The recommendation of the Writing Group is that, following NNRTI/two NRTIs virological failure when no resistance mutations exist,
a switch to a PI/r-based regimen should lead to virological suppression and is unlikely to lead to emergent resistance. The decision as to whether to restart the same NNRTI-based combination or switch to another NNRTI, RAL or MVC (where CCR5 tropism has been confirmed) has to be individualized to the patient, their history of virological failure, and to whether further switches in the combination are occurring. No supportive BIBF 1120 concentration data exist for management of virological failure when this has developed on first-line therapy with RAL/two NRTIs but the general principles set out for NNRTI-based failure would still apply. However, the high genetic barrier of PI/r reduces the risk of low-level resistance developing.
Up to two-thirds of virologically failing patients harbour viruses with NNRTI and half NRTI mutations at 48 weeks [27-30, 33]: with increasing time, there will be accumulation of resistance mutations that may compromise second-line regimens . Although potential options for second-line therapy after failure on an NNRTI-containing ABT-199 concentration regimen include RAL, ETV and MVC as the third agent (RPV is not licensed for this indication), evidence supports the use of a PI/r. A switch to any PI/r-based regimen should lead to virological suppression and is unlikely to lead to further emergent resistance and should be considered whenever possible. Where NRTI resistance has been documented or likely, these should be replaced and new active NRTIs or other ARVs should be incorporated. There are no direct comparisons of the boosted PIs in second-line treatment after first-line failure on an NNRTI-based regimen and choice would be individualized to the patient. Sequencing from an EFV or NVP-based regimen to ETV is not recommended  although it remains an option when switched as part of a new combination when only K103N is present. Switching to RAL or MVC with two active NRTIs is an option but is also not recommended in a patient with
historical or existing Pregnenolone RT mutations/previous NRTI virological failure . Less than 1% of patients harbour viruses with primary PI mutations and 10–20% NRTI mutations at 48 weeks, with 75% having WT virus [24, 27-29, 37, 38]. There are currently limited data regarding the efficacy of switching to another PI/r, NNRTI, MVC or RAL-based regimen and again the decision is individualized to the patient. However, switching to RAL, MVC or NNRTI in a patient with historical or existing RT mutations is not recommended because of an increased risk of virological failure and further emergence of resistance . By contrast, because of the high genetic barrier of PI/r, sequencing to a regimen that includes a new PI/r is unlikely to lead to further emergent resistance and is recommended.