BACKGROUND: The use of different lists of resistance mutations has resulted in estimates of transmitted HIV drug resistance (THDR) that are often not comparable. METHODS: We estimated the rate of THDR based on the 3 definitions: > or =1 major mutation(s) listed on the International AIDS Society (IAS)-USA drug resistance mutation (DRM) 2006 list; > or =1 surveillance drug resistance mutation(s) (SDRM) on the published list by Shafer et al; and low-level/intermediate/high-level resistance to > or =1 drug(s) according to the Stanford HIVdb interpretation algorithm. Analyses were based on genotypic resistance tests conducted during 1997-2005 on antiretroviral therapy-naive patients and reported to the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database. The effect on THDR rates of revisions to the IAS-DRM list was also examined. RESULTS: Overall, 10.0%, 9.2%, and 10.4% of the 8272 samples available for analysis were classified as having THDR by the IAS-DRM, SDRM, and Stanford definitions, respectively; however, there was discordance for 244 (3%) samples. Changes in the version of the IAS-DRM list over time resulted in 4%-7% differences in the estimated rate of THDR, which increased from 4%-5% during 1997-2000 to 5%-7% during 2001-2005. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of genotypic definition had a minor influence on the estimated rate of THDR. The SDRM list is recommended for epidemiological estimates of THDR as it has been designed with such studies in mind.
BACKGROUND: The use of different lists of resistance mutations has resulted in estimates of transmitted HIV drug resistance (THDR) that are often not comparable. METHODS: We estimated the rate of THDR based on the 3 definitions: > or =1 major mutation(s) listed on the International AIDS Society (IAS)-USA drug resistance mutation (DRM) 2006 list; > or =1 surveillance drug resistance mutation(s) (SDRM) on the published list by Shafer et al; and low-level/intermediate/high-level resistance to > or =1 drug(s) according to the Stanford HIVdb interpretation algorithm. Analyses were based on genotypic resistance tests conducted during 1997-2005 on antiretroviral therapy-naive patients and reported to the UK HIV Drug Resistance Database. The effect on THDR rates of revisions to the IAS-DRM list was also examined. RESULTS: Overall, 10.0%, 9.2%, and 10.4% of the 8272 samples available for analysis were classified as having THDR by the IAS-DRM, SDRM, and Stanford definitions, respectively; however, there was discordance for 244 (3%) samples. Changes in the version of the IAS-DRM list over time resulted in 4%-7% differences in the estimated rate of THDR, which increased from 4%-5% during 1997-2000 to 5%-7% during 2001-2005. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of genotypic definition had a minor influence on the estimated rate of THDR. The SDRM list is recommended for epidemiological estimates of THDR as it has been designed with such studies in mind.
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: Diane E Bennett; Ricardo J Camacho; Dan Otelea; Daniel R Kuritzkes; Hervé Fleury; Mark Kiuchi; Walid Heneine; Rami Kantor; Michael R Jordan; Jonathan M Schapiro; Anne-Mieke Vandamme; Paul Sandstrom; Charles A B Boucher; David van de Vijver; Soo-Yon Rhee; Tommy F Liu; Deenan Pillay; Robert W Shafer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-03-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christopher B Hurt; Sandra I McCoy; Joann Kuruc; Julie Ae Nelson; Melissa Kerkau; Susan Fiscus; Kara McGee; Joseph Sebastian; Peter Leone; Christopher Pilcher; Charles Hicks; Joseph Eron Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2009
Authors: Ravindra K Gupta; Michael R Jordan; Binta J Sultan; Andrew Hill; Daniel H J Davis; John Gregson; Anthony W Sawyer; Raph L Hamers; Nicaise Ndembi; Deenan Pillay; Silvia Bertagnolio Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 79.321