ABC-3TC is an acceptable alternative option in patients with a baseline VL <100 000 copies/mL, but must only be selleck inhibitor used after ensuring a patient is HLA-B*57:01 negative. When selecting an NRTI backbone, factors such as potential side effects, co-morbidities, patient preference and cost should also be considered. Observational studies have variably reported associations between ABC and CVD [11-13], and TDF may cause renal disease [14]. These aspects will be discussed in more detail in Section 8. However, based on the balance of current evidence we suggest

ABC is not used in individuals at high risk of CVD (see Section 8.6 Cardiovascular disease) and TDF is not used in patients with stage 3–5 CKD or at high risk of progression of CKD (see Section 8.5 Chronic kidney disease) if acceptable alternative ARVs are available. http://www.selleckchem.com/products/dabrafenib-gsk2118436.html The Writing Group believes there is no routine role for other NRTI backbones in the treatment of ART-naïve patients. Zidovudine (ZDV)-3TC may be considered in certain specific circumstances (e.g. pregnancy; see BHIVA Guidelines for the Management of HIV Infection in Pregnant Women 2012 [15]) but should not be given routinely due to the proven association with mitochondrial toxicity, particularly lipoatrophy, with ZDV. There is no place for the use of stavudine- or didanosine-containing regimens as initial therapy, due to the associations with

significant mitochondrial and hepatic toxicities. We recommend therapy-naïve patients start combination ART containing

ATV/r, DRV/r, EFV, RAL or ELV/COBI as the third agent (1A). We suggest that for therapy-naïve patients LPV/r and FPV/r are acceptable alternative PIs, and NVP and RPV are acceptable alternative NNRTIs (2A). NVP must only be used according to CD4 criteria and RPV should only be used in patients with baseline VL <100 000 copies/mL. The BHIVA Guidelines for the Treatment of HIV-1-infected Adults with Antiretroviral Therapy 2008 [16] recommended EFV as the preferred third agent in view of significantly better virological outcomes compared with LPV/r [17]. A similar outcome was subsequently reported in a smaller randomized study of patients commencing ART with advanced disease, as defined Selleck CHIR-99021 by a CD4 cell count of <200 cells/μL [18]. Since the 2008 guidelines, a number of comparative studies against either EFV, LPV/r or ATV/r have been reported, investigating alternative third agents. Comparison with EFV: ATV/r [19-25]; RAL [26-29]; RPV [30-32]; ELV/COBI [33]. Comparison with LPV/r: ATV/r [32]; DRV/r [35-37]. Comparison with r/ATV; ELV/COBI [34]. For the current guidelines, evidence for agreed treatment outcomes for each potential third agent was compared with EFV, either directly or indirectly depending on the available evidence (Appendix 3). ATV/r and RAL have been compared directly with EFV in RCTs. For critical virological efficacy and safety outcomes, no differences were identified between EFV and either ATV/r or RAL.