MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403343117 · doi:10.1111/bcp.16289

2024 updates to the Québec antiretroviral therapeutic drug monitoring guidelines: Key changes over 10 years

2024· article· en· W4403343117 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)DrugTherapeutic drug monitoringMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PharmacologyComputer scienceFamily medicineComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

7 days or standard of care (SoC).Throughout the study period, clinical data, safety evaluations, virology and pharmacokinetics were collected at predefined timepoints.FVP was quantified using validated LC-MS methods with FVP concentrations expressed as ng/mL.The primary outcome was safety, with toxicity considered to be unacceptable if the probability of 30% or greater doselimiting toxicity related to FVP over controls was 25% or greater, as calculated by the Bayesian model.Secondary outcomes included clinical progression scores, pharmacokinetic parameters and virological endpoints.Results: Of 30 participants screened, 24 were enrolled between 10 September 2022 and 1 November 2023 [10/24 female; median age was 74 years (range 52-93)].FVP was well tolerated at all doses, despite a high background rate of adverse events reflecting the frailty and comorbidity of participants.As in previous studies of FVP, transient hyperuricaemia was observed in patients in the treatment cohorts.This was asymptomatic in all cases and resolved on completion of treatment.There were no serious adverse events or severe (≥grade 3) adverse events that were deemed possibly or probably related to FVP by an independent, blinded assessor.The probability of greater than 30% excess toxicity over controls at 2400 mg, as estimated by the Bayesian model, was 2.7%.PK exposures increased proportionally to dose, although there was notable variability between participants within each cohort.Significant FVP accumulation in plasma occurred; for cohorts 1-4 respectively (600/1200/1800/2400 mg BD), median day 1 clast (6-12 h post-infusion) was 500 (below LLQ)/4242/5109/ 23 573 ng/mL, and median day 3 clast was 1335/38 730/47 000/ 125 468 ng/mL. Conclusions:In this phase Ib multiple ascending dose study of a novel IV formulation of FVP, we administered higher sustained doses than previously used, up to 2400 mg twice daily.Despite the frail and comorbid nature of the population admitted to hospital with COVID-19, IV FVP was safe and well tolerated at this dose.Plasma PK studies demonstrated accumulation at days 3 and 5, in contrast to previous studies that employed loading doses.Significant PK variability was noted between individuals.Although well tolerated, based on PK data, we report and recent FVP EC90 data, and we do not recommend FVP for later stage clinical trial evaluation as a treatment for COVID-19.FVP remains a potentially important candidate as a treatment for emerging viral threats including pandemic influenza.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.066
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.066
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.015

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicHIV/AIDS drug development and treatmentFrench-language works237,207