Absence of circadian variation in the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir given as a once daily dosing regimen in HIV‐1‐infected patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg administered once daily in the morning compared with the evening. METHODS: This was a randomized, two-way, cross-over study in HIV+ subjects. In each subject the pharmacokinetics of each drug were characterized after 2 weeks of LPV/r 800/200 mg administered once daily at 08.00 h and 19.00 h. On study days, LPV/r was taken with a standardized meal (800 kCal, 25% from fat) after fasting for at least 5 h. LPV/r concentrations were measured by LC-MS/MS, and the data were analyzed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen subjects completed the study (all men, mean age/weight 44 year/81 kg). The median (interquartile range) LPV AUC(0,24 h), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and concentration at the end of the dosing interval (C(24 h)) after am and pm dosing was, respectively, 143 (116-214) mg l(-1) h, 12.8 (10.3-17.2) mg l(-1), 1.34 (0.58-3.25) mg l(-1), and 171 (120-232) mg l(-1) h, 12.9 (8.22-16.3) mg l(-1), 1.15 (0.59-1.98) mg l(-1). The geometric mean ratio (GMR, am : pm) and 95% CI of the LPV AUC(0,24 h), C(max), and C(24 h) was 0.91 (0.79, 1.06), 1.11 (0.94, 1.32), and 1.19 (0.72, 1.96), respectively. The median ritonavir C(max) after am and pm dosing was 1.05 and 0.90 mg l(-1), respectively. The GMR (95% CI) of the RTV AUC(0,24 h), C(max), and C(24 h) was 0.93 (0.80, 1.08), 1.27 (1.00, 1.63), and 1.04 (0.68, 1.60), respectively. Administration of LPV/r in a once-daily regimen was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed in the pharmacokinetics of LPV/r after am or pm dosing with food, which suggests that this once daily combination, can be taken in the morning or evening. Such flexibility in dosing may improve adherence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".