2005International Journal of Clinical PracticeRequires access

Are all non-thymidine analogue backbones appropriate for treating antiretroviral - naïve patients?

Laura Waters, Mark Nelson

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

An increasing number of antiretroviral agents are available for the treatment of HIV infection. Many clinicians and patients prefer once-daily therapy, and this, in addition to accumulating evidence of toxicity associated with thymidine analogues, means many individuals commence a non-thymidine analogue-based regimen. Stavudine (d4T) is no longer recommended for initial therapy, and zidovudine (AZT) may also be associated with lipoatrophy. Despite investigations into nucleoside-sparing options, triple agent therapy with two nucleoside analogues [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] and a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) remains the mainstay. In this article, we review the advantages, and drawbacks, of different non-thymidine NRTI backbones.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

An increasing number of antiretroviral agents are available for the treatment of HIV infection. Many clinicians and patients prefer once-daily therapy, and this, in addition to accumulating evidence of toxicity associated with thymidine analogues, means many individuals commence a non-thymidine analogue-based regimen. Stavudine (d4T) is no longer recommended for initial therapy, and zidovudine (AZT) may also be associated with lipoatrophy. Despite investigations into nucleoside-sparing options, triple agent therapy with two nucleoside analogues [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] and a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) remains the mainstay. In this article, we review the advantages, and drawbacks, of different non-thymidine NRTI backbones.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

An increasing number of antiretroviral agents are available for the treatment of HIV infection. Many clinicians and patients prefer once-daily therapy, and this, in addition to accumulating evidence of toxicity associated with thymidine analogues, means many individuals commence a non-thymidine analogue-based regimen. Stavudine (d4T) is no longer recommended for initial therapy, and zidovudine (AZT) may also be associated with lipoatrophy. Despite investigations into nucleoside-sparing options, triple agent therapy with two nucleoside analogues [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] and a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) remains the mainstay. In this article, we review the advantages, and drawbacks, of different non-thymidine NRTI backbones.

Key concepts: Stavudine, Medicine, Zidovudine, Thymidine, Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor, Reverse-transcriptase inhibitor, Regimen, Nucleoside

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Are all non-thymidine analogue backbones appropriate for treating antiretroviral - naïve patients? — Research Paper | ScholarLens