Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Efavirenz and Carbamazepine After Multiple‐Dose Administration in Healthy Subjects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine and vice versa was investigated in adult healthy subjects in a randomized, open-label, 2-period crossover, multiple-dose study. Subjects were randomized to receive either efavirenz 600 mg qd for 14 days or carbamazepine titrated to 400 mg qd for 21 days followed with both drugs for another 21 or 14 days. The pharmacokinetics was evaluated for efavirenz, carbamazepine, and the major metabolite of carbamazepine, carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide. Coadministration of carbamazepine with efavirenz significantly reduced the exposure of efavirenz (geometric mean ratios [90% confidence interval]: area of plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval of 24 hours [AUCtau], 0.64 [0.60-0.68]; maximum plasma concentration [C(max)], 0.79 [0.74, 0.85]) and carbamazepine (AUC(tau), 0.73 [0.67-0.80]; C(max), 0.80 [0.76, 0.85]) but had minimal impact on the exposure of carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide (AUC(tau), 0.99 [0.85-1.15]; C(max), 1.05 [0.91, 1.22]). In summary, a 2-way pharmacokinetic interaction between efavirenz and carbamazepine was demonstrated in this study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".