Pharmacokinetic-interaction study of didanosine and ranitidine in patients seropositive for human immunodeficiency virus

Drug Interactions with Antiulcer Agents: Considerations in the Treatment of Acid-Peptic Disease

All of the antiulcer agents have been implicated in drug interactions. These agents generally influence the absorption, metabolism, or elimination of other medications. However, these interactions can lead to alterations in pharmacodynamic response. The mechanisms by which antiulcer agents produce drug interactions differ among the agents. It is beyond the scope of this article to review all of the drug interactions that have been reported with antiulcer agents. However, it is the intent to provide the reader with a detailed understanding of the mechanisms by which antiulcer agents may interact with other medications and to provide insight into factors that may influence the potential magnitude or clinical consequences of these interactions. An understanding of antiulcer drug interactions will aid pharmacists in assisting clinicians with drug selection and/or monitoring of drug interactions. Specifically, pharmacists can assist with the identification of potential antiulcer drug interactions and develop strategies designed to minimize adverse consequences of these interactions.

Antiretroviral drug interactions

It has recently been estimated that persons with the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) receive on average 5.6 prescription medications throughout their disease course, and this number may be as high as 9 [1,2]. With the development and testing of new antiretroviral agents and drugs for opportunistic infections associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) disease, the issue of polypharmacy and multiple drug interactions will become increasingly complex. Since antiretroviral therapy and treatment or prophylaxis of opportunistic infections is lifelong, the nature of these interactions requires delineation to provide an optimal pharmacologic strategy for the use of these agents in combination. This article will address antiretroviral drug interactions from a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic perspective. A background on the clinical pharmacology of antiretroviral agents is provided as is a discussion of selected interactions.

Didanosine population pharmacokinetics in West African human immunodeficiency virus-infected children administered once-daily tablets in relation to efficacy after one year of treatment

Our objective was to study didanosine pharmacokinetics in children after the administration of tablets, the only formulation available in Burkina Faso for which data are missing, and to establish relationships between doses, plasma drug concentrations, and treatment effects (efficacy/toxicity). Didanosine concentrations were measured for 40 children after 2 weeks and for 9 children after 2 to 5 months of treatment with a didanosine-lamivudine-efavirenz combination. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed with NONMEM. The link between the maximal concentration of the drug in plasma (Cmax), the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), and the decrease in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 RNA levels after 12 months of treatment was evaluated. The threshold AUC that improved efficacy was determined by the use of a Wilcoxon test for HIV RNA, and an optimized dosing schedule was simulated. Didanosine pharmacokinetics was best described by a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. The apparent clearance and volume of distribution were higher for tablets, probably due to a lower bioavailability with tablets than with pediatric powder. The decrease in the viral load after 12 months of treatment was significantly correlated with the didanosine AUC and Cmax (P < or = 0.02) during the first weeks of treatment. An AUC of >0.60 mg/liter x h was significantly linked to a greater decrease in the viral load (a decrease of 3 log10 versus 2.4 log10 copies/ml; P = 0.03) than that with a lower AUC. A didanosine dose of 360 mg/m2 administered as tablets should be a more appropriate dose than 240 mg/m2 to improve efficacy for these children. However, data on adverse events with this dosage are missing.

Dose separation does not overcome the pharmacokinetic interaction between fosamprenavir and lopinavir/ritonavir

Previous investigations have shown a significant negative two-way drug interaction between fosamprenavir (FPV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients and seronegative volunteers. This randomized, nonblinded, three-way crossover study of HIV-seronegative adult volunteers investigated dose separation and increased doses of RTV as a means to overcome the interaction between FPV and LPV/RTV. Eleven HIV-seronegative volunteers were given FPV plus LPV/RTV at 700 mg plus 400/100 mg every 12 hours (q12h) simultaneously for 10 days and then randomized to receive each of three 7-day treatments in one of six possible sequences, as follows: FPV plus LPV/RTV at 700 mg plus 400 mg/100 mg q12h simultaneously, FPV/RTV at 700 mg/100 mg q12h plus LPV/RTV at 400 mg/100 mg q12h, with doses separated by 4 h, and FPV/RTV at 1,400 mg/200 mg in the morning plus LPV/RTV at 800 mg/200 mg in the evening. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on day 8 of each treatment, and samples were analyzed for FPV, amprenavir (APV), LPV, and RTV concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Geometric mean ratios (GMR [with 95% confidence intervals]) for the 4- and 12-h dose separation strategies compared to simultaneous administration were calculated for the areas under the concentration-time curves from 0 to 24 h. Compared to simultaneous administration, RTV exposures increased with both 4-h and 12-h dose separation strategies (GMR, 5.30 [3.66 to 7.67] and 4.45 [3.09 to 6.41], respectively). LPV exposures also significantly increased with both 4-h and 12-h dose separation strategies (GMR, 1.76 [1.34 to 2.32] and 1.43 [1.02 to 2.01], respectively). However, both the 4- and 12-h strategies resulted in greater reductions in APV exposure (0.67 [0.54 to 0.83] and 0.77 [0.59 to 0.99], respectively) compared to simultaneous administration. Additional investigations are warranted to determine the optimal dosing of FPV with LPV/RTV.

Magnitude and duration of elevated gastric pH in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus after administration of chewable, dispersible, buffered didanosine tablets

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that gastric pH would be elevated above pH 3.0 for at least 2 hours after administration of chewable, dispersible, buffered didanosine tablets. Doses tested were 200 mg (two 100-mg tablets) and 400 mg (two 200-mg tablets). We also sought to compare these doses with regard to maximum gastric pH (pHmax), time to pHmax (TpH-max), time that gastric pH exceeds 3.0 (TpH>3), and area under the gastric pH versus time curve for pH greater than 3.0 (AUCT>pH 3).

DESIGN

Prospective, parallel-group, dose-comparison, gastric pH study.

SETTING

General Clinical Research Center, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

PATIENTS

Nineteen patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus, aged 30-62 years, and receiving long-term didanosine therapy.

INTERVENTION

Patients underwent continuous gastric pH monitoring, using the Heidelberg capsule radiotelemetric pH monitoring device. After documentation of a fasting baseline gastric pH below 3.0, patients were given 180 ml of water (control phase), and gastric pH was allowed to return to baseline. After administration of a single, oral dose of didanosine 200 mg or 400 mg with 180 ml of water, gastric pH was recorded until pH remained below 3.0 for 10 minutes.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A mean pHmax of 8.6 (range 6.3-9.5) was achieved with a TpH-max of 4.1 minutes (range 1-12.0 min). Mean TpH>3 was 24.9 minutes (range 15-55 min), with an AUCT>pH 3 of 2.6 pH x min(-1) (range 1.2-6.9 pH x min(-1)). The two doses of didanosine tested did not differ significantly in mean gastric pH parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

After administration of chewable, dispersible, buffered didanosine tablets, 200 or 400 mg, the mean duration of elevated gastric pH (TpH>3) was less than 30 minutes, with a range of 15-55 minutes. Characterization of the magnitude and duration of elevated gastric pH may allow for earlier administration of other pH-sensitive drugs. The short duration of elevated gastric pH may help explain the wide variability in didanosine bioavailability observed clinically.

Drug interactions between antiretroviral drugs and comedicated agents

HIV-infected individuals usually receive a wide variety of drugs in addition to their antiretroviral drug regimen. Since both non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors are extensively metabolised by the cytochrome P450 system, there is a considerable potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions when they are administered concomitantly with other drugs metabolised via the same pathway. In addition, protease inhibitors are substrates as well as inhibitors of the drug transporter P-glycoprotein, which also can result in pharmacokinetic drug interactions. The nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are predominantly excreted by the renal system and may also give rise to interactions. This review will discuss the pharmacokinetics of the different classes of antiretroviral drugs and the mechanisms by which drug interactions can occur. Furthermore, a literature overview of drug interactions is given, including the following items when available: coadministered agent and dosage, type of study that is performed to study the drug interaction, the subjects involved and, if specified, the type of subjects (healthy volunteers, HIV-infected individuals, sex), antiretroviral drug(s) and dosage, interaction mechanism, the effect and if possible the magnitude of interaction, comments, advice on what to do when the interaction occurs or how to avoid it, and references. This discussion of the different mechanisms of drug interactions, and the accompanying overview of data, will assist in providing optimal care to HIV-infected patients.

Ritonavir. Clinical pharmacokinetics and interactions with other anti-HIV agents

Ritonavir is 1 of the 4 potent synthetic HIV protease inhibitors, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 1995 and 1997, that have revolutionised HIV therapy. The extent of oral absorption is high and is not affected by food. Within the clinical concentration range, ritonavir is approximately 98 to 99% bound to plasma proteins, including albumin and alpha 1-acid glycoprotein. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) drug concentrations are low in relation to total plasma concentration. However, parallel decreases in the viral burden have been observed in the plasma, CSF and other tissues. Ritonavir is primarily metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A isozymes and, to a lesser extent, by CYP2D6. Four major oxidative metabolites have been identified in humans, but are unlikely to contribute to the antiviral effect. About 34% and 3.5% of a 600 mg dose is excreted as unchanged drug in the faeces and urine, respectively. The clinically relevant t1/2 beta is about 3 to 5 hours. Because of autoinduction, plasma concentrations generally reach steady state 2 weeks after the start of administration. The pharmacokinetics of ritonavir are relatively linear after multiple doses, with apparent oral clearance averaging 7 to 9 L/h. In vitro, ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A. In vivo, ritonavir significantly increases the AUC of drugs primarily eliminated by CYP3A metabolism (e.g. clarithromycin, ketoconazole, rifabutin, and other HIV protease inhibitors, including indinavir, saquinavir and nelfinavir) with effects ranging from an increase of 77% to 20-fold in humans. It also inhibits CYP2D6-mediated metabolism, but to a significantly lesser extent (145% increase in desipramine AUC). Since ritonavir is also an inducer of several metabolising enzymes [CYP1A4, glucuronosyl transferase (GT), and possibly CYP2C9 and CYP2C19], the magnitude of drug interactions is difficult to predict, particularly for drugs that are metabolised by multiple enzymes or have low intrinsic clearance by CYP3A. For example, the AUC of CYP3A substrate methadone was slightly decreased and alprazolam was unaffected. Ritonavir is minimally affected by other CYP3A inhibitors, including ketoconazole. Rifampicin (rifampin), a potent CYP3A inducer, decreased the AUC of ritonavir by only 35%. The degree and duration of suppression of HIV replication is significantly correlated with the plasma concentrations. Thus, the large increase in the plasma concentrations of other protease inhibitors when coadministered with ritonavir forms the basis of rational dual protease inhibitor regimens, providing patients with 2 potent drugs at significantly reduced doses and less frequent dosage intervals. Combination treatment of ritonavir with saquinavir and indinavir results in potent and sustained clinical activity. Other important factors with combination regimens include reduced interpatient variability for high clearance agents, and elimination of the food effect on the bioavailibility of indinavir.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between ritonavir and didanosine when administered concurrently to HIV-infected patients

The effect of coadministration of ritonavir and didanosine (ddI) on the pharmacokinetics of these drugs was investigated in a single-center, three-period, crossover study. Eighteen asymptomatic, HIV-positive men were assigned randomly to 6 different sequences of 3 regimens: ddI (200 mg every 12 hours) alone for 4 days, ritonavir (600 mg every 12 hours) alone for 4 days, and 4 days of ddI with ritonavir under dose-staggering conditions. Although not statistically significant, ritonavir concentrations were slightly higher on average (<10%) with concurrent administration of ddI compared with those of ritonavir alone. In contrast, ddI concentrations were lower with concurrent administration compared with those of ddI alone; maximum concentration and area under the concentration-time curve were reduced by about 15% (p < .05). The ddI elimination rate constant was unaffected by ritonavir, suggesting no change in ddI's systemic metabolism. Adverse events were similar between regimens. The relatively minor changes in ritonavir and ddI pharmacokinetics are probably not clinically relevant; therefore, dosage adjustment of either compound appears unnecessary when administered concurrently. However, the combination regimen of ddI and ritonavir continue to be evaluated clinically.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with anti-ulcer drugs

The safety profile of any pharmacological agent is defined on the basis of its toxicity, tolerability and potential for pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic interactions with other compounds, which may belong to the same or to a different pharmacological class. Drug-drug interactions are important in clinical practice because short and long term therapeutic regimens frequently require coadministration of different drugs. The pharmacological treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers (and of related syndromes) includes older and newer compounds, which have different mechanisms of action and exert different therapeutic effects. These compounds are widely prescribed in combination with other drugs being given for the treatment of concomitant diseases. This article reviews pharmacokinetic interactions with anti-ulcer drugs, paying particular attention to those which have clinically relevant adverse effects. Drugs mentioned in the literature as causing any pharmacokinetic interaction with anti-ulcer compounds are considered in this article.

Relationship between didanosine exposure and surrogate marker response in human immunodeficiency virus-infected outpatients

We used information available from routine clinic visits to characterize the pharmacokinetics of didanosine in 82 human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. A total of 271 blood samples were collected for the measurement of didanosine concentrations in plasma (mean +/- standard deviation [SD], 3.30 +/- 2.21 samples/patient). Bayesian estimates of didanosine oral clearance (CL[oral]) were obtained for these patients by the POSTHOC option within the NONMEM software package. Population priors from a previous NONMEM analysis of didanosine pharmacokinetics were used. The mean +/- SD CL(oral) was 132 +/- 27.7 liters/h, which agrees reasonably well with estimates obtained from previous pharmacokinetic studies of didanosine. Estimates of individual didanosine exposure were then used to consider potential relationships between drug exposure and surrogate marker response over a 6-month period. No correlations were found between the didanosine area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 6 months and the absolute CD4 cell count (r = 0.305; 0.1 < P < 0.2), weight response (r = 0.0857; P > 0.4), or percentage of CD4 lymphocytes (r = 0.0559; P > 0.4). Future efforts to characterize didanosine exposure in outpatients by random sampling methods should involve more directed efforts to limit residual variability in the data.

Rifabutin absorption in the gut unaltered by concomitant administration of didanosine in AIDS patients

Didanosine (ddI) is currently used in the management of patients infected by the human immunodeficiency virus. Rifabutin (RBT) is being extensively used for prophylaxis against Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) infections. Due to its acid-labile characteristics, ddI must be administered with a buffer. Recent reports have indicated that absorption of ketoconazole, ciprofloxacin, and dapsone, etc., in the gut is altered by concomitant ddI dosing. We have assessed whether concomitant dosing of ddI as antiretroviral therapy modifies RBT absorption in the gut, its steady-state pharmacokinetics, and/or safety in 15 patients with AIDS. Of the 15 patients enrolled, 12 completed the study and 3 receiving 600 mg of RBT with concomitant ddI administration withdrew prematurely from the study. Steady-state RBT pharmacokinetics were assessed on day 13 (ddI plus RBT) and day 16 (RBT alone). The ddI doses (adjusted for body weight) were 167 to 375 mg twice daily, while RBT was administered as a single 300- or 600-mg daily dose. No statistically significant (P > 0.05) differences were seen in RBT absorption parameter estimates between days 13 and 16: maximum concentration in plasma (Cmax; 511 +/- 341 ng/ml versus 525 +/- 254 ng/ml) and the time at which Cmax was observed (3.0 versus 2.5 h). The mean RBT estimates for area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-tau)) (5,650 versus 5,023 ng x h/ml) and for oral clearance (1.28 versus 1.18 liter/h/kg) on both study days were also similar. Assessment based on urinary recovery of RBT (3.1 versus 3.7 mg) and its predominant deacetyl metabolite, LM565 (1.6 versus 1.4 mg), showed no apparent effect of ddI. The fraction of the RBT dose converted to LM565, as suggested by the ratio of AUC of the metabolite to AUC of the parent drug, was also unaltered (0.15 versus 0.12). A ratio analysis (day 13/day 16) of the RBT pharmacokinetic estimates showed that the 95% confidence intervals for all parameters were inclusive of one. Furthermore, the brief interruption of ddI therapy over this short study period at steady state produced no clinically significant changes in body weight, hematology, and renal and pancreatic functions. Therefore, concomitant administration of ddI appears not to affect RBT absorption in the gut and its disposition or safety in patients with AIDS.

Drug interactions with antiviral drugs

Antiviral drug interactions are a particular problem among immuno-compromised patients because these patients are often receiving multiple different drugs, i.e. antiretroviral drugs and drugs effective against herpesvirus. The combination of zidovudine and other antiretroviral drugs with different adverse event profiles, such as didanosine, zalcitabine and lamivudine, appears to be well tolerated and no relevant pharmacokinetic interactions have been detected. The adverse effects of didanosine and zalcitabine (i.e. peripheral neuropathy and pancreatitis) should be taken into account when administering these drugs with other drugs with the same tolerability profile. Coadministration of zidovudine and ganciclovir should be avoided because of the high rate of haematological intolerance. In contrast, zidovudine and foscarnet have synergistic effect and no pharmacokinetic interaction has been detected. No major change in zidovudine pharmacokinetics was seen when the drug was combined with aciclovir, famciclovir or interferons. However, concomitant use of zidovudine and ribavirin is not advised. Although no pharmacokinetic interaction was documented when didanosine was first administered with intravenous ganciclovir, recent studies have shown that concentration of didanosine are increased by 50% or more when coadministered with intravenous or oral ganciclovir. The mechanism of this interaction has not been elucidated. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction was demonstrated between foscarnet and didanosine or ganciclovir. Clinical trials have shown that zidovudine can be administered safely with paracetamol (acetaminophen), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oxazepam or codeine. Inhibition of zidovudine glucuronidation has been demonstrated with fluconazole, atovaquone, valproic acid (valproate sodium), methadone, probenecid and inosine pranobex; however, the clinical consequences of this have not been fully investigated. No interaction has been demonstrated with didanosine per se but care should be taken of interaction with the high pH buffer included in the tablet formulation. Drugs that need an acidic pH for absorption (ketoconazole, itraconazole but not fluconazole, dapsone, pyrimethamine) or those that can be chelated by the ions of the buffer (quinolones and tetracyclines) should be administered 2 hours before or 6 hours after didanosine. Very few interaction studies have been undertaken with other antiviral drugs. Coadministration of zalcitabine with the antacid 'Maalox' results in a reduction of its absorption. Dapsone does not influence the disposition of zalcitabine. Cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) causes an increase in lamivudine concentrations by 43%. Saquinavir, delavirdine and atevirdine appeared to be metabolised by cytochrome P450 and interactions with enzyme inducers or inhibitors could be anticipated. Some studies showed that interferons can reduce drug metabolism but only a few studies have evaluated the pathways involved. Further studies are required to better understand the clinical consequences of drug interactions with antiviral drugs. Drug-drug interactions should be considered in addition to individual drug clinical benefits and safety profiles.

Renal disposition and drug interaction screening of (-)-2'-deoxy-3'-thiacytidine (3TC) in the isolated perfused rat kidney

PURPOSE

Dideoxynucleoside bases are used for the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), acting by inhibiting reverse transcriptase and preventing human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) replication. Currently, AZT (zidovudine), ddC (zalcitibine), and ddI (didanosine) are available to the medical community to prevent the onset of AIDS in HIV-infected individuals. 3TC (-)-2'-deoxy-3'-thiacytidine, lamivudine), a new dideoxynucleoside base, is currently undergoing Phase II/III trials, and has exhibited anti-HIV replication activity, a favorable adverse event safety profile, and is eliminated via renal mechanisms. Concomitantly administered drugs could potentiate the effects of 3TC due to interaction in the kidney.

METHODS

An isolated perfused rat kidney (IPK) technique was used to screen several clinically relevant drugs for potential interaction with 3TC. The following perfusions were performed: baseline 3TC; and 500 ng/mL 3TC with clinically relevant concentrations of AZT, ddC, ddI, probenecid, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, ranitidine, and cimetidine.

RESULTS

Renal clearance of 3TC was nonlinear between 500 and 5000 ng/mL, decreasing from 3.06 to 1.74 mL/min. Excretion ratio also decreased, from 3.67 (500 ng/mL) to 2.49 (5000 ng/mL), consistent with a decrease in 3TC secretion. AZT, ddI, and ddC elicited no or minimal effects on 3TC elimination at the concentrations studied. However, trimethoprim caused significant reductions in 3TC elimination parameters: clearance and excretion ratio decreased to 1.25 mL/min and 1.43, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that caution should be exercised when the combination of 3TC and trimethoprim are administered to AIDS patients.

Management of antiretroviral drug therapy in human immunodeficiency virus infection

Nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors, including zidovudine, didanosine, and zalcitabine, remain the cornerstone of therapy against human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the cause of AIDS. Although therapeutic regimens have been designed that are effective in slowing the progression of disease, therapy with these agents has not been optimized. Ultimately, therapy is destined to fail in most patients. Decisions regarding when to begin therapy and the course of action to take when failure of therapy occurs are largely in the hands of the patient's physician, and currently must be made without the support of conclusive clinical data. In addition to an understanding of the recommended dosing guidelines, proper management of AIDS therapy requires a fundamental knowledge of the disease process, the pharmacology and limitations of the agents employed against the virus, and close cooperation with the clinical laboratory. Therefore, this article reviews the pharmacology of the three drugs currently approved for treatment of HIV infection, and the current guidelines for their use. The article also reviews the clinical and laboratory management of these agents, including the use of surrogate markers and the potential for pharmacokinetic optimization of therapy.

Comparative pharmacokinetics of antiviral nucleoside analogues

The recent development of nucleoside analogues with antiviral activity has expanded the small but useful armamentarium for the treatment of certain viral diseases such as the human immunodeficiency virus, cytomegalovirus and others. Their intracellular site of action and need for sequential phosphorylation require that traditional pharmacokinetic parameters be used in conjunction with an understanding of intracellular metabolism when designing dosage regimens. This review summarises the available pharmacokinetic literature for zidovudine, didanosine, zalcitabine, aciclovir, ganciclovir, vidarabine and ribavirin. After oral administration, didanosine, aciclovir and ribavirin are < 50% bioavailable and ganciclovir is < 6% absorbed. In contrast, zidovudine and zalcitabine are > 60% bioavailable, although zidovudine undergoes considerable and variable first-pass hepatic glucuronidation while zalcitabine has no first-pass effect. Zidovudine, zalcitabine and didanosine are absorbed rapidly in the fasted state, with peak plasma concentrations exceeding their respective in vitro antiretroviral inhibitory concentrations. All reviewed agents except ribavirin have a relatively short plasma half-life (approximately 0.5 to 4h), with each agent demonstrating a different intracellular enzymatic activation scheme. For example, the rate-limiting step for formation of zidovudine triphosphate is the conversion of the monophosphate to the diphosphate, while didanosine is ultimately converted to dideoxyadenosine triphosphate which has the longest intracellular half-life (approximately 12 to 24h) among these agents. These drugs are not highly protein bound and they distribute into tissues with an apparent volume of distribution at steady-state ranging from 0.3 to 1.2 L/kg. They vary in the extent to which they enter cerebrospinal fluid, ranging from a low of < 25% for didanosine to a high of > 70% of a concurrent plasma concentration for ribavirin and vidarabine. These agents also vary with regard to degree of renal excretion of the parent drug, with the lowest noted for vidarabine (1 to 3%) and the highest for zalcitabine (approximately 75%) and ganciclovir (> 90%). With the increasing number of clinically useful nucleoside analogues, it is essential for the clinician to appreciate the subtle differences among these agents to ensure that optimal therapeutic outcomes may be attained with minimal toxicity.