Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether genotypic resistance testing leads to selection of more potent drug regimens when compared to regimens based on treatment history only. DESIGN: Prospective, 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Median 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.