ReviewCurrent HIV/AIDS reports2004
Updated clinical pharmacologic considerations for HIV-1 protease inhibitors.
Review in Current HIV/AIDS reports, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Atazanavir-bilirubin interaction: a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model.Clinical pharmacology : advances and applications · 2013Article
- Protease pathways in peptide neurotransmission and neurodegenerative diseases.Cellular and molecular neurobiologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many data associate low protease inhibitor plasma concentrations with suboptimal virologic responses, whereas fewer data associate high plasma concentrations with toxicity. Knowledge of relationships between concentrations and virologic response is important because significant variability in concentrations exists among patients. For antiretroviral-naïve patients, target trough concentrations have been suggested on the basis of retrospective associations with virologic responses. Two prospective studies demonstrated improved virologic responses when indinavir and nelfinavir doses were managed based on these troughs. Investigations among antiretroviral-experienced patients have identified a relationship between the trough concentration and the in-vitro susceptibility of the patient's virus with virologic outcome. However, differences in virologic response may further depend on other pharmacologic factors, such as protein binding, intracellular kinetics, function of drug transporters, and the activity of other drugs in the regimen. In the future, dosing strategies that accommodate the variability in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics may improve virologic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16091221What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.