Pharmacological considerations on the use of antiretrovirals in pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Treatment with combination antiretroviral therapy during pregnancy reduces the chance of mother to child transmission of HIV. Physiological changes during pregnancy can lead to lower exposure to antiretrovirals, possibly resulting in virological failure. For most antiretrovirals, data on exposure during pregnancy and transplacental passage are limited. This review summarizes the most recent information on pharmacokinetics (including transplacental passage), efficacy, as well as the safety of antiretrovirals during pregnancy. RECENT FINDINGS: Intensive-sampling pharmacokinetic studies as well as observational studies using sparse sampling were performed to explore the exposure to antiretrovirals during pregnancy. Transplacental passage, efficacy (viral load at delivery and infection status of the newborn) and safety information were evaluated for several antiretrovirals. SUMMARY: For most nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors, recent research shows a decreased exposure during pregnancy. However, the advantage of a general dose increase during pregnancy still remains unclear. For newer compounds and efavirenz, limited or no data on pharmacokinetics during pregnancy or transplacentally are available, while the mechanisms of transplacental passage also remain unknown. For safety reasons, it will be important to monitor pregnancy outcomes in resource-limited settings during the implementation of the WHO guidelines (including the use of efavirenz during pregnancy).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".