Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24798279›Full record

ArticleAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2014

Intracellular antiviral activity of low-dose ritonavir in boosted protease inhibitor regimens.

Amedeo De Nicolò, Marco Simiele, Andrea Calcagno, Adnan Mohamed Abdi, Stefano Bonora, Giovanni Di Perri, Antonio D'Avolio

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Amedeo De NicolòUnit of Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Department of Medical Sciences, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Marco SimieleUnit of Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Department of Medical Sciences, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Andrea CalcagnoUnit of Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Department of Medical Sciences, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Adnan Mohamed AbdiUnit of Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Department of Medical Sciences, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Stefano BonoraUnit of Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Department of Medical Sciences, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Giovanni Di PerriUnit of Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Department of Medical Sciences, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy.
Antonio D'AvolioUnit of Infectious Diseases, University of Turin, Department of Medical Sciences, Amedeo di Savoia Hospital, Turin, Italy antonio.davolio@unito.it.
Ospedale Amedeo di Savoia · ITUniversity of Turin · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protease inhibitors are largely used for the treatment of HIV infection in combination with other antiretroviral drugs. Their improved pharmacokinetic profiles can be achieved through the concomitant administration of low doses of ritonavir (RTV), a protease inhibitor currently used as a booster, increasing the exposure of companion drugs. Since ritonavir-boosted regimens are associated with long-term adverse events, cobicistat, a CYP3A4 inhibitor without antiviral activity, has been developed. Recently, high intracellular concentrations of ritonavir in lymphocytes and monocytes were reported even when ritonavir was administered at low doses, so we aimed to compare its theoretical antiviral activity with those of the associated protease inhibitors. Intracellular concentrations of ritonavir and different protease inhibitors were determined through the same method. Inhibitory constants were obtained from the literature. The study enrolled 103 patients receiving different boosted protease inhibitors, darunavir-ritonavir 600 and 100 mg twice daily and 800 and 100 mg once daily (n = 22 and 4, respectively), atazanavir-ritonavir 300 and 100 mg once daily (n = 40), lopinavir-ritonavir 400 and 100 mg twice daily (n = 21), or tipranavir-ritonavir 500 and 200 mg twice daily (n = 16). According to the observed concentrations, we calculated the ratios between the intracellular concentrations of ritonavir and those of the companion protease inhibitor and between the theoretical viral protease reaction speeds with each drug, with and without ritonavir. The median ratios were 4.04 and 0.63 for darunavir-ritonavir twice daily, 2.49 and 0.74 for darunavir-ritonavir once daily, 0.42 and 0.74 for atazanavir-ritonavir, 0.57 and 0.95 for lopinavir-ritonavir, and 0.19 and 0.84 for tipranavir-ritonavir, respectively. Therefore, the antiviral effect of ritonavir was less than that of the concomitant protease inhibitors but, importantly, mostly with darunavir. Thus, further in vitro and in vivo studies of the RTV antiviral effect are warranted.

Indexed as

AdultAlgorithmsAntiviral AgentsCellsDarunavirDrug CombinationsFemaleHIV InfectionsHIV Protease InhibitorsHumansLopinavirMaleMiddle AgedMonocytesPeptide HydrolasesRitonavirAntiviral AgentsDarunavirDrug CombinationsHIV Protease InhibitorsLopinavirPeptide HydrolasesRitonavir

Identifiers

PMID24798279
PMCPMC4068548
OpenAlexW2067035159

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.