Protease Inhibitor–Associated QT Interval Prolongation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the literature on protease inhibitor (PI)-associated QT interval prolongation and risk for torsade de pointes in patients infected by HIV. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature was identified through MEDLINE (1950-August 2011) and EMBASE (1980-August 2011), using the following search terms: antiretroviral agents, HIV, protease inhibitors, QTc, QT prolongation, and torsade de pointes. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English-language case reports of antiretroviral therapy-associated QT interval prolongation, studies of healthy volunteers, or studies that evaluated the impact of PIs on QT interval in patients infected with HIV were reviewed and selected. Article bibliographies and conference abstracts were also reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Several case reports, as well as in vitro data, have implicated PIs as a potential cause of QT interval prolongation and/or torsade de pointes. Saquinavir, therapeutically boosted with the potent CYP3A4 inhibitor ritonavir, was the only PI shown to be associated with significant QT interval prolongation in studies with healthy volunteers. While 1 case control study in HIV-infected patients found that nelfinavir or efavirenz, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, increased the risk of QT interval prolongation, larger prospective studies have not demonstrated any significant increase in QT interval following exposure to PIs. Similar risk factors for QT interval prolongation seen in non-HIV-infected patients, such as older age, female sex, ethnicity, cardiac conditions, diabetes mellitus, and concomitant use of other QT interval-prolonging medications, especially methadone, were risk factors identified in studies of HIV-infected patients. CONCLUSIONS: PIs do not appear to independently predispose patients to QT interval prolongation. However, other risk factors (both HIV-related and non-HIV-related) may increase the risk of QT interval prolongation. Available data suggest that baseline and follow-up electrocardiogram monitoring are unnecessary precautions, but may be considered in patients who are initiating PI therapy and are on multiple medications with proarrhythmic potential and/or have multiple comorbidities, increasing the risk.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".