Comparative efficacy of lamivudine and emtricitabine: Comparing the results of randomized trials and cohorts

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 60, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 154-156

  Ford, Nathan ^a   Hill, Andrew ^b   Vitoria, Marco ^a   Mills, Edward J ^c,d  

^a WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c Global Evaluative Sciences   (Canada)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EFAVIRENZ; EMTRICITABINE; LAMIVUDINE; TENOFOVIR; ANTIRETROVIRUS AGENT;

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME; ANTIVIRAL RESISTANCE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; HIGHLY ACTIVE ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); VIRUS INHIBITION; FEMALE; HIV INFECTIONS; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS 1; ISOLATION AND PURIFICATION; MALE; PROCEDURES; VIROLOGY; VIRUS LOAD;

ANTI-RETROVIRAL AGENTS; ANTIRETROVIRAL THERAPY, HIGHLY ACTIVE; FEMALE; HIV INFECTIONS; HIV-1; HUMANS; MALE; VIRAL LOAD;

EID: 84983268740     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: 15376591     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciu767     Document Type: Note

References (13)

1. Vitoria M, Vella S, Ford N. Scaling up antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings: Adapting guidance to meet the challenges. Curr Opin HIV AIDS 2013; 8:12-8.
2. World Health Organization. Consolidated guidelines on the use of antiretroviral drugs for treating and preventing HIV infection: recommendations for a public health approach. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO, 2013.
3. Ford N, Shubber Z, Hill A, et al. Comparative efficacy of lamivudine and emtricitabine: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. PLoS One 2013; 8: e79981.
4. Médecins Sans Frontières. Untangling the web of antiretroviral price reductions. 16th ed. Geneva, Switzerland: MSF, 2013.
5. Rokx C, Fibriani A, van de Vijver DAMC, et al; ATHENA National Observational Cohort. Increased virological failure in naive HIV-1-infected patients taking lamivudine compared with emtricitabine in combination with tenofovir and efavirenz or nevirapine in the Dutch nationwide ATHENA cohort. Clin Infect Dis 2015; 60:143-53.
6. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schunemann HJ, et al.GRADEguidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:401-6.
7. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Sultan S, et al. GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64:1311-6.
8. Hill A, Sabin C. Designing and interpreting HIV noninferiority trials in naive and experienced patients. AIDS 2008; 228:913-21.
9. Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: A case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med 2006; 25:2084-106.
10. Concato J, Shah N, Horwitz RI. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1887-92.
11. Sanne I, van der Horst C, Shaw A, et al. Two randomized, controlled, equivalence trials of emtricitabine (FTC) to lamivudine (3TC) [abstract 4432]. In: XIV International AIDS Conference, Barcelona, 7-12 July, 2002.
12. Benson CA, van der Horst C, Lamarca A, et al. A randomized study of emtricitabine and lamivudine in stably suppressed patients with HIV/AIDS 2004; 18:2269-76.
13. Mulenga L, Muwango A, Moyo C, et al. Efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil both in combination with efavirenz in antiretroviral- naïve, HIV-1-infected Zambians [abstract TULBPE18]. In: 7th IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis, Treatment and Prevention. Kuala Lumpur, 30 June-3 July 2013, Malaysia.