ライフサイエンスコーパス: LPV

1 LPV and NFV diminished calcium deposition and osteoprote

2 LPV selection resulted in the sequential emergence of V9

3 LPV/r monotherapy achieved satisfactory virologic effica

4 LPV/r monotherapy after first-line VF with FTC/TDF inten

5 d cells incubated for 48 hours with Retro-2, LPV development was significantly limited; furthermore,

6 This review supports ZDV+3TC+LPV/r as the preferred 3-drug regimen for PEP in childre

7 ]; ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41); or ZDV-3TC-LPV-R (75 of 167 [44.9%]; ARR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45).

8 eterm birth, and neonatal death; and ZDV-3TC-LPV-R was associated with higher risk for preterm birth,

9 -97.7%) and lowest for ZDV+ lamivudine [3TC]+LPV/r (59.1%; 95% CI, 36.2%-82.0%).

10 = 615); lopinavir (LPV) plus AZT (n = 573); LPV plus TDF (n = 301); and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir

11 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; range, 0.42-0.76), LPV plus AZT (HR, 0.63; range, 0.45-0.89), LPV plus TDF

12 , LPV plus AZT (HR, 0.63; range, 0.45-0.89), LPV plus TDF (HR, 0.55; range, 0.33-0.83), ATZ/r plus TD

13 tial outbreaks of polio if introduction of a LPV occurs, although overall high population immunity in

14 l to explore the potential transmission of a LPV throughout the North American Amish population.

15 nclude that the combination of ZDV, 3TC, and LPV/r is able to provide efficient and durable suppressi

16 ntaining a 1:1:1 molar ratio of RTV, ATV and LPV, the maximum concentration of each drug was only one

17 y 48 months was 0.07 and 0.12 in the EFV and LPV/r groups, respectively (P = .21).

18 .92-1.09) for patients receiving NNRTI- and LPV/r-based treatment, respectively.

19 ment, 14% and 16% of women receiving NVP and LPV/r experienced grade 3/4 signs/symptoms and 26% and 2

20 1) and moderately inhibited by ritonavir and LPV (>40%, p < 0.01).

21 ntaxin-5; we show herein that Retro-2 blocks LPV development within 2 hours of adding it to cells inf

22 ion, over 95% entrapment efficiency for both LPV and RTV and stability over 8h in simulated physiolog

23 nctuary sites, as compared to the commercial LPV/RTV tablet (Kaletra(R)) in rats.

24 Concomitant LPV/r use markedly increased TFV plasma concentrations,

25 %) subjects (92 of whom received twice-daily LPV/r therapy, and 131 of whom received once-daily thera

26 5-.78) for ATV/r; 0.66 (90% CI, .60-.72) for LPV/r, and 0.56 (90% CI, .51-.61) for DRV/r.

27 g each mutant PR was analyzed in culture for LPV sensitivity, yielding results consistent with the or

28 , most in the first 8 weeks, versus none for LPV/r (p<0.001).

29 ays, at 2.6 copies/mL, similar to values for LPV/r-based regimens.

30 HIV-infected children >/=3 years of age from LPV/r to EFV are sustained long-term.

31 7); TDF-FTC and lopinavir-ritonavir (TDF-FTC-LPV-R) (112 of 231 [48.5%]; ARR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.52

32 Furthermore, LPV/RTV ISNP granules displayed a 2.56-fold increase in

33 bioavailability and significantly increased LPV concentrations in tested tissues, especially in HIV

34 s/microL were randomized to start open-label LPV/r 400/100 mg twice daily alone (monotherapy group, n

35 V plus tenofovir (TDF) (n = 615); lopinavir (LPV) plus AZT (n = 573); LPV plus TDF (n = 301); and rit

36 of an ASD containing RTV, ATV and lopinavir (LPV) was also investigated.

37 avir (DRV), saquinavir (SQV), and lopinavir (LPV), relative to that of PR.

38 us remaining on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) for virologic control in children infected with h

39 ZDV/lamivudine/ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) had a higher left ventricular shortening fraction

40 In contrast, lopinavir (LPV) and amprenavir did not increase osteoclast activity

41 azanavir (ATV) 300 mg once daily, lopinavir (LPV) 400 mg twice daily, or darunavir (DRV) 600 mg twice

42 troviral drug granules, including lopinavir (LPV) ISNP granules and a fixed-dose combination of LPV/r

43 culture against the PR inhibitor lopinavir (LPV), darunavir (DRV), or TL-3.

44 sitive to the HIV-1 PR inhibitors lopinavir (LPV) and darunavir (DRV), as well as to the broad-based

45 The crystal structures of lopinavir (LPV) and two new inhibitors containing phenyloxazolidino

46 or efavirenz (EFV)- and ritonavir/lopinavir (LPV/r)-based regimens.

47 the median eminence-long portal vessels (ME-LPV) and/or the concentration of DA in the anterior lobe

48 ursor less responsive to inhibition by 6 muM LPV while preserving inhibition by SQV and DRV.

49 Drug-loaded ISNP granules with about 16% of LPV and 4% of RTV were palatable and stable at room temp

50 occurred in 80 (32%) of NVP and 54 (22%) of LPV/r arms (HR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.2-2.4), with the differen

51 SNP granules and a fixed-dose combination of LPV/ritonavir (RTV) ISNP granules, were prepared using t

52 ate and time subjects administered a dose of LPV/r.

53 this is the first nonserological evidence of LPV infection in rhesus monkeys.

54 World Health Organization recommendation of LPV/r in first-line ART regimens for HIV-infected childr

55 pment of drug resistance in these studies of LPV/r.

56 esults in both cohorts due to superiority of LPV/r for the primary endpoint: stopping randomized trea

57 uld potentially lead to wider circulation of LPVs and cases of paralytic polio in Amish communities i

58 [IQR], 4.3-6.4), with 52% on NVP and 88% on LPV/r as originally randomized.

59 ity of continued HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL on LPV/r monotherapy through week 104 was estimated with a

60 ere randomized to switch to EFV or remain on LPV/r in Johannesburg, South Africa.

61 suppression <400 copies/mL over 104 weeks on LPV/r monotherapy was 60% (95% CI, 50%-68%); 80%-85% mai

62 (FTC) once/day plus either NVP (n = 249) or LPV/r (n = 251) twice/day, and followed for >/=48 weeks.

63 prior NVP exposure and randomized to NVP- or LPV/r-based ART.

64 A lymphotropic papovavirus (LPV) archetypal regulatory region was amplified from DNA

65 uman mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs), the PIs LPV and NFV decreased osteoblast alkaline phosphatase en

66 Prior importations of live polioviruses (LPVs) into Amish communities in North America led to the

67 (SV)40 and B-cell lymphotropic polyomavirus (LPV) are also present in humans.

68 All subjects received LPV/r 400/100 mg twice daily.

69 d: 20 receiving NNRTI-based and 20 receiving LPV/r-based treatment.

70 , lamivudine (3TC), and lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), were followed up longitudinally for about 3 year

71 safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) capsules administered twice per day or once per d

72 ts by 2.1- to 3.4-fold; lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) increased lumefantrine exposure by 2.1-fold; and

73 study entry, a study of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy after first-line virologic failure on

74 ) A5230 study evaluated lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy following virologic failure (VF) on f

75 trial evaluated whether lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy in HIV type 1-infected women not requ

76 age were randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-

77 ort-term superiority of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) over nevirapine (NVP) in antiretroviral therapy (

78 domized trials compared lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) to nevirapine (NVP) for antiretroviral therapy an

79 acy of NVP-based versus lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based initial ART.

80 e inhibitor (NNRTI)- or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based regimen were enrolled.

81 TDF+emtricitabine [FTC]+lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r], 71.1%; 95% CI, 43.6%-98.6%; TDF+FTC+raltegravir

82 d on setting; for resource-limited settings, LPV/r is a reasonable choice, pending the improved avail

83 as significantly lower among children taking LPV/r-based ART compared with children taking nevirapine

84 h was significantly lower in children taking LPV/r-based ART compared with nevirapine-based ART.

85 ted in the NVP versus six (15%) of 40 in the LPV/r arm had any drug resistance mutation at time of VF

86 VP and 50 (43 VFs, seven deaths; 20%) in the LPV/r arm reached the primary endpoint (HR 0.85, 95% CI

87 in the LPV/r twice-daily group and 39 in the LPV/r once-daily group).

88 ified in 60 (27%) of the subjects (21 in the LPV/r twice-daily group and 39 in the LPV/r once-daily g

89 requently observed in the EFV group than the LPV/r group (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interv

90 1 year (5.4 mm vs 4.4 mm; P = .01) than the LPV/r group.

91 f the inhibitor-protease structures with the LPV-protease structure provides valuable insight into th

92 76) compared with participants randomized to LPV/r.

93 While resistance to LPV emerged readily, similar PR mutations causing resist

94 ment of Leishmania parasitophorous vacuoles (LPVs).

95 ine were 10-fold lower in children on EFV vs LPV/r-based ART, changes that were associated with an ap

96 current malaria by day 28 in those on EFV vs LPV/r-based ART.

97 n Encompassing Lopinavir/r and Lamivudine vs LPV/r based standard therapy) is a 48 week, phase 3, ran

98 ble reported adverse effects associated with LPV/r that had caused him to stop taking all the drugs.

99 f treatment discontinuations associated with LPV/r vs NVP (hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, .41-.75]) but

100 uced by 45% and 32% when coadministered with LPV/r and DRV/r, respectively.

101 uation and new drug resistance compared with LPV/r+TDF/FTC in antiretroviral-naive women with CD4<200