Interaction Studies of Tipranavir-Ritonavir with Clarithromycin, Fluconazole, and Rifabutin in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three separate controlled, two-period studies with healthy volunteers assessed the pharmacokinetic interactions between tipranavir-ritonavir (TPV/r) in a 500/200-mg dose and 500 mg of clarithromycin (CLR), 100 mg of fluconazole (FCZ), or 150 mg of rifabutin (RFB). The CLR study was conducted with 24 subjects. The geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 90% confidence intervals (90% CI; given in parentheses) of the areas under the concentration-time curve (AUC), the maximum concentrations of the drugs in serum (C(max)), and the concentrations in serum at 12 h postdose (Cp12h) for multiple-dose TPV/r and multiple-dose CLR, indicating the effect of TPV/r on the CLR parameters, were 1.19 (1.04-1.37), 0.95 (0.83-1.09), and 1.68 (1.42-1.98), respectively. The formation of the metabolite 14-OH-CLR was decreased by 95% in the presence of TPV, and the TPV AUC increased 66% compared to that for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-negative historical controls. The FCZ study was conducted with 20 subjects. The GMR (and 90% CI) of the AUC, C(max), and Cp24h, indicating the effect of multiple-dose TPV/r on the multiple-dose FCZ parameters, were 0.92 (0.88-0.95), 0.94 (0.91-0.98), and 0.89 (0.85-0.92), respectively. The TPV AUC increased by 50% compared to that for HIV-negative historical controls. The RFB study was conducted with 24 subjects. The GMR (and 90% CI) of the AUC, C(max), and Cp12h for multiple-dose TPV/r and single-dose RFB, indicating the effect of TPV/r on the RFB parameters, were 2.90 (2.59-3.26), 1.70 (1.49-1.94), and 2.14 (1.90-2.41), respectively. The GMR (and 90% CI) of the AUC, C(max), and Cp12h of TPV/r and RFB with 25-O-desacetyl-RFB were 4.33 (3.86-4.86), 1.86 (1.63-2.12), and 2.76 (2.44-3.12), respectively. Coadministration of TPV with a single dose of RFB resulted in a 16% increase in the TPV Cp12h compared to that for TPV alone. In the general population, no dose adjustments are necessary for the combination of TPV/r and CLR or FCZ. Combining TPV/r with RFB should be done with caution, while toxicity and RFB drug levels should be monitored. Study medications were generally well-tolerated in these studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".