Andrew D Revell1, Dechao Wang1, Maria-Jesus Perez-Elias2, Robin Wood3, Dolphina Cogill3, Hugo Tempelman4, Raph L Hamers5, Peter Reiss5,6, Ard I van Sighem6, Catherine A Rehm7, Anton Pozniak8, Julio S G Montaner9, H Clifford Lane7, Brendan A Larder1. 1. The HIV Resistance Response Database Initiative (RDI), London, UK. 2. Instituto Ramón y Cajal de Investigación Sanitaria, Madrid, Spain. 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. Stichting HIV Monitoring, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK. 9. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, Canada.
Abstract
Objectives: Optimizing antiretroviral drug combination on an individual basis can be challenging, particularly in settings with limited access to drugs and genotypic resistance testing. Here we describe our latest computational models to predict treatment responses, with or without a genotype, and compare their predictive accuracy with that of genotyping. Methods: Random forest models were trained to predict the probability of virological response to a new therapy introduced following virological failure using up to 50 000 treatment change episodes (TCEs) without a genotype and 18 000 TCEs including genotypes. Independent data sets were used to evaluate the models. This study tested the effects on model accuracy of relaxing the baseline data timing windows, the use of a new filter to exclude probable non-adherent cases and the addition of maraviroc, tipranavir and elvitegravir to the system. Results: The no-genotype models achieved area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.82 and 0.81 using the standard and relaxed baseline data windows, respectively. The genotype models achieved AUC values of 0.86 with the new non-adherence filter and 0.84 without. Both sets of models were significantly more accurate than genotyping with rules-based interpretation, which achieved AUC values of only 0.55-0.63, and were marginally more accurate than previous models. The models were able to identify alternative regimens that were predicted to be effective for the vast majority of cases in which the new regimen prescribed in the clinic failed. Conclusions: These latest global models predict treatment responses accurately even without a genotype and have the potential to help optimize therapy, particularly in resource-limited settings.
Objectives: Optimizing antiretroviral drug combination on an individual basis can be challenging, particularly in settings with limited access to drugs and genotypic resistance testing. Here we describe our latest computational models to predict treatment responses, with or without a genotype, and compare their predictive accuracy with that of genotyping. Methods: Random forest models were trained to predict the probability of virological response to a new therapy introduced following virological failure using up to 50 000 treatment change episodes (TCEs) without a genotype and 18 000 TCEs including genotypes. Independent data sets were used to evaluate the models. This study tested the effects on model accuracy of relaxing the baseline data timing windows, the use of a new filter to exclude probable non-adherent cases and the addition of maraviroc, tipranavir and elvitegravir to the system. Results: The no-genotype models achieved area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUC) values of 0.82 and 0.81 using the standard and relaxed baseline data windows, respectively. The genotype models achieved AUC values of 0.86 with the new non-adherence filter and 0.84 without. Both sets of models were significantly more accurate than genotyping with rules-based interpretation, which achieved AUC values of only 0.55-0.63, and were marginally more accurate than previous models. The models were able to identify alternative regimens that were predicted to be effective for the vast majority of cases in which the new regimen prescribed in the clinic failed. Conclusions: These latest global models predict treatment responses accurately even without a genotype 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: Andrew D Revell; Dechao Wang; Robin Wood; Carl Morrow; Hugo Tempelman; Raph L Hamers; Peter Reiss; Ard I van Sighem; Mark Nelson; Julio S G Montaner; H Clifford Lane; Brendan A Larder Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2016-06-20 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Shirley Lecher; Dennis Ellenberger; Andrea A Kim; Peter N Fonjungo; Simon Agolory; Marie Yolande Borget; Laura Broyles; Sergio Carmona; Geoffrey Chipungu; Kevin M De Cock; Varough Deyde; Marie Downer; Sundeep Gupta; Jonathan E Kaplan; Charles Kiyaga; Nancy Knight; William MacLeod; Boniface Makumbi; Hellen Muttai; Christina Mwangi; Jane W Mwangi; Michael Mwasekaga; Lucy W Ng'Ang'A; Yogan Pillay; Abdoulaye Sarr; Souleymane Sawadogo; Daniel Singer; Wendy Stevens; Christiane Adje Toure; John Nkengasong Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 17.586
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: Amin S Hassan; Helen M Nabwera; Shalton M Mwaringa; Clare A Obonyo; Eduard J Sanders; Tobias F Rinke de Wit; Patricia A Cane; James A Berkley Journal: AIDS Res Ther Date: 2014-01-23 Impact factor: 2.250
Authors: Julio S G Montaner; Viviane D Lima; P Richard Harrigan; Lillian Lourenço; Benita Yip; Bohdan Nosyk; Evan Wood; Thomas Kerr; Kate Shannon; David Moore; Robert S Hogg; Rolando Barrios; Mark Gilbert; Mel Krajden; Reka Gustafson; Patricia Daly; Perry Kendall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Andrew D Revell; Dechao Wang; Maria-Jesus Perez-Elias; Robin Wood; Dolphina Cogill; Hugo Tempelman; Raph L Hamers; Peter Reiss; Ard van Sighem; Catherine A Rehm; Brian Agan; Gerardo Alvarez-Uria; Julio S G Montaner; H Clifford Lane; Brendan A Larder Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 5.790