BACKGROUND: Amplification based HIV-1 viral load and genotypic resistance assays are expensive, technologically complex and may be difficult to implement in resource limited settings. Inexpensive, simpler assays are urgently needed. OBJECTIVES: To determine the suitability of the ExaVir Load and ExaVir Drug assays for use in patient monitoring. STUDY DESIGN: Specimens from 108 adults were used to compare ExaVir Load HIV-1 RT to Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor HIV-1 RNA, and ExaVir Drug phenotype to HIV GenoSure genotype. RESULTS: HIV-1 RT and HIV-1 RNA levels were comparable (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.83). Most (94%) had detectable results in both assays. The mean difference (HIV-1 RT minus HIV-1 RNA) was -0.21 log(10)cps/mLequiv. Relationship between HIV-1 RT and HIV-1 RNA was not affected by RT mutations, CD4 cell count, or efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP) use. Phenotypes were generally consistent with genotype findings for EFV, but not for NVP. Most patients (93.9%) with phenotypic EFV resistance had at least one EFV mutation, while 78.0% of patients with phenotypic NVP resistance had at least one NVP mutation. Eleven of 49 samples tested for EFV susceptibility were found resistant (n=2) or with reduced susceptibility (n=9) despite the absence of genotypic resistance. Eleven of 45 samples tested for NVP susceptibility were found resistant (n=9) or with reduced susceptibility (n=2) with no evidence of genotypic mutations. CONCLUSIONS: The ExaVir Load assay performed well and may be an alternative to amplification based techniques for HIV-1 RNA quantification. The ExaVir Drug assay for phenotypic resistance testing requires further evaluation, especially for NVP. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Amplification based HIV-1 viral load and genotypic resistance assays are expensive, technologically complex and may be difficult to implement in resource limited settings. Inexpensive, simpler assays are urgently needed. OBJECTIVES: To determine the suitability of the ExaVir Load and ExaVir Drug assays for use in patient monitoring. STUDY DESIGN: Specimens from 108 adults were used to compare ExaVir Load HIV-1 RT to Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor HIV-1 RNA, and ExaVir Drug phenotype to HIV GenoSure genotype. RESULTS:HIV-1 RT and HIV-1 RNA levels were comparable (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.83). Most (94%) had detectable results in both assays. The mean difference (HIV-1 RT minus HIV-1 RNA) was -0.21 log(10)cps/mLequiv. Relationship between HIV-1 RT and HIV-1 RNA was not affected by RT mutations, CD4 cell count, or efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP) use. Phenotypes were generally consistent with genotype findings for EFV, but not for NVP. Most patients (93.9%) with phenotypic EFV resistance had at least one EFV mutation, while 78.0% of patients with phenotypic NVP resistance had at least one NVP mutation. Eleven of 49 samples tested for EFV susceptibility were found resistant (n=2) or with reduced susceptibility (n=9) despite the absence of genotypic resistance. Eleven of 45 samples tested for NVP susceptibility were found resistant (n=9) or with reduced susceptibility (n=2) with no evidence of genotypic mutations. CONCLUSIONS: The ExaVir Load assay performed well and may be an alternative to amplification based techniques for HIV-1 RNA quantification. The ExaVir Drug assay for phenotypic resistance testing requires further evaluation, especially for NVP. Copyright (c) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Authors: C Adjé; R Cheingsong; T H Roels; C Maurice; G Djomand; W Verbiest; K Hertogs; B Larder; B Monga; M Peeters; S Eholie; E Bissagene; M Coulibaly; R Respess; S Z Wiktor; T Chorba; J N Nkengasong Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2001-04-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Vicki L Greengrass; Shannon P Turnbull; Jane Hocking; Amanda L Dunne; Gilda Tachedjian; Gary E Corrigan; Suzanne M Crowe Journal: Curr HIV Res Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 1.581
Authors: Anders Malmsten; Xing-Wu Shao; Staffan Sjödahl; Eva-Lena Fredriksson; Ingvar Pettersson; Thomas Leitner; Clas F R Källander; Eric Sandström; J Simon Gronowitz Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Anders Malmsten; Xing-Wu Shao; Kajsa Aperia; Gary E Corrigan; Eric Sandström; Clas F R Källander; Thomas Leitner; J Simon Gronowitz Journal: J Med Virol Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.327
Authors: Joséphine Braun; Jean-Christophe Plantier; Marie-France Hellot; Edouard Tuaillon; Marie Gueudin; Florence Damond; Anders Malmsten; Gary E Corrigan; François Simon Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-02-14 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Xing-Wu Shao; Anders Malmsten; Johan Lennerstrand; Anders Sönnerborg; Torsten Unge; J Simon Gronowitz; Clas F Källander Journal: AIDS Date: 2003-07-04 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Paul Stewart; Ada Cachafeiro; Sonia Napravnik; Joseph J Eron; Ian Frank; Charles van der Horst; Ronald J Bosch; Daniel Bettendorf; Peter Bohlin; Susan A Fiscus Journal: J Clin Virol Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 3.168
Authors: Dieter Hoffmann; Albert D Garcia; P Richard Harrigan; Ian C D Johnston; Tadashi Nakasone; J Gerardo García-Lerma; Walid Heneine Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-07-20 Impact factor: 3.240