BACKGROUND: Resistance analysis from viral RNA is restricted to detectable viral load. Therefore, analysis from proviral DNA could help in cases with low-level or suppressed viremia. METHODS: Viral plasma RNA and the corresponding cellular proviral DNA of 78 EDTA samples from 48 therapy-naïve (TN) and 30 therapy-experienced (TE) HIV-1-infected patients were isolated and analyzed for their resistance profiles in the protease and reverse transcriptase genes. RESULTS: Overall, 175 drug-resistance mutations (DRMs) were detected in 25/30 TE (83.3%) and 5/48 TN (10.4%) samples. The TE patients displayed a mean number of 6.68 DRMs in RNA and 5.20 in DNA. In the TN patients, a mean of 0.8 DRMs was found in RNA and 1.0 in DNA; 75% of the DRMs were detected in RNA and DNA simultaneously. In the TE samples, 76% of the DRMs were detected simultaneously in RNA and DNA, 23% exclusively in RNA and 1% in DNA only. The TN samples revealed a significantly higher frequency of DRMs in DNA than in RNA. CONCLUSIONS: Proviral DNA resistance testing provides additional resistance information for TN patients. It is also a reliable alternative for TE patients with unsuccessful RNA testing and can provide valuable information when no records are available.
BACKGROUND: Resistance analysis from viral RNA is restricted to detectable viral load. Therefore, analysis from proviral DNA could help in cases with low-level or suppressed viremia. METHODS: Viral plasma RNA and the corresponding cellular proviral DNA of 78 EDTA samples from 48 therapy-naïve (TN) and 30 therapy-experienced (TE) HIV-1-infectedpatients were isolated and analyzed for their resistance profiles in the protease and reverse transcriptase genes. RESULTS: Overall, 175 drug-resistance mutations (DRMs) were detected in 25/30 TE (83.3%) and 5/48 TN (10.4%) samples. The TE patients displayed a mean number of 6.68 DRMs in RNA and 5.20 in DNA. In the TN patients, a mean of 0.8 DRMs was found in RNA and 1.0 in DNA; 75% of the DRMs were detected in RNA and DNA simultaneously. In the TE samples, 76% of the DRMs were detected simultaneously in RNA and DNA, 23% exclusively in RNA and 1% in DNA only. The TN samples revealed a significantly higher frequency of DRMs in DNA than in RNA. CONCLUSIONS: Proviral DNA resistance testing provides additional resistance information for TN patients. It is also a reliable alternative for TE patients with unsuccessful RNA testing and can provide valuable information when no records are available.
Authors: Huldrych F Günthard; Michael S Saag; Constance A Benson; Carlos del Rio; Joseph J Eron; Joel E Gallant; Jennifer F Hoy; Michael J Mugavero; Paul E Sax; Melanie A Thompson; Rajesh T Gandhi; Raphael J Landovitz; Davey M Smith; Donna M Jacobsen; Paul A Volberding Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Melanie Stecher; Martin Hoenigl; Anna Maria Eis-Hübinger; Clara Lehmann; Gerd Fätkenheuer; Jan-Christian Wasmuth; Elena Knops; Jörg Janne Vehreschild; Sanjay Mehta; Antoine Chaillon Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Marek Widera; Miriam Dirks; Barbara Bleekmann; Robert Jablonka; Martin Däumer; Hauke Walter; Robert Ehret; Jens Verheyen; Stefan Esser Journal: Med Microbiol Immunol Date: 2017-02-20 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: F Neuhann; A de Forest; E Heger; A Nhlema; C Scheller; R Kaiser; H M Steffen; H Tweya; G Fätkenheuer; S Phiri Journal: AIDS Res Ther Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 2.250
Authors: Justin De La Cruz; Saran Vardhanbhuti; Malaya K Sahoo; Robert Rovner; Ronald J Bosch; Justen Manasa; David A Katzenstein; Benjamin A Pinsky Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2019-01-16 Impact factor: 3.835