ReviewDrugs2004
Fosamprenavir: a review of its use in the management of antiretroviral therapy-naive patients with HIV infection.
Review in Drugs, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fosamprenavir with Ritonavir Pharmacokinetics during Pregnancy.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020Trial
- Interaction study of the combined use of paroxetine and fosamprenavir-ritonavir in healthy subjects.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2007Trial
- A new RP-HPLC approach for estimation of potential impurities of Fosamprenavir - method development and validation.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2025Article
- Drug Discovery and Exploration of Heterocycles for the Development of Anti-HIV Agents.Infectious disorders drug targets · 2025Review
- Advances in Antiviral Delivery Systems and Chitosan-Based Polymeric and Nanoparticulate Antivirals and Antiviral Carriers.Viruses · 2023Review
- A computational drug repurposing approach in identifying the cephalosporin antibiotic and anti-hepatitis C drug derivatives for COVID-19 treatment.Computers in biology and medicine · 2021Article
- Development and Clinical Application of Phosphorus-Containing Drugs.Medicine in drug discovery · 2020Review
- Clinically relevant drug-drug interactions between antiretrovirals and antifungals.Expert opinion on drug metabolism & toxicology · 2014Review
- Drug hypersensitivity in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patient: challenging diagnosis and management.Asia Pacific allergy · 2014Review
- Hypersensitivity reactions to HIV therapy.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2011Review
- HIV Protease Inhibitors: Effect on the Opportunistic Protozoan Parasites.The open medicinal chemistry journal · 2011Article
- Computational analysis of HIV-1 protease protein binding pockets.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2010Article
- Prodrug and conjugate drug delivery strategies for improving HIV/AIDS therapy.Journal of drug delivery science and technology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fosamprenavir (GW433908, Lexiva, Telzir) is an oral prodrug of the protease inhibitor (PI) amprenavir, with a reduced daily pill burden. Fosamprenavir, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, is indicated for the treatment of patients with HIV infection, particularly those who have not previously received antiretroviral therapy. Viral load reductions were at least as great with fosamprenavir-based regimens as those achieved with nelfinavir-based regimens in two large, 48-week, randomised, multicentre trials in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients with HIV infection. In the NEAT study, more patients receiving twice-daily fosamprenavir in combination with abacavir and lamivudine achieved HIV RNA levels <400 copies/mL than those receiving a similar nelfinavir-based regimen. Results of the SOLO study showed similar reductions in viral load among patients who received once-daily ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir and those treated with twice-daily nelfinavir, both in combination with twice-daily abacavir and lamivudine. In both trials, virological failure rates were at least twice as high with the nelfinavir-based regimen as they were with the fosamprenavir-based regimen. Fosamprenavir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. The most common adverse events among patients treated with fosamprenavir, with or without ritonavir, plus abacavir and lamivudine were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, drug hypersensitivity and skin rash. The incidence of diarrhoea was significantly lower with fosamprenavir-based therapy than with nelfinavir-based therapy in the NEAT and SOLO trials. The resistance profile of fosamprenavir is consistent with that of amprenavir. Amprenavir-resistant viral isolates from patients experiencing treatment failure with fosamprenavir-based therapy in the NEAT study showed little or no cross-resistance to several other PIs, and protease mutations commonly selected for by various other PIs were not observed. In the SOLO study, protease resistance mutations were not observed in viral isolates from patients experiencing treatment failure with ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir-based therapy. In conclusion, fosamprenavir-based regimens have shown good antiviral efficacy and are generally well tolerated in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients with HIV infection. Available data on the resistance profile of the drug suggest that it may be used early in the course of therapy without compromising a range of future treatment options. The relatively low pill burden and lack of food restrictions with fosamprenavir may improve adherence to therapy. Further studies are needed to compare fosamprenavir with other PIs and to establish the long-term efficacy of fosamprenavir-based regimens. In conclusion, fosamprenavir appears to be a promising agent for the treatment of antiretroviral therapy-naive patients with HIV infection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.