Cargando…

First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN

INTRODUCTION: MODERN (A4001095) was the first prospective phase 3 study comparing genotype vs phenotype (Trofile™) tropism assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 RNA >1000 copies/mL were randomized 1:1 at screening to either genotype or Trofile for tropism assessmen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heera, Jayvant, Valluri, Srinivas, Craig, Charles, Fang, Annie, Thomas, Neal, Meyer, Ralph Dan, Demarest, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International AIDS Society 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4224775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25394028
http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19519
_version_ 1782343401455222784
author Heera, Jayvant
Valluri, Srinivas
Craig, Charles
Fang, Annie
Thomas, Neal
Meyer, Ralph Dan
Demarest, James
author_facet Heera, Jayvant
Valluri, Srinivas
Craig, Charles
Fang, Annie
Thomas, Neal
Meyer, Ralph Dan
Demarest, James
author_sort Heera, Jayvant
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: MODERN (A4001095) was the first prospective phase 3 study comparing genotype vs phenotype (Trofile™) tropism assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 RNA >1000 copies/mL were randomized 1:1 at screening to either genotype or Trofile for tropism assessment. Genotype was determined using the geno2pheno algorithm to assess triplicate HIV-1 gp120 V3 loop sequences (plasma); false-positive rate=10%. R5-virus-infected subjects were then randomized 1:1 to receive Maraviroc (MVC) 150 mg QD or Truvada 200/300 mg QD each with DRV/r 800/100 mg QD. Tropism of screening samples from enrolled subjects was also retrospectively determined using the alternate testing method. Positive predictive values (PPV) were estimated by%R5 subjects with Week 48 HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL. PPV for each assay was estimated using the response rate among those randomized to that assay and using model-based response estimates in those with R5 by that assay (at screening or retest). RESULTS: The observed response rate was 146/181 (80.7%) for genotype vs 160/215 (74.4%) for Trofile (stratification adjusted difference=6.9%, 95% CI 1.3% to 15%). The model-based estimates of PPV (±SE) were 79.1% (±2.42) and 76.3% (±2.38), respectively (difference = 2.8%, 95% CI −2.1% to 7.2%). There was no difference in response rate between assays in the Truvada arm (observed difference=− 0.1%, 95% CI −6.8% to 6.6%). Most enrolled subjects had R5 results at screening using both assays (285/396 (72%)), and of these subjects, 79.3% (226/285) had HIV-1 RNA <50 c/mL at week 48 (Table 1). The few subjects classified as non-R5 by the alternate assay had similar virologic responses to the concordant R5 group. CONCLUSION: There was a higher MVC response rate and model-based positive predictive value with genotype compared to Trofile, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The majority of subjects had concordant R5 tropism results. Either phenotype or genotype can effectively predict MVC response.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4224775
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher International AIDS Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42247752014-11-13 First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN Heera, Jayvant Valluri, Srinivas Craig, Charles Fang, Annie Thomas, Neal Meyer, Ralph Dan Demarest, James J Int AIDS Soc Oral Presentation – Abstract O333 INTRODUCTION: MODERN (A4001095) was the first prospective phase 3 study comparing genotype vs phenotype (Trofile™) tropism assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Treatment-naïve adults with HIV-1 RNA >1000 copies/mL were randomized 1:1 at screening to either genotype or Trofile for tropism assessment. Genotype was determined using the geno2pheno algorithm to assess triplicate HIV-1 gp120 V3 loop sequences (plasma); false-positive rate=10%. R5-virus-infected subjects were then randomized 1:1 to receive Maraviroc (MVC) 150 mg QD or Truvada 200/300 mg QD each with DRV/r 800/100 mg QD. Tropism of screening samples from enrolled subjects was also retrospectively determined using the alternate testing method. Positive predictive values (PPV) were estimated by%R5 subjects with Week 48 HIV-1 RNA < 50 c/mL. PPV for each assay was estimated using the response rate among those randomized to that assay and using model-based response estimates in those with R5 by that assay (at screening or retest). RESULTS: The observed response rate was 146/181 (80.7%) for genotype vs 160/215 (74.4%) for Trofile (stratification adjusted difference=6.9%, 95% CI 1.3% to 15%). The model-based estimates of PPV (±SE) were 79.1% (±2.42) and 76.3% (±2.38), respectively (difference = 2.8%, 95% CI −2.1% to 7.2%). There was no difference in response rate between assays in the Truvada arm (observed difference=− 0.1%, 95% CI −6.8% to 6.6%). Most enrolled subjects had R5 results at screening using both assays (285/396 (72%)), and of these subjects, 79.3% (226/285) had HIV-1 RNA <50 c/mL at week 48 (Table 1). The few subjects classified as non-R5 by the alternate assay had similar virologic responses to the concordant R5 group. CONCLUSION: There was a higher MVC response rate and model-based positive predictive value with genotype compared to Trofile, but this difference did not reach statistical significance. The majority of subjects had concordant R5 tropism results. Either phenotype or genotype can effectively predict MVC response. International AIDS Society 2014-11-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4224775/ /pubmed/25394028 http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19519 Text en © 2014 Heera J et al; licensee International AIDS Society http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Oral Presentation – Abstract O333
Heera, Jayvant
Valluri, Srinivas
Craig, Charles
Fang, Annie
Thomas, Neal
Meyer, Ralph Dan
Demarest, James
First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN
title First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN
title_full First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN
title_fullStr First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN
title_full_unstemmed First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN
title_short First prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to Maraviroc (MVC) in a phase 3 study: MODERN
title_sort first prospective comparison of genotypic vs phenotypic tropism assays in predicting virologic responses to maraviroc (mvc) in a phase 3 study: modern
topic Oral Presentation – Abstract O333
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4224775/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25394028
http://dx.doi.org/10.7448/IAS.17.4.19519
work_keys_str_mv AT heerajayvant firstprospectivecomparisonofgenotypicvsphenotypictropismassaysinpredictingvirologicresponsestomaravirocmvcinaphase3studymodern
AT vallurisrinivas firstprospectivecomparisonofgenotypicvsphenotypictropismassaysinpredictingvirologicresponsestomaravirocmvcinaphase3studymodern
AT craigcharles firstprospectivecomparisonofgenotypicvsphenotypictropismassaysinpredictingvirologicresponsestomaravirocmvcinaphase3studymodern
AT fangannie firstprospectivecomparisonofgenotypicvsphenotypictropismassaysinpredictingvirologicresponsestomaravirocmvcinaphase3studymodern
AT thomasneal firstprospectivecomparisonofgenotypicvsphenotypictropismassaysinpredictingvirologicresponsestomaravirocmvcinaphase3studymodern
AT meyerralphdan firstprospectivecomparisonofgenotypicvsphenotypictropismassaysinpredictingvirologicresponsestomaravirocmvcinaphase3studymodern
AT demarestjames firstprospectivecomparisonofgenotypicvsphenotypictropismassaysinpredictingvirologicresponsestomaravirocmvcinaphase3studymodern