Close Window
Aetna Aetna
Clinical Policy Bulletin:
HIV Drug Susceptibility and Resistance Tests
Number: 0316


Policy

  1. Aetna considers HIV drug susceptibility and resistance tests (phenotypic or genotypic) medically necessary for any of the following groups:

    1. During acute (new onset) HIV infection to determine if a drug-resistant viral strain was transmitted and plan regimen accordingly; or
    2. Members with suboptimal suppression of viral load after initiation of anti-retroviral therapy to determine the role of resistance and maximize the number of active drugs in the new regimen if indicated; or
    3. Members with virologic failure during highly activated anti-retroviral therapy (HAART) to determine the role of resistance in drug failure and maximize the number of active drugs in the new regimen if indicated.

    Aetna considers HIV drug resistance and susceptibility tests experimental and investigational for all other indications becasue their effectiveness for indications other than the ones listed above has not been established.

  2. Aetna considers both HIV phenotypic and genotypic tests when performed at the same time not medically necessary because this approach is duplicative.  Upon review, the alternate type of HIV resistance assay (either phenotypic or genotypic) may be considered medically necessary on an exception basis for members with virologic failure (indicated by a rising plasma HIV RNA concentration (viral load) in HIV-infected individuals receiving adequate doses of antiretroviral therapy where other potential causes of virologic failure have been excluded) despite apparent lack of drug resistance by one type of HIV resistance assay (either phenotypic or genotypic).

  3. Aetna considers phenotypic recombinant virus assays/HIV tropism testing (i.e., Trofile) or genotypic HIV V3-loop assays medically necessary for determining virus tropism before commencement of a chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5) antagonist (e.g., maraviroc [Selzentry]).

    Aetna considers HIV tropism testing experimental and investigational for other indications (e.g., during or after failure of a CCR5 antagonist treatment, or for predicting disease progression) because its effectiveness has not been established.

  4. Aetna considers drug resistance testing experimental and investigational for members who have discontinued the use of anti-retroviral drugs because drug resistance mutations may become minor species in the absence of selective drug pressure.  Current tests may not detect minor drug resistant species.

  5. Aetna considers drug resistance testing for members who have HIV viral loads of less than 1,000 HIV RNA copies/ml experimental and investigational because available tests cannot reliably detect this low level of viral load.



Background

Evidence suggests that HIV viral drug resistance is correlated with poor virological response to new therapy.  In-vitro phenotypic and genotypic tests for HIV drug resistance are now available.  A phenotypic test measures the drug susceptibility of the virus by determining the concentration of drug that inhibits viral replication in vitro.  A genotypic test identifies the presence of mutations that are known to confer reduced drug susceptibility.  Several studies have suggested that resistance testing may be useful in assessing the success of salvage anti-retroviral therapy, and improving short-term virological response.  Resistance testing is presently recommended to help guide the choice of new drugs for patients with HIV-1 infection after treatment has failed.  Guidelines also state that resistance testing should be considered in patients with acute HIV infection to assess whether a drug-resistant virus was transmitted.

Phenotypic and genotypic tests appear to provide similar results.  The latter is more commonly used because tests are more readily available and results are available more quickly.  Currently, there is insufficient information as to which approach is preferable in any particular clinical setting.  The Panel on Clinical Practices for Treatment of HIV Infection (2004) concluded that: “There are currently no prospective data to support the use of one type of resistance assay over the other (i.e., genotyping vs. phenotyping) in different clinical situations.  Therefore, one type of assay is generally recommended per sample; however, in the setting of a complex prior treatment history, both assays may provide important and complementary information.”

Current evidence for combined genotyping and phenotyping is limited to non-randomized studies; no randomized studies have compared the combination of genotyping and phenotyping directed therapy compared to either genotyping or phenotyping alone.

Commercially available HIV drug susceptibility and resistance tests include genotypic tests (e.g., ABI Gene Sequencing; TrueGene HIV Genotyping GeneKit; HIV-1 GeneSeek Test; Murex LiPA HIV-1 RT; ViroSeq Genotyping System, and Affymetrix GeneChip HIV PRT Assay)) and phenotypic tests (e.g., PhenoSense HIV, and Virco Antivirogram).

Napravnik et al (2010) examined the suitability of the ExaVir Load and ExaVir Drug assays for use in patient monitoring.  Specimens from 108 adults were used to compare ExaVir Load HIV-1 RT to Amplicor HIV-1 Monitor HIV-1 RNA, and ExaVir Drug phenotype to HIV GenoSure genotype.  HIV-1 RT and HIV-1 RNA levels were comparable (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.83).  Most (94 %) had detectable results in both assays.  The mean difference (HIV-1 RT minus HIV-1 RNA) was -0.21 log(10)cps/mLequiv.  Relationship between HIV-1 RT and HIV-1 RNA was not affected by RT mutations, CD4 cell count, or efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP) use.  Phenotypes were generally consistent with genotype findings for EFV, but not for NVP.  Most patients (93.9 %) with phenotypic EFV resistance had at least 1 EFV mutation, while 78.0 % of patients with phenotypic NVP resistance had at least 1 NVP mutation.  Eleven of 49 samples tested for EFV susceptibility were found resistant (n = 2) or with reduced susceptibility (n = 9) despite the absence of genotypic resistance.  Eleven of 45 samples tested for NVP susceptibility were found resistant (n = 9) or with reduced susceptibility (n = 2) with no evidence of genotypic mutations.  The authors concluded that the ExaVir Load assay performed well and may be an alternative to amplification based techniques for HIV-1 RNA quantification.  On the other hand, the ExaVir Drug assay for phenotypic resistance testing requires further evaluation, especially for NVP.

Maraviroc (Selzentry) is indicated for use in combination with other anti-retroviral agents, for treatment-experienced adult patients infected with only chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5)-tropic HIV-1 detectable, who have evidence of viral replication and HIV-1 strains resistant to multiple anti-retroviral agents.  Tropism and treatment history should guide the use of maraviroc (Mueller and Bogner, 2007).

According to the manufacturer of maraviroc (Pfizer, 2008), the following points should be considered when initiating therapy with Selzentry:

  • The safety and efficacy of Selzentry have not been established in treatment-naive adult patients or pediatric patients.
  • Tropism testing and treatment history should guide the use of Selzentry.
  • Use of Selzentry is not recommended in patients with dual/mixed or CXCR4-tropic HIV-1 as efficacy was not demonstrated in a phase 2 study of this patient group.

Also, there are no study results demonstrating the effect of Selzentry on clinical progression of HIV-1 (Pfizer, 2008).

Whitcomb et al (2007) stated that most HIV-1 strains require either the CXCR4 or CCR5 chemokine receptor to efficiently enter cells.  Blocking viral binding to these co-receptors is an attractive therapeutic target.  Currently, several co-receptor antagonists are being evaluated in clinical trials that require characterization of co-receptor tropism for enrollment.  These researchers described the development of an automated and accurate procedure for determining HIV-1 co-receptor tropism (Trofile) and its validation for routine laboratory testing.  HIV-1 pseudoviruses are generated using full-length env genes derived from patient virus populations.  Co-receptor tropism is determined by measuring the abilities of these pseudovirus populations to efficiently infect CD4+/U87 cells expressing either the CXCR4 or CCR5 co-receptor.  Viruses exclusively and efficiently infecting CXCR4+/CD4+/U87 cells are designated X4-tropic.  Conversely, viruses exclusively and efficiently infecting CCR5+/CD4+/U87 cells are designated R5-tropic.  Viruses capable of infecting both CXCR4+/CD4+/U87 and CCR5+/CD4+/U87 cells are designated dual/mixed-tropic.  Assay accuracy and reproducibility were established by evaluating the tropisms of well-characterized viruses and the variability among replicate results from samples tested repeatedly.  The viral subtype, hepatitis B virus or hepatitis C virus co-infection, and the plasma viral load did not affect assay performance.  Minority sub-populations with alternate tropisms were reliably detected when present at 5 to 10 %.  The plasma viral load above which samples can be amplified efficiently in the Trofile assay is 1,000 copies per ml of plasma.  Trofile has been automated for high-throughput use; it can be used to identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment regimens that include a co-receptor inhibitor and to monitor patients on treatment for the emergence of resistant virus populations that switch co-receptor tropism.

The Panel on Anti-retroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents' guidelines on the use of anti-retroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents (DHHS, 2013) recommends that a co-receptor tropism assay should be performed whenever the use of a CCR5 co-receptor antagonist is being considered. The Panel also recommends that co-receptor tropism testing for patients who exhibit virologic failure on a CCR5 antagonist. The Panel stated that a phenotypic tropism assay is preferred to determine HIV-1 co-receptor usage, but that a genotypic tropism assay should be considered as an alternative test to predict HIV-1 co-receptor usage. The guideline explained that, compared to genotypic testing, phenotypic testing has more evidence supporting its usefulness. Therefore, a phenotypic test for co-receptor usage is generally preferred. However, because phenotypic testing is more expensive and requires more time to perform, a genotypic test to predict HIV-1 co-receptor usage should be considered as an alternative test

A European consensus panel on HIV tropism testing (Vandekerckhove, et al., 2010; Vandekerckhove, et al., 2011) concluded that both the phenotypic Trofile assay and genotypic population sequencing of the V3-loop are recommended for use in clinical practice.  Although the panel did not recommend one methodology over another, the panel stated that it anticipated that genotypic testing will be used more frequently because of its greater accessibility, lower cost and shorter turnaround time.

 
CPT Codes / HCPCS Codes / ICD-9 Codes
CPT codes covered if selection criteria are met:
81400 - 81408
87900
87901
87903
+ 87904
87906
ICD-9 codes covered if selection criteria are met:
042 Human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] disease
079.53 Human immunodeficiency virus, type 2 [HIV-2]
V08 Asymptomatic human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] infection status


The above policy is based on the following references:
  1. Hirsch MS, Conway B, D'Aquila RT, et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults with HIV infection: Implications for clinical management. International AIDS Society - USA Panel. JAMA. 1998;279(24):1984-1991.
  2. Schuurman R, Demeter L, Reichelberfer P, et al. Worldwide evaluation of DNA sequencing approaches for identification of drug resistance mutations in the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 reverse transcriptase. J Clin Microbiol. 1999;37:2291-2296.
  3. Aizawa S, Gatanga H, Ida S, et al. Clinical benefits of resistance assay for HIV-specific protease inhibitors: When to check and in whom? AIDS. 1999;13:1278-1379.
  4. Lorenzi P, Opravil M, Hirschel B, et al. Impact of drug resistance mutations on virologic response to salvage therapy. AIDS. 1999;13:F17-F21.
  5. Brodine SK, Shaffer RA, Starkey MJ, et al. Drug resistance patterns, genetic subtypes, clinical features and risk factors in military personnel with HIV-1 seroconversion. Ann Intern Med. 1999;131:502-506.
  6. Durant J, Clevenbergh P, Halfon P, et al. Drug-resistance genotyping in HIV-1 therapy: The VIRADAPT randomized controlled trial. Lancet.1999;353:2185-2199.
  7. Falloon J. Time to genotype for selection of antiretroviral regimens in previously treated patients? Lancet. 1999;353:2173-2174.
  8. Little SJ, Daar ES, D'Aquila RT, et al. Reduced antiretroviral drug susceptibility among patients with primary HIV infection. JAMA. 1999;282:1142-1149.
  9. Boden D, Hurley A, Zhang L, et al. HIV-1 drug resistance in newly infected individuals. JAMA. 1999;282:1135-1141.
  10. Carpenter CCJ, Cooper DA, Fischl MA, et al. Antiretroviral therapy in adults. Updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society - USA Panel. JAMA. 2000;283:381-390.
  11. Wilson JW, Bean P. A physician's primer to antiretroviral drug resistance testing. AIDS Read. 2000;10(8):469-473, 476-478.
  12. Hirsch MS, Brun-Vezinet F, D'Aquila RT, et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adult HIV-1 infection: Recommendations of an International AIDS Society-USA Panel. JAMA. 2000;283(18):2417-2426.
  13. Palumbo P, Holland B, Dobbs T, et al. Antiretroviral resistance mutations among pregnant human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected women and their newborns in the United States: Vertical transmission and clades. J Infect Dis. 2001;184(9):1120-1126.
  14. Dunne AL, Mitchell FM, Coberly SK, et al. Comparison of genotyping and phenotyping methods for determining susceptibility of HIV-1 to antiretroviral drugs. AIDS. 2001;15(12):1471-1475.
  15. Vandamme AM, Houyez F, Banhegyi D, et al. Laboratory guidelines for the practical use of HIV drug resistance tests in patient follow-up. Antivir Ther. 2001;6(1):21-39.
  16. Hanna GJ, D'Aquila RT. Clinical use of genotypic and phenotypic drug resistance testing to monitor antiretroviral chemotherapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32(5):774-782.
  17. Panel on Clinical Practices for Treatment of HIV Infection. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS); October 19, 2004.
  18. Dybul M, Fauci AS, Bartlett JG, et al. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-infected adults and adolescents. Recommendations of the Panel on Clinical Practices for Treatment of HIV. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2002;51(RR-7):1-55.
  19. Brindeiro PA, Brindeiro RM, Mortensen C, et al. Testing genotypic and phenotypic resistance in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 isolates of clade B and other clades from children failing antiretroviral therapy. J Clin Microbiol. 2002;40(12):4512-4519.
  20. Meynard JL, Vray M, Morand-Joubert L, et al. Phenotypic or genotypic resistance testing for choosing antiretroviral therapy after treatment failure: A randomized trial. AIDS. 2002;16(5):727-736.
  21. Torre D, Tambini R. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in patients with HIV-1 infection: A meta-analysis study. HIV Clin Trials. 2002;3(1):1-8.
  22. Hanna GJ, Caliendo AM. Testing for HIV-1 drug resistance. Mol Diagn. 2001;6(4):253-263.
  23. Dunne AL, Mitchell FM, Coberly SK, et al. Comparison of genotyping and phenotyping methods for determining susceptibility of HIV-1 to antiretroviral drugs. AIDS. 2001;15(12):1471-1475.
  24. Working Group on Antiretroviral Therapy and Medical Management of HIV-Infected Children. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in pediatric HIV infection. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; March 24, 2005.
  25. New York State Department of Health. Diagnostic, prognostic, and resistance tests for HIV. New York, NY: New York State Department of Health; 2004.
  26. Haubrich RH, Kemper CA, Hellmann NS, et al. A randomized, prospective study of phenotype susceptibility testing versus standard of care to manage antiretroviral therapy: CCTG 575. AIDS. 2005;19(3):295-302.
  27. Zhang J, Rhee SY, Taylor J, Shafer RW. Comparison of the precision and sensitivity of the Antivirogram and PhenoSense HIV drug susceptibility assays. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2005;38(4):439-444.
  28. Hirsch HH, Drechsler H, Holbro A, et al. Genotypic and phenotypic resistance testing of HIV-1 in routine clinical care. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2005;24(11):733-738.
  29. German Agency for Health Technology Assessment (DAHTA) at the German Institute for Medical Documentation and Information (DIMDI). Evaluation of the genotypic and phenotypic definition of resistance in the treatment of patients infected by HIV. Medical efficacy and economic efficiency [summary]. Cologne, Germany; DIMDI; 2003.
  30. Pichon Riviere A, Augustovski F, Regueiro A, et al. Antiretroviral resistance testing in HIV patients [summary]. Report IRR No. 38. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (ICES); November 2004.
  31. Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC). Genotypic resistance testing of antiretrovirals in HIV. MSAC Application 1067. Canberra, ACT: MSAC; 2005.
  32. Ena J, Ruiz de Apodaca RF, Amador C, et al. Net benefits of resistance testing directed therapy compared with standard of care in HIV-infected patients with virological failure: A meta-analysis. Enferm Infecc Microbiol Clin. 2006;24(4):232-237.
  33. Zolopa AR. Incorporating drug-resistance measurements into the clinical management of HIV-1 infection. J Infect Dis. 2006;194 Suppl 1:S59-S64.
  34. National Horizon Scanning Centre (NHSC). Maraviroc (UK 427857) for resistant HIV: Horizon scanning technology briefing. Birmingham, UK: NHSC; 2006.
  35. Mueller MC, Bogner JR. Treatment with CCR5 antagonists: Which patient may have a benefit? Eur J Med Res. 2007;12(9):441-452.
  36. No authors listed. First medication in new class of ARTs poised to be available for salvage therapy. Tropism testing helps determine best patients for drug. AIDS Alert. 2007;22(8):85-88.
  37. Whitcomb JM, Huang W, Fransen S, et al. Development and characterization of a novel single-cycle recombinant-virus assay to determine human immunodeficiency virus type 1 coreceptor tropism. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51(2):566-575.
  38. Pfizer Labs. Selzentry (maraviroc) tablets. Prescribing Information. LAB-0357-1.0. New York, NY: Pfizer Inc.; August 2007. Available at: http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/uspi_maraviroc.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2008.
  39. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adult and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Washington, DC: DHHS; December 1, 2009.
  40. Ndegwa S. Maraviroc (Celsentri) for multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1. Issues in Emerging Health Technologies, Issue 110. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH); December 2007.
  41. Palella FJ Jr, Armon C, Buchacz K, et al; HOPS (HIV Outpatient Study) Investigators. The association of HIV susceptibility testing with survival among HIV-infected patients receiving antiretroviral therapy: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(2):73-84.
  42. MacArthur RD. Understanding HIV phenotypic resistance testing: Usefulness in managing treatment-experienced patients. AIDS Rev. 2009;11(4):223-230.
  43. Vandekerckhove L, Wensing A, Kaiser R, et al. Consensus statement of the European guidelines on clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing. Abstracts of the Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection, Glasgow, Scotland, 2010. J Int AIDS Soc. 2010;13(Suppl 4):O7. Abstract O121.
  44. Vandekerckhove LP, Wensing AM, Kaiser R, et al.; European Consensus Group on clinical management of tropism testing. European guidelines on the clinical management of HIV-1 tropism testing. Lancet Infect Dis. 2011;11(5):394-407.
  45. McGovern RA, Thielen A, Mo T, et al. Population-based V3 genotypic tropism assay: A retrospective analysis using screening samples from the A4001029 and MOTIVATE studies. AIDS. 2010;24:2517-2525.
  46. Napravnik S, Cachafeiro A, Stewart P, et al. HIV-1 viral load and phenotypic antiretroviral drug resistance assays based on reverse transcriptase activity in comparison to amplification based HIV-1 RNA and genotypic assays. J Clin Virol. 2010;47(1):18-22.
  47. Swenson LC, Mo T, Dong WW, et al. Deep V3 sequencing for HIV type 1 tropism in treatment-naive patients: A reanalysis of the MERIT trial of maraviroc. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(7):732-742.
  48. Swenson LC, Mo T, Dong W, et al. Deep sequencing to infer HIV-1 co-receptor usage: Application to three clinical trials of Maraviroc in treatment-experienced patients. JID. 2011;203:237-245.
  49. Swenson LC, Moores A, Low AJ, et al. Improved detection of CXCR4-using HIV by V3 genotyping: Application of population-based and "deep" sequencing to plasma RNA and proviral DNA. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2010;54(5):506-510.
  50. Pattery T, Verlinden Y, De Wolf H, et al. Development and performance of conventional HIV-1 phenotyping (Antivirogram®) and genotype-based calculated phenotyping assay (virco®TYPE HIV-1) on protease and reverse transcriptase genes to evaluate drug resistance. Intervirology. 2012;55(2):138-146.
  51. Kagan RM, Johnson EP, Siaw M, et al. A genotypic test for HIV-1 tropism combining Sanger sequencing with ultradeep sequencing predicts virologic response in treatment-experienced patients. Plos ONE. 2012;7(9):e46334.
  52. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Bethesda, MD: DHHS; February 12, 2013.



email this page   


Copyright Aetna Inc. All rights reserved. Clinical Policy Bulletins are developed by Aetna to assist in administering plan benefits and constitute neither offers of coverage nor medical advice. This Clinical Policy Bulletin contains only a partial, general description of plan or program benefits and does not constitute a contract. Aetna does not provide health care services and, therefore, cannot guarantee any results or outcomes. Participating providers are independent contractors in private practice and are neither employees nor agents of Aetna or its affiliates. Treating providers are solely responsible for medical advice and treatment of members. This Clinical Policy Bulletin may be updated and therefore is subject to change.
Aetna
Back to top