Impact of Genotypic Resistance Testing on Selection of Salvage Regimen in Clinical Practice
-
Published:2002-07-01
Issue:5
Volume:8
Page:443-454
-
ISSN:1359-6535
-
Container-title:Antiviral Therapy
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Antiviral Therapy
Author:
Haupts Stefan1, Ledergerber Bruno1, Böni Jürg2, Schüpbach Jörg2, Kronenberg Andreas1, Opravil Milos1, Flepp Markus1, Speck Roberto F1, Grube Christina1, Rentsch Katharina3, Weber Rainer1, Günthard Huldrych F1, Bachmann S, Battegay M, Bernasconi E, Bucher H, Bürgisser Ph, Egger M, Erb P, Fierz W, Fischer M, Flepp M4, Francioli P5, Furrer HJ, Gorgievski M, Günthard H, Grob P, Hirschel B, Kaiser L, Kind C, Klimkait Th, Ledergerber B, Lauper U, Opravil M, Paccaud F, Pantaleo G, Perrin L, Piffaretti J-C, Rickenbach M6, Rudin C7, Schupbach J, Speck R, Telenti A, Trkola A, Vernazza P8, Weber R, Yerly S,
Affiliation:
1. Division of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 2. Swiss National Center for Retroviruses, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 3. Institute for Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland 4. (Chairman of the Clinical and Laboratory Committee) 5. (President of the SHCS, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Vaudois, CH-1011, Lausanne) 6. (Head of Data Center) 7. (Chairman of the Mother & Child Substudy) 8. (Chairman of the Scientific Board)
Abstract
ObjectiveTo determine whether genotypic resistance testing leads to selection of more potent drug regimens when compared to regimens based on treatment history only.DesignProspective, tertiary care centre-based study. Patients: One-hundred-and-forty-five HIV-infected adults on stable antiretroviral therapy (ART) for >6 months experiencing virological failure.MethodsThe physicians’ decision-making process when choosing a salvage regimen was prospectively documented: at time of virological failure, on ‘failing ART’, genotyping was performed and a hypothetical ‘clinical expert ART’ based upon patient's drug history was documented. Subsequently, data on resistance mutations, rating by a decision support software and drug history were used to define ‘genotyping ART’. After discussion with the patient, final treatment, ‘new personalized ART’ was chosen and prescribed. To compare the relative potency of the four ART regimens in a standardized manner, a resistance score ranging from 1 (best) to 8 (worst) based on drug ranking by decision support software was attributed to each ART regimen. Virological and immunological outcomes were analysed based on the magnitude of the resistance score.ResultsMedian follow-up was 1.5 years. In all 145 patients, median resistance scores for the stepwise selected ART regimens were: ‘failing ART’: 4.5, ‘clinical expert ART’: 1.8, ‘genotyping ART’: 1.5 and ‘new personalized ART’: 2. The latter was 1.5 in patients who effectively switched to ‘new personalized ART’ ( n=89). Lower resistance scores translated into significantly improved virological response after initiation of ‘new personalized ART’. In multivariable analysis, lower resistance scores, lower baseline HIV RNA levels and use of novel antiretroviral drugs were associated with the probability of reducing plasma viraemia to <50 copies/ml. Conclusions: This study suggests that treatment choices including genotype and decision support software were virologically superior to those based on drug history only.
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Subject
Infectious Diseases,Pharmacology (medical),Pharmacology
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|