ライフサイエンスコーパス: dolutegravir

1 luding darunavir, atazanavir, raltegravir or dolutegravir.

2 ncentration of the viral integrase inhibitor dolutegravir.

3 d a phase 2 trial comparing bictegravir with dolutegravir.

4 ribed DRMs that emerge in patients receiving dolutegravir.

5 the second generation INST inhibitor (INSTI) dolutegravir.

6 se subtypes can influence resistance against dolutegravir.

7 een reported for naive patients treated with dolutegravir.

8 plified practical dosing and rapid access to dolutegravir.

9 luded darunavir, atazanavir, raltegravir, or dolutegravir.

10 itch to elvitegravir or raltegravir, but not dolutegravir.

11 weight gain was highest among PLWH starting dolutegravir.

12 atic neutropenia) were considered related to dolutegravir.

13 5, 2018, we randomly assigned 268 mothers to dolutegravir (135) or efavirenz (133).

14 LWH, 351 initiated INSTI-based regimens (135 dolutegravir, 153 elvitegravir, and 63 raltegravir), 86%

15 rted (>/=10%) adverse events were diarrhoea (dolutegravir 41 [17%] patients vs darunavir plus ritonav

16 curred with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir than dolutegravir (44 [14%] of 310 with ritonavir-boosted lop

17 Adult dolutegravir 50 mg film-coated tablets given once daily

18 emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, or dolutegravir 50 mg given with coformulated emtricitabine

19 re randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dolutegravir 50 mg once daily or darunavir 800 mg plus r

20 ks were randomized (2:1) to monotherapy with dolutegravir 50 mg once daily or to continuation of cART

21 ough) of 0.83 mg/L (26%) in fasted adults on dolutegravir 50 mg once-daily; in children weighing 25 k

22 Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir 50 mg or darunavir 800 mg plus ritonavir 10

23 alafenamide 25 mg (the bictegravir group) or dolutegravir 50 mg with co-formulated emtricitabine 200

24 e 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or dolutegravir 50 mg with coformulated emtricitabine 200 m

25 mg (the bictegravir group) or co-formulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300

26 tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300

27 tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg, or coformulated dolutegravir 50 mg, abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300

28 nd emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; once-daily oral fixed-dose combinati

29 nd emtricitabine 200 mg, and once-daily oral dolutegravir 50 mg; or once-daily oral fixed-dose combin

30 central randomisation system to receive oral dolutegravir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted lop

31 ety and efficacy data of regimens containing dolutegravir (50 mg twice daily) in antiretroviral-exper

32 South Africa were randomised (1:1) to daily dolutegravir (50 mg) or efavirenz-based therapy.

33 to receive a once-daily two-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) or a once-

34 00 mg) or a once-daily three-drug regimen of dolutegravir (50 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

35 nd tenofovir alafenamide than in those given dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (10% [n=32] vs 23

36 itabine, and tenofovir alafenamide than with dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (26% [n=82] vs 40

37 enofovir alafenamide (n=316) or coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315), of whom

38 tabine, and tenofovir alafenamide (n=316) or dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine (n=315).

39 ovir alafenamide compared with co-formulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine at week 96.

40 gher incidence of drug-related nausea in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (5% [n=17]

41 and 93.0% of patients (n=293 of 315) in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference

42 lafenamide group and 265 (84%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (difference

43 enamide group versus five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine group (study 1),

44 abine, and tenofovir alafenamide, and 315 to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine) and 645 in study

45 nd tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with 276 (88%) o

46 adults and was non-inferior to coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine, with no treatmen

47 th better gastrointestinal tolerability than dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine.

48 emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide to dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine.

49 a fixed-dose combination versus coformulated dolutegravir, abacavir, and lamivudine.

50 ivirine was noninferior to oral therapy with dolutegravir-abacavir-lamivudine with regard to maintain

51 0 weeks of daily oral induction therapy with dolutegravir-abacavir-lamivudine.

52 r alafenamide as a fixed-dose combination to dolutegravir administered with coformulated emtricitabin

53 PLWH starting dolutegravir also gained more weight at 18 months compar

54 At week 48, 217 (90%) patients receiving dolutegravir and 200 (83%) patients receiving darunavir

55 ded in the analysis (242 assigned to receive dolutegravir and 242 assigned to receive ritonavir-boost

56 Adverse events were similar between the dolutegravir and atazanavir groups; the most common were

57 verse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), with dolutegravir and bictegravir associated with more weight

58 erse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), with dolutegravir and bictegravir associated with more weight

59 ze the mode of action of the advanced INSTIs dolutegravir and bictegravir at near-atomic resolution.

60 nd elvitegravir, and moderately resistant to dolutegravir and cabotegravir.

61 dicines Agency issued warnings on the use of dolutegravir and darunavir/cobicistat for treatment of p

62 the 90% maximal inhibitory concentration for dolutegravir and HIV viral loads were less than 40 copie

63 Dolutegravir and raltegravir can directly impact adipocy

64 some non-B HIV subtype viruses treated with dolutegravir and will aid in the inhibition of such a vi

65 In vitro, dolutegravir and, to a lesser extent, raltegravir were a

66 containing either InSTI (i.e., raltegravir, dolutegravir, and elvitegravir/cobicstat) or efavirenz (

67 rd error 13%) resulting in a 26% decrease in dolutegravir area under the curve.

68 metabolizers in the efavirenz arm and in the dolutegravir arm (P = .836).

69 There were 342 participants in the dolutegravir arm and 168 in the efavirenz arm who consen

70 metabolizers in the efavirenz arm and in the dolutegravir arm, suggesting that impaired weight gain a

71 genotypes in the efavirenz arm, and with the dolutegravir arm.

72 gravir treatment at conception than with non-dolutegravir ART at conception (difference, 0.20 percent

73 nd 0.68% of those among women exposed to non-dolutegravir ART at conception (difference, 0.27 percent

74 .10%) in which the mother was taking any non-dolutegravir ART at conception, 3 among 7959 (0.04%) in

75 A transition to use of a dolutegravir as a first-line regimen in all new ART init

76 , supporting WHO's strong recommendation for dolutegravir as a preferred drug for ART initiators.

77 tase inhibitors (NNRTI) and transitioning to dolutegravir as part of a more affordable and standardis

78 eeded pediatric deaths added with EFV unless dolutegravir-associated NTD risk was 1.5% or greater.

79 n 0.95% of deliveries among women exposed to dolutegravir at conception and 0.68% of those among wome

80 83 deliveries in which the mother was taking dolutegravir at conception, 5 neural-tube defects were f

81 risk of neural tube defects in women taking dolutegravir at time of conception, as well as the effec

82 Given concerns about side effects, dolutegravir-based and low-dose efavirenz-based combinat

83 red-flag DDI, and the use of raltegravir or dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy was associated

84 red-flag DDI, and the use of raltegravir- or dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy was associated

85 osis prophylaxis to patients with HIV taking dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy, without dose

86 Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir-based or efavirenz-based therapy.

87 versal HIV-treatment and same-day ART with a dolutegravir-based regimen at first clinic visit.

88 ents with confirmed virological failure on a dolutegravir-based regimen can pose challenges because o

89 regimen in women intending pregnancy, and a dolutegravir-based regimen in others, and a dolutegravir

90 The policy involving ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen in women intending pregnancy

91 benefits, a policy of ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen rather than an efavirenz-base

92 In HIV-1-infected adults in Cameroon, a dolutegravir-based regimen was noninferior to an EFV400-

93 dolutegravir-based regimen in others, and a dolutegravir-based regimen, including in women intending

94 found that a policy of ART initiation with a dolutegravir-based regimen, including in women intending

95 reduced risk of resistance acquisition with dolutegravir-based regimens and reduced use of expensive

96 f ART initiation with efavirenz- rather than dolutegravir-based regimens due to PrEP undermining ART

97 Treatment-naive PLWH starting dolutegravir-based regimens gained significantly more we

98 The transition to dolutegravir-based regimens in PEPFAR-supported countrie

99 after at least 8 weeks of efavirenz-based or dolutegravir-based regimens were recruited in three cons

100 ad strata (mHR: 0.7, 95% CI: 0.6-0.8) and in dolutegravir-based therapy (mHR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.0-1.4).

101 immunodeficiency virus (HIV) on a successful dolutegravir-based triple therapy.

102 Median dolutegravir C12h was 4086 (1756-5717 ng/mL) ng/mL in 9

103 tfed infants was observed following maternal dolutegravir cessation (3-15 days postpartum), which wan

104 Rifapentine-isoniazid increased dolutegravir clearance by 36% (relative standard error 1

105 waned with time postpartum as transplacental dolutegravir cleared.

106 r efficacy and similar safety profile of the dolutegravir combined regimen compared with the atazanav

107 two antiretroviral first-line combinations (dolutegravir combined with emtricitabine and either teno

108 s could explain the increased weight gain on dolutegravir compared with efavirenz observed in ADVANCE

109 logical suppression before giving birth with dolutegravir compared with efavirenz, when initiated dur

110 We assessed safety and efficacy of dolutegravir compared with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir,

111 Dolutegravir compares favourably in efficacy and safety

112 Optimized dolutegravir-containing antiretroviral regimens supporte

113 tenofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to a dolutegravir-containing regimen in treatment-naive peopl

114 nofovir alafenamide was non-inferior to both dolutegravir-containing regimens for efficacy.

115 The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir could have a major role in future antiretro

116 Paediatric dolutegravir doses approved by stringent regulatory auth

117 ved the first second generation INSTI, GSK's Dolutegravir (DTG) (August 2013).

118 The 2-drug regimen dolutegravir (DTG) + lamivudine (3TC) is indicated for t

119 We describe the pharmacokinetics (PK) of dolutegravir (DTG) 50 mg once daily in PLWH aged 60 and

120 seline genotype for people starting ART with dolutegravir (DTG) and an NRTI pair.

121 evaluating the efficacy of dual therapy with dolutegravir (DTG) and lamivudine (3TC).

122 n immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are dolutegravir (DTG) and tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (T

123 4%) infants of women receiving preconception dolutegravir (DTG) antiretroviral therapy (ART) vs 14 of

124 odeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 RNA decay and dolutegravir (DTG) concentrations in the semen of HIV-in

125 The global transition to use of dolutegravir (DTG) in WHO-preferred regimens for HIV tre

126 Dolutegravir (DTG) is the latest antiretroviral (ARV) ap

127 We investigated whether dolutegravir (DTG) monotherapy could be used to maintain

128 anda and South Africa were randomised 1:1 to dolutegravir (DTG) or efavirenz (EFV)-containing ART unt

129 The efficacy and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) were assessed in adults with HIV and

130 pilot phase IIb VIKING study suggested that dolutegravir (DTG), a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

131 Dolutegravir (DTG), a once-daily, human immunodeficiency

132 d drugs, raltegravir (RAL), elvitegravir and dolutegravir (DTG), act as interfacial inhibitors during

133 ibit reduced sensitivity to the IN inhibitor Dolutegravir (DTG), demonstrating that they confer a glo

134 The second-generation agent, dolutegravir (DTG), has enjoyed considerable clinical su

135 With no IR testing, all patients start dolutegravir (DTG)-based ART after genotype; 12-week sup

136 Dolutegravir (DTG)-based dual therapy is becoming a new

137 protease inhibitor (PI/r)-based regimen to a dolutegravir (DTG)-based regimen may improve lipid profi

138 The switch to WHO-recommended dolutegravir (DTG)-based regimens could reduce this thre

139 d protease inhibitor (PI/r)-based therapy to dolutegravir (DTG)-based therapy.

140 In this first study of generic dolutegravir (DTG)-containing regimens in a low-resource

141 integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI) dolutegravir (DTG).

142 Uncertainty in NTD risks and dolutegravir efficacy in resource-limited settings, each

143 nts, to 5 INSTIs (bictegravir, cabotegravir, dolutegravir, elvitegravir, and raltegravir) at the viro

144 d be an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (dolutegravir, elvitegravir, or raltegravir), a nonnucleo

145 lafenamide group and 273 (84%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide g

146 ir alafenamide versus six (2%) of 325 in the dolutegravir, emtricitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide g

147 icitabine, and tenofovir alafenamide, 325 to dolutegravir, emtricitabine, tenofovir alafenamide).

148 bine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) and dolutegravir/emtricitabine/TDF arms.

149 ects was slightly higher in association with dolutegravir exposure at conception than with other type

150 was previously reported in association with dolutegravir exposure from the time of conception, which

151 of transition to tenofovir, lamivudine, and dolutegravir for all substantially outweighed the risks.

152 th the atazanavir regimen support the use of dolutegravir for HIV-1 infection in treatment-naive wome

153 containing efavirenz to regimens containing dolutegravir formulations in adult ART initiators is pre

154 s or stopping criteria was less frequent for dolutegravir (four [2%] patients) than for darunavir plu

155 At 18 months, PLWH on dolutegravir gained 6.0 kg, compared to 2.6 kg for NNRTI

156 common in the bictegravir group than in the dolutegravir group (57 [18%] of 320 vs 83 [26%] of 325,

157 ictegravir group and 281 (86%) of 325 in the dolutegravir group (difference -2.3%, 95% CI -7.9 to 3.2

158 ictegravir group and 302 (93%) of 325 in the dolutegravir group (difference -3.5%, 95.002% CI -7.9 to

159 ed, 499 were randomly assigned to either the dolutegravir group (n=250) or the atazanavir group (n=24

160 reened and 627 were randomly assigned to the dolutegravir group (n=312) or the ritonavir-boosted lopi

161 per mL compared with 31 (93.9%) of 33 in the dolutegravir group (weighted difference 2.9%, 95% CI -8.

162 liter) was observed in 3 participants in the dolutegravir group (with none acquiring drug-resistance

163 eek 48, 261 (84%) of 312 participants in the dolutegravir group achieved viral suppression compared w

164 versus 283 (90%) of 315 participants in the dolutegravir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copi

165 x participants (three since 48 weeks) in the dolutegravir group and 13 (four) in the darunavir plus r

166 t 96 weeks, 194 (80%) of 242 patients in the dolutegravir group and 164 (68%) of 242 in the ritonavir

167 ed in 137 of 207 participants (66.2%) in the dolutegravir group and in 123 of 200 participants (61.5%

168 ed in 231 of 310 participants (74.5%) in the dolutegravir group and in 209 of 303 participants (69.0%

169 Three stillbirths in the dolutegravir group and one in the efavirenz group were c

170 eek 48, 203 (82%) of 248 participants in the dolutegravir group compared with 176 (71%) of 247 in the

171 ir group versus 39 (12%) participants in the dolutegravir group had a serious adverse event.

172 ictegravir group and 288 (89%) of 325 in the dolutegravir group had any adverse event and 55 (17%), a

173 he tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group had fewer changes in bone density tha

174 89 (74%) of 120 in the dolutegravir group had viral loads less than 50 copies p

175 in the bictegravir group versus four in the dolutegravir group occurred between weeks 48 and 96.

176 320 in the bictegravir group and 325 in the dolutegravir group received at least one dose of study d

177 30 (22%) of 137 mothers in the dolutegravir group reported serious adverse events compa

178 More weight gain was observed in the dolutegravir group than in the EFV400 group (median weig

179 Fewer participants in the dolutegravir group than the atazanavir group reported dr

180 t common were nausea (46 [19%] of 248 in the dolutegravir group vs 49 [20%] of 247 in the atazanavir

181 e events were diarrhoea (23/242 [10%] in the dolutegravir group vs 57/242 [24%] in the darunavir plus

182 bictegravir group vs 51 [16%] of 325 in the dolutegravir group) and headache (51 [16%] of 320 vs 48

183 vir plus abacavir and lamivudine once a day (dolutegravir group) or a three-tablet combination of rit

184 bictegravir group vs 76 [24%] of 315 for the dolutegravir group), diarrhoea (48 [15%] vs 50 [16%]), a

185 abacavir 600 mg, and lamivudine 300 mg (the dolutegravir group), each with matching placebo, once da

186 200 mg and tenofovir alafenamide 25 mg (the dolutegravir group), each with matching placebo, once da

187 the bictegravir group and 1 [<1%] 325 in the dolutegravir group).

188 pulmonary embolism, and one lymphoma in the dolutegravir group); none were considered to be treatmen

189 safety analysis, and 250 mothers (125 in the dolutegravir group, 125 in the efavirenz group) and thei

190 he tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 275 (78%) of 351 participants in the

191 he tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil fuma

192 ovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 2.3 kg [7.0] in the tenofovir di

193 ovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 258 (74%) of 351 participants in

194 ovir disoproxil fumarate, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group, and 351 to the tenofovir disoproxil

195 ant HIV infections were detected, all in the dolutegravir group, and were considered likely to be in-

196 in the bictegravir group and 92 (28%) in the dolutegravir group.

197 group compared with five (2%) of 315 in the dolutegravir group.

198 was treatment related) and none died in the dolutegravir group.

199 gned to the bictegravir group and 330 to the dolutegravir group.

200 n the bictegravir group and 127 (40%) in the dolutegravir group.

201 he tenofovir alafenamide, emtricitabine, and dolutegravir group; 4.3 kg [6.7] in the tenofovir disopr

202 n the bictegravir group and five (2%) in the dolutegravir group; one of these events in the bictegrav

203 lus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide [dolutegravir group]).

204 Predicted infant dolutegravir half-life and time to protein adjusted-IC90

205 Dolutegravir has been shown to be non-inferior to an int

206 Dolutegravir has shown in vitro activity against human i

207 7.4) was used to describe dolutegravir in all matrices and to evaluate covariates.

208 Once-daily dolutegravir in combination with fixed-dose NRTIs repres

209 HO guidelines recommending the transition to dolutegravir in first-line ART for all adults, regardles

210 a small previous trial of such therapy with dolutegravir in healthy, HIV-negative adults was halted

211 pected gains from widespread introduction of dolutegravir in low-income and middle-income countries.

212 Eligible children were randomised to dolutegravir in ODYSSEY and weighed 20 kg to less than 4

213 Participants received 50 mg of daily dolutegravir in place of efavirenz for 8 weeks, then beg

214 ding switching to tenofovir, lamivudine, and dolutegravir in those currently on ART, regardless of cu

215 s argue against a uniform policy of avoiding dolutegravir in women of child-bearing potential.

216 als, we addressed the safety and efficacy of dolutegravir in women with HIV-1.

217 ation health of postponing the transition to dolutegravir increases substantially with higher prevale

218 asma HIV-2 RNA (pVL) was assessed at time of dolutegravir initiation (baseline), month 3, and month 6

219 e and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 24 h after observed dolutegravir intake.

220 Dolutegravir is a once-daily integrase strand transfer i

221 Once-daily dolutegravir is associated with a higher virological res

222 Dolutegravir is associated with more weight gain than ef

223 The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir is being considered in several countries in

224 s genotyping when a strong inhibitor such as dolutegravir is being used.

225 The integrase inhibitor dolutegravir is currently a preferred regimen for the pr

226 Dolutegravir is superior to efavirenz for HIV antiretrov

227 a policy in which tenofovir, lamivudine, and dolutegravir is used in all people on ART, including swi

228 mtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide, abacavir/dolutegravir/lamivudine, raltegravir, rilpivirine, ataza

229 vir-boosted lopinavir vs 11 [4%] of 314 with dolutegravir), mainly driven by gastrointestinal disorde

230 Dolutegravir, MK-2048, and MK-0536 are equally effective

231 bacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir or switch to dolutegravir (MONCAY trial), or to continue tenofovir/em

232 mized, 68 were assigned to simplification to dolutegravir monotherapy and 33 to continuation of cART.

233 This showed noninferiority of the dolutegravir monotherapy at the prespecified level.

234 67/67 (100%) had virological response in the dolutegravir monotherapy group vs 32/32 (100%) in the cA

235 suppression after simplification of cART to dolutegravir monotherapy.

236 Impact of Integrase-inhibitor DOlutegravir On the viral Reservoir (INDOOR) is a phase

237 ime of conception, as well as the effects of dolutegravir on weight gain.

238 tudy at 48 weeks showed that patients taking dolutegravir once daily had a significantly higher virol

239 pdate, which was restricted to the choice of dolutegravir or efavirenz in new ART initiators.

240 ipose stem cells after long-term exposure to dolutegravir or raltegravir.

241 ndomized 1:1 to continue abacavir/lamivudine/dolutegravir or switch to dolutegravir (MONCAY trial), o

242 ter were randomly assigned to receive either dolutegravir or the reference treatment of low-dose efav

243 These results informed the WHO 2019 dolutegravir paediatric dosing guidelines and have led t

244 might reduce effectiveness and durability of dolutegravir, particularly if there is scarce access to

245 n on the genetic correlates of resistance to dolutegravir, particularly in patients infected with HIV

246 Dolutegravir pharmacokinetic sampling (0-24 hours) was u

247 Groups 1A (n=12) and 1B (n=18) had intensive dolutegravir pharmacokinetic sampling at week 8 (before

248 reated with the same schedule and had sparse dolutegravir pharmacokinetic sampling at weeks 8, 11, an

249 g 25 kg to less than 40 kg, we also assessed dolutegravir pharmacokinetics within-subject on film-coa

250 Steady-state 24 h dolutegravir plasma concentration-time pharmacokinetic p

251 d darunavir (19.8%); the most common 3DR was dolutegravir plus 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inh

252 months were randomly assigned (1:1) to 50 mg dolutegravir plus 25 mg rilpivirine orally once daily (e

253 to receive either a single-tablet regimen of dolutegravir plus abacavir and lamivudine once a day (do

254 ine, and tenofovir alafenamide compared with dolutegravir plus co-formulated emtricitabine and tenofo

255 combination [bictegravir group] and 330 with dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamid

256 afenamide group versus 22 (67%) of 33 in the dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamid

257 emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamide and dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamid

258 ne and tenofovir alafenamide and 33 received dolutegravir plus emtricitabine and tenofovir alafenamid

259 The most common 2DRs were dolutegravir plus lamivudine (22.8%) and raltegravir plu

260 efficacy and similar tolerability profile of dolutegravir plus lamivudine to a guideline-recommended

261 513 participants were randomly assigned to dolutegravir plus rilpivirine (ie, the early-switch grou

262 rd ART regimen, 477 of whom then switched to dolutegravir plus rilpivirine at week 52 (ie, the late-s

263 regimen for 52 weeks before switching to the dolutegravir plus rilpivirine combination (ie, the late-

264 The combination of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine sustained virological supp

265 owed that switching to a two-drug regimen of dolutegravir plus rilpivirine was non-inferior to contin

266 We investigated dolutegravir population pharmacokinetics in maternal pla

267 were adverse events (grade 3 or higher) and dolutegravir population pharmacokinetics, assessed in pa

268 viruses had various levels of resistance to dolutegravir, raltegravir, and elvitegravir.

269 men was achieved and was non-inferior to the dolutegravir regimen in previously untreated adults.

270 egimen and 325 participants who received the dolutegravir regimen were included in the primary effica

271 of the bictegravir regimen compared with the dolutegravir regimen.

272 nferiority of the bictegravir regimen to the dolutegravir regimen.

273 as safe and well tolerated compared with the dolutegravir regimen.

274 Recent concerns over dolutegravir-related neuropsychiatric toxicity have emer

275 lenges because of uncertainty around whether dolutegravir resistance has actually developed and switc

276 may represent the initial substitution in a dolutegravir resistance pathway.

277 High-level dolutegravir resistance was predicted in 12% of patients

278 ub-nM activity against a clinically relevant dolutegravir resistant mutant virus suggesting potential

279 ighing 20 kg to less than 25 kg, we assessed dolutegravir's pharmacokinetics in children given once d

280 Although NTD risks may be higher with dolutegravir than efavirenz, dolutegravir will lead to m

281 ng policy makers on approaches to the use of dolutegravir that are likely to lead to the highest popu

282 otential clinical benefits for complementing dolutegravir therapy with pyridine-based ALLINIs.

283 the interpretation of resistance patterns in dolutegravir-treated patients.

284 -tube defects was higher in association with dolutegravir treatment at conception than with non-dolut

285 ong 3840 (0.03%) in which the mother started dolutegravir treatment during pregnancy, and 70 among 89

286 Target dolutegravir trough concentrations (C(trough)) were base

287 First, current safety concerns for dolutegravir use in women of childbearing potential requ

288 s and investigators to treatment assignment: dolutegravir was administered as single-entity tablets (

289 is greater than zero (7.3%), superiority of dolutegravir was also concluded (p<0.0001).

290 Maternal dolutegravir was described by a two-compartment model li

291 Infant dolutegravir was described by breastmilk-to-infant and i

292 The safety profile for dolutegravir was favourable compared with that of ritona

293 least 48 weeks, monotherapy with once-daily dolutegravir was noninferior to cART.

294 rity and on pre-specified secondary analysis dolutegravir was superior (p=0.025).

295 Once-daily dolutegravir was superior to once-daily darunavir plus r

296 was greater than 0%, then we concluded that dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted darunavir

297 When administered with two NRTIs, dolutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir

298 be higher with dolutegravir than efavirenz, dolutegravir will lead to many fewer deaths among women,

299 e oral once-daily 75 mg bictegravir or 50 mg dolutegravir with matching placebo plus the fixed-dose c

300 virological failure to raltegravir received dolutegravir with optimized background antiretroviral co