Paulo, Brazil.
Braz J Infect Dis, 6 (2002), pp. 298-304
[3]
S. Napravnik, D. Edwards, P. Stewart, B. Stalzer, E. Matteson, J.J. Eron Jr.
HIV-1 drug resistance evolution among patients on potent combination antiretroviral therapy with detectable viremia.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 40 (2005), pp. 34-40
[4]
M.C. Sucupira, I.E. Souza, L.J. Costa, M.A. Scheinberg, R.S. Diaz.
Antiretroviral treatment failure and HIV-1 genotypic resistance in São Paulo, Brazil.
Antivir Ther, 6 (2001), pp. 263-264
[5]
N. Lohse, G. Kronborg, J. Gerstoft, et al.
Virological control during the first 6-18 months after initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy as a predictor for outcome in HIV-infected patients: a Danish, population-based, 6-year follow-up study.
Clin Infect Dis, 42 (2006), pp. 136-144
[6]
M. Zaccarelli, V. Tozzi, P. Lorenzini, et al.
Multiple drug classwide resistance associated with poorer survival after treatment failure in a cohort of HIV-infected patients.
Aids, 19 (2005), pp. 1081-1089
[7]
J. Durant, P. Clevenbergh, P. Halfon, et al.
Drug-resistance genotyping in HIV-1 therapy: the VIRADAPT randomised controlled trial.
Lancet, 353 (1999), pp. 2195-2199
[8]
J.D. Baxter, D.L. Mayers, D.N. Wentworth, et al.
A randomized study of antiretroviral management based on plasma genotypic antiretroviral resistance testing in patients failing therapy. CPCRA 046 Study Team for the Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS.
Aids, 14 (2000), pp. F83-F93
[9]
C.J. Cohen, S. Hunt, M. Sension, et al.
A randomized trial assessing the impact of phenotypic resistance testing on antiretroviral therapy.
Aids, 16 (2002), pp. 579-588
[10]
C. Tural, L. Ruiz, C. Holtzer, et al.
Clinical utility of HIV-1 genotyping and expert advice: the Havana trial.
Aids, 16 (2002), pp. 209-218
[11]
M. Vray, J.L. Meynard, C. Dalban, et al.
Predictors of the virological response to a change in the antiretroviral treatment regimen in HIV-1-infected patients enrolled in a randomized trial comparing genotyping, phenotyping and standard of care (Narval trial, ANRS 088).
Antivir Ther, 8 (2003), pp. 427-434
[12]
F. Mazzotta, S. Lo Caputo, C. Torti, et al.
Real versus virtual phenotype to guide treatment in heavily pretreated patients: 48-week follow-up of the Genotipo-Fenotipo di Resistenza (GenPheRex) trial.
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 32 (2003), pp. 268-280
[13]
M.J. Perez-Elias, I. Garcia-Arota, V. Munoz, et al.
Phenotype or virtual phenotype for choosing antiretroviral therapy after failure: a prospective, randomized study.
Antivir Ther, 8 (2003), pp. 577-584
[14]
R. Swanstrom, R.J. Bosch, D. Katzenstein, et al.
Weighted phenotypic susceptibility scores are predictive of the HIV-1 RNA response in protease inhibitor-experienced HIV-1-infected subjects.
J Infect Dis, 190 (2004), pp. 886-893
[15]
M.C. Weinstein, S.J. Goldie, E. Losina, et al.
Use of genotypic resistance testing to guide HIV therapy: clinical impact and cost-effectiveness.
Ann Intern Med, 134 (2001), pp. 440-450
[16]
F. Palella, C. Armon, J. Chmiel, et al.
Enhanced Survival Associated with Use of HIV Susceptibility Testing among HAARTexperienced Patients in the HIV Outpatient Study (HOPS).
13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections,
Copyright © 2010. Elsevier Editora Ltda.. All rights reserved
Download PDF
The Brazilian Journal of Infectious Diseases
Article options
Tools