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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |