Search

Background: Numerous studies have shown that baseline drug resistance patterns may influence the outcome of antiretroviral therapy. Therefore, guidelines recommend drug resistance testing to guide the choice of initial regimen. In addition to optimizing individual patient management, these baseline resistance data enable transmitted drug resistance (TDR) to be surveyed for public health purposes. The SPREAD program systematically collects data to gain insight into TDR occurring in Europe since 2001., Methods: Demographic, clinical, and virological data from 4140 antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals from 26 countries who were newly diagnosed between 2008 and 2010 were analyzed. Evidence of TDR was defined using the WHO list for surveillance of drug resistance mutations. Prevalence of TDR was assessed over time by comparing the results to SPREAD data from 2002 to 2007. Baseline susceptibility to antiretroviral drugs was predicted using the Stanford HIVdb program version 7.0., Results: The overall prevalence of TDR did not change significantly over time and was 8.3% (95% confidence interval, 7.2%-9.5%) in 2008-2010. The most frequent indicators of TDR were nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) mutations (4.5%), followed by nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) mutations (2.9%) and protease inhibitor mutations (2.0%). Baseline mutations were most predictive of reduced susceptibility to initial NNRTI-based regimens: 4.5% and 6.5% of patient isolates were predicted to have resistance to regimens containing efavirenz or rilpivirine, respectively, independent of current NRTI backbones., Conclusions: Although TDR was highest for NRTIs, the impact of baseline drug resistance patterns on susceptibility was largest for NNRTIs. The prevalence of TDR assessed by epidemiological surveys does not clearly indicate to what degree susceptibility to different drug classes is affected., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: One out of ten newly diagnosed patients in Europe was infected with a virus carrying a drug resistant mutation. We analysed the patterns over time for transmitted drug resistance mutations (TDRM) using data from the European Spread program., Methods: Clinical, epidemiological and virological data from 4317 patients newly diagnosed with HIV-1 infection between 2002 and 2007 were analysed. Patients were enrolled using a pre-defined sampling strategy., Results: The overall prevalence of TDRM in this period was 8.9% (95% CI: 8.1-9.8). Interestingly, significant changes over time in TDRM caused by the different drug classes were found. Whereas nucleoside resistance mutations remained constant at 5%, a significant decline in protease inhibitors resistance mutations was observed, from 3.9% in 2002 to 1.6% in 2007 (p = 0.001). In contrast, resistance to non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) doubled from 2.0% in 2002 to 4.1% in 2007 (p = 0.004) with 58% of viral strains carrying a K103N mutation. Phylogenetic analysis showed that these temporal changes could not be explained by large clusters of TDRM., Conclusion: During the years 2002 to 2007 transmitted resistance to NNRTI has doubled to 4% in Europe. The frequent use of NNRTI in first-line regimens and the clinical impact of NNRTI mutations warrants continued monitoring.

Background: In Europe, a continuous programme (SPREAD) has been in place for ten years to study transmission of drug resistant HIV. We analysed time trends of transmitted drug resistance mutations (TDRM) in relation to the risk behaviour reported., Methods: HIV-1 patients newly diagnosed in 27 countries from 2002 through 2007 were included. Inclusion was representative for risk group and geographical distribution in the participating countries in Europe. Trends over time were calculated by logistic regression., Results: From the 4317 patients included, the majority was men-having-sex-with-men -MSM (2084, 48%), followed by heterosexuals (1501, 35%) and injection drug users (IDU) (355, 8%). MSM were more often from Western Europe origin, infected with subtype B virus, and recently infected (<1 year) (p<0.001). The prevalence of TDRM was highest in MSM (prevalence of 11.1%), followed by heterosexuals (6.6%) and IDU (5.1%, p<0.001). TDRM was predominantly ascribed to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) with a prevalence of 6.6% in MSM, 3.3% in heterosexuals and 2.0% in IDU (p = 0.001). A significant increase in resistance to non- nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and a decrease in resistance to protease inhibitors was observed in MSM (p = 0.008 and p = 0.006, respectively), but not in heterosexual patients (p = 0.68 and p = 0.14, respectively)., Conclusions: MSM showed to have significantly higher TDRM prevalence compared to heterosexuals and IDU. The increasing NNRTI resistance in MSM is likely to negatively influence the therapy response of first-line therapy, as most include NNRTI drugs.

The European HIV Drug Resistance Guidelines Panel, established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists, felt that sufficient new information has become available to warrant an update of its recommendations, explained in both pocket guidelines and this full paper. The Panel makes the following recommendations concerning the indications for resistance testing: for HIV-1 (i) test earliest sample for protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance in drug-naive patients with acute or chronic infection; (ii) test protease and reverse transcriptase drug resistance at virologic failure, and other drug targets (integrase and envelope) if such drugs were part of the failing regimen; (iii) consider testing for CCR5 tropism at virologic failure or when a change of therapy has to be made in absence of detectable viral load, and in the latter case test DNA or last detectable plasma RNA; (iv) consider testing earliest detectable plasma RNA when a successful nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing therapy was inappropriately interrupted; (v) genotype source patient when postexposure prophylaxis is considered; for HIV-2, (vi) consider resistance testing where treatment change is needed after treatment failure. The Panel recommends genotyping in most situations, using updated and clinically evaluated interpretation systems. It is mandatory that laboratories performing HIV resistance tests take part regularly in external quality assurance programs, and that they consider storing samples in situations where resistance testing cannot be performed as recommended. Similarly, it is necessary that HIV clinicians and virologists take part in continuous education and discuss problematic clinical cases. Indeed, resistance test results should be used in the context of all other clinically relevant information for predicting therapy response.

Resistance mutations to the HIV-1 fusion inhibitor enfuvirtide emerge mainly within the drug's target region, HR1, and compensatory mutations have been described within HR2. The surrounding envelope (env) genetic context might also contribute to resistance, although to what extent and through which determinants remains elusive. To quantify the direct role of the env context in resistance to enfuvirtide and in viral infectivity, we compared enfuvirtide susceptibility and infectivity of recombinant viral pairs harboring the HR1-HR2 region or the full Env ectodomain of longitudinal env clones from 5 heavily treated patients failing enfuvirtide therapy. Prior to enfuvirtide treatment onset, no env carried known resistance mutations and full Env viruses were on average less susceptible than HR1-HR2 recombinants. All escape clones carried at least one of G36D, V38A, N42D and/or N43D/S in HR1, and accordingly, resistance increased 11- to 2800-fold relative to baseline. Resistance of full Env recombinant viruses was similar to resistance of their HR1-HR2 counterpart, indicating that HR1 and HR2 are the main contributors to resistance. Strictly X4 viruses were more resistant than strictly R5 viruses, while dual-tropic Envs featured similar resistance levels irrespective of the coreceptor expressed by the cell line used. Full Env recombinants from all patients gained infectivity under prolonged drug pressure; for HR1-HR2 viruses, infectivity remained steady for 3/5 patients, while for 2/5 patients, gains in infectivity paralleled those of the corresponding full Env recombinants, indicating that the env genetic context accounts mainly for infectivity adjustments. Phylogenetic analyses revealed that quasispecies selection is a step-wise process where selection of enfuvirtide resistance is a dominant factor early during therapy, while increased infectivity is the prominent driver under prolonged therapy.

Background: Information about patterns of HIV-1 drug resistance among treatment-exposed patients is crucial for the development of novel effective drugs. Currently no system exists that monitors patterns of resistance in patients failing therapy., Methods: The study included 1,988 HIV-1 sequences from patients experiencing therapy failure collected between 2000 and 2004 in 15 European countries. Genotypic resistance was interpreted using the ANRS algorithm. Phenotypic resistance was predicted using the Virco geno- to phenotype system., Results: 80.7% of the sequences included at least one drug-resistance mutation. Mutations were found for NRTIs (73.5%), NNRTIs (48.5%), and protease inhibitors (35.8%). Ninety percent of sequences with genotypic resistance harbored M184V, M41L, K103N, D67N, and/or T215Y. Among NRTIs, resistance was most frequently predicted for lamivudine. About half of all sequences had reduced susceptibility for NNRTIs. Resistance to most boosted protease inhibitors was found in < 25%. No sequence had resistance to all currently available drugs., Conclusion: Levels of resistance among patients with therapy failure were high. The patterns of resistance reflect resistance to drugs available for a longer time. Fully suppressive regimens can be designed even for the most mutated HIV because boosted protease inhibitors have remained active against most circulating viruses and new drug classes have become available.

Background: Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 2 is naturally resistant to some antiretroviral drugs, restricting therapeutic options for patients infected with HIV-2. Regimens including integrase inhibitors (INI) seem to be effective, but little data on HIV-2 integrase (IN) polymorphisms and resistance pathways are available., Materials and Methods: The integrase coding sequence from 45 HIV-2-infected, INI-naïve, patients was sequenced and aligned against the ROD (group A) or EHO (group B) reference strains and polymorphic or conserved positions were analyzed.To select for raltegravir (RAL)-resistant variants in vitro, the ROD strain was cultured under increasing sub-optimal RAL concentrations for successive rounds. The phenotype of the selected variants was assessed using an MTT assay., Results: We describe integrase gene polymorphisms in HIV-2 clinical isolates from 45 patients. Sixty-seven percent of the integrase residues were conserved. The HHCC Zinc coordination motif, the catalytic triad DDE motif, and AA involved in IN-DNA binding and correct positioning were highly conserved and unchanged with respect to HIV-1 whereas the connecting residues of the N-terminal domain, the dimer interface and C-terminal LEDGF binding domain were highly conserved but differed from HIV-1. The N155 H INI resistance-associated mutation (RAM) was detected in the virus population from one ARV-treated, INI-naïve patient, and the 72I and 201I polymorphisms were detected in samples from 36 and 38 patients respectively. No other known INI RAM was detected.Under RAL selective pressure in vitro, a ROD variant carrying the Q91R+I175M mutations was selected. The Q91R and I175M mutations emerged simultaneously and conferred phenotypic resistance (13-fold increase in IC50). The Q91R+I175M combination was absent from all clinical isolates. Three-dimensional modeling indicated that residue 91 lies on the enzyme surface, at the entry of a pocket containing the DDE catalytic triad and that adding a positive charge (Gln to Arg) might compromise IN-RAL affinity., Conclusions: HIV-2 polymorphisms from 45 INI-naïve patients are described. Conserved regions as well as frequencies of HIV-2 IN polymorphisms were comparable to HIV-1. Two new mutations (Q91R and I175M) that conferred high resistance to RAL were selected in vitro, which might affect therapeutic outcome.

The SPREAD Programme investigated prospectively the time trend from September 2002 through December 2005 of transmitted drug resistance (TDR) among 2793 patients in 20 European countries and in Israel with newly diagnosed human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. The overall prevalence of TDR was 8.4% (225 of 2687 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4%-9.5%), the prevalence of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) resistance was 4.7% (125 of 2687 patients; 95% CI, 3.9%-5.5%), the prevalence of nonucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance was 2.3% (62 of 2687 patients; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.9%), and the prevalence of protease inhibitor (PI) resistance was 2.9% (79 of 2687 patients; 95% CI, 2.4%-3.6%). There was no time trend in the overall TDR or in NRTI resistance, but there was a statistically significant decrease in PI resistance (P = .04) and in NNRTI resistance after an initial increase (P = .02). We found that TDR appears to be stabilizing in Europe, consistent with recent reports of decreasing drug resistance and improved viral suppression in patients treated for HIV-1 infection.

This study was conducted among individuals taking first-line antiretroviral treatment (ART) for at least 12 months under programme conditions in Maputo, Mozambique in order to report on the level of detectable viraemia and the proportion and types of drug resistance mutations among those with detectable viral loads. HIV-1 RNA viral load levels (lower detection limit <50 copies/ml) were measured, and resistance mutations were sequenced. One hundred and forty-nine consecutive patients (69% females, median age 36 years) were included after a mean follow-up time of 23 months. One hundred and seven (72%; 95% CI 64-79) had undetectable viral load, while in 42 (28%, 95% CI 21-36) viral load was detectable (range 50-58884 copies/ml). From 15 patients with viral load >1000 copies/ml, 12 viruses were sequenced: eight were C subtypes and four were circulating recombinant forms (CRF08). Eight (5%; 95% CI 2-9) patients with detectable viral load had one or more major resistance mutations. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and non-NRTI mutations were observed. There were no major mutations for resistance to protease inhibitors. In Maputo, the level of detectable viraemia is reassuringly low. While embarking on ART scale-up, wider surveillance is warranted to monitor programme quality and limit the development of drug resistance, which remains a major potential challenge for the future of ART in Africa.

Background: The genetic barrier, defined as the number of mutations required to overcome drug-selective pressure, is an important factor for the development of HIV drug resistance. Because of high variability between subtypes, particular HIV-1 subtypes could have different genetic barriers for drug resistance substitutions. This study compared the genetic barrier between subtypes using some 2000 HIV-1 sequences (>600 of non-B subtype) isolated from anti-retroviral-naive patients in Europe., Methods: The genetic barrier was calculated as the sum of transitions (scored as 1) and/or transversions (2.5) required for evolution to any major drug resistance substitution. In addition, the number of minor protease substitutions was determined for every subtype., Results: Few dissimilarities were found. An increased genetic barrier was calculated for I82A (subtypes C and G), V108I (subtype G), V118I (subtype G), Q151M (subtypes D and F), L210W (subtypes C, F, G, and CRF02&#95;AG), and P225H (subtype A) (P < 0.001 compared with subtype B). A decreased genetic barrier was found for I82T (subtypes C and G) and V106M (subtype C) (P < 0.001 vs subtype B). Conversely, minor protease substitutions differed extensively between subtypes., Conclusions: Based on the calculated genetic barrier, the rate of drug resistance development may be similar for different HIV-1 subtypes. Because of differences in minor protease substitutions, protease inhibitor resistance could be enhanced in particular subtypes once the relevant major substitutions are selected.

HIV-1 drug resistance methodologies are being increasingly utilized to guide treatment decisions; however, information comparing the various assays is limited. Duplicate plasma samples from 70 ART-experienced subjects were analyzed by both the Antivirogram and PhenoSense phenotypic assays and the results compared. HIV genotypes were also obtained and analyzed using seven different resistance algorithms. These results were also compared with the phenotypic assay results. Concordances between the phenotypic tests and between each algorithm, and between the two phenotypic assays were calculated and kappa coefficients (KC) determined. Overall agreement between the two phenotypic assays was good (86.9% concordance; KC 0.621). The highest concordance by drug class was seen for protease inhibitors (93.4%; KC 0.679) and the lowest (79.8%; KC 0.549) for nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Concordance between the two phenotypic assays, when evaluating individual drugs, was good for all drugs tested except for abacavir, zalcitabine, and indinavir. Agreement between the seven algorithms and each phenotypic assay was variable, though most had good or excellent agreement. The highest overall level of agreement for an individual drug was observed when comparing lamivudine susceptibility to either assay. Concordance for abacavir, didanosine, zalcitabine, and saquinavir was generally problematic when comparing one or more phenotypic assays to the drug resistance predictive algorithms. In conclusion, results comparing these two phenotypic tests were mostly similar, but comparisons of the predictive resistance algorithms for specific drugs, as well as to specific phenotypic assays, were more inconsistent.

Background: Infection with drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) can impair the response to combination therapy. Widespread transmission of drug-resistant variants has the disturbing potential of limiting future therapy options and affecting the efficacy of postexposure prophylaxis., Methods: We determined the baseline rate of drug resistance in 2208 therapy-naive patients recently and chronically infected with HIV-1 from 19 European countries during 1996-2002., Results: In Europe, 1 of 10 antiretroviral-naive patients carried viruses with > or = 1 drug-resistance mutation. Recently infected patients harbored resistant variants more often than did chronically infected patients (13.5% vs. 8.7%; P=.006). Non-B viruses (30%) less frequently carried resistance mutations than did subtype B viruses (4.8% vs. 12.9%; P<.01). Baseline resistance increased over time in newly diagnosed cases of non-B infection: from 2.0% (1/49) in 1996-1998 to 8.2% (16/194) in 2000-2001., Conclusions: Drug-resistant variants are frequently present in both recently and chronically infected therapy-naive patients. Drug-resistant variants are most commonly seen in patients infected with subtype B virus, probably because of longer exposure of these viruses to drugs. However, an increase in baseline resistance in non-B viruses is observed. These data argue for testing all drug-naive patients and are of relevance when guidelines for management of postexposure prophylaxis and first-line therapy are updated.

Background: Resistance testing is increasingly accepted as a tool in guiding the selection of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected individuals who fail their current regimen., Objectives: To descriptively compare the correlation between virologic treatment response and results using three genotypic HIV-1 drug resistance interpretation systems: the VERSANT HIV-1 Resistance Assay (LiPA) system and two sequence-based interpretation systems., Study Design: Specimens from 213 HIV-1-infected subjects, either starting (n=104) or switching to (n=109) a regimen of three or four antiretroviral drugs, were collected retrospectively at baseline and after 3 months of uninterrupted therapy. The correlation between viral load change and the number of predicted active drugs in the treatment regimen was assessed. An interpretation algorithm was recently developed to process VERSANT HIV-1 Resistance Assay (LiPA) data. The number of active drugs predicted using this algorithm was rank correlated with the viral load change over a 3-month treatment period. For comparison, a similar calculation was made using two sequence-based algorithms (REGA version 5.5 and VGI GuideLines Rules 4.0), both applied on the same sequences., Results: Statistically significant (p<0.05) correlation coefficients for each of the three HIV-1 drug resistance interpretation systems were observed in the treatment-experienced subjects on a 3-drug regimen (-0.39, -0.38, and -0.42, respectively) as well as on a 4-drug regimen (-0.33, -0.31, and -0.37, respectively). However, no significant correlation was observed in treatment-naive subjects, probably due to the very low frequency of drug resistance in these subjects., Conclusion: All three genotypic drug resistance interpretation systems (LiPA version 1, REGA version 5.5, and VGI GuideLines Rules 4.0) were statistically significantly correlated with virologic therapy response as measured by viral load testing.

In most European countries, HIV drug resistance testing has become a routine clinical tool. However, its practical implementation in a clinical context is demanding. The European HIV Drug Resistance Panel was established to make recommendations to clinicians and virologists on this topic and to propose quality control measures. The panel recommends resistance testing for the following indications: i) drug-naive patients with acute or recent infection; ii) therapy failure, including suboptimal treatment response, when treatment change is considered; iii) pregnant HIV-1-infected women and paediatric patients with detectable viral load when treatment initiation or change is considered; and iv) genotype source patient when post-exposure prophylaxis is considered. In addition, for drug-naive patients with chronic infection in whom treatment is to be started, the panel suggests that resistance testing should be strongly considered and recommends testing the earliest sample for drug resistance if suspicion of resistance is high or prevalence of resistance in this population exceeds 10%. The panel does not favour genotyping over phenotype, however it is anticipated that genotyping will be used more often because of its greater accessibility, lower cost and faster turnaround time. For the interpretation of resistance data, clinically validated systems should be used to the greatest extent possible. It is mandatory that laboratories performing HIV resistance tests take regular part in quality assurance programs. Similarly, it is necessary that HIV clinicians and virologists take part in continuous education and meet regularly to discuss problematic clinical cases. Indeed, resistance test results should be used in the context of all other clinically relevant information for predicting therapy response. The panel also encourages the timely collection of epidemiological information to estimate the impact of transmission of resistant HIV and the prevalence of HIV-1 non-B subtypes in the different European countries.

This study aimed to find out whether genetic polymorphisms were present in positions potentially affecting susceptibility to antiretrovirals in non-B subtypes from HIV-1-infected patients in Rwanda. Viral pol gene diversity was investigated by direct sequencing in 43 treatment-naive women. In addition, 10 DNA sequences from uncultured peripheral blood mononuclear cells were analyzed 6 weeks after a single dose of nevirapine (prevention of mother-to-child transmission program). Phylogenetic analyses have shown 34 subtype A1, 6 subtype C, and 2 subtype D strains. In addition, an A/C recombinant between the protease (PR) (subtype A1) and the reverse transcriptase (RT) (subtype C) was identified. In the PR coding region, high numbers of polymorphisms were found, including substitutions in secondary PR resistance sites. PR 35D, 36I, and 37N were always present within subtype A as were PR 93L in subtype C strains. PR 10I/V, 20R, 33F, and 77V were found in subtype A whereas PR 36I was highly prevalent in subtype C strains. The A/C recombinant displayed substitutions related to resistance (PR 10, 33, 36 and RT 118). One nevirapine resistance mutation (RT 181Y/C) was found in proviral DNA after 6 weeks. In conclusion, subtypes A and C are predominant in this cohort in Rwanda. Substitutions similar to secondary protease inhibitor resistance mutations are common before treatment whereas major resistance mutation may be archived after a single dose of nevirapine. Accordingly, the hypothesis of a genetic background effect in non-B strains has to be further addressed in programs of introduction of antivirals in Africa.

An "in-house" recombinant virus protease inhibitor susceptibility assay was carried out (median of 3 per patient) retrospectively in 26 patients failing HIV protease inhibitor based therapy at regular intervals to the initiation of the first protease inhibitor. Patients were treated with either indinavir (N = 6), ritonavir (N = 10), or saquinavir (N = 10) and two nucleoside analogues. Second line therapy was based on single or dual protease inhibitor regimens occasionally containing nelfinavir. Clinically relevant resistance cut-offs associated with a poorer virological outcome from 6 months on and the clinical outcome from 3 months on were determined tentatively as 4- to 8-fold resistance for indinavir and ritonavir and 2.5- to 8-fold to saquinavir. In addition, the degree of cross-resistance at the time of the change of protease inhibitor was associated with the response in viral load at 6 months to the second line therapy (P = 0.018). Cross-resistance (> or = 8-fold) between ritonavir and indinavir was common (78 and 100%). Cross-resistance between indinavir or ritonavir and saquinavir was less frequent (75 and 60% respectively) than the opposite (100%, P = 0.004). Cross-resistance to nelfinavir was encountered more frequently (> 70%) than to amprenavir (9%). The magnitudes of resistance were correlated between each other. In summary, the protease inhibitor susceptibility carried out longitudinally appears to be an earlier prognostic marker than viral load in a context of cross-resistance. The magnitude of resistance, as a marker of cross-resistance, should be useful to guide second line therapy., (Copyright 2002 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Background: The efficacy of treatment containing nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) could be compromised in NNRTI-naïve patients already harboring a virus resistant to NNRTIs. On the contrary, hypersusceptibility to NNRTIs in patients having failed nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-containing regimens has been described and has been associated with improved outcome., Method: We assessed the prevalence of NNRTI resistance-associated mutations or polymorphisms in 146 antiretroviral-naïve patients and in 181 HIV-infected patients who were given an NNRTI-based regimen. We phenotypically evaluated the NNRTI susceptibility of 41 strains presenting with amino acid substitutions at positions involved in NNRTI resistance., Results: In the 268 genotypically analyzable samples, the overall prevalence of NNRTI resistance-associated mutations was 2% (6/268 patients). The prevalence of strains with amino acid substitutions at reverse transcriptase (RT) gene positions (A98, K101, K103, V106, V108, V179) involved in NNRTI resistance was 15%. Hypersusceptibility to NNRTI was rare (2%, 1/41) in those samples. RT substitutions at positions involved in NNRTI resistance were not associated with a significantly worse virologic outcome in NNRTI-treated patients. Our understanding of small shifts in IC50 values (higher or lower) toward NNRTI is very limited. The significance of many RT mutations on NNRTI susceptibility is not clear., Conclusion: In contrast to resistance mutations, RT substitutions at positions involved in NNRTI resistance are frequent. They are not associated with a worse virologic outcome or with decreased phenotypic susceptibility to NNRTIs. It may be prudent not to rule out the use of NNRTIs in patients with small shifts in IC50 values or poorly understood mutations.