ライフサイエンスコーパス: LPV

1 LPV and NFV diminished calcium deposition and osteoprote

2 LPV concentrations were similar across arms.

3 LPV selection resulted in the sequential emergence of V9

4 LPV/r in vitro effect on steroidogenesis was assessed in

5 LPV/r monotherapy achieved satisfactory virologic effica

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

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

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

9 ]; 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).

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

11 hat CLHIV with detectable viremia on ABC/3TC/LPV/r are more likely to have maintained at least 2 effe

12 hat CLHIV with detectable viremia on ABC/3TC/LPV/r are more likely to have maintained at least two ef

13 and NRTI DRMs among CLHIV receiving ABC/3TC/LPV/r suggests a lasting impact of failed mother-to-chil

14 and NRTI DRMs among CLHIV receiving ABC/3TC/LPV/r suggests a lasting impact of failed PMTCT interven

15 All but 2 children on ABC/3TC/LPV/r were <3 years and all CLHIV on ABC/3TC/EFV were >=

16 All but 2 children on ABC/3TC/LPV/r were <3 years, and all CLHIV on ABC/3TC/EFV were 3

17 genotyped CLHIV, 49 (68.1%) received ABC/3TC/LPV/r, and 23 (31.9%) received ABC/3TC/EFV.

18 t regimen compared to 8.2% (4/49) on ABC/3TC/LPV/r.

19 -97.7%) and lowest for ZDV+ lamivudine [3TC]+LPV/r (59.1%; 95% CI, 36.2%-82.0%).

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

21 At week 6, LPV/r-treated infants had a higher median dehydroepiandr

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

23 , 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

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

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

26 TB from July 2013 to February 2016 to arm A, LPV/r 400 mg/100 mg twice daily + RBT 150 mg/day; arm B,

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

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

29 significant correlation between the DHEA and LPV/r AUC levels (rho = 0.40, P = .019) and Ctrough (rho

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

31 .92-1.09) for patients receiving NNRTI- and LPV/r-based treatment, respectively.

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

33 Double-dose LPV/r+RIF and LPV/r+RBT 150mg/day had acceptable safety, PK and TB out

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

35 Burkina Faso and South Africa were assessed (LPV/r group: n = 92; 3TC group: n = 67) and at week 26,

36 /100 mg twice daily + RBT 150 mg/day; arm B, LPV/r 800 mg/200 mg twice daily + RIF 600 mg/day; or arm

37 of lopinavir, ritonavir and interferon beta (LPV/RTV-IFNb) is currently being evaluated in humans in

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

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

40 0 mg twice daily + RIF 600 mg/day; or arm C, LPV/r 400 mg/100 mg twice daily + raltegravir (RAL) 400

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

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

43 %) subjects (92 of whom received twice-daily LPV/r therapy, and 131 of whom received once-daily thera

44 Double-dose LPV/r+RIF and LPV/r+RBT 150mg/day had acceptable safety,

45 nd at week 26, 95 samples from Burkina Faso (LPV/r group: n = 47; 3TC group: n = 48).

46 5-.78) for ATV/r; 0.66 (90% CI, .60-.72) for LPV/r, and 0.56 (90% CI, .51-.61) for DRV/r.

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

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

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

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

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

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

53 one (0.05 vs 1.34 ng/mL, P = .009) levels in LPV/r-exposed children.

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

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

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

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

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

59 was switched to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) at week 2, 3, 4, or 5 according to delivery gesta

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

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

62 sly recommended ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) regimen for second-line treatment in South Africa

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

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

65 rmulation, to efficiently deliver lopinavir (LPV) to the mesenteric lymph and MLNs.

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

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

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

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

70 ty to the protease inhibitor (PI) lopinavir (LPV) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor teno

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

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

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

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

75 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

76 otein binding-adjusted IC(90) (PA-IC(90)) of LPV for HIV-1 (140 ng/mL) following oral administration

77 Furthermore, the bioavailability of LPV was also substantially increased following oral admi

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

79 Moreover, the concentrations of LPV in MLNs were 1.1- and 7.2-fold higher than PA-IC(90)

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

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

82 f WHO's recommendation to use DTG instead of LPV/r in people living with HIV who experience virologic

83 The maximum levels of LPV in mesenteric lymph were 1.6- and 16.9-fold higher t

84 ystem and resulted in undetectable levels of LPV in these tissues.

85 viral fitness in the absence or presence of LPV and TAF.

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

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

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

89 rmulation resulted in efficient targeting of LPV to HIV reservoirs in mesenteric lymph and MLNs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

101 Pooled LPV AUC12 (157 203 hours x ng/mL) and Ctrough (9876 ng/m

102 nsient HIV RNA increases, likely due to poor LPV/r palatability.

103 In contrast, prophylactic LPV/RTV-IFNb slightly reduces viral loads without impact

104 ar breast cancer, although 12 (7%) of 176 PV/LPV carrier families had lobular breast cancer only.

105 families with lobular breast cancer among PV/LPV carrier families, and testing the performance of lob

106 pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants (PV/LPV; analysed jointly) or missense variants of unknown s

107 136 (77%) of 176 families carrying PV/LPVs fulfilled the 2015 HDGC criteria.

108 phenotypes occurring in families carrying PV/LPVs or missense variants of unknown significance showed

109 The probability of finding CDH1 PV/LPVs in patients fulfilling the lobular breast cancer-ex

110 CDH1 PV/LPVs occurred often in families with lobular breast canc

111 CDH1 PV/LPVs were positively associated with HDGC-related phenot

112 positive association with the presence of PV/LPVs (odds ratio 12.39 [95% CI 2.66-57.74], p=0.0014), f

113 CDH1 truncating PV/LPVs occurred in 176 (21%) of 854 families and missense

114 D4+ T-cell count, and those who had received LPV/r, but was lower among prior nevirapine recipients.

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

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

117 eatment with lopinavir boosted by ritonavir (LPV/r) is associated with steroidogenic abnormalities.

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

119 son with treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) alone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

128 and HIV-TB outcomes for lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) used with rifampin (RIF) or rifabutin (RBT) are l

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

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

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

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

133 Subsequently, LPV and selected prodrug candidates were evaluated for t

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

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

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

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

138 week 26, DHEA levels remained higher in the LPV/r arm: 0.45 versus 0.13 ng/mL (P = .002).

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

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

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

142 1 year (5.4 mm vs 4.4 mm; P = .01) than the LPV/r group.

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

144 Therapeutic LPV/RTV-IFNb improves pulmonary function but does not re

145 and IFNb have superior antiviral activity to LPV and RTV in vitro.

146 ric lymphatic targeting and bioconversion to LPV in physiologically relevant media was assessed in vi

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

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

149 Within 4 weeks of transition to LPV/r, 9 (22.5%) had transient HIV RNA increases, likely

150 l increases occurred following transition to LPV/r, but by 12 and 24 weeks most children achieved and

151 ld not facilitate the delivery of unmodified LPV to the mesenteric lymphatic system and resulted in u

152 tivated ester prodrug compared to unmodified LPV.

153 ment of Leishmania parasitophorous vacuoles (LPVs).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

161 signed at 7 days of life to prophylaxis with LPV/r or lamivudine (3TC) to prevent transmission during

162 aRD=14.16%, 7.14 to 21.18) than with AZT/XTC/LPV/r (47%).

163 Compared with AZT/XTC/LPV/r (75%), retention in care was higher with AZT/XTC/D

164 mivudine [XTC]/DTG; TDF/XTC/DTG; and AZT/XTC/LPV/r).

165 689 (57%) were switched to AZT/XTC/LPV/r, 217 (18%) to AZT/XTC/DTG, and 308 (25%) to TDF/XT