ライフサイエンスコーパス: lopinavir

1 is conserved across two drugs (ritonavir and lopinavir).

2 evirapine and 120 received ritonavir-boosted lopinavir).

3 , except for small effects of amprenavir and lopinavir.

4 avir, saquinavir, ritonavir, amprenavir, and lopinavir.

5 ansaminase elevations resolved on restarting lopinavir.

6 to maintain HIV suppression for patients on lopinavir.

7 ptomatic and resolved when switching back to lopinavir.

8 0% had intermediate/high-level resistance to lopinavir.

9 able compared with that of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir.

10 1-6.95 nM for atazanvir and 0.64-8.54 nM for lopinavir.

11 roxil fumarate (0.68, 95% CI 0.49-0.95), and lopinavir (0.64, 95% CI 0.43-0.96).

12 1.13-1.26], p<0.0001), and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (1.11 [1.06-1.16], p<0.0001), but not other ri

13 gned (1:1) to receive oral ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (100 mg ritonavir, 400 mg lopinavir) plus 400

14 itro, but they did inhibit ZMPSTE24 (IC(50): lopinavir, 18.4 +/- 4.6 microM; tipranavir, 1.2 +/- 0.4

15 Dual therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg plus lamivudine 15

16 Triple therapy consisted of lopinavir 400 mg and ritonavir 100 mg twice daily and la

17 eive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg, twice per day) p

18 mg) once daily or ritonavir (100 mg)-boosted lopinavir (400 mg) twice daily, with prompt return to co

19 tipranavir, whereas 47% showed resistance to lopinavir, 58% showed resistance to atazanavir, and >60%

20 g) once daily or remain on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (800 mg [plus 200 mg ritonavir]), with nucleos

21 avir (50 mg once daily) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (800 mg lopinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir once d

22 fficacy to continuation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (a protease inhibitor commonly used in low-inc

23 pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity of lopinavir, a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease

24 es high ethanol concentrations to solubilize lopinavir, a poorly soluble antiretroviral.

25 assessed included atazanavir, darunavir, and lopinavir (administered with ritonavir).

26 an 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC(50)) of lopinavir against isolates with 0 to 3, 4 or 5, 6 or 7,

27 the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) of lopinavir against seven mutant clones decreased by up to

28 utcomes were superior with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir among young children with no prior exposure to

29 avir-boosted atazanavir or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibit

30 1% had intermediate/high-level resistance to lopinavir and atazanavir; 17% had intermediate-level res

31 The MDR 769 protease crystal complexes with lopinavir and DMP450 reveal completely different binding

32 P = 0.23), in 148 of 1399 patients receiving lopinavir and in 146 of 1372 receiving its control (rate

33 hat NtRTI-sparing ART with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and raltegravir (raltegravir-group) provided n

34 dovudine plus enteric-coated didanosine plus lopinavir and ritonavir for 7 days, (B) zidovudine plus

35 We investigated whether dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine is non-inferior

36 Dual therapy with lopinavir and ritonavir plus lamivudine regimen warrants

37 Treatment with lopinavir and ritonavir, but not amprenavir, induced ER

38 rodrugs of the HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) lopinavir and ritonavir.

39 d decreased mucosal injury after exposure to lopinavir and ritonavir.

40 Our data indicated that the HIV PIs lopinavir and saquinavir affect preerythrocytic-stage pa

41 Lopinavir and saquinavir have gametocytocidal and transm

42 The HIV PIs lopinavir and saquinavir, the nonnucleoside reverse-tran

43 in the presence of the antiretroviral drugs lopinavir and tenofovir alafenamide.

44 d non-inferior efficacy to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and two or three NtRTIs (NtRTI-group) in parti

45 interferon (including 651 to interferon plus lopinavir), and 4088 to no trial drug.

46 gating at high-concentrations of atazanavir, lopinavir, and amprenavir (APV).

47 dinavir, nelfinavir, amprenavir, saquinavir, lopinavir, and atazanavir revealed that the natural poly

48 PIs (ritonavir, lopinavir, and atazanavir) but not nucleoside reverse tr

49 level resistance to multiple PIs, but not to lopinavir, and grew to 30% of that of the wild type.

50 iral drugs - remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon beta-1a - in patients hospital

51 These remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir, and interferon regimens had little or no effe

52 l cross-resistance to darunavir, atazanavir, lopinavir, and saquinavir, but not other PIs, and contai

53 efavirenz and rilpivirine, ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, and the integrase inhibitors raltegravir and

54 cing by specific small hairpin RNA prevented lopinavir- and ritonavir-induced barrier dysfunction in

55 lutegravir was superior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir at 48 weeks and can be considered a suitable o

56 rapy (n = 150) or continue ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy (n = 148).

57 y compared with continuing ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy did not result in significantly

58 ial viral suppression with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy, switching to efavirenz-based th

59 s than 50 copies/mL during ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based therapy; 298 were randomized and 292 (98

60 s nevirapine or tenofovir-emtricitabine plus lopinavir boosted by a low dose of ritonavir.

61 Perinatal treatment with lopinavir boosted by ritonavir (LPV/r) is associated wit

62 ion capacity was observed for atazanavir and lopinavir but not darunavir.

63 Lopinavir, but not ritonavir, inhibited CYP17A1 and CYP2

64 ART regimens were based on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, combined with zidovudine or tenofovir plus la

65 darunavir 400 mg and 152 continued on their lopinavir-containing regimen.

66 ing clinically useful susceptibility only to lopinavir, darunavir, and saquinavir.

67 s per mL vs 143 [94%] of 152 participants on lopinavir; difference 1.9% [95% CI -3.4 to 7.3]), with a

68 n amino acid residues in Gag correlated with lopinavir EC50 (p < 0.01), of which 380 K and 389I showe

69 ad drug-related adverse events than those on lopinavir (eight [5%]), but the adverse events were gene

70 The evolution of incremental resistance to lopinavir (emergence of new mutation[s] and/or at least

71 f 48 weeks, median predose concentrations of lopinavir exceeded the protein-binding corrected concent

72 s (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.10-2.49), >/= 1 year lopinavir exposure (OR = 1.36; 95% CI, 1.06-1.73), and c

73 erculosis, preservation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir for second-line treatment, and harmonization o

74 At week 48, darunavir was non-inferior to lopinavir for the primary outcome (142 [96%] of 148 part

75 (14%) and 36 of 251 in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (14%) had virologic failure or died.

76 mary end point than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (26% vs. 8%) (adjusted P=0.001).

77 virapine group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (40.8% vs. 19.3%; P<0.001).

78 th 219 (70%) of 312 in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (adjusted difference 13.8%; 95% CI 7.3-2

79 ravir group (n=312) or the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (n=315).

80 Three patients in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group did not receive study medication and so

81 in the darunavir group and three (2%) in the lopinavir group discontinued before week 48.

82 virapine group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group reached a primary end point (39.6% vs. 2

83 irapine group and 9 in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group), and 5 died without prior virologic fai

84 irapine group and 1 in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group).

85 and 0.284 (n = 42) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group.

86 p and 0.020 (n = 3) in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group.

87 favirenz group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group.

88 ir on either side of the Phe-Phe isostere of lopinavir in combination with hydrophobic amino acids on

89 rs or older, who tolerated ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in combination with two nucleoside analogues (

90 , and either nevirapine or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in HIV-infected children 2 to 36 months of age

91 plus either nevirapine or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in HIV-infected children 6 to 36 months of age

92 with the regimen based on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in Johannesburg, South Africa.

93 d to the recommendation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in such settings.

94 mance of nevirapine versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in young children has not been rigorously esta

95 navir, indinavir, ritonavir, saquinavir, and lopinavir, including amino acid substitutions D30N, I50V

96 On average, the IC(50) of lopinavir increased by 1.74-fold per mutation in isolate

97 1-2.63), and for recent abacavir, cumulative lopinavir, indinavir, and darunavir exposure was OR=1.82

98 Ritonavir, like lopinavir, inhibits ZMPSTE24 and leads to an accumulatio

99 ly demonstrated that a commonly used HIV-PI, lopinavir, inhibits ZMPSTE24, thereby blocking lamin A b

100 show, with metabolic labeling studies, that lopinavir leads to the accumulation of the farnesylated

101 alcohol and the HIV PIs ritonavir (RIT) and lopinavir (LOP).

102 follows: atazanavir (ATV) 300 mg once daily, lopinavir (LPV) 400 mg twice daily, or darunavir (DRV) 6

103 In contrast, lopinavir (LPV) and amprenavir did not increase osteocla

104 Rs were sensitive to the HIV-1 PR inhibitors lopinavir (LPV) and darunavir (DRV), as well as to the b

105 e sensitivity to the protease inhibitor (PI) lopinavir (LPV) and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inh

106 The crystal structures of lopinavir (LPV) and two new inhibitors containing phenyl

107 udy, antiretroviral drug granules, including lopinavir (LPV) ISNP granules and a fixed-dose combinati

108 = 524); EFV plus tenofovir (TDF) (n = 615); lopinavir (LPV) plus AZT (n = 573); LPV plus TDF (n = 30

109 id-based formulation, to efficiently deliver lopinavir (LPV) to the mesenteric lymph and MLNs.

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

111 The safety and antiviral activity of lopinavir (Lpv), a protease inhibitor (PI) coformulated

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

113 itors darunavir (DRV), saquinavir (SQV), and lopinavir (LPV), relative to that of PR.

114 (EFV) versus remaining on ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) for virologic control in children infe

115 in utero to ZDV/lamivudine/ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r) had a higher left ventricular shorteni

116 estimates for efavirenz (EFV)- and ritonavir/lopinavir (LPV/r)-based regimens.

117 ples from 386 patients randomized to receive lopinavir monotherapy (after initial raltegravir inducti

118 rom the 11 identified in these analyses (the lopinavir mutation score) may be useful for the interpre

119 HERG) potassium channels, and we showed that lopinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir caused

120 We also recorded block by lopinavir of repolarising potassium current (I(Kr)) chan

121 s were followed from the time they started a lopinavir or an atazanavir regimen.

122 ive confounders, currently receiving boosted lopinavir or darunavir as monotherapy (n = 67) or triple

123 onavir-boosted atazanavir, ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, other ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors,

124 t efavirenz is inferior to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (P < .001) for both end points.

125 aily) or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (800 mg lopinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir once daily or 400 mg plu

126 t WHO's recommendation for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus NRTI for second-line antiretroviral thera

127 raltegravir would be non-inferior to boosted lopinavir plus NRTIs for virological suppression in reso

128 Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir is an appropriate alternative

129 We aimed to assess whether boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir would be non-inferior to boos

130 oses below the approved dose (eg, efavirenz, lopinavir plus ritonavir, atazanavir, and darunavir).

131 e without prior exposure), ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus tenofovir-emtricitabine was superior to n

132 (raltegravir group) or to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NRTIs selected from an algor

133 -boosted lopinavir (100 mg ritonavir, 400 mg lopinavir) plus 400 mg raltegravir twice a day (raltegra

134 dolutegravir compared with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inh

135 Ritonavir and lopinavir precipitated acute, decompensated heart failur

136 susceptibility to the new protease inhibitor lopinavir (previously ABT-378) was explored using a pane

137 displayed >60-fold-reduced susceptibility to lopinavir, providing insight into suitable upper genotyp

138 y (Global AntiRetroviral Design Encompassing Lopinavir/r and Lamivudine vs LPV/r based standard thera

139 A total of 6668 individuals started a lopinavir regimen (213 deaths, 457 AIDS-defining illness

140 intention-to-treat' effect for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens on each of the outcomes.

141 ion-to-treat hazard ratios for atazanavir vs lopinavir regimens were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [C

142 re at 12 months for atazanavir compared with lopinavir regimens.

143 ined eight or more mutations associated with lopinavir resistance and/or displayed >60-fold-reduced s

144 No lopinavir resistance was observed.

145 ost patients develop intermediate/high-level lopinavir resistance within 1 year of ongoing viral repl

146 cipants to one of four cohorts: cohort A (no lopinavir resistance) stayed on second-line ART and coho

147 mong the subjects demonstrating evolution of lopinavir resistance, mutations at positions 82, 54, and

148 vudine and lamivudine plus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir resulted in better outcomes than did treatment

149 MERS-CoV infection although a combination of lopinavir, ritonavir and interferon beta (LPV/RTV-IFNb)

150 The most commonly used HIV PIs (lopinavir, ritonavir, and amprenavir) were used; their e

151 on-inferiority of fosamprenavir-ritonavir to lopinavir-ritonavir (95% CI around the treatment differe

152 receive recombinant interferon beta-1b plus lopinavir-ritonavir (intervention) or placebo for 14 day

153 genotypic resistance testing with respect to lopinavir-ritonavir (Kaletra) regimens and may provide i

154 with zidovudine (ZDV), lamivudine (3TC), and lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r), were followed up longitudin

155 ; ARR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.04-1.27); TDF-FTC and lopinavir-ritonavir (TDF-FTC-LPV-R) (112 of 231 [48.5%];

156 based ART); or tenofovir, emtricitabine, and lopinavir-ritonavir (tenofovir-based ART).

157 (400 mg twice daily; n=353) or to remain on lopinavir-ritonavir (two 200 mg/50 mg tablets twice dail

158 dovudine alone); zidovudine, lamivudine, and lopinavir-ritonavir (zidovudine-based ART); or tenofovir

159 navir-ritonavir 700 mg/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily, each with

160 ent groups (fosamprenavir-ritonavir 53, 12%; lopinavir-ritonavir 43, 10%).

161 Four of the 5 patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir developed nausea, vomiting, and/or d

162 ohort of subjects, short-term treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir does not appear to directly promote

163 us-infected human subjects were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir for 1 month and, on the basis of for

164 itor-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) with lopinavir-ritonavir for human immunodeficiency virus (HI

165 rhoea, which occurred in ten patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (3%) and no patients in the ra

166 as longer in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (P=0.006) but was not signific

167 19 (90.6%, 87.1-93.5) of 352 patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group (treatment difference -6.2%, -

168 -ritonavir group and 317 of 444 (71%) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than

169 0.0001) in the raltegravir group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group in each study, yielding combin

170 er of serious adverse events occurred in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the NNRTI group (5.6%

171 for malaria was significantly higher in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the NNRTI group.

172 group), lopinavir-ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir-ritonavir group), and lopinavir-ritonavir plus

173 mparison between the efavirenz group and the lopinavir-ritonavir group).

174 r was 89% in the efavirenz group, 77% in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 83% in the NRTI-sparing g

175 ccurred significantly more frequently in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and elevated alanine aminotra

176 In the lopinavir-ritonavir group, lumefantrine levels exceeding

177 y in the raltegravir group compared with the lopinavir-ritonavir group.

178 ss likely in the efavirenz group than in the lopinavir-ritonavir group.

179 A trial of lopinavir-ritonavir in adults hospitalized with severe C

180 ht into the genetic barrier to resistance to lopinavir-ritonavir in both antiretroviral therapy-naive

181 for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with stable

182 to initial response while on treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir in Phase II and III studies.

183 Lopinavir-ritonavir is a preferred protease inhibitor co

184 nation of recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir led to lower mortality than placebo

185 s two NRTIs (lopinavir-ritonavir group), and lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz (NRTI-sparing group).

186 The alternative regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir plus efavirenz may prevent toxic eff

187 signed to triple antiretroviral prophylaxis (lopinavir-ritonavir plus either lamivudine and zidovudin

188 efavirenz plus two NRTIs (efavirenz group), lopinavir-ritonavir plus two NRTIs (lopinavir-ritonavir

189 The use of either efavirenz or lopinavir-ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse-transcri

190 rse-transcriptase inhibitor [NRTI] group) or lopinavir-ritonavir plus zidovudine-lamivudine (the prot

191 ment with recombinant interferon beta-1b and lopinavir-ritonavir reduces mortality among patients hos

192 Treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir showed no significant benefit in mor

193 ence of resistance observed after initiating lopinavir-ritonavir therapy in antiretroviral-naive pati

194 esponse system in a 1:1 ratio to switch from lopinavir-ritonavir to raltegravir (400 mg twice daily;

195 vir has shown similar efficacy and safety to lopinavir-ritonavir when each is combined with two nucle

196 We compared substitution of raltegravir for lopinavir-ritonavir with continuation of lopinavir-riton

197 eive a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (lopinavir-ritonavir) plus clinician-selected NRTIs (NRTI

198 Surprisingly, after exposure to lopinavir-ritonavir, absolute forearm blood-flow respons

199 tolerability, and emergence of resistance as lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-l

200 ipid concentrations than was continuation of lopinavir-ritonavir, efficacy results did not establish

201 luded at least one of six drugs (remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, interferon beta, corticosteroids, c

202 Patients were permitted concomitant use of lopinavir-ritonavir, interferons, and corticosteroids.

203 for the combined trials (raltegravir, n=350; lopinavir-ritonavir, n=352).

204 ated with antiretroviral regimens containing lopinavir-ritonavir, patients might want to switch one o

205 dren would be lower among children receiving lopinavir-ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) t

206 Lopinavir-ritonavir-based ART as compared with NNRTI-bas

207 I-based ART were randomly assigned to either lopinavir-ritonavir-based ART or NNRTI-based ART and wer

208 Lopinavir-ritonavir-based ART was accompanied by an incr

209 regimen: 86 received NNRTI-based ART, and 84 lopinavir-ritonavir-based ART.

210 fants from the IMPAACT P1030 trial receiving lopinavir-ritonavir-based cART.

211 ed patients with stable viral suppression on lopinavir-ritonavir-based combination therapy.

212 laria was lower among children receiving the lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen than among those recei

213 ntification for at least 3 months while on a lopinavir-ritonavir-based regimen.

214 establish non-inferiority of raltegravir to lopinavir-ritonavir.

215 susceptibility to fosamprenavir-ritonavir or lopinavir-ritonavir.

216 per genotypic and phenotypic breakpoints for lopinavir-ritonavir.

217 promise the genetic barrier to resistance to lopinavir-ritonavir.

218 ive care and use of empirical treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir.

219 uiring supplemental oxygen were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir.

220 runavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg once daily) or lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg twice daily) monotherapy

221 ART included lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg) twice daily and emtrici

222 azanavir (300 mg) plus ritonavir (100 mg) or lopinavir/ritonavir (800/200 mg) with the 3D regimen is

223 prior clinical trial comparing nevirapine to lopinavir/ritonavir (International Maternal Pediatric Ad

224 d recovery in comparison with treatment with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) alone.

225 trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) capsules administered twice

226 antimalarial components by 2.1- to 3.4-fold; lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) increased lumefantrine expos

227 l Group (ACTG) A5230 study entry, a study of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy after first-line

228 al Trials Group (ACTG) A5230 study evaluated lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy following virolo

229 This multicenter trial evaluated whether lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) monotherapy in HIV type 1-in

230 children <6 years of age were randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or nonnucleoside reverse tra

231 study demonstrated short-term superiority of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) over nevirapine (NVP) in ant

232 Three randomized trials compared lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) to nevirapine (NVP) for anti

233 to compare the efficacy of NVP-based versus lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based initial ART.

234 reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)- or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)-based regimen were enrolled.

235 er, open-label, phase 1/2 treatment trial of lopinavir/ritonavir (Pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Grou

236 ction of HIV protease inhibitors (ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir 4:1, atazanavir, atazanavir/ritonavi

237 10]; P<.001) and nelfinavir use (OR, 2.4 vs. lopinavir/ritonavir [95% CI, 1.6-3.6]; P<.001).

238 TDF-based regimens (TDF+emtricitabine [FTC]+lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r], 71.1%; 95% CI, 43.6%-98.6%;

239 at 5 y when starting unboosted atazanavir or lopinavir/ritonavir among those with a low risk score wa

240 , especially after the use of acetaminophen, lopinavir/ritonavir and remdesivir, which are potentiall

241 atients randomized 1:1 to receive open-label lopinavir/ritonavir at a dose of 800/200 mg once daily o

242 ther triple ARV (zidovudine, lamivudine, and lopinavir/ritonavir during pregnancy and breastfeeding)

243 dine/zidovudine, emtricitabine/tenofovir, or lopinavir/ritonavir for 7 or 21 days.

244 ine (3TC), tenofovir/emtricitabine (FTC), or lopinavir/ritonavir for either 7 or 21 days.

245 We found that lopinavir/ritonavir had a dose-dependent effect on liver

246 ata suggest that the HIV protease inhibitors lopinavir/ritonavir may have potent antimalarial activit

247 tiretroviral therapy-naive patients received lopinavir/ritonavir or nelfinavir, plus stavudine and la

248 wever, evening atazanavir plus ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir regimens are not recommended in comb

249 as similar between groups, infants receiving lopinavir/ritonavir suppressed EBV more rapidly.

250 n compared with those who were switched from lopinavir/ritonavir to atazanavir/ritonavir.

251 ouble-blind, randomized, controlled study of lopinavir/ritonavir versus nelfinavir, each administered

252 mass index and random assignment to receive lopinavir/ritonavir were associated with more rapid nevi

253 renavir, indinavir, indinavir/ritonavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir were associated with suboptimal adhe

254 ind, randomized, phase 3 study that compared lopinavir/ritonavir with nelfinavir, each coadministered

255 77); saquinavir/ritonavir, 1.12 (0.48-2.61); lopinavir/ritonavir, 1.23 (0.58-2.59); nevirapine, 1.53

256 ravenous immunoglobulin, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and broad-spectrum antibiotics, she

257 5 years of exposure to atazanavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate,

258 loroquine, azithromycin, high-dose steroids, lopinavir/ritonavir, and tocilizumab.

259 4+ T-cell counts, and those who had received lopinavir/ritonavir, but was lower among prior nevirapin

260 nce of genotypic or phenotypic resistance to lopinavir/ritonavir, defined as any active site or prima

261 the administration of a novel combination of lopinavir/ritonavir, efavirenz, tenofovir disoproxil fum

262 Medications used in COVID-19 treatment (lopinavir/ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and

263 riptase inhibitor-sparing regimen of NRTIs + lopinavir/ritonavir, or a NRTI-sparing regimen of efavir

264 3 different antiretroviral drugs (efavirenz, lopinavir/ritonavir, or atazanavir/ritonavir).

265 , atazanavir/ritonavir, darunavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, or efavirenz/emtricitabine/tenofovi

266 tenofovir, atazanavir, atazanavir/ritonavir, lopinavir/ritonavir, other boosted protease inhibitors b

267 All patients were on therapy (lopinavir/ritonavir, stavudine, and lamivudine) with pla

268 by thick smear or PCR findings, between the lopinavir/ritonavir-based and efavirenz-based ART arms (

269 nfected infants starting nevirapine-based vs lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral regimens.

270 We sought to evaluate whether lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) r

271 Lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART did not reduce the risk of

272 s 12 and 28 and randomly assigned to receive lopinavir/ritonavir-based or efavirenz-based ART.

273 deficiency virus-infected patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens with hypercholesterol

274 women in the NVP arm vs. 3 (9%) of 32 in the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing arm (hazard ratio = 3.84)

275 the NVP-containing treatment arm than in the lopinavir/ritonavir-containing treatment arm.

276 her for nelfinavir-treated patients than for lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients (Cox model hazard r

277 For nelfinavir-treated patients, but not for lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients, higher baseline HI

278 igher in nelfinavir-treated patients than in lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients.

279 ease, was detected in virus isolates from 51 lopinavir/ritonavir-treated subjects with available geno

280 ficantly higher in nelfinavir-treated versus lopinavir/ritonavir-treated subjects.

281 were zidovudine/lamivudine and nelfinavir or lopinavir/ritonavir.

282 ir, or a NRTI-sparing regimen of efavirenz + lopinavir/ritonavir.

283 elfinavir and of 15% at 80%-85% adherence to lopinavir/ritonavir.

284 ed, 56% received darunavir/ritonavir and 44% lopinavir/ritonavir.

285 domized between 26 and 34 weeks gestation to lopinavir/ritonavir/zidovudine/lamivudine (PI group) or

286 tudies indicated that HIV PIs (ritonavir and lopinavir) significantly increased hepatic lipid accumul

287 verse events occurred with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir than dolutegravir (44 [14%] of 310 with ritona

288 vir-boosted atazanavir, or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir therapy.

289 nical consequences require evaluation.Giving lopinavir to infants during their first year of life ind

290 protease-inhibitor-based (ritonavir-boosted lopinavir) treatment in children who had achieved suppre

291 predictors of CKD whereas ritonavir-boosted lopinavir use was a significant predictor for both end p

292 ir-boosted atazanavir, and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir use were independent predictors of chronic ren

293 avir (44 [14%] of 310 with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir vs 11 [4%] of 314 with dolutegravir), mainly d

294 Lopinavir was associated with dose-dependent adrenal dys

295 The selection of in vivo resistance to lopinavir was characterized by analyzing the longitudina

296 tion in susceptibility to PIs atazanavir and lopinavir was observed across 20 viruses, with EC50s ran

297 Predose concentrations of lopinavir were more variable in the once-daily group (me

298 inhibitor (standardised to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir) with two to three NRTIs (clinician-selected,

299 mdesivir, 954 to hydroxychloroquine, 1411 to lopinavir (without interferon), 2063 to interferon (incl

300 ith eight HAART drugs [ritonavir, indinavir, lopinavir, zidovudine (AZT), abacavir, stavudine, didano