Norvir vs no Norvir

[Guest guest]

Norm

I tend to disagree with you. I hate Norvir due to

its predatory pricing and GI related side effects. But Norvir

boosting has saved hundreds of lives by providing

higher AND MORE STABLE HIV drug levels. YOu seem to

forget that many drugs have strong interactions with

each others, and most of those interactions tend to

become non issue when Norvir is part of the mix. Also, drugs like Reyataz have

been approved to be taken without Norvir ONLY for the treatment naive population

with wild type virus (a virus that is a lot easier to treat than a multi drug

resistant one). Those with MDR-HIV should always take Norvir with Reyataz,

unless you have a good pharmacologist that can make sense of Cmax, Cmin, and

area under the curve for that drug and to determine where you are compared to a

population PK.

I pray for the day someone comes up with a replacement

to Norvir with no lipids and GI problems. No one seems

to be there yet.

Merck has bought the rights to what seems to be the

first effective PI that will not require Norvir (

Nelfinavir is another PI but now belived to be

mediocre anyhow)

I strongly advise people in this list to not change

their regimens by dropping Norvir, unless you have

great access to blood level testing that your doctor

can make some sense of with the help of a

pharmaclogist. Unless you are really intolerant to 100

mg of Norvir, do not take the risk.

People forget that once resistance occurs, your next

regimens tend to be less and less effective. Do not

screw up with your honeymoon if you have undetectable

viral load.

I will limit posts about changes in dosing based on

one person's experience.

--- Norm Stuart wrote:

>

> My Doctor, who was previously caught up in the

> Norvir-boosting hysteria,

> was also favorably impressed with this study when he

> was at the Glasgow

> conference. Thank you for posting this.

>

> Most notably, initiating new or drug-experienced

> patients with

> Novir-boosted Reyataz until their viral load is

> undetectable, then

> dropping the Norvir -- reduced their cholesterol

> from 197 to 178, while

> maintaining very effective viral control. Dropping

> Norvir also greatly

> improves their other measures of blood lipids.

>

> Some uninformed Novir-boosters still try to claim

> that Norvir-boosting

> does not unfavorably affect lipid levels - this is

> simply and obviously

> wrong.

>

> Sensible people are coming to see that its

> inexpensive and wise to check

> trough plasma levels of antivirals and adjusting

> regimens accordingly.

> Likewise Doctors now see Norvir as a useful tool to

> use, in some

> circumstances.

>

> This is a refreshing change from the hysteria which

> demanded that

> everyone needs to use Norvir or we're doomed. Or the

> wild-eyed

> irrational statements that protease inhibitors are

> useless without

> Norvir. Its amazing in retrospect that people could

> be so terrorized

> into saying things like this with a straight face.

>

>

>

> > > >

> > > > I'd like to know that too. I guess it would

> depend on whether the

> > > smaller dose twice a day would maintain an

> acceptable level - or

> > more

> > > importantly " trough " ? I had considered once a

> day Kaletra, but

> > since I'm

> > > treatment-experienced I decided the prospect of

> > increased " immediate "

> > > side effects was unacceptable too. Maybe the

> norvir booster, or

> > lack of

> > > it, is key in that consideration.

> > > >

>

=== message truncated ===

Regards,

Vergel

powerusa dot org