Differential Effects of Tipranavir plus Ritonavir on Atorvastatin or Rosuvastatin Pharmacokinetics in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To identify pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions between tipranavir-ritonavir (TPV/r) and rosuvastatin and atorvastatin, we conducted two prospective, open-label, single-arm, two-period studies. The geometric mean (GM) ratio was 1.37 (90% confidence interval [CI], 1.15 to 1.62) for the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for rosuvastatin and 2.23 (90% CI, 1.83 to 2.72) for the maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax) for rosuvastatin with TPV/r at steady state versus alone. The GM ratio was 9.36 (90% CI, 8.02 to 10.94) for the AUC of atorvastatin and 8.61 (90% CI, 7.25 to 10.21) for the Cmax of atorvastatin with TPV/r at steady state versus alone. Tipranavir PK parameters were not affected by single-dose rosuvastatin or atorvastatin. Mild gastrointestinal intolerance, headache, and mild reversible liver enzyme elevations (grade 1 and 2) were the most commonly reported adverse drug reactions. Based on these interactions, we recommend low initial doses of rosuvastatin (5 mg) and atorvastatin (10 mg), with careful clinical monitoring of rosuvastatin- or atorvastatin-related adverse events when combined with TPV/r.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".