Publish in OALib Journal

ISSN: 2333-9721

APC: Only $99


Search Results: 1 - 2 of 2 matches for " Awachana Jiamsakul "
All listed articles are free for downloading (OA Articles)
Page 1 /2
Display every page Item
Comparison of predicted susceptibility between genotype and virtual phenotype HIV drug resistance interpretation systems among treatment-naive HIV-infected patients in Asia: TASER-M cohort analysis
Awachana Jiamsakul, Rami Kantor, Patrick CK Li, Sunee Sirivichayakul, Thira Sirisanthana, Pacharee Kantipong, Christopher KC Lee, Adeeba Kamarulzaman, Winai Ratanasuwan, Rossana Ditangco, Thida Singtoroj, Somnuek Sungkanuparph, On behalf of the TREAT Asia Studies to Evaluate Resistance – Monitoring Study (TASER-M)
BMC Research Notes , 2012, DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-582
Abstract: Sequences from 1301 ARV-naive patients enrolled in the TREAT Asia Studies to Evaluate Resistance – Monitoring Study (TASER-M) were analysed by both interpreting systems. Interpretations from both Stanford HIVdb and vircoTYPE? HIV-1 were initially grouped into 2 levels: susceptible and non-susceptible. Discrepancy was defined as a discordant result between the susceptible and non-susceptible interpretations from the two systems for the same ARV. Further analysis was performed when interpretations from both systems were categorised into 3 levels: susceptible, intermediate and resistant; whereby discrepancies could be categorised as major discrepancies and minor discrepancies. Major discrepancy was defined as having a susceptible result from one system and resistant from the other. Minor discrepancy corresponded to having an intermediate interpretation in one system, with a susceptible or resistant result in the other. The level of agreement was analysed using the prevalence adjusted bias adjusted kappa (PABAK).Overall, the agreement was high, with each ARV being in “almost perfect agreement”, using Landis and Koch’s categorisation. Highest discordance was observed for efavirenz (75/1301, 5.8%), all arising from susceptible Stanford HIVdb versus non-susceptible vircoTYPE? HIV-1 predictions. Protease Inhibitors had highest level of concordance with PABAKs all above 0.99, followed by Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors with PABAKs above 0.97 and non-NRTIs with the lowest PABAK of 0.88. The 68/75 patients with discordant efavirenz results harboured the V179D/E mutations compared to 7/1226 with no efavirenz discrepancy (p-value <0.001). In the 3-level comparison, all but one of the discrepancies was minor.The two systems agreed well with lowest concordance observed for efavirenz. When interpreting HIVDR, especially in non-B subtypes, clinical correlation is crucial, in particular when efavirenz resistance is interpreted based on V179D/E.In recent years, developing
Comparisons of Primary HIV-1 Drug Resistance between Recent and Chronic HIV-1 Infection within a Sub-Regional Cohort of Asian Patients
Sasisopin Kiertiburanakul, Romanee Chaiwarith, Sunee Sirivichayakul, Rossana Ditangco, Awachana Jiamsakul, Patrick C. K. Li, Pacharee Kantipong, Christopher Lee, Winai Ratanasuwan, Adeeba Kamarulzaman, Annette H. Sohn, Somnuek Sungkanuparph, for the TREAT Asia Studies to Evaluate Resistance Surveillance and Monitoring Studies
PLOS ONE , 2013, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062057
Abstract: Background The emergence and transmission of HIV-1 drug resistance (HIVDR) has raised concerns after rapid global antiretroviral therapy (ART) scale-up. There are limited data on the epidemiology of primary HIVDR in resource-limited settings in Asia. We aimed to determine the prevalence and compare the distribution of HIVDR in a cohort of ART-na?ve Asian patients with recent and chronic HIV-1 infection. Methods Multicenter prospective study was conducted in ART-na?ve patients between 2007 and 2010. Resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were assessed using the World Health Organization 2009 list for surveillance of primary HIVDR. Results A total of 458 patients with recent and 1,340 patients with chronic HIV-1 infection were included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of primary HIVDR was 4.6%. Recently infected patients had a higher prevalence of primary HIVDR (6.1% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.065) and frequencies of RAMs to protease inhibitors (PIs; 3.9% vs. 1.0%, p<0.001). Among those with recent infection, the most common RAMs to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) were M184I/V and T215D/E/F/I/S/Y (1.1%), to non-NRTIs was Y181C (1.3%), and to PIs was M46I (1.5%). Of patients with chronic infection, T215D/E/F/I/S/Y (0.8%; NRTI), Y181C (0.5%; non-NRTI), and M46I (0.4%; PI) were the most common RAMs. K70R (p = 0.016) and M46I (p = 0.026) were found more frequently among recently infected patients. In multivariate logistic regression analysis in patients with chronic infection, heterosexual contact as a risk factor for HIV-1 infection was less likely to be associated with primary HIVDR compared to other risk categories (odds ratio 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.20–0.59, p<0.001). Conclusions The prevalence of primary HIVDR was higher among patients with recent than chronic HIV-1 infection in our cohort, but of borderline statistical significance. Chronically infected patients with non-heterosexual risks for HIV were more likely to have primary HIVDR.
Page 1 /2
Display every page Item

Copyright © 2008-2017 Open Access Library. All rights reserved.