Pharmacokinetics of the combination raltegravir/atazanavir in <scp>HIV</scp>‐1‐infected patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of raltegravir with unboosted atazanavir in combination with one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) (lamivudine or emtricitabine) as a potentially well-tolerated once-daily (qd) maintenance regimen. METHODS: We compared the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir 400 mg twice daily (bid) with raltegravir 800 mg qd in HIV-infected patients (n=17) on unboosted atazanavir (600 mg qd) in combination with lamivudine or emtricitabine. RESULTS: The area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve for a dose interval t (AUC0 -t ) of 800 mg qd divided by 2 was not significantly different from the AUC0 -t of 400 mg bid (P=0.664) but the minimum concentration (C min ) was 72% lower with the qd regimen (P=0.002). The regimen was well tolerated and the viral load remained undetectable in all patients during the 6 weeks of the study follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A qd regimen of raltegravir 800 mg, atazanavir 600 mg and lamivudine or emtricitabine resulted in favourable pharmacokinetic profiles and good short-term safety and efficacy data. Larger phase IIb studies are needed to explore this novel regimen.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".