Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28799325›Full record

ArticleJournal of the International AIDS Society2017

Comparison between next-generation and Sanger-based sequencing for the detection of transmitted drug-resistance mutations among recently infected HIV-1 patients in Israel, 2000-2014.

Roy Moscona, Daniela Ram, Marina Wax, Efrat Bucris, Itzchak Levy, Ella Mendelson, Orna Mor

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the International AIDS Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Roy MosconaCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Daniela RamCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Marina WaxCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Efrat BucrisCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Itzchak LevyInfectious Disease Unit, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Ella MendelsonCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.
Orna MorCentral Virology Laboratory, Ministry of Health, Sheba Medical Center, Ramat-Gan, Israel.

Funding

No
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTransmitted drug-resistance mutations (TDRM) may hamper successful anti-HIV-1 therapy and impact future control of the HIV-1 epidemic. Recently infected, therapy-naïve individuals are best suited for surveillance of such TDRM. In this study, TDRM, detected by next-generation sequencing (NGS) were compared to those identified by Sanger-based population sequencing (SBS) in recently infected HIV-1 patients.

methodsHistorical samples from 80 recently infected HIV-1 patients, diagnosed between 2000 and 2014, were analysed by MiSeq (NGS) and ABI (SBS). DeepChek-HIV (ABL) was used for interpretation of the results.

resultsMost patients were males (80%); Men who have sex with men (MSM) was the major transmission group (58.8%). Overall, TDRM were detected in 31.3% of patients by NGS and 8.8% by SBS, with SBS TDRM restricted to persons infected with subtype B. All SBS-detected TDRM were identified by NGS. The prevalence of TDRM impacting protease inhibitors (PI), nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI) was 11.3, 26.2 7.5%, respectively, in NGS analyses and 0, 3.8 and 5%, respectively, in SBS analyses. More patients with NGS and SBS TDRM were identified in 2008-2014 (37.2% or 13.9%, respectively) compared to 2000-2007 (24.3% or 2.7%, respectively), and a significantly greater number of these patients had multiple NGS TDRM. The most abundant, albeit, minor-frequency RT TDRM, were the K65R and D67N, while K103N, M184V and T215S were high-frequency mutations. Minor TDRM did not become a major variant in later samples and did not hinder successful treatment.

conclusionsNGS can replace SBS for mutation detection and allows for the detection of low-frequency TDRM not identified by SBS. Although rates of TDRM in Israel continued to increase from 2000 to 2014, minor TDRM did not become major species. The need for ongoing surveillance of low-frequency TDRM should be revisited in a larger study.

Indexed as

AdultAnti-HIV AgentsDNA Mutational AnalysisDNA, ViralDrug Resistance, ViralFemaleHIV-1HIV InfectionsHumansIsraelMaleMutationRetrospective StudiesReverse Transcriptase InhibitorsSequence Analysis, DNAAnti-HIV AgentsDNA, ViralReverse Transcriptase InhibitorsDeepChek-HIV.HIV-1next-generation sequencingrecently infectedSanger-based sequencingtransmitted drug-resistance mutations

Identifiers

PMID28799325
PMCPMC5577736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.