A Study to Evaluate Doravirine Pharmacokinetics When Coadministered With Acid‐Reducing Agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Doravirine is a novel non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor indicated for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. Because of potential concomitant administration with acid‐reducing agents, a drug‐interaction trial was conducted to evaluate the potential impact of these types of medications on doravirine pharmacokinetics. In an open‐label, 3‐period, fixed‐sequence trial, healthy adult participants received the following: period 1, a single dose of doravirine 100 mg; period 2, coadministration of a single dose of doravirine 100 mg and an antacid (1600 mg aluminum hydroxide, 1600 mg magnesium hydroxide, and 160 mg simethicone); period 3, 40 mg pantoprazole once daily on days 1–5 coadministered with a single dose of doravirine 100 mg on day 5. There was a minimum 10‐day washout between periods. Plasma samples for pharmacokinetic evaluation were collected, and safety was assessed. Fourteen participants (8 male, 6 female) were enrolled, and 13 completed the trial. Geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for doravirine AUC0‐inf, Cmax, and C24 for doravirine + antacid/doravirine were 1.01 (0.92–1.11), 0.86 (0.74–1.01), and 1.03 (0.94–1.12), respectively, and for doravirine + pantoprazole/doravirine were 0.83 (0.76–0.91), 0.88 (0.76–1.01), and 0.84 (0.77–0.92), respectively. Doravirine was generally well tolerated administered alone or with either of the acid‐reducing agents. Coadministration of an aluminum/magnesium‐containing antacid or pantoprazole did not have a clinically meaningful effect on doravirine pharmacokinetics, supporting the use of acid‐reducing agents with doravirine.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".