H Rudich

Discordances between Interpretation Algorithms for Genotypic Resistance to Protease and Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Are Subtype Dependent

ABSTRACT The major limitation of drug resistance genotyping for human immunodeficiency virus remains the interpretation of the results. We evaluated the concordance in predicting therapy response between four different interpretation algorithms (Rega 6.3, HIVDB-08/04, ANRS [07/04], and VGI 8.0). Sequences were gathered through a worldwide effort to establish a database of non-B subtype sequences, and demographic and clinical information about the patients was gathered. The most concordant results were found for nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase (RT) inhibitors (93%), followed by protease inhibitors (84%) and nucleoside RT inhibitor (NRTIs) (76%). For therapy-naive patients, for nelfinavir, especially for subtypes C and G, the discordances were driven mainly by the protease (PRO) mutational pattern 82I/V + 63P + 36I/V for subtype C and 82I + 63P + 36I + 20I for subtype G. Subtype F displayed more discordances for ritonavir in untreated patients due to the combined presence of PRO 20R and 10I/V. In therapy-experienced patients, subtype G displayed a lot of discordances for saquinavir and indinavir due to mutational patterns involving PRO 90 M and 82I. Subtype F had more discordance for nelfinavir attributable to the presence of PRO 88S and 82A + 54V. For the NRTIs lamivudine and emtricitabine, CRF01_AE had more discordances than subtype B due to the presence of RT mutational patterns 65R + 115 M and 118I + 215Y, respectively. Overall, the different algorithms agreed well on the level of resistance scored, but some of the discordances could be attributed to specific (subtype-dependent) combinations of mutations. It is not yet known whether therapy response is subtype dependent, but the advice given to clinicians based on a genotypic interpretation algorithm differs according to the subtype.

Phylogenetic Analysis of Human Parvovirus B19 Sequences from Eleven Different Countries Confirms the Predominance of Genotype 1 and Suggests the Spread of Genotype 3b

ABSTRACT Phylogenetic analysis of 166 human parvovirus B19 sequences from 11 different countries attributed 91.57% to genotype 1, 5.42% to genotype 3b, and 3.01% to genotype 3a. Very similar viruses of genotype 1 circulated widely in Europe and Israel. Genotype 3b seems to show an increasing spread outside of Africa.

Comparable Long-Term Efficacy of Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Similar Drug-Resistance Profiles in Different HIV-1 Subtypes

Background Analysis of potentially different impact of Lopinavir/Ritonavir (LPV/r) on non-B subtypes is confounded by dissimilarities in the conditions existing in different countries. We retrospectively compared its impact on populations infected with subtypes B and C in Israel, where patients infected with different subtypes receive the same treatment. Methods Clinical and demographic data were reported by physicians. Resistance was tested after treatment failure. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS. Results 607 LPV/r treated patients (365 male) were included. 139 had HIV subtype B, 391 C, and 77 other subtypes. At study end 429 (71%) were receiving LPV/r. No significant differences in PI treatment history and in median viral-load (VL) at treatment initiation and termination existed between subtypes. MSM discontinued LPV/r more often than others even when the virologic outcome was good (p = 0.001). VL was below detection level in 81% of patients for whom LPV/r was first PI and in 67% when it was second (P = 0.001). Median VL decrease from baseline was 1.9±0.1 logs and was not significantly associated with subtype. Median CD4 increase was: 162 and 92cells/µl, respectively, for patients receiving LPV/r as first and second PI (P = 0.001), and 175 and 98, respectively, for subtypes B and C (P<0.001). Only 52 (22%) of 237 patients genotyped while under LPV/r were fully resistant to the drug; 12(5%) were partially resistant. In48%, population sequencing did not reveal resistance to any drug notwithstanding the virologic failure. No difference was found in the rates of resistance development between B and C (p = 0.16). Conclusions Treatment with LPV/r appeared efficient and tolerable in both subtypes, B and C, but CD4 recovery was significantly better in virologically suppressed subtype-B patients. In both subtypes, LPV/r was more beneficial when given as first PI. Mostly, reasons other than resistance development caused discontinuation of treatment.