Clinical Assessment of Potential Drug Interactions of Faldaprevir, a Hepatitis C Virus Protease Inhibitor, With Darunavir/Ritonavir, Efavirenz, and Tenofovir
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Faldaprevir is a potent, once-daily hepatitis C virus (HCV) NS3/4A protease inhibitor. Studies were performed to investigate potential drug interactions between faldaprevir and the commonly used antiretrovirals darunavir/ritonavir, efavirenz, and tenofovir to guide the coadministration of faldaprevir with these agents in human immunodeficiency virus/HCV-coinfected patients. METHODS: In 3 open-label, phase 1 pharmacokinetic (PK) studies, healthy adult volunteers received (1) darunavir/ritonavir (800 mg/100 mg once daily) with and without faldaprevir (240 mg once daily); (2) faldaprevir (240 mg twice daily) with and without efavirenz (600 mg once daily); or (3) faldaprevir (240 mg twice daily) or tenofovir (300 mg once daily) alone and in combination. To assess potential drug interactions, geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for PK parameters were calculated. Safety was evaluated. RESULTS: Efavirenz decreased faldaprevir area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) by 35%, Cmax by 28%, and Cmin by 46%, consistent with induction of CYP3A by efavirenz. Tenofovir decreased faldaprevir AUC by 22%, which was not considered to be clinically relevant. Faldaprevir had no clinically relevant effects on darunavir or tenofovir PK (15% and 22% AUC increase, respectively). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profiles of faldaprevir and the antiretrovirals being examined. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically significant interactions were observed between faldaprevir and darunavir/ritonavir or tenofovir. A potentially clinically relevant decrease in faldaprevir exposure was observed when coadministered with efavirenz; this decrease can be managed using the higher of the 2 faldaprevir doses tested in phase 3 trials (240 mg once daily as opposed to 120 mg once daily).
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".