Lopinavir/Ritonavir Pharmacokinetics in a Substitution of High‐Dose Soft‐Gelatin Capsule to Tablet Formulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines recommend that when soft-gelatin capsules of lopinavir/ritonavir are co-administered with CYP3A4-inducing agents, doses should be increased to 4 capsules (533 mg/133 mg) twice daily. No evidence is available to guide dosing of lopinavir/ritonavir in tablet formulation in this setting. A single-center study is conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics of high-dose lopinavir/ritonavir in 34 patients on stable HAART regimens including 4 soft-gelatin capsules twice daily who then switch to 3 tablets (600 mg/150 mg) twice daily. Median C(min) on soft-gelatin capsule and tablets is 4700 ng/mL (interquartile range [IQR] 2310, 6000 ng/mL) and 5640 ng/mL (IQR 4290, 8080 ng/mL), respectively, for those on inducing agents (n = 17). For patients not on inducing agents (n = 17), median C(min) on soft-gelatin capsule and tablets is 5170 ng/mL (IQR 3640, 6210 ng/mL) and 5640 ng/mL (IQR 4290, 8080 ng/mL), respectively. Among treatment-experienced patients on lopinavir/ritonavir capsules 533/133 mg twice daily, a switch to tablets 600/150 mg twice daily produces comparable pharmacokinetics, regardless of whether they receive concomitant CYP3A4-inducing antiretroviral agents.
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 | 0.002 | 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".