-
JAMA Dermatology Apr 2023Antibiotics are an important risk for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), which are the most severe types of drug hypersensitivity... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Antibiotics are an important risk for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and toxic epidermal necrolysis (SJS/TEN), which are the most severe types of drug hypersensitivity reaction with a mortality rate up to 50%. To our knowledge, no global systematic review has described antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the prevalence of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN worldwide.
DATA SOURCES
The MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for experimental and observational studies that described SJS/TEN risks since database inception to February 22, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION
Included studies adequately described SJS/TEN origins and specified the antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Two reviewers (E.Y.L. and C.K.) independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. A meta-analysis using a random-effects model was performed in the studies that described patient-level associations. Subgroup analyses were performed to explore the heterogeneity. The risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist, and the certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Prevalence of antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN was presented as pooled proportions with 95% CIs.
RESULTS
Among the 64 studies included in the systematic review, there were 38 studies that described patient-level associations; the meta-analysis included these 38 studies with 2917 patients to determine the prevalence of single antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN. The pooled proportion of antibiotics associated with SJS/TEN was 28% (95% CI, 24%-33%), with moderate certainty of evidence. Among antibiotic-associated SJS/TEN, the sulfonamide class was associated with 32% (95% CI, 22%-44%) of cases, followed by penicillins (22%; 95% CI, 17%-28%), cephalosporins (11%; 95% CI, 6%-17%), fluoroquinolones (4%; 95% CI, 1%-7%), and macrolides (2%; 95% CI, 1%-5%). There was a statistically significant heterogeneity in the meta-analysis, which could be partially explained in the subgroup analysis by continents. The overall risk of bias was low using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for case series.
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis of all case series, antibiotics were associated with more than one-quarter of SJS/TEN cases described worldwide, and sulfonamide antibiotics remained the most important association. These findings highlight the importance of antibiotic stewardship, clinician education and awareness, and weighing the risk-benefit assessment of antibiotic choice and duration.
Topics: Humans; Stevens-Johnson Syndrome; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Prevalence; Sulfanilamide; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 36790777
DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2022.6378 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Dec 2022The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics...
The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. A systematic review was conducted using multiple biomedical literature databases from inception to June 2021. Full articles comparing PGx-guided with nonguided treatment were included for data extraction. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to assess robustness of each study (0-100). Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Of 108 studies evaluating 39 drugs, 77 (71%) showed PGx testing was cost-effective (CE) (N = 48) or cost-saving (CS) (N = 29); 21 (20%) were not CE; 10 (9%) were uncertain. Clopidogrel had the most articles (N = 23), of which 22 demonstrated CE or CS, followed by warfarin (N = 16), of which 7 demonstrated CE or CS. Of 26 studies evaluating human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing for abacavir (N = 8), allopurinol (N = 10), or carbamazepine/phenytoin (N = 8), 15 demonstrated CE or CS. Nine of 11 antidepressant articles demonstrated CE or CS. The median QHES score reflected high-quality studies (91; range 48-100). Most studies evaluating cost-effectiveness favored PGx testing. Limited data exist on cost-effectiveness of preemptive and multigene testing across disease states.
Topics: Humans; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenetics; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Warfarin; Carbamazepine
PubMed: 36149409
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2754 -
Journal of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical... 2015This study aimed to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the association between HLA-B*5701 and abacavir-induced hypersensitivity reaction (ABC-HSR). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the association between HLA-B*5701 and abacavir-induced hypersensitivity reaction (ABC-HSR).
METHODS
We searched for studies that investigated the association between HLA-B genotype and ABC-HSR and provided information about the frequency of carriers of HLA-B genotypes among cases and controls. We then performed a meta-analysis with a random-effects model to pool the data and to investigate the sources of heterogeneity.
RESULTS
From 1,026 articles identified, ten studies were included. Five using clinical manifestation as their diagnostic criteria, 409 and 1,883 subjects were included as cases and controls. Overall OR was 23.6 (95% CI = 15.4 - 36.3). Whereas, the another five studies using confirmed immunologic test as their diagnostic criteria, 110 and 1,968 subjects were included as cases and controls, respectively. The association of ABC-HSR was strong in this populations with HLA-B*5701. Overall OR was 1,056.2 (95% CI = 345.0 - 3,233.3).
CONCLUSIONS
Using meta-analysis technique, the association between HLA-B*5701 and ABC-HSR is strong in the studies using immunologic confirmation to identify ABC-HSR. These results support the US FDA recommendations for screening HLA-B*5701 allele before initiating abacavir therapy.
Topics: Alleles; Anti-HIV Agents; Dideoxynucleosides; Drug Hypersensitivity; Genotype; HLA-B Antigens; Humans
PubMed: 25877443
DOI: 10.18433/j39s3t -
The Lancet. Child & Adolescent Health Oct 2022Abacavir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor recommended in paediatric HIV care. We assessed the safety and efficacy profile of abacavir used in first,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Abacavir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor recommended in paediatric HIV care. We assessed the safety and efficacy profile of abacavir used in first, second, or subsequent lines of treatment for infants, children, and adolescents living with HIV to inform 2021 WHO paediatric ART recommendations.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we included observational and experimental studies conducted in infants aged 0-1 year, children aged 1-10 years, and adolescents aged 10-19 years living with HIV; with data on safety or efficacy, or both, of abacavir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART); published in English or French between Jan 1, 2009, and Oct 1, 2020, plus an updated search to incorporate studies published between Oct 1, 2020, and May 15, 2022. Studies could be non-randomised or non-comparative and include patients who are treatment-naive or those who previously received abacavir (only if abacavir was combined with other ART). Case studies, studies in adults aged 18 years or older, and those assessing the effect of maternal ART exposure were excluded. We extracted data related to study identifier, study design, study period, setting, population characteristics, ART treatment, and safety (any hypersensitivity reaction, death, grade 3 or 4 adverse events, treatment discontinuation, any other morbidities, and serious adverse events), and efficacy outcomes (HIV viral load and CD4 counts reported at 6 and 12 months after ART initiation). Using random-effect models, we estimated weighted pooled incidence and relative risk (RR) of outcomes. The protocol is published in PROSPERO (CRD42022309230).
FINDINGS
Of 1777 records identified, 1475 (83%) were screened after removing duplicates and a further 1421 (96%) were excluded. Of 54 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, 33 (61%) were excluded. Four records were identified from grey literature plus one duplicate from database searching, resulting in 24 studies included (two randomised controlled trials, one single-arm trial, 12 prospective cohorts, seven retrospective cohorts, and two cross-sectional studies). 19 studies described safety data and 15 described efficacy data. 18 (75%) studies were conducted in ART-naive participants. The risk of bias was considered moderate to high for most studies, and all outcomes had significant between-study heterogeneity. Data from 24 265 participants were included, of whom 7236 (30%) received abacavir. Abacavir hypersensitivity reaction was reported in nine (38%) studies, with an incidence ranging from 0·00% to 8·26% (I=85%; p<0·0001). The incidence of death (reported in seven studies) following abacavir treatment varied from 0·00% to 5·49% (I=58%; p=0·026). Viral suppression (<400 copies per mL) varied from 50% to 70% at 6 months (I=92%, p<0·0001) and from 57% to 78% at 12 months (I=88%, p<0·0001).
INTERPRETATION
Toxic effects due to abacavir use remain rare and manageable. Despite scarce data on efficacy, this meta-analysis supports the use of abacavir as a preferred first-line regimen for infants and children living with HIV.
FUNDING
WHO.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Anti-HIV Agents; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Cyclopropanes; Dideoxyadenosine; HIV Infections; Humans; Infant; Nucleosides; Observational Studies as Topic; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
PubMed: 36058225
DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(22)00213-9 -
PloS One 2013Lamivudine and emtricitabine are considered equivalent by several guidelines, but evidence of comparable efficacy is conflicting. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Lamivudine and emtricitabine are considered equivalent by several guidelines, but evidence of comparable efficacy is conflicting.
METHODS
We searched two databases up to June 30 2013 to identify randomized and quasi-randomized trials in which lamivudine and emtricitabine were used as part of combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment-naïve or experienced HIV-positive adult patients. We only included trials where partner drugs in the regimen were identical or could be considered to be comparable. We allowed for comparisons between tenofovir and abacavir provided the study population did not begin treatment with a viral load >100,000 copies/ml.
RESULTS
12 trials contributed 15 different randomized comparisons providing data on 2251 patients receiving lamivudine and 2662 patients receiving emtricitabine. Treatment success was not significantly different in any of the 12 trials. In the three trials that directly compared lamivudine and emtricitabine, the relative risk for achieving treatment success was non-significant (RR 1.03 95%CI 0.96-1.10). For all trials combined, the pooled relative risk for treatment success was not significantly different (RR 1.00, 95%CI 0.97-1.02). No heterogeneity was observed (I (2) = 0). Similarly, there was no difference in the pooled relative risk for treatment failure (RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.94-1.22, I (2) = 3.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this systematic review suggest that lamivudine and emtricitabine are clinically equivalent.
Topics: Adult; Anti-HIV Agents; Databases, Bibliographic; Deoxycytidine; Emtricitabine; Female; HIV Infections; HIV-1; Humans; Lamivudine; Male; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors; Therapeutic Equivalency; Treatment Outcome; Viral Load
PubMed: 24244586
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0079981 -
Nutrients Jan 2022Because pharmacokinetic changes in antiretroviral drugs (ARV), due to their concurrent administration with food or nutritional products, have become a clinical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Because pharmacokinetic changes in antiretroviral drugs (ARV), due to their concurrent administration with food or nutritional products, have become a clinical challenge, it is necessary to monitor the therapeutic efficacy of ARV in people living with the human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH). A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to clarify the pharmacokinetic outcomes of the interaction between supplements such as food, dietary supplements, and nutrients, and ARV. Twenty-four articles in both healthy subjects and PLWH were included in the qualitative analysis, of which five studies were included in the meta-analysis. Food−drug coadministration significantly increased the time to reach maximum concentration (tmax) (p < 0.00001) of ARV including abacavir, amprenavir, darunavir, emtricitabine, lamivudine, zidovudine, ritonavir, and tenofovir alafenamide. In addition, the increased maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of ARV, such as darunavir, under fed conditions was observed. Area under the curve and terminal half-life were not significantly affected. Evaluating the pharmacokinetic aspects, it is vital to clinically investigate ARV and particular supplement interaction in PLWH. Educating patients about any potential interactions would be one of the effective recommendations during this HIV epidemic.
Topics: Anti-Retroviral Agents; Darunavir; Dietary Supplements; Drug Interactions; Emtricitabine; Humans
PubMed: 35276881
DOI: 10.3390/nu14030520 -
Colombia Medica (Cali, Colombia) Jun 2017Initial treatment of the HIV is based on the use of three drugs, two of which are nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. There are three combinations of... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
Zidovudine/Lamivudine vs. Abacavir/Lamivudine vs. Tenofovir/Emtricitabine in fixed-dose combinations as initial treatment for HIV patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
INTRODUCTION
Initial treatment of the HIV is based on the use of three drugs, two of which are nucleoside analog reverse-transcriptase inhibitors. There are three combinations of these drugs which have been approved by different guidelines, each with divergent results in terms of efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the efficacy and safety of these three combinations.
METHODS
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing fixed doses of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate / Emtricitabine (TDF/FTC), Abacavir / Lamivudine (ABC/3TC) and Zidovudine / Lamivudine (ZDV/3TC).
RESULTS
Seven clinical trials met the eligibility criteria. The results suggested higher efficacy with TDF/FTC vs. ABC/3TC at 96 weeks and vs. ZDV/3TC at 48 weeks. However, there is clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis were performed by third drug and by level of viral load prior to treatment, and found no differences in virological control. Network meta-analysis could only be carried out with TDF/FTC vs. ZDV/3TC, and the proportion of patients with virological response, with no differences at 48 weeks nor at 96 weeks. Direct comparisons showed an increased risk of bone marrow suppression of ZDV/3TC vs. TDF/FTC and of ABC/3TC hypersensitivity reactions vs. ZDV/3TC.
CONCLUSIONS
The results did not show differences in effectiveness among the interventions. However, due to the heterogeneity of the third drug and the follow-up time between the included studies, this result is not definitive. The results raise the need for further studies to help improve treatment recommendations in patients infected with HIV.
Topics: Anti-HIV Agents; Dideoxynucleosides; Drug Combinations; Emtricitabine, Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Drug Combination; HIV Infections; Humans; Lamivudine; Network Meta-Analysis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Zidovudine
PubMed: 29021641
DOI: No ID Found -
PloS One 2013Recent studies suggest certain antiretroviral therapy (ART) drugs are associated with increases in cardiovascular disease. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Recent studies suggest certain antiretroviral therapy (ART) drugs are associated with increases in cardiovascular disease.
PURPOSE
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the available evidence, with the goal of elucidating whether specific ART drugs are associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction (MI).
DATA SOURCES
We searched Medline, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and abstract archives from the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections and International AIDS Society up to June 2011 to identify published articles and abstracts.
STUDY SELECTION
Eligible studies were comparative and included MI, strokes, or other cardiovascular events as outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION
Eligibility screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators.
DATA SYNTHESIS
Random effects methods and Fisher's combined probability test were used to summarize evidence.
FINDINGS
Twenty-seven studies met inclusion criteria, with 8 contributing to a formal meta-analysis. Findings based on two observational studies indicated an increase in risk of MI for patients recently exposed (usually defined as within last 6 months) to abacavir (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51-2.42) and protease inhibitors (PI) (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.06-4.28). Our analysis also suggested an increased risk associated with each additional year of exposure to indinavir (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.17) and lopinavir (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.01-1.47). Our findings of increased cardiovascular risk from abacavir and PIs were in contrast to four published meta-analyses based on secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials, which found no increased risk from cardiovascular disease.
CONCLUSION
Although observational studies implicated specific drugs, the evidence is mixed. Further, meta-analyses of randomized trials did not find increased risk from abacavir and PIs. Our findings that implicate specific ARTs in the observational setting provide sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation of this relationship in studies designed for that purpose.
Topics: Anti-HIV Agents; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Protease Inhibitors; Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors; Risk
PubMed: 23555704
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059551 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Oct 2015Adverse drug events lead to increased morbidity, mortality and health care costs. Pharmacogenetic testing that guides drug prescribing has the potential to reduced... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
Adverse drug events lead to increased morbidity, mortality and health care costs. Pharmacogenetic testing that guides drug prescribing has the potential to reduced adverse drug events and increase drug effectiveness. Our aim was to quantify the clinical effectiveness of genotype-guided prescribing.
METHODS
Three electronic databases were searched from January 1980 through December 2013. Studies were eligible if they were RCTs comparing genotype-guided prescribing with non-genetic informed prescribing, reported drug specific adverse drug events and clinical effectiveness outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, extracted data and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses of specific outcomes were conducted where data allowed.
RESULTS
Fifteen studies, involving 5688 patients and 19 drugs, met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eight studies had statistically significant results for their primary outcome in favour of genotype-guided prescribing. Nine studies evaluated genotype-guided warfarin dosing. Analysis of percentage of time in therapeutic international normalized ratio range (1952 individuals) showed a statistically significant benefit in favour of genotype-guided warfarin dosing (mean difference = 6.67; 95% CI 1.34, 12.0, I(2) = 80%). There was a statistically significant reduction in numbers of warfarin-related minor bleeding, major bleeding and thromboembolisms associated with genotype guided warfarin dosing, relative risk 0.57 (95% CI 0.33, 0.99; I(2) = 60%). It was not possible to meta-analyze genotype-guided dosing for other drugs. Of the six non-warfarin genotype-guided trials, two demonstrated a statistically significant benefit for their primary outcome, odds ratio 0.03 (95% CI 0.00, 0.62, P < 0.001) for abacavir.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence of improved clinical effectiveness associated with genotype-guided warfarin dosing.
Topics: Drug Prescriptions; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Genotype; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25060532
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12475 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2013UNAIDS estimates that 34 million people are currently living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) worldwide. Currently recommended regimens for initiating HIV... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
UNAIDS estimates that 34 million people are currently living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) worldwide. Currently recommended regimens for initiating HIV treatment consist of either a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, there may be some patients for whom NNRTIs and PIs may not be appropriate. This is an update of the review published in the Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2009.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of any fixed-dose combination of three NRTIs (co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine) for initial treatment of HIV infection.
SEARCH METHODS
Between December 2010 and July 2011, we used standard Cochrane methods to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language or publication status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum follow-up time of six months which compared co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine with either PI-based or NNRTI-based therapy among antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients aged at least 13 years.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three authors independently selected eligible studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data; resolving discrepancies by consensus. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), as appropriate, with its 95% confidence interval (CI) and conducted meta-analysis using the random-effects method because of significant statistical heterogeneity (P<0.1).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 15 potentially eligible RCTs, four of which met our inclusion criteria. The four included RCTs were conducted in the United States of America (USA); USA, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Dominican Republic, and Panama; USA and Mexico; and Botswana, respectively. The RCTs compared co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine to treatment based on efavirenz (NNRTI), nelfinavir (PI), atazanavir (PI), and co-formulated lopinavir-ritonavir (PI), respectively. Overall, there was no significant difference in virological suppression between co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine and NNRTI- or PI-based therapy (4 trials; 2247 participants: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.36). However, the results showed significant heterogeneity (I(2)=79%); with co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine inferior to NNRTI (1 trial, 1147 participants: RR 0.35, 95%CI 0.26 to 0.49) but with a trend towards co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine being superior to PI (3 trials, 1110 participants: RR 1.07, 95%CI 1.00 to 1.16; I(2)=0%). We found no significant differences between co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine and either PI or NNRTI on CD4+ cell counts (3 trials, 1687 participants: MD -0.01, 95%CI -0.11 to 0.09; I(2)=0%), severe adverse events (4 trials: RR 1.22, 95%CI 0.78 to 1.92; I(2)=62%) and hypersensitivity reactions (4 trials: RR 4.04, 95% CI 0.41 to 40.02; I(2)=72%). Only two studies involving PIs reported data on the lipid profile. One study found that the mean increase in total cholesterol from baseline to 96 weeks was significantly lower with co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine than with nelfinavir, but there were no differences with triglyceride levels. The second study found the fasting lipid profile to be comparable in both co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine and atazanavir arms at 48 weeks.The significant heterogeneity of effects for most outcomes evaluated was largely due to differences in the control therapy used in the included trials (i.e. NNRTIs or PIs). Using the GRADE approach, we rated the overall quality of the evidence on the relative effects of co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine for initial treatment of HIV infection as moderate. The main reason for downgrading the quality of the evidence was imprecision of the findings. The estimate of the treatment effect for each outcome has wide confidence intervals, which extend from the fixed-dose NRTI combination regimen being appreciably better to the regimen being appreciably worse than PI- or NNRTI-based regimens.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review provides evidence that co-formulated abacavir-lamivudine-zidovudine remains a viable option for initiating antiretroviral therapy, especially in HIV-infected patients with pre-existing hyperlipidaemia. The varied geographical locations of the included trials augment the external validity of these findings. We are moderately confident in our estimate of the treatment effects of the triple NRTI regimen as initial therapy for HIV infection. In the context of the GRADE approach, such moderate quality of evidence implies that the true effects of the regimen are likely to be close to the estimate of effects found in this review; but there is a possibility that they could be substantially different. Further research should be geared towards defining the subgroup of HIV patients for whom this regimen will be most beneficial.
Topics: Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome; Alkynes; Anti-HIV Agents; Atazanavir Sulfate; Benzoxazines; Cyclopropanes; Dideoxynucleosides; Drug Combinations; HIV Infections; Humans; Lamivudine; Nelfinavir; Oligopeptides; Pyridines; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zidovudine
PubMed: 23543540
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005481.pub3