OBJECTIVE: Although 2 widely used susceptibility assays have been developed, their precision and sensitivity have not been assessed. DESIGN AND METHODS: To assess the precision of the Antivirogram and PhenoSense assays, we examined susceptibility results of HIV-1 isolates lacking drug resistance mutations and containing matching patterns of drug resistance mutations. To assess sensitivity, we determined for each assay the proportion of isolates with common patterns of matching drug resistance mutations having reductions in susceptibility greater than those in isolates without drug resistance mutations. RESULTS: We analyzed protease inhibitor (PI) susceptibility results obtained by the Antivirogram assay for 293 isolates and by the PhenoSense assay for 300 isolates. We analyzed reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitor susceptibility results obtained by the Antivirogram assay for 202 isolates and by the PhenoSense assay for 126 isolates. For wild-type and mutant isolates, the median absolute deviance of the fold resistance of nucleoside RT inhibitor susceptibility results was significantly lower for the PhenoSense assay than for the Antivirogram assay. The PhenoSense assay was also significantly more likely than the Antivirogram assay to detect resistance to abacavir, didanosine, and stavudine in isolates with the common drug resistance mutations M41L, M184V, and T215Y (+/-L210W). We found no significant differences between the 2 assays for detecting PI and nonnucleoside RT inhibitor resistance. CONCLUSION: The PhenoSense assay is more precise than the Antivirogram assay and superior at detecting resistance to abacavir, didanosine, and stavudine.
OBJECTIVE: Although 2 widely used susceptibility assays have been developed, their precision and sensitivity have not been assessed. DESIGN AND METHODS: To assess the precision of the Antivirogram and PhenoSense assays, we examined susceptibility results of HIV-1 isolates lacking drug resistance mutations and containing matching patterns of drug resistance mutations. To assess sensitivity, we determined for each assay the proportion of isolates with common patterns of matching drug resistance mutations having reductions in susceptibility greater than those in isolates without drug resistance mutations. RESULTS: We analyzed protease inhibitor (PI) susceptibility results obtained by the Antivirogram assay for 293 isolates and by the PhenoSense assay for 300 isolates. We analyzed reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitor susceptibility results obtained by the Antivirogram assay for 202 isolates and by the PhenoSense assay for 126 isolates. For wild-type and mutant isolates, the median absolute deviance of the fold resistance of nucleoside RT inhibitor susceptibility results was significantly lower for the PhenoSense assay than for the Antivirogram assay. The PhenoSense assay was also significantly more likely than the Antivirogram assay to detect resistance to abacavir, didanosine, and stavudine in isolates with the common drug resistance mutations M41L, M184V, and T215Y (+/-L210W). We found no significant differences between the 2 assays for detecting PI and nonnucleoside RT inhibitor resistance. CONCLUSION: The PhenoSense assay is more precise than the Antivirogram assay and superior at detecting resistance to abacavir, didanosine, and stavudine.
Authors: N S Shulman; R A Machekano; R W Shafer; M A Winters; A R Zolopa; S H Liou; M Hughes; D A Katzenstein Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2001-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: C J Petropoulos; N T Parkin; K L Limoli; Y S Lie; T Wrin; W Huang; H Tian; D Smith; G A Winslow; D J Capon; J M Whitcomb Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: K Hertogs; M P de Béthune; V Miller; T Ivens; P Schel; A Van Cauwenberge; C Van Den Eynde; V Van Gerwen; H Azijn; M Van Houtte; F Peeters; S Staszewski; M Conant; S Bloor; S Kemp; B Larder; R Pauwels Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1998-02 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: N T Parkin; N S Hellmann; J M Whitcomb; L Kiss; C Chappey; C J Petropoulos Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: E Randall Lanier; Mounir Ait-Khaled; Janna Scott; Chris Stone; Thomas Melby; Glenn Sturge; Marty St Clair; Helen Steel; Seth Hetherington; Gillian Pearce; William Spreen; Stephen Lafon Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2004-02
Authors: George L Melikian; Soo-Yon Rhee; Jonathan Taylor; W Jeffrey Fessel; David Kaufman; William Towner; Paolo V Troia-Cancio; Andrew Zolopa; Gregory K Robbins; Ron Kagan; Dennis Israelski; Robert W Shafer Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2012-02-13 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Soo-Yon Rhee; Jonathan Taylor; Gauhar Wadhera; Asa Ben-Hur; Douglas L Brutlag; Robert W Shafer Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-10-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jan Weber; Ana C Vazquez; Dane Winner; Justine D Rose; Doug Wylie; Ariel M Rhea; Kenneth Henry; Jennifer Pappas; Alison Wright; Nizar Mohamed; Richard Gibson; Benigno Rodriguez; Vicente Soriano; Kevin King; Eric J Arts; Paul D Olivo; Miguel E Quiñones-Mateu Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2011-05-31 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Bharat S Parekh; Chin-Yih Ou; Peter N Fonjungo; Mireille B Kalou; Erin Rottinghaus; Adrian Puren; Heather Alexander; Mackenzie Hurlston Cox; John N Nkengasong Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2018-11-28 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Marcin Kierczak; Krzysztof Ginalski; Michał Dramiński; Jacek Koronacki; Witold Rudnicki; Jan Komorowski Journal: Bioinform Biol Insights Date: 2009-10-05
Authors: Vici Varghese; Yumi Mitsuya; Rajin Shahriar; Michael H Bachmann; W Jeffrey Fessel; Ron M Kagan; Robert W Shafer Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2009-02-17 Impact factor: 5.191