Pharmacokinetic study of two different rifabutin doses co-administered with lopinavir/ritonavir in African HIV and tuberculosis co-infected adult patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic profile of 150 mg rifabutin (RBT) taken every other day (every 48 h) versus 300 mg RBT taken every other day (E.O.D), both in combination with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), in adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis (TB) co-infection. METHODS: This is a two-arm, open-label, pharmacokinetic, randomised study conducted in Burkina Faso between May 2013 and December 2015. Enrolled patients were randomised to receive either 150 mg RBT EOD (arm A, 9 subjects) or 300 mg RBT EOD (arm B, 7 subjects), both associated with LPV/r taken twice daily. RBT plasma concentrations were evaluated after 2 weeks of combined HIV and TB treatment. Samples were collected just before drug ingestion and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h after drug ingestion to measure plasma drug concentration using an HPLC-MS/MS assay. RESULTS: (p = 0.044) but not in Cmax (p = 0.313). No significant differences were observed in Tmax (3 h versus 4 h). Five patients had a Cmax below the plasma therapeutic limit (< 300 ng/mL) in the 150 mg RBT arm, while the Cmax was above this threshold for all patients in the 300 mg RBT arm. Additionally, at 48 h after drug ingestion, all patients had a mycobacterial minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) above the limit (> 64 ng/mL) in the 300 mg RBT arm, while 4/9 patients had such values in the 150 mg RBT arm. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed that the 150 mg dose of rifabutin ingested EOD in combination with LPV/r is inadequate and could lead to selection of rifamycin-resistant mycobacteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PACTR201310000629390, 28th October 2013.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".