Why it’s time to say goodbye to stavudine ... everywhere

Isabelle Andrieux-Meyer, Polly Clayden, Simon Collins, Nathan Geffen, Eric Goemaere, Mark Harrington, Sharonann Lynch, Tido von Schoen-Angerer, Tracy Swan


The previous issue of the SAJHIV (December 2011) carried an Opinion piece by Innes, Cotton and Venter regarding the potential value of low-dose of stavudine (20 mg twice a day). They suggested that reduced dosing of stavudine may lead to levels of viral suppression comparable with those achieved with stavudine 30 mg bd but with a lower risk of toxicity and side-effects, and at a fraction of the cost of tenofovir. The Opinion was related to a larger proposal, led by Venter, to conduct a head-to-head trial comparing low-dose stavudine with tenofovir (both in a regimen including lamivudine and efavirenz) on viral suppression and other treatment outcomes over 24 months. There has been considerable debate regarding the advantages and disadvantages of low-dose stavudine, and in turn the value of any such trial. Here the debate continues with a commentary by Isabelle Andrieux-Meyer et al. and a rebuttal by Venter and colleagues.

Authors' affiliations

Isabelle Andrieux-Meyer, Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign

Polly Clayden, HIV i-Base

Simon Collins, HIV i-Base

Nathan Geffen, Treatment Action Campaign

Eric Goemaere, Médecins Sans Frontières, South Africa

Mark Harrington, Treatment Action Group

Sharonann Lynch, Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign

Tido von Schoen-Angerer, Médecins Sans Frontières Access Campaign

Tracy Swan, Treatment Action Group

Full Text


Cite this article

Southern African Journal of HIV Medicine 2012;13(1):17-19.

Article History

Date submitted: 2012-02-24
Date published: 2012-03-13

Article Views

Abstract views: 2246
Full text views: 9436

Comments on this article

*Read our policy for posting comments here