Technology in Massachusetts Schools, 2004-2005

BACKGROUND:ATCC HIV-1 drug resistance test kit was designed to detect HIV-1 drug resistance (HIVDR) mutations in the protease and reverse transcriptase genes for all HIV-1 group M subtypes and circulating recombinant forms. The test has been validated for both plasma and dried blood spot specimen types with viral load (VL) of ≥1000 copies/ml. We performed an in-country assessment on the kit to determine the genotyping sensitivity and its accuracy in detecting HIVDR mutations using plasma samples stored under suboptimal conditions. METHODS:Among 572 samples with VL ≥1000 copies/ml that had been genotyped by ViroSeq assay, 183 were randomly selected, including 85 successful genotyped and 98 unsuccessful genotyped samples. They were tested with ATCC kits following the manufacturer's instructions. Sequence identity and HIVDR patterns were analysed with Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance HIVdb program. RESULTS:Of the 183 samples, 127 (69.4%) were successfully genotyped by either method. While ViroSeq system genotyped 85/183 (46.5%) with median VL of 32,971 (IQR: 11,150-96,506) copies/ml, ATCC genotyped 115/183 (62.8%) samples with median VL of 23,068 (IQR: 7,397-86,086) copies/ml. Of the 98 unsuccessful genotyped samples with ViroSeq assay, 42 (42.9%) samples with lower median VL of 13,906 (IQR: 6,122-72,329) copies/ml were successfully genotyped using ATCC. Sequence identity analysis revealed that the sequences generated by both methods were >98% identical and yielded similar HIVDR profiles at individual patient level. CONCLUSION:This study confirms that ATCC kit showed greater sensitivity in genotyping plasma samples stored in suboptimal conditions experiencing frequent and prolonged power outage. Thus, it is more sensitive particularly for subtypes A and A/G HIV-1 in resource-limited settings

Implication of First-Line Antiretroviral Therapy Choice on Second-Line Options

Abstract Background: Although there are a number of studies comparing the currently recommended preferred and alternative first-line (1L) antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens on clinical outcomes, there are limited data examining the impact of 1L regimen choice and duration of virologic failure (VF) on accumulation of drug resistance mutations (DRM). The patterns of DRM from patients failing zidovudine (AZT)-containing versus tenofovir (TDF)-containing ART were assessed to evaluate the predicted susceptibility to second-line (2L) nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) backbone options in the context of an ongoing programmatic setting that uses viral load (VL) monitoring. Methods: Paired samples from Nigerian ART patients who experienced VF and switched to 2L ART were retrospectively identified. For each sample, the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1 polymerase gene was sequenced at 2 time points, and DRM was analyzed using Stanford University’s HIVdb program. Results: Sequences were generated for 191 patients. At time of 2L switch, 28.2% of patients on AZT-containing regimens developed resistance to TDF, whereas only 6.8% of patients on TDF-containing 1L had mutations compromising susceptibility to AZT. In a stratified evaluation, patients with 0–6 months between tested VL samples had no difference in proportion compromised to 2L, whereas those with >6 months between samples had a statistically significant difference in proportion with compromised 2L NRTI. In multivariate analyses, patients on 1L AZT had 9.90 times higher odds of having a compromised 2L NRTI option than patients on 1L TDF. Conclusions: In the context of constrained resources, where VL monitoring is limited, we present further evidence to support use of TDF as the preferred 1L NRTI because it allows for preservation of the recommended 2L NRTI option

Distribution of HIV-1 subtypes and recombinants in samples with ATCC and viroseq discordant genotyping successes.

<p>Distribution of HIV-1 subtypes and recombinants in samples with ATCC and viroseq discordant genotyping successes.</p

HIV-1 Drug Resistance mutations against nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors (PI) identified by the ATCC assay versus the ViroSeq assay for those individual patients harbouring drug resistance mutations.

<p>HIV-1 Drug Resistance mutations against nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI), non-nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) and protease inhibitors (PI) identified by the ATCC assay versus the ViroSeq assay for those individual patients harbouring drug resistance mutations.</p

Distribution of genotyped samples by assay used, duration of sample storage and median viral load levels.

<p>Distribution of genotyped samples by assay used, duration of sample storage and median viral load levels.</p

Comparing HIV-1 Drug Resistance Genotyping performance between ATCC and ViroSeq methods with different viral load levels.

<p>Comparing HIV-1 Drug Resistance Genotyping performance between ATCC and ViroSeq methods with different viral load levels.</p