Trial reportJournal of clinical pharmacology2011
Sex differences in lopinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics among HIV-infected women and men.
Trial report in Journal of clinical pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sex differences in atazanavir pharmacokinetics and associations with time to clinical events: AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study A5202.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2014Trial
- Sex differences in responses to antiretroviral treatment in South African HIV-infected children on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir- and nevirapine-based treatment.BMC pediatrics · 2014Trial
- Nevirapine pharmacokinetics and risk of rash and hepatitis among HIV-infected sub-Saharan African women.AIDS (London, England) · 2012Trial
- Pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in HIV-infected adults receiving rifampin with adjusted doses of lopinavir-ritonavir tablets.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2011Trial
- Effect of Testosterone Therapy on Cytochrome P450 3A and P-Glycoprotein Activities Using Midazolam and Digoxin as Probe Substrates Among Transgender Adults.Pharmacotherapy · 2026Article
- Just a Reflection: Does Drug Repurposing Perpetuate Sex-Gender Bias in the Safety Profile?Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Pharmacokinetic interactions between the potential COVID-19 treatment drugs lopinavir/ritonavir and arbidol in rats.Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B · 2021Article
- High Dose Lopinavir/Ritonavir Does Not Lead to Sufficient Plasma Levels to Inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Sex Differences in the Treatment of HIV.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2020Review
- Brief Report: Sex Differences in Outcomes for Individuals Presenting for Third-Line Antiretroviral Therapy.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2020Article
- Impact of sex and gender on COVID-19 outcomes in Europe.Biology of sex differences · 2020Review
- Differences in Response to Antiretroviral Therapy by Sex and Hepatitis C Infection Status.AIDS patient care and STDs · 2015Article
- Model-based evaluation of the pharmacokinetic differences between adults and children for lopinavir and ritonavir in combination with rifampicin.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2013Article
- Caring for women living with HIV: gaps in the evidence.Journal of the International AIDS Society · 2013Review
- Long-term gender-based outcomes for atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r)- containing regimens in treatment-experienced patients with HIV.Current HIV research · 2013Observational
- Treating women with HIV: is it different than treating men?Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The authors compared the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir (LPV) and ritonavir (RTV) between women and men. This 2-step, multicenter, pharmacokinetic study enrolled human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults on lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) capsules (400/100 mg bid) plus 1 or more nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. All participants underwent 12-hour pharmacokinetic sampling. The pharmacokinetic sampling was repeated in participants receiving the LPV/r tablet formulation. Step 1 enrolled 37 women and 40 men; step 2 included 42 participants from step 1 plus 35 new participants (39 women and 38 men). LPV pharmacokinetics in women and men were not significantly different with either formulation. Women had significantly higher median RTV AUC(0-12 h) with both the soft-gel capsule (SGC) and tablet formulations (SGC: 5395 vs 4119 ng·h/mL, P = .026; tablet: 5310 vs 3941 ng·h/mL, P = .012), higher median C(max) (SGC: 802 vs 635 ng/mL, P = .032; tablet: 773 vs 570 ng/mL, P = .006), and lower median CL/F (SGC: 18.54 vs 24.31 L/h, P = .026; tablet: 18.83 vs 25.37 L/h, P = .012). RTV CL/F was slower in women after weight adjustment with both formulations. The pharmacokinetics of LPV in the SGC and tablet formulations are comparable in HIV-infected patients. Women had higher RTV AUC(0-12 h) and lower CL/F with both formulations. The mechanism of the sex difference in RTV CL/F warrants elucidation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.