Comparative bioavailability of acyclovir from oral valacyclovir and acyclovir in patients treated for recurrent genital herpes simplex virus infection.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bioavailabilities of acyclovir from capsules of valacyclovir, the L-valyl ester of acyclovir, and acyclovir were compared by measuring urinary excretion of the drug in a double blind, placebo-controlled field trial of patient-initiated treatment for recurrent genital herpes. Forty-six healthy patients with recurrent genital herpesvirus infection were randomly assigned to receive acyclovir 200 mg five times daily (n=20), valacyclovir 1000 mg twice daily (equivalent to 694 mg acyclovir twice daily) (n=18) or placebo (n=6). Thirty-three patients on the active treatments provided the required 24 h urine samples for assessment of bioavailability. The acyclovir treatment group excreted 267+/-178 mg (mean +/- SD), and the valacyclovir treatment group excreted 623+/-248 mg (mean +/- SD) acyclovir over 24 h. The mean acyclovir bioavailabilities, estimated from urinary acyclovir excretion, were 26.7+/-17.8% and 44.9+/-17.9% for acyclovir and valacyclovir, respectively (P<0.007). There was no effect of sex on acyclovir bioavailability with either drug. The relative mean bioavailability of acyclovir was 68% greater from the prodrug formulation. This field trial in patients who self-initiated treatment for recurrent genital herpes confirmed that the prodrug valacyclovir provided significantly greater acyclovir bioavailability than the parent drug, as initially shown in volunteers in clinical pharmacokinetic studies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".