Safety and effectiveness concerns of lopinavir/ritonavir in COVID-19 affected patients: a retrospective series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Originally developed for treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the antiviral combination lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is being repurposed for treating the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) despite minimal experience in this markedly different population and an in-vitro derived EC50 against SARS-CoV-2 several hundred-fold greater than for HIV. We present a case series including a case of severe hyponatremia and a 32-fold overdose raising safety and effectiveness concerns in COVID-19 patients. METHODS: We measured LPV trough concentrations in 12 patients and reviewed their clinical charts for side effects known to occur in HIV patients. FINDINGS: Compared to established LPV trough concentrations in HIV patients, concentrations in COVID-19 patients were 3-fold greater (19.37 ± 10.12 mcg/mL versus 6.25 mcg/mL). In addition, cholestasis and dyslipidemia toxicity thresholds were exceeded in 12/12 and 11/12 patients respectively. No patients achieved the presumed therapeutic concentration. Side effects included gastrointestinal symptoms (5/12), electrolyte imbalances (4/12), liver enzyme disturbances (5/12) and triglyceride elevations (2/12). CONCLUSION: No patients reached presumed therapeutic LPV concentrations despite experiencing side effects and exceeding cholestasis and dyslipidemia toxicity thresholds. This raises concerns for the safety and effectiveness of LPV/r. Clinicians should consider closely monitoring for side effects and not necessarily attribute them to COVID-19.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.243 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".