Andrew D Revell1, Dechao Wang2, Robin Wood3, Carl Morrow3, Hugo Tempelman4, Raph L Hamers5, Peter Reiss6, Ard I van Sighem7, Mark Nelson8, Julio S G Montaner9, H Clifford Lane10, Brendan A Larder2. 1. The HIV Resistance Response Database Initiative (RDI), London, UK andrewrevell@hivrdi.org. 2. The HIV Resistance Response Database Initiative (RDI), London, UK. 3. Desmond Tutu HIV Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 4. Ndlovu Care Group, Elandsdoorn, South Africa. 5. Departments of Internal Medicine and Global Health, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Departments of Internal Medicine and Global Health, Academic Medical Centre of the University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Institute for Global Health and Development, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Stichting HIV Monitoring, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Stichting HIV Monitoring, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 8. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK. 9. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, Canada. 10. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Optimizing antiretroviral drug combination on an individual basis in resource-limited settings is challenging because of the limited availability of drugs and genotypic resistance testing. Here, we describe our latest computational models to predict treatment responses, with or without a genotype, and compare the potential utility of global and local models as a treatment tool for South Africa. METHODS: Global random forest models were trained to predict the probability of virological response to therapy following virological failure using 29 574 treatment change episodes (TCEs) without a genotype, 3179 of which were from South Africa and were used to develop local models. In addition, 15 130 TCEs including genotypes were used to develop another set of models. The 'no-genotype' models were tested with an independent global test set (n = 1700) plus a subset from South Africa (n = 222). The genotype models were tested with 750 independent cases. RESULTS: The global no-genotype models achieved area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.82 and 0.79 with the global and South African tests sets, respectively, and the South African models achieved AUCs of 0.70 and 0.79. The genotype models achieved an AUC of 0.84. The global no-genotype models identified more alternative, locally available regimens that were predicted to be effective for cases that failed their new regimen in the South African clinics than the local models. Both sets of models were significantly more accurate predictors of outcomes than genotyping with rules-based interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These latest global models predict treatment responses accurately even without a genotype, out-performed the local South African models and have the potential to help optimize therapy, particularly in resource-limited settings.
OBJECTIVES: Optimizing antiretroviral drug combination on an individual basis in resource-limited settings is challenging because of the limited availability of drugs and genotypic resistance testing. Here, we describe our latest computational models to predict treatment responses, with or without a genotype, and compare the potential utility of global and local models as a treatment tool for South Africa. METHODS: Global random forest models were trained to predict the probability of virological response to therapy following virological failure using 29 574 treatment change episodes (TCEs) without a genotype, 3179 of which were from South Africa and were used to develop local models. In addition, 15 130 TCEs including genotypes were used to develop another set of models. The 'no-genotype' models were tested with an independent global test set (n = 1700) plus a subset from South Africa (n = 222). The genotype models were tested with 750 independent cases. RESULTS: The global no-genotype models achieved area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.82 and 0.79 with the global and South African tests sets, respectively, and the South African models achieved AUCs of 0.70 and 0.79. The genotype models achieved an AUC of 0.84. The global no-genotype models identified more alternative, locally available regimens that were predicted to be effective for cases that failed their new regimen in the South African clinics than the local models. Both sets of models were significantly more accurate predictors of outcomes than genotyping with rules-based interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These latest global models predict treatment responses accurately even without a genotype, out-performed the local South African models and have the potential to help optimize therapy, particularly in resource-limited settings.
Authors: Brendan A Larder; Andrew Revell; Joann M Mican; Brian K Agan; Marianne Harris; Carlo Torti; Ilaria Izzo; Julia A Metcalf; Migdalia Rivera-Goba; Vincent C Marconi; Dechao Wang; Daniel Coe; Brian Gazzard; Julio Montaner; H Clifford Lane Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 5.078
Authors: Brendan Larder; Dechao Wang; Andrew Revell; Julio Montaner; Richard Harrigan; Frank De Wolf; Joep Lange; Scott Wegner; Lidia Ruiz; Maria Jésus Pérez-Elías; Sean Emery; Jose Gatell; Antonella D'Arminio Monforte; Carlo Torti; Maurizio Zazzi; Clifford Lane Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2007
Authors: Ian Williams; Duncan Churchill; Jane Anderson; Marta Boffito; Mark Bower; Gus Cairns; Kate Cwynarski; Simon Edwards; Sarah Fidler; Martin Fisher; Andrew Freedman; Anna Maria Geretti; Yvonne Gilleece; Rob Horne; Margaret Johnson; Saye Khoo; Clifford Leen; Neal Marshall; Mark Nelson; Chloe Orkin; Nicholas Paton; Andrew Phillips; Frank Post; Anton Pozniak; Caroline Sabin; Roy Trevelion; Andrew Ustianowski; John Walsh; Laura Waters; Edmund Wilkins; Alan Winston; Mike Youle Journal: HIV Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Dechao Wang; Brendan Larder; Andrew Revell; Julio Montaner; Richard Harrigan; Frank De Wolf; Joep Lange; Scott Wegner; Lidia Ruiz; María Jésus Pérez-Elías; Sean Emery; Jose Gatell; Antonella D'Arminio Monforte; Carlo Torti; Maurizio Zazzi; Clifford Lane Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2009-06-12 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: A D Revell; D Wang; R Wood; C Morrow; H Tempelman; R L Hamers; G Alvarez-Uria; A Streinu-Cercel; L Ene; A M J Wensing; F DeWolf; M Nelson; J S Montaner; H C Lane; B A Larder Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Annemarie M Wensing; Vincent Calvez; Huldrych F Günthard; Victoria A Johnson; Roger Paredes; Deenan Pillay; Robert W Shafer; Douglas D Richman Journal: Top Antivir Med Date: 2014 Jun-Jul
Authors: Ravindra K Gupta; Andrew Hill; Anthony W Sawyer; Alessandro Cozzi-Lepri; Viktor von Wyl; Sabine Yerly; Viviane Dias Lima; Huldrych F Günthard; Charles Gilks; Deenan Pillay Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Andrew D Revell; Dechao Wang; Robin Wood; Carl Morrow; Hugo Tempelman; Raph Hamers; Gerardo Alvarez-Uria; Adrian Streinu-Cercel; Luminita Ene; Annemarie Wensing; Peter Reiss; Ard I van Sighem; Mark Nelson; Sean Emery; Julio S G Montaner; H Clifford Lane; Brendan A Larder Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2013-11-24 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Huldrych F Günthard; Judith A Aberg; Joseph J Eron; Jennifer F Hoy; Amalio Telenti; Constance A Benson; David M Burger; Pedro Cahn; Joel E Gallant; Marshall J Glesby; Peter Reiss; Michael S Saag; David L Thomas; Donna M Jacobsen; Paul A Volberding Journal: JAMA Date: 2014 Jul 23-30 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Andrew D Revell; Dechao Wang; Maria-Jesus Perez-Elias; Robin Wood; Dolphina Cogill; Hugo Tempelman; Raph L Hamers; Peter Reiss; Ard I van Sighem; Catherine A Rehm; Anton Pozniak; Julio S G Montaner; H Clifford Lane; Brendan A Larder Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Kuteesa R Bisaso; Susan A Karungi; Agnes Kiragga; Jackson K Mukonzo; Barbara Castelnuovo Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2018-09-04 Impact factor: 2.796