OBJECTIVE: We compared eight genotypic interpretation methods to determine whether the method used would affect the rates of reported transmitted drug resistance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: For the International AIDS Society-USA method we classified a mutation as resistant if it was a 'major' resistance-associated mutation. For the Stanford algorithm, we classified a mutation as resistant if the score was at least 60 (Stanford 60), and alternatively, if the score was at least 30 (Stanford 30). For Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA and Rega, we interpreted resistance as either 'intermediate resistance' or 'resistance' (ANRS 1 and Rega 1), and 'resistance' only (ANRS 2 and Rega 2). We also used the calibrated population resistance algorithm. We then determined the rates of transmitted drug resistance within the Acute Infection Early Disease Research Program cohort (n = 1311) enrolled between March 1995 and August 2006 using each method; agreement was assessed using kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Differences in estimated rates of transmitted drug resistance using International AIDS Society-USA, calibrated population resistance, Stanford 30, ANRS 1, Rega 1 and Rega 2 methods were mostly minor for resistance to protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (1% range) and more pronounced for nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (5% range). For these methods kappa agreement was substantial or almost perfect across all drug classes. The Stanford 60 was most conservative. CONCLUSIONS: The persistent high rates of transmitted drug resistance support the need for continued genotypic surveillance. The currently available interpretation algorithms can be used for this purpose.
OBJECTIVE: We compared eight genotypic interpretation methods to determine whether the method used would affect the rates of reported transmitted drug resistance. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: For the International AIDS Society-USA method we classified a mutation as resistant if it was a 'major' resistance-associated mutation. For the Stanford algorithm, we classified a mutation as resistant if the score was at least 60 (Stanford 60), and alternatively, if the score was at least 30 (Stanford 30). For Agence Nationale de Recherches sur le SIDA and Rega, we interpreted resistance as either 'intermediate resistance' or 'resistance' (ANRS 1 and Rega 1), and 'resistance' only (ANRS 2 and Rega 2). We also used the calibrated population resistance algorithm. We then determined the rates of transmitted drug resistance within the Acute Infection Early Disease Research Program cohort (n = 1311) enrolled between March 1995 and August 2006 using each method; agreement was assessed using kappa coefficients. RESULTS: Differences in estimated rates of transmitted drug resistance using International AIDS Society-USA, calibrated population resistance, Stanford 30, ANRS 1, Rega 1 and Rega 2 methods were mostly minor for resistance to protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (1% range) and more pronounced for nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (5% range). For these methods kappa agreement was substantial or almost perfect across all drug classes. The Stanford 60 was most conservative. CONCLUSIONS: The persistent high rates of transmitted drug resistance support the need for continued genotypic surveillance. The currently available interpretation algorithms can be used for this purpose.
Authors: Robert W Shafer; Soo-Yon Rhee; Deenan Pillay; Veronica Miller; Paul Sandstrom; Jonathan M Schapiro; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Diane Bennett Journal: AIDS Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Joke Snoeck; Rami Kantor; Robert W Shafer; Kristel Van Laethem; Koen Deforche; Ana Patricia Carvalho; Brian Wynhoven; Marcelo A Soares; Patricia Cane; John Clarke; Candice Pillay; Sunee Sirivichayakul; Koya Ariyoshi; Africa Holguin; Hagit Rudich; Rosangela Rodrigues; Maria Belen Bouzas; Françoise Brun-Vézinet; Caroline Reid; Pedro Cahn; Luis Fernando Brigido; Zehava Grossman; Vincent Soriano; Wataru Sugiura; Praphan Phanuphak; Lynn Morris; Jonathan Weber; Deenan Pillay; Amilcar Tanuri; Richard P Harrigan; Ricardo Camacho; Jonathan M Schapiro; David Katzenstein; Anne-Mieke Vandamme Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Victoria A Johnson; Francoise Brun-Vezinet; Bonaventura Clotet; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Deenan Pillay; Jonathan M Schapiro; Douglas D Richman Journal: Top HIV Med Date: 2006 Aug-Sep
Authors: Hong-Ha M Truong; Robert M Grant; Willi McFarland; Timothy Kellogg; Charlotte Kent; Brian Louie; Ernest Wong; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: AIDS Date: 2006-11-14 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Susan J Little; Sarah Holte; Jean-Pierre Routy; Eric S Daar; Marty Markowitz; Ann C Collier; Richard A Koup; John W Mellors; Elizabeth Connick; Brian Conway; Michael Kilby; Lei Wang; Jeannette M Whitcomb; Nicholas S Hellmann; Douglas D Richman Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-08-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert M Grant; Frederick M Hecht; Maria Warmerdam; Lea Liu; Teri Liegler; Christos J Petropoulos; Nicholas S Hellmann; Margaret Chesney; Michael P Busch; James O Kahn Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-07-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Bernard Masquelier; Krishnan Bhaskaran; Deenan Pillay; Robert Gifford; Eric Balestre; Louise Bruun Jørgensen; Court Pedersen; Lia van der Hoek; Maria Prins; Claudia Balotta; Benedetta Longo; Claudia Kücherer; Gabriele Poggensee; Marta Ortiz; Carmen de Mendoza; John Gill; Hervé Fleury; Kholoud Porter Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2005-12-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Awachana Jiamsakul; Romanee Chaiwarith; Nicolas Durier; Sunee Sirivichayakul; Sasisopin Kiertiburanakul; Peter Van Den Eede; Rossana Ditangco; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Patrick C K Li; Winai Ratanasuwan; Thira Sirisanthana Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Stephen A Hart; Saran Vardhanabhuti; Sarah A Strobino; Linda J Harrison Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Sanjay R Mehta; Wayne Delport; Kimberly C Brouwer; Stephen Espitia; Thomas Patterson; Sergei Kosakovsky Pond; Steffanie A Strathdee; Davey M Smith Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2010-10-26 Impact factor: 1.723
Authors: N Lance Hepler; Konrad Scheffler; Steven Weaver; Ben Murrell; Douglas D Richman; Dennis R Burton; Pascal Poignard; Davey M Smith; Sergei L Kosakovsky Pond Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Awachana Jiamsakul; Rami Kantor; Patrick C K Li; Sunee Sirivichayakul; Thira Sirisanthana; Pacharee Kantipong; Christopher K C Lee; Adeeba Kamarulzaman; Winai Ratanasuwan; Rossana Ditangco; Thida Singtoroj; Somnuek Sungkanuparph Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2012-10-24