Comparative Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitors: An Updated Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bictegravir, cabotegravir, dolutegravir, elvitegravir, and raltegravir are members of the latest class of antiretrovirals available to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the integrase strand transfer inhibitors. Integrase strand transfer inhibitors are potent inhibitors of the HIV integrase enzyme with IC 90/95 values in the low nanogram per milliliter range and they retain antiviral activity against strains of HIV with acquired resistance to other classes of antiretrovirals. Each of the integrase strand transfer inhibitors have unique pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, influencing their role in clinical use in specific subsets of patients. Cabotegravir, approved for use in Canada but not yet by the US Food and Drug Administration, is formulated in both oral and intramuscular formulations; the latter of which has shown efficacy as a long-acting extended-release formulation. Cabotegravir, raltegravir, and dolutegravir have minimal drug–drug interaction profiles, as their metabolism has minimal cytochrome P450 involvement. Conversely, elvitegravir metabolism occurs primarily via cytochrome P450 3A4 and requires pharmacokinetic boosting to achieve systemic exposures amenable to once-daily dosing. Bictegravir metabolism has similar contributions from both cytochrome P450 3A4 and uridine 5ʹ-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1. Bictegravir, dolutegravir, and raltegravir are recommended components of initial regimens for most people with HIV in the US adult and adolescent HIV treatment guidelines. This review summarizes and compares the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the integrase strand transfer inhibitor agents, and describes specific pharmacokinetic considerations for persons with hepatic impairment, renal dysfunction, pregnancy, and co-infections.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".