The authors declare no conflicts Z VAD FMK of interest. “
“Recent studies have suggested that failing nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based regimens may have greater potential to induce the development of resistance mutations, which may limit options for second-line therapy. Antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naïve individuals aged ≥18 years who initiated triple combination ART between January 2000 and June 2006 in British

Columbia, Canada were enrolled in the study. We compared genotypic sensitivity scores (GSSs) derived from the development of resistance mutations between participants who initiated ART with ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) with those who initiated ART with NNRTIs, and determined the effects of these mutations

on remaining active drugs. A total of 1666 participants initiated ART, 818 (49.1%) with NNRTI-based regimens and 848 (50.9%) with boosted PI-based regimens. Among participants who developed resistance mutations, those who initiated check details NNRTI-based regimens had a lower median GSS than those on boosted PI-based regimens (9.8 vs. 11.0, respectively; P<0.001). Participants on boosted PI-based regimens [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 3.68; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.25, 6.01], those with ≥95% adherence to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) (AOR 1.84; 95% CI 1.16, 2.92) and those with baseline SB-3CT CD4 count >200 cells/μL (AOR 3.44; 95% CI 1.73, 6.84) were more likely to have the maximum number of drug options. The use of NNRTI-based first-line

ART regimens may limit the options for second-line treatment when the number of available drugs is limited. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and one nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) as first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) for individuals with HIV-1 infection in resource-limited countries. It further advises reserving protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens for second-line management [1]. These recommendations have been standardized and simplified to facilitate expansion of ART services [1] and have been widely adopted by many resource-limited countries [2,3]. The WHO does not currently recommend the use of viral load testing for monitoring patients on HIV treatment in resource-limited settings (RLSs) [1,4]. Most patients in these settings do not have access to these tests and clinicians use clinical or immunological criteria to diagnose HIV treatment failure [5]. Consequently, some individuals may remain on incompletely suppressive regimens for long periods of time, which may promote the accumulation of drug resistance mutations [6], before they are diagnosed with treatment failure and switched to a second-line therapy.