The aims of this study were to compare various genotypic scoring systems commonly used to predict virological outcome to etravirine, and examine their concordance with etravirine phenotypic susceptibility.
Methods
Six etravirine genotypic scoring systems were assessed: Tibotec 2010 (based on 20 mutations; TBT 20), Monogram, Stanford HIVdb, ANRS, Rega (based on 37, 30, 27 and 49 mutations, respectively) and virco®TYPE HIV-1 (predicted fold change based on genotype). Samples from treatment-experienced patients who participated in the DUET trials and with both genotypic and phenotypic data (n=403) were assessed using each scoring system. Results were retrospectively correlated with virological response in DUET. κ coefficients were calculated to estimate the degree of correlation between the different scoring systems.
Results
Correlation between the five scoring systems and the TBT 20 system was approximately 90%. Virological response by etravirine susceptibility was comparable regardless of which scoring system was utilized, with 70-74% of DUET patients determined as susceptible to etravirine by the different scoring systems achieving plasma viral load <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/ml. In samples classed as phenotypically susceptible to etravirine (fold change in 50% effective concentration ≤3), correlations with genotypic score were consistently high across scoring systems (≥70%).
Conclusions
In general, the etravirine genotypic scoring systems produced similar results, and genotype-phenotype concordance was high. As such, phenotypic interpretations, and in their absence all genotypic scoring systems investigated, may be used to reliably predict the activity of etravirine.
References
1.
AndriesK., AzijnH., ThielemansT.TMC125, a novel next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor active against nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2004; 48: 4680–4686.
2.
VingerhoetsJ., AzijnH., FransenE.TMC125 displays a high genetic barrier to the development of resistance: evidence from in vitro selection experiments. J Virol2005; 79: 12773–12782.
3.
KatlamaC., HaubrichR., LalezariJ.Efficacy and safety of etravirine in treatment-experienced, HIV-1 patients: pooled 48 week analysis of two randomized, controlled trials. AIDS2009; 23: 2289–2300.
4.
KatlamaC., ClotetB., MillsA.Efficacy and safety of etravirine at week 96 in treatment-experienced HIV type-1-infected patients in the DUET-1 and DUET-2 trials. Antivir Ther2010; 15: 1045–1052.
5.
CoffinJ.M.HIV population dynamics in vivo: implications for genetic variation, pathogenesis, and therapy. Science1995; 267: 483–489.
Cozzi-LepriA., PhillipsA.N., RuizL.Evolution of drug resistance in HIV-infected patients remaining on a virologically failing combination antiretroviral therapy regimen. AIDS2007; 21: 721–732.
8.
BeerenwinkelN., SchmidtB., WalterH.Geno2pheno: interpreting genotypic HIV drug resistance tests. IEEE Intell Syst2001; 16: 35–41.
9.
LiuT.F., ShaferR.W.Web resources for HIV type 1 genotypic-resistance test interpretation. Clin Infect Dis2006; 42: 1608–1618.
10.
PernoC-F, BertoliA.Clinical cut-offs in the interpretation of phenotypic resistance. In GerettiA.M. (Editor). Antiretroviral resistance in clinical practice. London: Mediscript2006. (Accessed 2 November 2010.) Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bookshelf/br.ficgi?book=antiretro.
11.
VingerhoetsJ., TambuyzerL., AzijnH.Resistance profile of etravirine: combined analysis of baseline genotypic and phenotypic data from the randomized, controlled Phase III clinical studies. AIDS2010; 24: 503–514.
12.
CoakleyE., ChappeyC., BenhamidaJ.Biological and clinical cut-off analyses for etravirine in the PhenoSense™ HIV assay. Antivir Ther2008; 13Suppl 3: A134.
13.
JohnsonV.A., Brun-VézinetF., ClotetB.Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1: 2007. Top HIV Med2007; 15: 119–125.
14.
TambuyzerL., AzijnH., RimskyL.T.Compilation and prevalence of mutations associated with resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Antivir Ther2009; 14: 103–109.
15.
TambuyzerL., VingerhoetsJ., AzijnH.Comparison of two etravirine weighted genotypic scores with phenotypic susceptibility and virological response data.7th European HIV Drug Resistance Workshop. 25–27 March 2009, Stockholm, Sweden. Poster 114.
16.
VingerhoetsJ., BuelensA., PeetersM.Impact of baseline NNRTI mutations on the virological response to TMC125 in the Phase III clinical trials DUET-1 and DUET-2. Antivir Ther2007; 12Suppl 1: S34.
17.
VingerhoetsJ., TambuyzerL., AzijnH., NijsS., PicchioG.Effect of mutations at position E138 in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase on phenotypic susceptibility and virological response to etravirine.International HIV & Hepatitis Drug Resistance Workshop. 8–12 June 2010, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Poster 99.
18.
TambuyzerL., NijsS., DaemsB., PicchioG., VingerhoetsJ.Effect of mutations at position E138 in HIV-1 reverse transcriptase on phenotypic susceptibility and virologic response to etravirine. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr2011; 58: 18–22.
19.
HaddadM., StawiskiE., BenhamidaJ., CoakleyE.Improved genotypic algorithm for predicting etravirine susceptibility: comprehensive list of mutations identified through correlation with matched phenotype.17th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 16–19 February 2010, San Francisco, CA, USA. Poster 574.
20.
Stanford University HIV Drug Resistance Database. Version 6.1.1, 30 Nov 2011, (Updated 30 November 2011. Accessed 16 April 2012.) Available from http://hivdb.stanford.edu/.
National Agency for AIDS research (ANRS).HIV-1 genotypic drug resistance interpretation algorithms. Version number 21, October 2011 (Updated 1 January 2011. Accessed 16 April 2012.) Available from http://www.hivfrenchresistance.org/.
VermeirenH., Van CraenenbroeckE., AlenP.Prediction of HIV-1 drug susceptibility phenotype from the viral genotype using linear regression modeling. J Virol Methods2007; 145: 47–55.
25.
WintersB., VingerhoetsJ., PeetersM., VillacianJ., Van CraenenbroeckE., BachelerL.Development of vircoTYPE HIV-1 resistance analysis, including clinical cut offs for TMC125 (etravirine, ETR), a new NNRTI.15thConference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 3–6 February 2008, Boston, MA, USA. Poster 873.
26.
MarcelinA.G., FlandreP., DescampsD.Factors associated with virological response to etravirine in nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother2010; 54: 72–77.
27.
PicchioG., VingerhoetsJ., TambuyzerL., CoakleyE., HaddadM., WitekJ.Prevalence of susceptibility to etravirine by genotype and phenotype in samples received for routine HIV type 1 resistance testing in the United States. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses2011; 27: 1271–1275.
28.
De LucaA., CingolaniA., Di GiambenedettoS.Variable prediction of antiretroviral treatment outcome by different systems for interpreting genotypic human immunodeficiency virus type 1 drug resistance. J Infect Dis2003; 187: 1934–1943.
29.
FrentzD., BoucherC.A., AsselM.Comparison of HIV-1 genotypic resistance test interpretation systems in predicting virological outcomes over time. PLoS ONE2010; 5: e11505.
30.
ZazziM., ProsperiM., VicentiI.Rules-based HIV-1 genotypic resistance interpretation systems predict 8 week and 24 week virological antiretroviral treatment outcome and benefit from drug potency weighting. J Antimicrob Chemother2009; 64: 616–624.
31.
RheeS.Y., FesselW.J., LiuT.F.Predictive value of HIV-1 genotypic resistance test interpretation algorithms. J Infect Dis2009; 200: 453–463.
