戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 renz, nevirapine, lopinavir, atazanavir, and elvitegravir.
2 and the integrase inhibitors raltegravir and elvitegravir.
3 resistance to dolutegravir, raltegravir, and elvitegravir.
4 istance to the other INSTIs, raltegravir and elvitegravir.
5 lthough resistance was generally greater for elvitegravir.
6 h dolutegravir (aHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15-1.94), elvitegravir (1.86, 1.43-2.42), rilpivirine (1.99, 1.49-
7 ninferior (-1.44 log(10) copies/mL), and the elvitegravir 125 mg arm was superior (-1.66 log(10) copi
8 the available fixed-dose oral formulation of elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 20
9 eceive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 20
10 nteractive web-response system to open-label elvitegravir (150 mg), cobicistat (150 mg), emtricitabin
11  by their parent or carer) containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, a
12 ve once-daily oral tablets containing 150 mg elvitegravir, 150 mg cobicistat, 200 mg emtricitabine, a
13 endent data monitoring committee stopped the elvitegravir 20 mg arm and allowed subjects in the elvit
14 M), L-870,810 (2.4 nM), raltegravir (10 nM), elvitegravir (4.0 nM), and GSK364735 (2.5 nM).
15 gravir 20 mg arm and allowed subjects in the elvitegravir 50 mg and 125 mg arms to add protease inhib
16 the CPI/r arm (-1.19 log(10) copies/mL), the elvitegravir 50 mg arm was noninferior (-1.44 log(10) co
17 0 nM vs 4 nM), raltegravir (300 nM vs 9 nM), elvitegravir (90 nM vs 6 nM), and GSK364735 (90 nM vs 6
18 three FDA-approved drugs, raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir and dolutegravir (DTG), act as interfacial
19  the end of the dosing interval (AUCtau) for elvitegravir and the AUC from time zero to the last quan
20  the end of the dosing interval (AUCtau) for elvitegravir and the AUC from time zero to the last quan
21  dolutegravir/bictegravir, 2.29% raltegravir/elvitegravir) and 1.74% to first-line NRTIs (0.89% tenof
22  INSTI-based regimens (135 dolutegravir, 153 elvitegravir, and 63 raltegravir), 86% were male, and 49
23  approval of the second integrase inhibitor, elvitegravir, and a novel pharmacoenhancer cobicistat is
24 isolates highly resistant to raltegravir and elvitegravir, and moderately resistant to dolutegravir a
25 Is (bictegravir, cabotegravir, dolutegravir, elvitegravir, and raltegravir) at the virological failur
26 iated with cumulative exposure to stavudine, elvitegravir, and raltegravir.
27  are in clinical trials, and raltegravir and elvitegravir are likely to be the first licensed drugs o
28 ndings demonstrate that both raltegravir and elvitegravir are potent IN inhibitors and are highly sel
29  without T-20 and either CPI/r or once-daily elvitegravir at a dose of 20 mg, 50 mg, or 125 mg (blind
30 nsistent with the binding of raltegravir and elvitegravir at the IN-DNA interface.
31 8 months than those starting NNRTI-based and elvitegravir-based regimens.
32 or 4 integrase inhibitors (DTG, raltegravir, elvitegravir, bictegravir), 2 protease inhibitors (darun
33          It also confers cross-resistance to elvitegravir but less to G-quadraduplex inhibitors such
34 ed men on stable antiretroviral therapy with elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine (E/C/F) and teno
35  use at screening) to switch to coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir (
36                 22 (20%) participants in the elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
37  containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
38 , 167 participants were randomly assigned to elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
39 ere similar between groups (four [4%] in the elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
40 ine [8%]), and diarrhoea (eight [7%]) in the elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
41                       One participant in the elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
42 e mineral density was 2.24% (SD 3.27) in the elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
43 bone mineral density was 1.33% (2.20) in the elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
44 The single-tablet, fixed-dose combination of elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
45 NTERPRETATION: The fixed-dose combination of elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
46                                 Exposures to elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
47                                          The elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
48 his single-tablet, fixed-dose combination of elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
49                             Exposures to the elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir a
50 ablet integrase inhibitor regimen containing elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir d
51  months after the initiation of therapy with elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir d
52 omen were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir d
53                                 Coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir d
54                                 Coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir m
55 igned (2:1) either to switch to coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir o
56                                 Coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir s
57 fumarate (tenofovir) regimen to coformulated elvitegravir, cobicistat, emtricitabine, and tenofovir.
58 onavir, 89.2% for raltegravir, and 89.8% for elvitegravir-cobicistat (adjusted risk differences vs. d
59 er InSTI (ie, raltegravir, dolutegravir, and elvitegravir-cobicistat) or efavirenz (EFV) as an active
60                              We evaluated an elvitegravir-cobicistat-emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenam
61 d raltegravir, and 159 in those who received elvitegravir-cobicistat.
62 ritonavir, oral rilpivirine, raltegravir, or elvitegravir-cobicistat.
63 from efavirenz (EFV) to rilpivirine (RPV) or elvitegravir/cobicistat and switch from tenofovir disopr
64 ence of pregnancy on the pharmacokinetics of elvitegravir/cobicistat in 14 women with human immunodef
65 e results support the recommendation against elvitegravir/cobicistat use during pregnancy, as the elv
66 gravir associated with more weight gain than elvitegravir/cobicistat.
67 gravir associated with more weight gain than elvitegravir/cobicistat.
68 vertheless, both formulations, combined with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine, maintained HIV-1
69 actions of glecaprevir and pibrentasvir with elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenam
70 fected adults which compared the efficacy of elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disoprox
71  InSTI (i.e., raltegravir, dolutegravir, and elvitegravir/cobicstat) or efavirenz (EFV) as an active
72 avir/cobicistat use during pregnancy, as the elvitegravir concentration at the end of the dosing inte
73 o 2018: rilpivirine, darunavir, raltegravir, elvitegravir, dolutegravir, efavirenz, and others.
74            There was no relationship between elvitegravir dosage and adverse events.
75 g, and an HIV-1 genotype with sensitivity to elvitegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir.
76 lls per muL, and no history of resistance to elvitegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide, or t
77 altegravir (RAL) (October 2007) and Gilead's Elvitegravir (EVG) (August 2012), which act as IN strand
78  enhance the delivery of antiretroviral drug elvitegravir (EVG) across the BBB, and alleviate oxidati
79 ing tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) and elvitegravir (EVG) conferred protection against SHIV inf
80  The HIV integrase strand transfer inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A
81                      The integrase inhibitor elvitegravir (EVG) has been co-formulated with the CYP3A
82 ing tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) and elvitegravir (EVG) that may be administered when needed,
83 a poloxamer-PLGA nanoformulation loaded with elvitegravir (EVG), a commonly used antiretroviral drug.
84 ed to bictegravir (BIC), dolutegravir (DTG), elvitegravir (EVG), or raltegravir (RAL) from any prior
85                                              Elvitegravir (EVG), RPV, and darunavir (DRV) concentrati
86 r inhibitors (INSTIs), raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG).
87 HIV activity) and a new integrase inhibitor, elvitegravir (EVG).
88 or susceptibilities to raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir (EVG).
89 ofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF, 20 mg) and elvitegravir (EVG, 16 mg) were highly protective against
90 lafenamide fumarate (TAF) co-formulated with elvitegravir (EVG, E), cobicistat (C) and emtricitabine
91 lafenamide fumarate (TAF) co-formulated with elvitegravir (EVG; E), cobicistat (C), and emtricitabine
92 emtricitabine, and either cobicistat-boosted elvitegravir (EVGcobi), rilpivirine (RPV), or ritonavir-
93  drug raltegravir (MK-0518, Isentress) while elvitegravir (GS-9137, JTK-303) is in clinical trials.
94 dually, the highest risk was associated with elvitegravir (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.32-1.97; P < .001) and
95 e the resistance profile for raltegravir and elvitegravir in those IN mutants.
96 ed cross-resistance to raltegravir (RAL) and elvitegravir in vitro.
97                The results show raltegravir, elvitegravir, MK-2048, RDS 1997, and RDS 2197 all appear
98 e the resistance pathways to raltegravir and elvitegravir (N155H, Q148K/R/H, and E92Q) were either ra
99 e and compare the effects of raltegravir and elvitegravir on the three IN-mediated reactions, 3'-proc
100            This was seen following switch to elvitegravir or raltegravir, but not dolutegravir.
101 ase strand transfer inhibitor (dolutegravir, elvitegravir, or raltegravir), a nonnucleoside reverse t
102  2.6 kg for NNRTIs (P < .05), and 0.5 kg for elvitegravir (P < .05).
103 tients had viruses with >/= 1 raltegravir or elvitegravir resistance mutation (15.6%).
104 cted in 12% of patients with raltegravir- or elvitegravir-resistant viruses (2% of all patients).
105 differed between regimens with dolutegravir, elvitegravir, rilpivirine, darunavir, or efavirenz as th
106  pharmacodynamics of a tenofovir alafenamide/elvitegravir (TAF/EVG, 20 mg/16 mg) insert administered
107 Y conferred relatively greater resistance to elvitegravir than raltegravir.
108 heir failing regimen (without raltegravir or elvitegravir) through day 7, after which the regimen was
109 nodeficiency virus (HIV) integrase inhibitor elvitegravir to comparator ritonavir-boosted protease in
110                          The mean AUCtau for elvitegravir was 23 840 ng x h per mL (coefficient of va
111                           The mean AUCtau of elvitegravir was 33 814 ng x h/mL (coefficient of variat
112                                              Elvitegravir was more potent than raltegravir, but neith
113                                              Elvitegravir was well-tolerated and produced rapid virol
114 the presence of two INSTIs, dolutegravir and elvitegravir, which may contribute to the limited succes

 
Page Top