Pharmacokinetics of Saquinavir With Atazanavir or Low‐Dose Ritonavir Administered Once Daily (ASPIRE I) or Twice Daily (ASPIRE II) in Seronegative Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ASPIRE I and II were prospective, 3-way sequential crossover studies in healthy volunteers to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of saquinavir/ritonavir (SQV/RTV) with saquinavir/atazanavir (SQV/ATV) administered either once daily (QD, ASPIRE I) or twice daily (BID, ASPIRE II). Treatments were separated by 10 days, and pharmacokinetic analyses were performed on days 11, 32, and 53. SQV pharmacokinetics were significantly higher when dosed with RTV compared to ATV (P < .05 for all comparisons). ATV pharmacokinetics were similar within treatment arms. ATV Cmin increased approximately 60%, and Cmax decreased approximately 35% with BID dosing compared with QD dosing. Women had higher exposure for all 3 protease inhibitors (PIs) compared with men after adjusting for weight. Adverse effects were primarily gastrointestinal-related with SQV/RTV and hyperbilirubinemia with SQV/ATV. Although SQV plasma concentrations were higher when coadministered with RTV, a combination of SQV/ATV administered BID may be a viable alternative in HIV-infected, PI-naive subjects intolerant to RTV.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".