Andrew D Revell1, Dechao Wang1, Maria-Jesus Perez-Elias2, Robin Wood3, Dolphina Cogill3, Hugo Tempelman4, Raph L Hamers5, Peter Reiss5,6, Ard van Sighem6, Catherine A Rehm7, Brian Agan8, Gerardo Alvarez-Uria9, Julio S G Montaner10, 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. Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences and Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA. 9. Rural Development Trust (RDT) Hospital, Bathalapalli, India. 10. BC Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, Vancouver, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: With the goal of facilitating the use of HIV-TRePS to optimize therapy in settings with limited healthcare resources, we aimed to develop computational models to predict treatment responses accurately in the absence of commonly used baseline data. METHODS: Twelve sets of random forest models were trained using very large, global datasets to predict either the probability of virological response (classifier models) or the absolute change in viral load in response to a new regimen (absolute models) following virological failure. Two 'standard' models were developed with all baseline variables present and 10 others developed without HIV genotype, time on therapy, CD4 count or any combination of the above. RESULTS: The standard classifier models achieved an AUC of 0.89 in cross-validation and independent testing. Models with missing variables achieved AUC values of 0.78-0.90. The standard absolute models made predictions that correlated significantly with observed changes in viral load with a mean absolute error of 0.65 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL in cross-validation and 0.69 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL in independent testing. Models with missing variables achieved values of 0.65-0.75 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL. All models identified alternative regimens that were predicted to be effective for the vast majority of cases where the new regimen prescribed in the clinic failed. All models were significantly better predictors of treatment response than genotyping with rules-based interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These latest models that predict treatment responses accurately, even when a number of baseline variables are not available, are a major advance with greatly enhanced potential benefit, particularly in resource-limited settings. The only obstacle to realizing this potential is the willingness of healthcare professions to use the system.
OBJECTIVES: With the goal of facilitating the use of HIV-TRePS to optimize therapy in settings with limited healthcare resources, we aimed to develop computational models to predict treatment responses accurately in the absence of commonly used baseline data. METHODS: Twelve sets of random forest models were trained using very large, global datasets to predict either the probability of virological response (classifier models) or the absolute change in viral load in response to a new regimen (absolute models) following virological failure. Two 'standard' models were developed with all baseline variables present and 10 others developed without HIV genotype, time on therapy, CD4 count or any combination of the above. RESULTS: The standard classifier models achieved an AUC of 0.89 in cross-validation and independent testing. Models with missing variables achieved AUC values of 0.78-0.90. The standard absolute models made predictions that correlated significantly with observed changes in viral load with a mean absolute error of 0.65 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL in cross-validation and 0.69 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL in independent testing. Models with missing variables achieved values of 0.65-0.75 log10 copies HIV RNA/mL. All models identified alternative regimens that were predicted to be effective for the vast majority of cases where the new regimen prescribed in the clinic failed. All models were significantly better predictors of treatment response than genotyping with rules-based interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: These latest models that predict treatment responses accurately, even when a number of baseline variables are not available, are a major advance with greatly enhanced potential benefit, particularly in resource-limited settings. The only obstacle to realizing this potential is the willingness of healthcare professions to use the system.
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; Mark A Boyd; Sean Emery; Anton L Pozniak; Frank De Wolf; Richard Harrigan; Julio S G Montaner; Clifford Lane; Brendan A Larder Journal: AIDS Date: 2011-09-24 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: Andrew D Revell; Dechao Wang; Maria-Jesus Perez-Elias; Robin Wood; Hugo Tempelman; Bonaventura Clotet; Peter Reiss; Ard I van Sighem; Gerardo Alvarez-Uria; Mark Nelson; Julio S G Montaner; H Clifford Lane; Brendan A Larder Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Paul K Drain; Jienchi Dorward; Andrew Bender; Lorraine Lillis; Francesco Marinucci; Jilian Sacks; Anna Bershteyn; David S Boyle; Jonathan D Posner; Nigel Garrett Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2019-05-15 Impact factor: 26.132
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: V DeGruttola; L Dix; R D'Aquila; D Holder; A Phillips; M Ait-Khaled; J Baxter; P Clevenbergh; S Hammer; R Harrigan; D Katzenstein; R Lanier; M Miller; M Para; S Yerly; A Zolopa; J Murray; A Patick; V Miller; S Castillo; L Pedneault; J Mellors Journal: Antivir Ther Date: 2000-03