Added Value of Deep Sequencing Relative to Population Sequencing in Heavily Pre-Treated HIV-1-Infected Subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the potential of deep HIV-1 sequencing for adding clinically relevant information relative to viral population sequencing in heavily pre-treated HIV-1-infected subjects. METHODS: In a proof-of-concept study, deep sequencing was compared to population sequencing in HIV-1-infected individuals with previous triple-class virological failure who also developed virologic failure to deep salvage therapy including, at least, darunavir, tipranavir, etravirine or raltegravir. Viral susceptibility was inferred before salvage therapy initiation and at virological failure using deep and population sequencing genotypes interpreted with the HIVdb, Rega and ANRS algorithms. The threshold level for mutant detection with deep sequencing was 1%. RESULTS: 7 subjects with previous exposure to a median of 15 antiretrovirals during a median of 13 years were included. Deep salvage therapy included darunavir, tipranavir, etravirine or raltegravir in 4, 2, 2 and 5 subjects, respectively. Self-reported treatment adherence was adequate in 4 and partial in 2; one individual underwent treatment interruption during follow-up. Deep sequencing detected all mutations found by population sequencing and identified additional resistance mutations in all but one individual, predominantly after virological failure to deep salvage therapy. Additional genotypic information led to consistent decreases in predicted susceptibility to etravirine, efavirenz, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and indinavir in 2, 1, 2 and 1 subject, respectively. Deep sequencing data did not consistently modify the susceptibility predictions achieved with population sequencing for darunavir, tipranavir or raltegravir. CONCLUSIONS: In this subset of heavily pre-treated individuals, deep sequencing improved the assessment of genotypic resistance to etravirine, but did not consistently provide additional information on darunavir, tipranavir or raltegravir susceptibility. These data may inform the design of future studies addressing the clinical value of minority drug-resistant variants in treatment-experienced subjects.

Pandemic influenza control in Europe and the constraints resulting from incoherent public health laws.

Background With the emergence of influenza H1N1v the world is facing its first 21st century global pandemic. Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and avian influenza H5N1 prompted development of pandemic preparedness plans. National systems of public health law are essential for public health stewardship and for the implementation of public health policy[1]. International coherence will contribute to effective regional and global responses. However little research has been undertaken on how law works as a tool for disease control in Europe. With co-funding from the European Union, we investigated the extent to which laws across Europe support or constrain pandemic preparedness planning, and whether national differences are likely to constrain control efforts. Methods We undertook a survey of national public health laws across 32 European states using a questionnaire designed around a disease scenario based on pandemic influenza. Questionnaire results were reviewed in workshops, analysing how differences between national laws might support or hinder regional responses to pandemic influenza. Respondents examined the impact of national laws on the movements of information, goods, services and people across borders in a time of pandemic, the capacity for surveillance, case detection, case management and community control, the deployment of strategies of prevention, containment, mitigation and recovery and the identification of commonalities and disconnects across states. Results Results of this study show differences across Europe in the extent to which national pandemic policy and pandemic plans have been integrated with public health laws. We found significant differences in legislation and in the legitimacy of strategic plans. States differ in the range and the nature of intervention measures authorized by law, the extent to which borders could be closed to movement of persons and goods during a pandemic, and access to healthcare of non-resident persons. Some states propose use of emergency powers that might potentially override human rights protections while other states propose to limit interventions to those authorized by public health laws. Conclusion These differences could create problems for European strategies if an evolving influenza pandemic results in more serious public health challenges or, indeed, if a novel disease other than influenza emerges with pandemic potential. There is insufficient understanding across Europe of the role and importance of law in pandemic planning. States need to build capacity in public health law to support disease prevention and control policies. Our research suggests that states would welcome further guidance from the EU on management of a pandemic, and guidance to assist in greater commonality of legal approaches across states.