Pharmacokinetic interactions between two human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors, ritonavir and saquinavir

New anti-HIV protease inhibitors provide more treatment options

For several years, protease inhibitor (PI)-containing antiretroviral treatment (ART) regimens have demonstrated long-term virologic and immunologic benefits and good durability of response. However, first-generation PIs have been associated with high pill burdens, gastrointestinal side effects, perturbation of lipid levels and glucose metabolism, and, in some cases, food and hydration requirements. Coadministration of low-dose ritonavir with PIs has enhanced their pharmacokinetic profile (lower doses, fewer pills, less frequent dosing schedules) and pharmacodynamics (increased potency, especially against resistant viruses) but has also been associated with increases in lipid levels. Two new PIs, atazanavir and 908 (fosamprenavir), may offer salvageable PI treatment options and may also address issues of potency, tolerability, and convenience by requiring fewer pills and causing fewer lipid and glucose perturbations than current PI options. The availability of these novel PIs may improve longterm treatment options for many patients.

Impact of drug transporter studies on drug discovery and development

Drug transporters are expressed in many tissues such as the intestine, liver, kidney, and brain, and play key roles in drug absorption, distribution, and excretion. The information on the functional characteristics of drug transporters provides important information to allow improvements in drug delivery or drug design by targeting specific transporter proteins. In this article we summarize the significant role played by drug transporters in drug disposition, focusing particularly on their potential use during the drug discovery and development process. The use of transporter function offers the possibility of delivering a drug to the target organ, avoiding distribution to other organs (thereby reducing the chance of toxic side effects), controlling the elimination process, and/or improving oral bioavailability. It is useful to select a lead compound that may or may not interact with transporters, depending on whether such an interaction is desirable. The expression system of transporters is an efficient tool for screening the activity of individual transport processes. The changes in pharmacokinetics due to genetic polymorphisms and drug-drug interactions involving transporters can often have a direct and adverse effect on the therapeutic safety and efficacy of many important drugs. To obtain detailed information about these interindividual differences, the contribution made by transporters to drug absorption, distribution, and excretion needs to be taken into account throughout the drug discovery and development process.

Structure-activity relationship: analyses of p-glycoprotein substrates and inhibitors

OBJECTIVE

A large number of structurally and functionally diverse compounds act as substrates or modulators of p-glycoprotein (p-gp). Some of them possess multiple drug resistance (MDR)-reversing activity, but only a small number of them have entered clinical study. In order to uncover the factors which exert a significant impact on the interaction between substrates/modulators and p-gp, we have performed structure-activity relationship (SAR) analyses, including molecular modelling, two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) parameter-frame-setting analysis, quantitative structure activity relationship (QSAR) analysis among substrates/modulators, as well as clinically promising MDR-reversing agents.

METHODS

The physicochemical parameters C log P, CMR and all regression equations were derived by using C log P version 4.0 and the latest CQSAR software, respectively. Molecular modelling and all other parameter calculations were performed by using HyperChem version 5.0 program, after geometry optimization and energy minimization using the AM1 semiempirical method.

RESULTS

SAR analyses indicate that MDR reversal activity is correlated with the lipophilicity (C log P), molecular weight (log Mw), longest chain (Nlc) of the molecule and the energy of the highest occupied orbital (Ehomo). In addition, the presence of a basic tertiary nitrogen atom in the structure is also an important contributor to p-gp inhibitory activity. Some separation in space is achieved for different subsets of p-gp substrates and inhibitors using Nlc, C log P and Ehomo as three independent parameters in the 3D-parameter-frame setting.

CONCLUSION

A highly effective p-gp modulator candidate should possess a log P value of 2.92 or higher, 18-atom-long or longer molecular axis, and a high Ehomo value, as well as at least one tertiary basic nitrogen atom. The results obtained may be useful in explaining drug-p-gp interactions for different compounds, including drug interactions and the development of new MDR chemosensitizers.

Pharmacokinetic and tolerability profile of twice-daily saquinavir hard gelatin capsules and saquinavir soft gelatin capsules boosted with ritonavir in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of a boosted saquinavir (SQV)/ritonavir (RTV) combination, administered as either the hard gelatin capsule (HGC) or soft gelatin capsule (SGC) formulation of SQV, in 24 healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, open-label, randomized, 2 x 2 crossover study. Twelve subjects were randomized to receive SQV/RTV 1000 mg/100 mg twice daily (BID) orally for 10 days, as either the HGC or SGC formulation. The pharmacokinetic profile of SQV was determined on day 10. Subjects then crossed over to the opposite SQV formulation, and the pharmacokinetic profile was determined again on day 20. The primary analysis was the assessment of bioequivalence based on logarithmically transformed values for AUC(0-24 h) and Cmax for the two formulations.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increase in the geometric means of all the pharmacokinetic variables evaluated for SQV-HGC/RTV compared with SQV-SGC/RTV. A mean AUC0-24 h-value of 15.798 micro g/mL/h was reported for the HGC formulation compared with 11.655 micro g/mL/h for the SGC formulation (P = 0.0043). The SQV-HGC/RTV combination was better tolerated in terms of gastrointestinal system disorders. Furthermore, no elevations in triglycerides or total cholesterol were reported with SQV/RTV during the entire study period.

CONCLUSION

In healthy volunteers, RTV boosting of SQV-HGC produces plasma exposures at least comparable to SQV-SGC, which is accompanied by an improvement in gastrointestinal system disorders.

Pharmacokinetics of once-daily saquinavir hard-gelatin capsules and saquinavir soft-gelatin capsules boosted with ritonavir in HIV-1-infected subjects

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the pharmacokinetics of once-daily saquinavir (SQV) hard-gelatin capsule (HGC)/ritonavir (RTV), 1600/100 mg, compared with once-daily SQV soft-gelatin capsule (SGC)/RTV, 1600/100 mg.

METHODS

We evaluated 13 randomly selected HIV-1-infected subjects taking once-daily SQV SGC/RTV, 1600/100 mg, plus dual nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) in this pharmacokinetic (PK) substudy. Subjects took 1 week of SQV HGC/RTV and NRTIs, followed by steady-state SQV PK determinations. Subjects then changed to SQV SGC/RTV and NRTIs for 1 week, followed again by steady-state SQV PK determinations. Area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC), maximum concentration (C(max)), minimum concentration (C(min)), time to C(max), and elimination half-life were calculated.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in AUC values between HGCs and SGCs, with a median (plus interquartile range [IQR]) of 50.0 (42.6-71.5) versus 35.5 (28.0-50.2) mg/L/h, respectively ( =.056). Intersubject variability resulted in 4 of 13 subjects on the SQV SGCs and 2 of 13 subjects on the SQV HGCs having a C(min) below the minimum effective concentration of 0.05 mg/L.

CONCLUSION

Once-daily SQV HGCs, 1600 mg, boosted with once-daily RTV, 100 mg, resulted in PK parameters that were similar to those observed with 1600 mg of SQV SGC/100 mg RTV once daily. Once-daily SQV HGC/RTV, 1600/100 mg, may be easier to use in developing countries and may increase access where drug costs can be less, the capsule size is smaller, and the need for refrigeration is lessened.

Improvement of oral drug treatment by temporary inhibition of drug transporters and/or cytochrome P450 in the gastrointestinal tract and liver: an overview

The oral bioavailability of many cytotoxic drugs is low and/or highly variable. This can be caused by high affinity for drug transporters and activity of metabolic enzymes in the gastrointestinal tract and liver. In this review, we will describe the main involved drug transporters and metabolic enzymes and discuss novel methods to improve oral treatment of affected substrate drugs. Results of preclinical and clinical phase I and II studies will be discussed in which affected substrate drugs, such as paclitaxel, docetaxel, and topotecan, are given orally in combination with an inhibitor of drug transport or drug metabolism. Future randomized studies will, hopefully, confirm that this strategy for oral treatment is at least as equally effective and safe as standard intravenous administration of these drugs.

Update on HIV resistance and resistance testing

The introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy, including a combination of antivirals directed at various steps in the viral life cycle, has led to significant decreases in morbidity and mortality associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infections. Despite the availability of numerous antivirals, many extensively treated patients gradually loose the ability to control viral replication because of development of antiviral resistance. Laboratory tests have been developed and validated to assist in recognizing such resistance and to help predict which antivirals may be more likely to control viral replication in a given patient. Both genotypic and phenotypic assays have been developed to assess HIV-1 antiviral resistance. The assay methodologies, including the advantages and disadvantages of each method, as well as the limitations of each method are reviewed. The ability to predict likely drug response from a genotype or a phenotype is continually evolving, and the more recently discovered mutation/drug resistance associations are discussed in terms of their implications for HIV resistance assays. To provide additional options for those who have developed resistance to all currently available drugs, new antivirals, such as the fusion inhibitors, are being developed. These new classes of antivirals block the HIV viral life cycle at sites other than reverse transcriptase and protease. Unique and novel resistance assays are being developed to measure HIV resistance to these new drugs.

Model-based analysis of the pharmacokinetic interactions between ritonavir, nelfinavir, and saquinavir after simultaneous and staggered oral administration

Eighteen healthy human immunodeficiency virus-negative subjects participated in an open-label, six-period, incomplete Latin-square crossover pharmacokinetic study. Each subject received two of the three possible pair-wise combinations of single-dose oral ritonavir (R) (400 mg), nelfinavir (N) (750 mg), and saquinavir (S) (800 mg), each pair on three occasions (simultaneous or staggered administration), each occasion at least 2 days after the last. A model-based analysis reveals the following major drug interactions under the conditions of this study: 1). R given simultaneously with S decreases S hepatic intrinsic clearance almost 50-fold relative to that predicted for S given alone and increases its gut bioavailability 90% (but decreases its rate of absorption 40%) relative to when N is given simultaneously; 2). N given simultaneously with S decreases S hepatic intrinsic clearance 10-fold relative to that predicted for S given alone; and 3) R inhibits S hepatic intrinsic clearance even after R plasma levels have become undetectable (>48 h after dosing), implying that R, when used as a pharmacokinetic enhancer, can be dosed less frequently than might be predicted from the duration of detectable systemic concentrations.

Which concentration of the inhibitor should be used to predict in vivo drug interactions from in vitro data?

When the metabolism of a drug is competitively or noncompetitively inhibited by another drug, the degree of in vivo interaction can be evaluated from the [I]u/Ki ratio, where [I]u is the unbound concentration around the enzyme and Ki is the inhibition constant of the inhibitor. In the present study, we evaluated the metabolic inhibition potential of drugs known to be inhibitors or substrates of cytochrome P450 by estimating their [I]u/Ki ratio using literature data. The maximum concentration of the inhibitor in the circulating blood ([I]max), its maximum unbound concentration in the circulating blood ([I]max,u), and its maximum unbound concentration at the inlet to the liver ([I]in,max,u) were used as [I]u, and the results were compared with each other. In order to calculate the [I]u/Ki ratios, the pharmacokinetic parameters of each drug were obtained from the literature, together with their reported Ki values determined in in vitro studies using human liver microsomes. For most of the drugs with a calculated [I]in,max,u/Ki ratio less than 0.25, which applied to about half of the drugs investigated, no in vivo interactions had been reported or "no interaction" was reported in clinical studies. In contrast, the [I]max,u/Ki and [I]max/Ki ratio was calculated to be less than 0.25 for about 90% and 65% of the drugs, respectively, and more than a 1.25-fold increase was reported in the area under the concentration-time curve of the co-administered drug for about 30% of such drugs. These findings indicate that the possibility of underestimation of in vivo interactions (possibility of false-negative prediction) is greater when [I]max,u or [I]max values are used compared with using [I]in,max,u values.

Inhibition-based metabolic drug-drug interactions: predictions from in vitro data

There has been a growing interest in predicting in vivo metabolic drug-drug interactions from in vitro systems. High-throughput screening methods aimed at assessing the potential of drug candidates for drug interactions are widely used in industry. However, at present, there is no consensus on methodologies that would yield reliable quantitative predictions, because a number of issues remain unsolved, such as estimations of inhibition constants in vitro and inhibitor concentration around the enzyme site in vivo. In the present review, different approaches to estimation of inhibitor concentration around the enzyme site are summarized; also, the problems associated with estimation of in vitro K(i) values due to incubation conditions and environment differences between in vitro and in vivo are presented. A new approach based on comparisons of in vitro and in vivo inhibition potencies by calculation of in vivo inhibition constants is discussed. Examples of predictions of in vivo drug interactions based on mechanism-based inactivation are described. Unresolved issues that would allow further refinement of existing prediction models are also evaluated.

CYP3A4 induction by drugs: correlation between a pregnane X receptor reporter gene assay and CYP3A4 expression in human hepatocytes

Induction of cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) is determined typically by employing primary culture of human hepatocytes and measuring CYP3A4 mRNA, protein and microsomal activity. Recently a pregnane X receptor (PXR) reporter gene assay was established to screen CYP3A4 inducers. To evaluate results from the PXR reporter gene assay with those from the aforementioned conventional assays, 14 drugs were evaluated for their ability to induce CYP3A4 and activate PXR. Sandwiched primary cultures of human hepatocytes from six donors were used and CYP3A4 activity was assessed by measuring microsomal testosterone 6beta-hydroxylase activity. Hepatic CYP3A4 mRNA and protein levels were also analyzed using branched DNA technology/Northern blotting and Western blotting, respectively. In general, PXR activation correlated with the induction potential observed in human hepatocyte cultures. Clotrimazole, phenobarbital, rifampin, and sulfinpyrazone highly activated PXR and increased CYP3A4 activity; carbamazepine, dexamethasone, dexamethasone-t-butylacetate, phenytoin, sulfadimidine, and taxol weakly activated PXR and induced CYP3A4 activity, and methotrexate and probenecid showed no marked activation in either system. Ritonavir and troleandomycin showed marked PXR activation but no increase (in the case of troleandomycin) or a significant decrease (in the case of ritonavir) in microsomal CYP3A4 activity. It is concluded that the PXR reporter gene assay is a reliable and complementary method to assess the CYP3A4 induction potential of drugs and other xenobiotics.

Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection

BACKGROUND

Lopinavir is a newly developed inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease that, when formulated with ritonavir, yields mean trough plasma lopinavir concentrations that are at least 75 times as high as that needed to inhibit replication of wild-type HIV by 50 percent.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind trial in which 653 HIV-infected adults who had not received antiretroviral therapy for more than 14 days were randomly assigned to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg of lopinavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir twice daily) with nelfinavir placebo or nelfinavir (750 mg three times daily) with lopinavir-ritonavir placebo. All patients also received open-label stavudine and lamivudine. The primary efficacy end points were the presence of fewer than 400 HIV RNA copies per milliliter of plasma at week 24 and the time to the loss of virologic response through week 48.

RESULTS

At week 48, greater proportions of patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir than of patients treated with nelfinavir had fewer than 400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter (75 percent vs. 63 percent, P<0.001) and fewer than 50 copies per milliliter (67 percent vs. 52 percent, P<0.001). The time to the loss of virologic response was greater in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the nelfinavir group (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7; P<0.001). The estimated proportion of patients with a persistent virologic response through week 48 was 84 percent for patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir and 66 percent for those receiving nelfinavir. Both regimens were well tolerated, with the rate of discontinuation related to the study drugs at 3.4 percent among patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir and 3.7 percent among patients receiving nelfinavir. Among patients with more than 400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter at some point from week 24 through week 48, resistance mutations in HIV protease were demonstrated in viral isolates from 25 of 76 nelfinavir-treated patients (33 percent) and none of 37 patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For the initial treatment of HIV-infected adults, a combination regimen that includes lopinavir-ritonavir is well tolerated and has antiviral activity superior to that of a nelfinavir-containing regimen.

Ritonavir/Saquinavir plus One Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitor (NRTI) versus Indinavir plus Two Nrtis in Protease Inhibitor-Naive HIV-1-Infected Adults (Iris Study)

Objectives

To compare the efficacy, tolerability and safety of a ritonavir 400 mg/saquinavir hard gel fomulation 400 mg twice daily versus an indinavir 800 mg once every 8 h containing first-line protease inhibitor (PI) treatment regimen.

Methods

Open, randomized, multicentre clinical trial. PI-naive patients received either ritonavir/saquinavir and one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) or indinavir and two NRTIs. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and on-treatment (OT) analyses were performed.

Results

The baseline characteristics of the study participants were similar in both arms, 67 patients (37%) were naive to antiretroviral treatment. The proportion of patients who achieved a plasma viral load below the level of detection of 400 copies/ml at week 48 was 43% (39/90) in the ritonavir/saquinavir arm and 63% (57/90) in the indinavir arm ( P=0.005, ITT analysis). Using an OT analysis, these percentages were 84% and 88%, respectively ( P=0.6). There were more drop-outs in the ritonavir/saquinavir arm than in the indinavir arm (35.6% (32/90) versus 15.6% (14/90), P=0.002), mainly due to gastro-intestinal side-effects. Abnormal liver tests and increased lipids levels were more frequently reported in the ritonavir/saquinavir arm than in the indinavir arm.

Conclusion

In PI-naive patients, indinavir in combination with two NRTIs was more effective and better tolerated than ritonavir/saquinavir plus one NRTI. Both treatments were very effective for patients who were able to tolerate them.

Combination of Protease Inhibitors for the Treatment of HIV-1-Infected Patients: A Review of Pharmacokinetics and Clinical Experience

The use of highly active antiretroviral therapy, the combination of at least three different antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV-1 infection, has greatly improved the prognosis for HIV-1-infected patients. The efficacy of a combination of a protease inhibitor (PI) plus two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors has been well established over a period of up to 3 years. However, virological treatment failure has been reported in 40–60% of unselected patients within 1 year after initiation of a PI-containing regimen. This observation may, at least in part, be attributed to the poor pharmacokinetic characteristics of the PIs. Given as a single agent the PIs have several pharmacokinetic limitations; relatively short plasma-elimination half-lives and a modest and variable oral bioavailability, which is, for some of the PIs, influenced by food. To overcome these suboptimal pharmacokinetics, high doses (requiring large numbers of pills) must be ingested, often with food restrictions, which complicates patient adherence to the prescribed regimen.

Positive drug–drug interactions increase the exposure to the PIs, allowing administration of lower doses at reduced dosing frequencies with less dietary restrictions. In addition to increasing the potency of an antiretroviral regimen, combinations of PIs may enhance patient adherence, both of which will contribute to a more durable suppression of viral replication. The favourable pharmacokinetics of PIs in combination are a result of interactions through cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) isoenzymes and, possibly, the multi-drug transporting P-glycoprotein (P-gp). Antiretroviral synergy between PIs and non-overlapping primary resistance patterns in the HIV-1 protease genome may further enhance the anti-retroviral potency and durability of combinations of PIs. Many combinations contain ritonavir because this PI has the most pronounced inhibiting effects on CYP3A4. The combination of saquinavir and ritonavir, both in a dose of 400 mg twice-a-day, is the most studied double PI combination, with clinical experience extending over 3 years. Combination of a PI with a low dose of ritonavir (≤400 mg/day), only to boost its pharmacokinetic properties, seems an attractive option for patients who cannot tolerate higher doses of ritonavir. A recently introduced PI, lopinavir, has been co-formulated with low-dose ritonavir, which allows for a convenient three-capsules, twice-a-day dosing regimen. In an attempt to prolong suppression of viral replication combinations of PIs are becoming increasingly popular. However, further clinical studies are needed to identify the optimal combinations for treatment of antiretroviral naive and experienced HIV-1-infected patients. This review covers combinations of saquinavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, amprenavir and lopinavir with different doses of ritonavir, as well as the combinations of saquinavir and indinavir with nelfinavir.

The effect of ritonavir on saquinavir plasma concentration is independent of ritonavir dosage: combined analysis of pharmacokinetic data from 97 subjects

OBJECTIVE

To determine the correlation between ritonavir (RTV) dose and the degree of enhancement of saquinavir (SQV) exposure.

METHODS

Combined analysis of pharmacokinetic data at steady state obtained from two open-label, randomized, parallel-group, multiple-dose, single-centre studies involving healthy volunteers. Plasma samples for SQV assay were obtained from 97 healthy subjects following multiple dosing of a range of SQV (400-1800 mg) plus RTV (100-400 mg) dosages for 13-14 days. The pharmacokinetics of SQV were derived by model-independent, noncompartmental methods. Data were analysed by multivariate regression of log transformed Cmin and Cmax (geometric means) of SQV dosage as the dependent variable and independent variables of SQV and RTV dosage. Ritonavir was fitted as both a continuous and a categorical variable.

RESULTS

There is a strong effect of any dose of RTV on Cmax and Cmin of SQV (P < 0.0001 for both parameters), but no greater effect of higher vs. lower RTV dosages on either parameter (Cmax: P=0.4373; Cmin: P=0.3393). Higher SQV dosage correlates linearly with higher Cmax (P=0.0093) and Cmin (P=0.0010), but the effects of increasing SQV dosages are less than with the addition of any RTV dose.

CONCLUSIONS

RTV enhances SQV concentrations to increase Cmax and Cmin. This effect is similar for RTV dosages of 100-400 mg twice daily. Based on this concept of 'mini-dose' RTV, once-daily dosing of 1600 mg SQV/100 mg RTV and twice-daily 1000 mg SQV/100 mg RTV are currently being evaluated in clinical trials.

Iatrogenic Cushing's syndrome in an HIV-infected patient treated with inhaled corticosteroids (fluticasone propionate) and low dose ritonavir enhanced PI containing regimen

In HIV-infected patients, ritonavir, a potent cytochrome P450 inhibitor, is increasingly used to improve the pharmacokinetic profile of the associated protease inhibitor. HIV physicians are often faced with potential drug-drug interaction while treating associated diseases. We report the case of an HIV-infected patient with clinical features of Cushing's syndrome due to the interaction of low dose ritonavir with inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP). Safety of life-long CYP450 inhibition has still to be demonstrated.

Pharmacokinetic modeling and simulations of interaction of amprenavir and ritonavir

Data from three pharmacokinetic drug interaction studies of amprenavir and ritonavir were used to develop a pharmacokinetic interaction model using NONMEM (nonlinear mixed-effect model). A two-compartment linear model with first-order absorption best fit the amprenavir data, while a one-compartment model was used to describe the ritonavir data. The inhibition of elimination of amprenavir by ritonavir was modeled with a maximum effect (Emax) inhibition model and the observed ritonavir concentration. Monte Carlo simulation was then used to predict amprenavir concentrations for various combinations of amprenavir and ritonavir in twice-daily and once-daily dosing regimens. Simulated minimum amprenavir concentrations in plasma (Cmin) in twice-daily and once-daily dosing regimens were compared with protein binding-adjusted 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC50s) for clinical human immunodeficiency virus isolates with different susceptibilities to protease inhibitors (central tendency ratios). The model based on the first two studies predicted the results of the third study. Data from all three studies were then combined to refine the final model. The observed and simulated noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters agreed well. From this model, several candidate drug regimens were simulated. These simulations suggest that, in patients who have clinically failed a traditional amprenavir regimen, a regimen of 600 mg of amprenavir with 100 mg of ritonavir twice daily would result in Cmin-to-IC50 ratios similar to that of 1,200 mg of amprenavir twice daily alone for wild-type viruses. In addition, once-daily regimens that result in C(min)s above the protein binding-corrected IC50s for wild-type virus are clearly feasible.

HIV drug interactions: the good, the bad, and the other

Highly active antiretroviral therapy, involving treatment with three or four antiretroviral agents, has greatly improved the effectiveness of therapy for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. It has also extended the number of possible drug interactions that may occur in treated patients. There are 105 possible two-drug interactions among the 15 currently approved antiretroviral agents. Well-characterized interactions involving inhibition of drug metabolism have been exploited to reduce dose size or frequency and to simplify treatment regimens. Many additional interactions are possible with other drugs used to treat or prevent complications of HIV infection. Interactions with methadone and other opiate abuse therapies are also of concern. The usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring for antiretroviral drugs remains controversial. However, drug measurements before introduction of an interacting drug can establish patient-specific targets that can guide subsequent dosing adjustment.

Ritonavir-saquinavir dual protease inhibitor compared to ritonavir alone in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

The objective of this study was to evaluate the antiretroviral efficacy and safety of ritonavir (600 mg twice a day [b.i.d.])-saquinavir (400 mg b.i.d.) compared to ritonavir (600 mg b.i.d.) in patients pretreated and receiving continued treatment with two nucleoside analogs. The study was placebo controlled, randomized, and double blind. Inclusion criteria included protease inhibitor naive status and a viral load of >10,000 copies/ml. The main end point was viral load at week 24. Forty-seven patients were included (25 given ritonavir and 22 given ritonavir-saquinavir) and monitored until week 48. At inclusion, 23% had had at least one AIDS-defining event. Previous treatment durations (mean and standard deviation) were 42 +/- 25 and 37 +/- 23 months, viral loads were 4.75 +/- 0.62 and 4.76 +/- 0.50 log(10) copies/ml, and CD4 cell counts were 236 +/- 126 and 234 +/- 125/mm(3) in the ritonavir and ritonavir-saquinavir groups, respectively. At week 24, viral loads were 2.81 +/- 1.48 and 2.08 +/- 1.14 log(10) copies/ml (P = 0.04) and CD4 cell counts were 330 +/- 151 and 364 +/- 185/mm(3) (P = 0.49) in the ritonavir and ritonavir-saquinavir groups, respectively. Similar results were observed at week 48. Moreover, at week 48, 40 and 68% (P = 0.05) and 28 and 59% (P = 0.03) of patients achieved viral suppression at below 200 and 50 copies/ml in the ritonavir and ritonavir-saquinavir groups, respectively. At week 24, six patients in the ritonavir group but only one in the ritonavir-saquinavir group had key mutations conferring resistance to protease inhibitors. Clinical and biological tolerances were similar in both groups. In nucleoside analog-pretreated patients, ritonavir-saquinavir has higher antiretroviral efficacy than and is as well tolerated as ritonavir alone.

Predicting the impact of physiological and biochemical processes on oral drug bioavailability

Recent advances in computational methods applied to the fields of drug delivery and biopharmaceutics will be reviewed with a focus on prediction of the impact of physiological and biochemical factors on simulation of gastrointestinal absorption and bioavailability. Our application of a gastrointestinal simulation for the prediction of oral drug absorption and bioavailability will be described. First, we collected literature data or we estimated biopharmaceutical properties by application of statistical methods to a set of 2D and 3D molecular descriptors. Second, we integrated the differential equations for an advanced compartmental absorption and transit (ACAT) model in order to determine the rate, extent, and approximate gastrointestinal location of drug liberation (for controlled release), dissolution, passive and carrier-mediated absorption, and saturable metabolism and efflux. We predict fraction absorbed, bioavailability, and C(p) vs. time profiles for common drugs and compare those estimates to literature data. We illustrate the simulated impact of physiological and biochemical processes on oral drug bioavailability.

Comparison of initial combination antiretroviral therapy with a single protease inhibitor, ritonavir and saquinavir, or efavirenz

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of initial highly active antiretroviral therapy with either: a single protease inhibitor (PI); ritonavir (RTV)/saquinavir (SQV); or efavirenz (EFV) plus nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Urban HIV clinic.

PATIENTS

Five-hundred and forty-five HIV-1-infected individuals with minimal antiretroviral exposure who started combination therapy with > or = 3 antiretroviral drugs and > or = 1 NRTI to which they had not previously been exposed (single PI, 416; RTV/SQV, 68; EFV, 61).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/ml within 8 months of starting therapy; time to HIV-1 RNA rebound to > 1000 copies/ml in the subset of patients achieving initial viral suppression; change in CD4 cell count from baseline within 12 months of starting therapy.

RESULTS

By intent-to-treat analysis, initial viral suppression was achieved by 72% of patients in the EFV group, compared to 49% in the single PI group (P = 0.001) and 51% in the RTV/SQV group (P = 0.019). Among patients who achieved initial viral suppression, time to viral rebound was similar in the three groups. Durable viral suppression (> or = 3 consecutive HIV-1 RNA levels < 400 copies/ml for > 6 months) was achieved by 53% of patients in the EFV group, 26% in the single PI group, and 29% in the RTV/SQV group (P < 0.05 for both comparisons with EFV). The median CD4 cell count increase was 139 x 10(6) cells/l, and was similar in the three groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In agreement with a recent clinical trial, use of initial EFV-based combination antiretroviral therapy was associated with higher rates of viral suppression than PI-based therapy in a clinical cohort.

Saquinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics following combined ritonavir and saquinavir (soft gelatin capsules) administration

AIMS

To investigate the influence of combined ritonavir (RTV) and saquinavir (soft-gelatin capsule formulation; SQV) on systemic exposure to SQV with a view to optimizing the dosing regimen of combined RTV and SQV antiretroviral therapy.

METHODS

In this open labelled, randomized, parallel group study, SQV and RTV were administered twice daily for 14 days to groups of eight healthy subjects. The two antiretrovirals were either administered alone (800 mg SQV, regimen A, and 400 mg RTV, B) or in combination at various dose levels (RTV : SQV: 400 : 400 mg, C; 300 : 600 mg, D; 200 : 800 mg, E; 300 : 800 mg, F; 400 : 800 mg, G; and 400 : 600 mg, H). Pharmacokinetic parameters of saquinavir and ritonavir were determined and adverse events, vital signs, and clinical laboratory variables recorded.

RESULTS

RTV substantially increased the plasma concentration of saquinavir for all dose combinations, compared with SQV alone. Based on the primary statistical analysis there was an overall 17-, 22-, and 23-fold increase in saquinavir AUC(0,24 h) on day 14 with regimens E, F, and G, respectively (with confidence intervals of 10-30, 13-37, and 13-39). The lowest combination dose of RTV (200 : 800 mg; E) significantly increased the saquinavir AUC(0,24 h) from below 5 to 57 microg ml(-1) h, which was higher than the exposure obtained with the 400 : 400 mg twice daily regimen (i.e. 36 microg ml(-1) h). RTV also reduced intersubject variability in AUC(0,24 h) for saquinavir from 105% to 32-68%, and C(max)(0,24 h) from 124% to 30-49%. In contrast, SQV showed no clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir. The combination regimens were well tolerated, with the least number of adverse events recorded for the 200 : 800 mg (RTV : SQV) combination regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

RTV significantly increases saquinavir exposure as a consequence of inhibiting SQV metabolism and possibly P-glycoprotein efflux. Pharmacokinetic and safety profiles obtained in the current study indicate that the use of a combination with a lower dose of RTV and a higher dose of SQV than the 400 : 400 mg combination frequently used in clinical practice should be further explored.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of twice-daily dosing of saquinavir plus ritonavir in HIV-1-infected individuals

OBJECTIVE

To compare the steady state plasma pharmacokinetics of 1000 mg of saquinavir (SQV) in a soft-gel capsule (SGC) formulation in combination with 100 mg of ritonavir (RTV) (capsules) in a twice-daily dosing regimen in HIV-1-infected individuals with historical controls who used 400 mg of SQV in a hard-gel capsule (HGC) formulation in combination with 400 mg of RTV and to investigate the plasma pharmacokinetics of the 1000 mg/100 mg regimen after normal and high-fat breakfasts.

DESIGN

Open-label, crossover, steady-state pharmacokinetic study.

METHODS

Six HIV-1-infected individuals who used either 1200 mg of SQV (SGC or HGC) three times daily or 400 mg twice daily in combination with 400 mg of RTV twice daily were included. Each patient was switched to 1000 mg of SQV SGC twice daily in combination with 100 mg of RTV twice daily. After 14 days, the patients came to the hospital for assessment of a pharmacokinetic profile during 12 hours. Patients were randomized to receive a high-fat (+/-45 g of fat) or normal (+/-20 g of fat) breakfast. After 7 days, a second pharmacokinetic profile was assessed after ingestion of the drugs with the alternate breakfast. A noncompartmental pharmacokinetic method was used to calculate the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC0-12h), the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the plasma trough concentration (C12h), and the elimination half-life in plasma (t1/2). The obtained pharmacokinetic parameters were compared with those of 12 patients using SQV HGC (400 mg twice daily) in combination with RTV (400 mg twice daily).

RESULTS

The median values of the pharmacokinetic parameters for SQV SGC (1000 mg twice daily, normal breakfast) were: AUC0-12h, 18.84 h*mg/L; Cmax, 3.66 mg/L; C12h, 0.40 mg/L; and t1/2, 3.0 hours. The median values of the pharmacokinetic parameters for SQV HGC (400 mg twice daily, normal breakfast) were: AUC0-12h, 6.99 h*mg/L; Cmax, 1.28 mg/L; C12h, 0.23 mg/L; and t1/2, 3.9 hours. The exposure to SQV in the dosing regimen of 1000 mg twice daily in combination with 100 mg of RTV twice daily was significantly higher than the exposure to SQV in a dosing regimen of 400 mg twice daily in combination with 400 mg of RTV twice daily. The pharmacokinetic parameters of SQV SGC in the dosing regimen of 1000 mg twice daily in combination with 100 mg of RTV twice daily were not significantly different after ingestion of a high-fat or normal breakfast (p >.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of 1000 mg of SQV SGC twice daily and 100 mg of RTV twice daily resulted in a higher exposure to SQV compared with the exposure to SQV obtained when SQV is used in the 400 mg/400 mg twice-daily combination with RTV. In this small number of patients, no significant differences in exposure were seen after ingestion of either a normal or high-fat breakfast. From a pharmacokinetic perspective, the combination of 1000 mg of SQV SGC twice daily and 100 mg of RTV twice daily seems to be a good option for further clinical evaluation.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of amprenavir and ritonavir following multiple-dose, co-administration to healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetic interaction between amprenavir (APV) and ritonavir (RTV).

METHODS

Three open-label, randomized, two-sequence, multiple-dose studies having the same design (7 days of APV or RTV alone followed by 7 days of both drugs together) used 450 or 900 mg APV with 100 or 300 mg RTV every 12 h with pharmacokinetic assessments on days 7 and 14. Safety was monitored as clinical adverse events (AEs) and laboratory abnormalities.

RESULTS

Relative to APV alone, RTV co-administration resulted in a 3.3- to 4-fold and 10.84 to 14.25-fold increase in the geometric least-square (GLS) mean area under the plasma concentration--time curve (AUC(tau,ss)) and minimum concentration (C(min,ss)), respectively. APV 900 mg with RTV 100 mg resulted in a 2.09-fold and 6.85-fold increase in the GLS mean AUC(tau,ss) and C(min,ss), respectively. On day 14, the geometric mean (95% confidence interval) for 450 mg APV AUC(tau,ss) (micro x h/mL) was 23.49 (19.32--28.57) with 300 mg RTV and 35.42 (30.46--44.42) with 100 microg RTV, and for the 900 mg APV with 100 mg RTV 47.11 (39.47--61.24). The 450 mg APV C(min,ss) (microg/ml) were 1.32 (1.05--1.67) and 2.01 (1.70--2.61), and 2.47 (2.08--3.32) for 900 mg APV. The most common AEs were mild and included diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, oral parasthesias, and rash. The triglyceride and cholesterol increased significantly from RTV exposure.

CONCLUSION

Adding RTV to APV resulted in clinically and statistically significant increases in APV AUC and C(min) with variable effects on maximum concentration. The two RTV doses had similar effects on APV but AEs were more frequent with 300 mg RTV.

P-glycoprotein limits oral availability, brain, and fetal penetration of saquinavir even with high doses of ritonavir

The low oral bioavailability of the HIV protease inhibitor (HPI) saquinavir is dramatically increased by coadministration of the HPI ritonavir. Because saquinavir and ritonavir are substrates and inhibitors of both the drug transporter P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and of the metabolizing enzyme CYP3A4, we wanted to sort out whether the ritonavir effect is primarily mediated by inhibition of CYP3A4 or P-gp or both. P-gp is known to limit the bioavailability, brain, testis, and fetal penetration of its substrates, so effective inhibition of P-gp by ritonavir in vivo might open up pharmacological sanctuary sites for saquinavir, with the potential of beneficial effects on therapy, but also of increased toxicity. In vitro, P-gp-mediated transport of saquinavir and ritonavir was only moderately inhibited by both HPIs compared with the potent P-gp inhibitor PSC833. When [(14)C]saquinavir was orally coadministered with a maximum tolerated dose of ritonavir to wild-type and P-gp-deficient mice, saquinavir bioavailability was dramatically increased in both strains, but P-gp still limited the oral bioavailability of saquinavir, and its penetration into brain and fetus. These data indicate that in vivo, ritonavir is a relatively poor P-gp inhibitor. The highly increased bioavailability of saquinavir because of ritonavir coadministration most likely results from reduced saquinavir metabolism. Importantly, our data indicate that it is unlikely that ritonavir coadministration will substantially affect the contribution of P-gp to pharmacological sanctuary sites such as brain, testis, and fetus. Thus, if one wanted to effectively open these sites for therapeutic purposes, more efficient P-gp inhibitors should be applied.

Assessment of active transport of HIV protease inhibitors in various cell lines and the in vitro blood--brain barrier

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the involvement of P-glycoprotein (Pgp) and the multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP) on the active transport of the HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, ritonavir and indinavir.

METHODS

The transport behaviour of ritonavir, indinavir and amprenavir in the presence and absence of Pgp modulators and probenecid was investigated in an in vitro blood--brain barrier (BBB) co-culture model and in monolayers of LLC-PK1, LLC-PK1:MDR1, LLC-PK1:MRP1 and Caco-2 cells.

RESULTS

All three HIV protease inhibitors showed polarized transport in the BBB model, LLC-PK1:MDR1 and Caco-2 cell line. The Pgp modulators SDZ-PSC 833, verapamil and LY 335979 inhibited polarized transport, although their potency was dependent on both the cell model and the HIV protease inhibitor used. Ritonavir and indinavir also showed polarized transport in the LLC-PK1 and LLC-PK1:MRP1 cell line, which could be inhibited by probenecid. HIV protease inhibitors were not able to inhibit competitively polarized transport of other HIV protease inhibitors in the LLC-PK1:MDR1 cell line.

CONCLUSIONS

Amprenavir, ritonavir and indinavir are mainly actively transported by Pgp, while MRP also plays a role in the transport of ritonavir and indinavir. This indicates that inhibition of Pgp could be useful therapeutically to increase HIV protease inhibitor concentrations in the brain and in other tissues and cells expressing Pgp. The HIV protease inhibitors were not able to inhibit Pgp-mediated efflux when given simultaneously, suggesting that simultaneous administration of these drugs will not increase the concentration of antiretroviral drugs in the brain.

A randomized trial of nelfinavir, ritonavir, or delavirdine in combination with saquinavir-SGC and stavudine in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients

PURPOSE

To evaluate the 24-week impact of saquinavir-enhancing antiretroviral therapy on viral replication in patients previously treated with nucleoside analogues with or without prior saquinavir hard-gel capsules (HGC).

METHOD

Patients were randomized in three groups to receive the following: Group 1-nelfinavir (750 mg tid), saquinavir soft-gel capsule (SGC) (800 mg tid), and stavudine (40 mg bid); Group II-ritonavir (400 mg bid), saquinavir-SGC (400 mg bid), and stavudine (40 mg bid); or Group III-delavirdine (400 mg tid), saquinavir-SGC (800 mg tid), and stavudine (40 mg bid). Viral loads, CD4 count, and safety were assessed over a 24-week period with an additional 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

73 patients received randomized therapy; 14 of whom were SQV naïve, with a median baseline viral load of 3.6 log(10) and a CD4 count of 370 cells/mm(3). By 6 months, the median decreases in plasma viral loads were 0.26, 0.71, and 0.29 log(10) copies/mL for groups I, II, and III, respectively. The median increases in CD4 counts, for groups I, II, and III, were 52, 40, and 69 cells/mm(3) at 6 months, respectively. Changes in viral load and CD4 counts at 6 months and 1 year were not significantly different between the treatment groups. More patients discontinued therapy in the ritonavir arm (35%) for drug intolerance or toxicity compared to either the nelfinavir or delavirdine arms (15% and 5%, respectively). In a multivariate analysis, baseline viral load, younger age, and baseline saquinavir resistance were significantly associated with detectable viral load at 24 weeks.

CONCLUSION

The use of antiretroviral agents that pharmacokinetically boost saquinavir levels has a modest benefit in saquinavir-experienced patients.

Pharmacology and clinical experience with saquinavir

Saquinavir is a peptidomimetic inhibitor of HIV protease. Initially marketed as Invirasetrade mark, the effectiveness of saquinavir was greatly hindered by its nearly complete first pass metabolism by cytochrome P450 3A4. A new formulation, Fortovasetrade mark, appears to yield some six times the drug exposure and has been demonstrated to yield virological and immunological results similar to those of other protease inhibitors (PIs) when used in conjunction with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nRTIs). Emerging data suggest it is safe to use twice daily. Co-administration of either formulation of saquinavir with nelfinavir and especially ritonavir yields greatly increased blood levels, with corresponding superior magnitude and durability of viral suppression in first line therapy, albeit with increased adverse effects. The combination of ritonavir and saquinavir has also yielded the most promising results published for second line therapy, after virological breakthrough on previous PI-containing therapy. In addition, preliminary data suggests the possibility of once daily dosing of ritonavir and saquinavir, which would be expected to increase compliance and allow for direct observed therapy.

Saquinavir Soft Gelatin Capsule

The HIV-1 protease inhibitor (PI) saquinavir is available as a soft gelatin capsule (SGC) formulation. At the recommended dosage of saquinavir SGC (1200mg 3 times daily), this formulation provides around 8-fold greater exposure than the established hard gelatin capsule (HGC) formulation at the recommended dosage of 600mg 3 times daily. As with the HGC formulation, the most common adverse events seen with saquinavir SGC are gastrointestinal symptoms (e.g. diarrhoea, abdominal discomfort and nausea). Some of these may occur with a slightly higher frequency with the SGC than with the HGC formulation. Saquinavir SGC has only a minimal effect on nonfasting serum lipid and cholesterol levels. Like other PIs, saquinavir is metabolised by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 isoenzyme and is susceptible to interactions with inducers (e.g. rifabutin and rifampicin) and inhibitors (e.g. clarithromycin and ketoconazole) of this enzyme. Ritonavir, nelfinavir, indinavir and delavirdine, all CYP3A4 inhibitors, greatly increase saquinavir plasma concentrations and the therapeutic implications of these interactions continue to be evaluated. While saquinavir is the least potent CYP 3A inhibitor among the PIs, several drugs (notably terfenadine, astemizole and cisapride) should not be given in combination with saquinavir. Therefore, although the SGC formulation enhances saquinavir exposure, it has a similar safety profile to the HGC formulation.

Dual protease inhibitor therapy in the management of the HIV-1

Throughout the first 20 years of the HIV-1 epidemic, there have been tremendous advances in the development of antiretroviral therapy (ART). In 1995, the availability of protease inhibitors (PI) as part of triple drug regimens resulted in durable viral suppression with an associated decline in HIV-1-related morbidity and mortality. Despite this early success, limitations of therapy have become apparent. In particular, the need for highly potent antiviral regimens, the importance of outstanding adherence to therapy, drug-related toxicity and the increasing problem of drug-drug and drug-food interactions. Dual PI therapy has been investigated with the hope of overcoming these problems. Select PI combinations may result in synergistic antiviral activity with enhanced viral suppression. Moreover, the ability of select agents to inhibit the cytochrome P450 (CYP450) system results in pharmacologic enhancement that allows for dosing with fewer pills on a less frequent basis, both of which can enhance drug adherence. Furthermore, these pharmacologic interactions can overcome drug-drug and drug-food interactions. Finally, the ability to increase drug levels using certain PI combinations may allow for drug concentrations to exceed those needed to inhibit resistant strains of HIV-1. The rationale for using dual PI therapy, along with the results of clinical trials using various PI combinations in treatment-naïve and experienced patients, is reviewed in this article.

HIV-1 protease inhibitors decrease proliferation and induce differentiation of human myelocytic leukemia cells

Inhibitors of the protease of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) may inhibit cytoplasmic retinoic acid-binding proteins, cytochrome P450 isoforms, as well as P-glycoproteins. These features of the protease inhibitors might enhance the activity of retinoids. To explore this hypothesis, myeloid leukemia cells were cultured with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) either alone or in combination with the HIV-1 protease inhibitors indinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir. Consistent with the hypothesis, the HIV-1 protease inhibitors enhanced the ability of ATRA to inhibit growth and induce differentiation of HL-60 and NB4 myeloid leukemia cells, as measured by expression of CD11b and CD66b cell surface antigens, as well as reduction of nitroblue tetrazolium. Growth of ATRA-resistant UF-1 cells was also inhibited when cultured with the combination of ATRA and indinavir. Moreover, indinavir enhanced the ability of ATRA to induce expression of the myeloid differentiation-related transcription factor C/EBPε messenger RNA in NB4 cells by 9.5-fold. Taken together, the results show that HIV-1 protease inhibitors enhance the antiproliferative and differentiating effects of ATRA on myeloid leukemia cells. An HIV-1 protease inhibitor might be a useful adjuvant with ATRA for patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia and possibly retinoid-resistant cancers.

HIV-1 protease inhibitors decrease proliferation and induce differentiation of human myelocytic leukemia cells

Inhibitors of the protease of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) may inhibit cytoplasmic retinoic acid-binding proteins, cytochrome P450 isoforms, as well as P-glycoproteins. These features of the protease inhibitors might enhance the activity of retinoids. To explore this hypothesis, myeloid leukemia cells were cultured with all-trans retinoic acid (ATRA) either alone or in combination with the HIV-1 protease inhibitors indinavir, ritonavir, and saquinavir. Consistent with the hypothesis, the HIV-1 protease inhibitors enhanced the ability of ATRA to inhibit growth and induce differentiation of HL-60 and NB4 myeloid leukemia cells, as measured by expression of CD11b and CD66b cell surface antigens, as well as reduction of nitroblue tetrazolium. Growth of ATRA-resistant UF-1 cells was also inhibited when cultured with the combination of ATRA and indinavir. Moreover, indinavir enhanced the ability of ATRA to induce expression of the myeloid differentiation-related transcription factor C/EBPε messenger RNA in NB4 cells by 9.5-fold. Taken together, the results show that HIV-1 protease inhibitors enhance the antiproliferative and differentiating effects of ATRA on myeloid leukemia cells. An HIV-1 protease inhibitor might be a useful adjuvant with ATRA for patients with acute promyelocytic leukemia and possibly retinoid-resistant cancers.

Competing drug-drug interactions among multidrug antiretroviral regimens used in the treatment of HIV- infected subjects: ACTG 884

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the steady state concentrations of saquinavir, ritonavir, nelfinavir, delavirdine, and adefovir in six different three- and four-drug combination regimens.

DESIGN

Randomized, partially double-blinded, multicenter study in a population of indinavir-experienced subjects with virologic failure. The first seven subjects enrolled in each of the six treatment arms from 10 participating sites were entered into this pharmacokinetic evaluation.

SETTING

Multicenter study of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG).

PATIENTS

HIV-infected subjects.

INTERVENTIONS

A 12-hour pharmacokinetic study was conducted after 2 weeks of drug administration.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Area under the concentration-time curve with statistical comparisons to evaluate the effect of the second protease inhibitor and the effect of the non-protease inhibitors.

RESULTS

There was no difference in saquinavir concentrations according to whether the second protease inhibitor was ritonavir or nelfinavir. Saquinavir concentrations in the groups receiving the combination of delavirdine plus adefovir dipivoxil were reduced by approximately 50% compared with those receiving delavirdine. Delavirdine concentrations were reduced by approximately 50%, in the delavirdine plus adefovir dipivoxil arms compared with the delavirdine arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Saquinavir concentrations were significantly lower in the arms containing the combination of delavirdine and adefovir dipivoxil compared with the arms containing delavirdine. Delavirdine concentrations were significantly lower when coadministered with adefovir dipivoxil. These drug-drug interactions were not expected, the mechanism(s) is (are) not clear, and additional studies are warranted. This study illustrates the need to understand more fully the pharmacokinetic characteristics of complex combination antiretroviral regimens prior to use in patient management.

Antiretroviral therapy 2000

As we enter the new millennium, there have been dramatic improvements in the care of patients with HIV infection. These have prolonged life and decreased morbidity and mortality. There are fourteen currently available antiretrovirals approved in the United States for the treatment of this infection. The medications, including their pharmacokinetic properties, side effects, and dosing are reviewed. In addition, the current approach to the use of these medicines is discussed.

Dual protease inhibitor therapy in HIV-infected patients: pharmacologic rationale and clinical benefits

HIV protease inhibitors, as components of combination antiretroviral drug regimens, have substantially reduced the morbidity and mortality associated with HIV infection. They selectively block the action of the virus-encoded protease and stop the virus from replicating. In general, these drugs have poor systemic bioavailability and must be dosed with respect to meals for optimal absorption. Protease inhibitor-containing regimens require ingestion of a large number of capsules, are costly, and produce or are susceptible to metabolic drug interactions. Simultaneous administration of two protease inhibitors takes advantage of beneficial pharmacokinetic interactions and may circumvent many of the drugs' undesirable pharmacologic properties. For example, ritonavir increases saquinavir concentrations at steady state by up to 30-fold, allowing reduction of saquinavir dose and dosing frequency. Ritonavir decreases the systemic clearance of indinavir and overcomes the deleterious effect of food on indinavir bioavailability. These benefits reflect inhibition of presystemic clearance and first-pass metabolism, as well as inhibition of systemic clearance mediated by hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4. Several dual protease inhibitor combination regimens have shown great promise in clinical trials and are now recommended as components of salvage therapy for HIV-infected patients.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between sildenafil and saquinavir/ritonavir

AIMS

To investigate the effect of the antiretroviral protease inhibitors saquinavir (soft gelatin capsule) and ritonavir on the pharmacokinetic properties and tolerability of sildenafil and to investigate the effect of sildenafil on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir and ritonavir.

METHODS

Two independent, 8 day, open, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group studies (containing a double-blind crossover phase) were conducted at Pfizer Clinical research units (Canterbury, UK. and Brussels, Belgium). Twenty-eight healthy male volunteers entered each study. In each study, volunteers were randomized (n = 14 per group) to receive sildenafil on day 1 followed by a 7-day treatment period (days 2-8) with saquinavir or placebo (Study I) or ritonavir or placebo (Study II). Sildenafil or placebo (Study I and Study II) was administered alternately on day 7 or day 8, depending on initial randomization. The effect of saquinavir and ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of sildenafil and its primary circulating metabolite (UK-103, 320) and the effect of single-dose sildenafil on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir (1200 mg three times daily) and ritonavir (500 mg twice daily) were determined. The safety and tolerability of sildenafil coadministered with saquinavir or ritonavir were also assessed.

RESULTS

Both protease inhibitors significantly increased Cmax, AUC, tmax and t(1/2) values for both sildenafil and UK-103, 320. Ritonavir showed a significantly greater effect than saquinavir with increases in sildenafil AUC and Cmax of 11-fold (95% CI: 9.0, 12.0) and 3.9-fold (95% CI: 3.2, 4.9), respectively. This compared with increases of 3.1-fold (95% CI: 2.5, 4.0) and 2.4-fold (95% CI: 1.8, 3.3) for coadministration with saquinavir. In contrast, the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir and ritonavir were unaffected by sildenafil. The increases in systemic exposure to sildenafil and UK-103, 320 were not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events or clinically significant changes in blood pressure, heart rate or ECG parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

These results indicate that both saquinavir and ritonavir modify the pharmacokinetics of sildenafil presumably through inhibition of CYP3A4. The more pronounced effect of ritonavir may be attributed to its additional potent inhibition of CYP2C9. No change in safety or tolerability was observed when sildenafil was coadministered with either protease inhibitor. However, given the extent of the interactions, a lower sildenafil starting dose (25 mg) should be considered for patients receiving saquinavir and it is recommended not to exceed a maximum single dose of 25 mg in a 48 h period for patients receiving ritonavir.

Drug interactions with cisapride: clinical implications

Cisapride, a prokinetic agent, has been used for the treatment of a number of gastrointestinal disorders, particularly gastro-oesophageal reflux disease in adults and children. Since 1993, 341 cases of ventricular arrhythmias, including 80 deaths, have been reported to the US Food and Drug Administration. Marketing of the drug has now been discontinued in the US; however, it is still available under a limited-access protocol. Knowledge of the risk factors for cisapride-associated arrhythmias will be essential for its continued use in those patients who meet the eligibility criteria. This review summarises the published literature on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of cisapride with concomitantly administered drugs, providing clinicians with practical recommendations for avoiding these potentially fatal events. Pharmacokinetic interactions with cisapride involve inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, the primary mode of elimination of cisapride, thereby increasing plasma concentrations of the drug. The macrolide antibacterials clarithromycin, erythromycin and troleandomycin are inhibitors of CYP3A4 and should not be used in conjunction with cisapride. Azithromycin is an alternative. Similarly, azole antifungal agents such as fluconazole, itraconazole and ketoconazole are CYP3A4 inhibitors and their concomitant use with cisapride should be avoided. Of the antidepressants nefazodone and fluvoxamine should be avoided with cisapride. Data with fluoxetine is controversial, we favour the avoidance of its use. Citalopram, paroxetine and sertraline are alternatives. The HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir inhibit CYP3A4. Clinical experience with cisapride is lacking but avoidance with all protease inhibitors is recommended, although saquinavir is thought to have clinically insignificant effects on CYP3A4. Delavirdine is also a CYP3A4 inhibitor and should be avoided with cisapride. We also recommend avoiding coadministration of cisapride with amiodarone, cimetidine (alternatives are famotidine, nizatidine, ranitidine or one of the proton pump inhibitors), diltiazem and verapamil (the dihydropyridine calcium antagonists are alternatives), grapefruit juice, isoniazid, metronidazole, quinine, quinupristin/dalfopristin and zileuton (montelukast is an alternative). Pharmacodynamic interactions with cisapride involve drugs that have the potential to have additive effects on the QT interval. We do not recommend use of cisapride with class Ia and III antiarrhythmic drugs or with adenosine, bepridil, cyclobenzaprine, droperidol, haloperidol, nifedipine (immediate release), phenothiazine antipsychotics, tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants or vasopressin. Vigilance is advised if anthracyclines, cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), enflurane, halothane, isoflurane, pentamidine or probucol are used with cisapride. In addition, uncorrected electrolyte disturbances induced by diuretics may increase the risk of torsade de pointes. Patients receiving cisapride should be promptly treated for electrolyte disturbances.

Once-daily dosing of saquinavir and low-dose ritonavir in HIV-1-infected individuals: a pharmacokinetic pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics of a once-daily dosing regimen of saquinavir soft gelatin capsules in combination with a low dose of ritonavir in HIV-1-infected individuals.

DESIGN

Open-label, multi-dose, pharmacokinetic pilot study.

PATIENTS

Seven HIV-1-infected individuals who were treated with saquinavir hard gelatin capsules 400 mg twice daily + ritonavir liquid formulation 400 mg twice daily were switched to saquinavir soft gelatin formulation 1600 mg once daily in combination with ritonavir liquid formulation 200 mg once daily (day 0). Patients were instructed to ingest saquinavir and ritonavir simultaneously in the morning and with a meal.

METHODS

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir and ritonavir were assessed during a 24 h dosing interval after 2 weeks of continued therapy (day 14). Plasma saquinavir and ritonavir concentrations were measured using a validated high performance liquid chromatography assay. In addition, plasma HIV-1 RNA, and fasting total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, and triglyceride levels were measured on days 0 and 14. A non-compartmental pharmacokinetic method was used to calculate the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC[0-24h]), the maximum and trough plasma concentrations (Cmax and Cmin), the time to reach Cmax (Tmax), the elimination half-life (t1/2), the apparent clearance (Cl/F), and the apparent volume of distribution (V/F).

RESULTS

Median (range) values of the pharmacokinetic parameters for saquinavir after 2 weeks of treatment were: AUC[0-24h], 19,802h* ng/ml (3720-74,016); Cmax, 2936 ng/ml (573-6848); Cmin, 84 ng/ml (11-854); Tmax, 3.5 h (3.0-4.0), t1/2, 6.8 h (4.6-10.2); Cl/F, 81 l/h (22-430); V/F, 1189 l (215-3086). Ritonavir concentrations were always below the 90% effective concentration of 2100 ng/ml (median Cmax, 1323 ng/ml; range, 692-1528 ng/ml). No significant changes were observed for total serum cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein levels between days 0 and 14 (P > or = 0.24). In six out of seven patients the fasting serum triglyceride levels were lower 2 weeks after the treatment switch (median decrease was 32%, P = 0.03). No significant changes in plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations were observed between days 0 and 14. The regimen was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

This pharmacokinetic study indicates that the combination of 1600 mg of saquinavir (soft gelatin capsules) and 200 mg of ritonavir (liquid formulation) in a once-daily dosing regimen generally results in therapeutic plasma concentrations of saquinavir. Due to the large interindividual variation in saquinavir exposure, the monitoring of saquinavir concentrations in plasma is warranted. These pharmacokinetic findings rationalize the further clinical evaluation of once-daily dosing of this combination of protease inhibitors.

Using pharmacokinetics to optimize antiretroviral drug-drug interactions in the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection

Better understanding of the pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral drugs has resulted in the design of combination therapies for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. This has improved the bioavailability and prolonged the plasma half-life of some of the drugs, resulting in enhanced antiviral activity. However, antiviral combination therapy can also result in adverse drug-drug interactions and diminished antiretroviral activity. In this review, we examine drug interactions involving combinations of protease inhibitors, combinations of protease inhibitors with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, and combinations of nucleoside analogues for the treatment of patients with HIV infection. We discuss examples and mechanisms of pharmacokinetic interactions that improve or decrease antiviral efficacy.

The effect of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of meperidine and normeperidine

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of meperidine and normeperidine.

DESIGN

Open-label, crossover, pharmacokinetic study.

SETTING

United States government research hospital.

SUBJECTS

Eight healthy volunteers who tested negative for the human immunodeficiency virus.

INTERVENTION

Subjects received oral meperidine 50 mg and had serial blood samples collected for 48 hours. They then received ritonavir 500 mg twice/day for 10 days, followed by administration of a second 50-mg meperidine dose and collection of serial samples.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Plasma samples were assayed for meperidine, normeperidine, and ritonavir. Meperidine's area under the curve (AUC) decreased in all subjects by a mean of 67+/-4% in the presence of ritonavir (p<0.005). Mean +/- SD maximum concentration was decreased from 126+/-47 to 51+/-21 ng/ml. Normeperidine's mean AUC was increased 47%, suggesting induction of hepatic metabolism.

CONCLUSION

Meperidine's AUC is significantly reduced, not increased, by concomitant ritonavir. Based on these findings, the risk of narcotic-related adverse effects from this combination appears to be minimal. However, increased concentrations of normeperidine suggest a potential for toxicity with increased dosages or long-term therapy.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between amprenavir and clarithromycin in healthy male volunteers

The P450 enzyme, CYP3A4, extensively metabolizes both amprenavir and clarithromycin. To determine if an interaction exists when these two drugs are coadministered, the pharmacokinetics of amprenavir and clarithromycin were investigated in healthy adult male volunteers. This was a Phase I, open-label, randomized, balanced, multiple-dose, three-period crossover study. Fourteen subjects received the following three regimens: amprenavir, 1,200 mg twice daily over 4 days (seven doses); clarithromycin, 500 mg twice daily over 4 days (seven doses); and the combination of the above regimens over 4 days (seven doses of each drug). Twelve subjects completed all treatments and the follow-up period. The erythromycin breath test (ERMBT) was administered at baseline, 2 h after the final dose of each of the three regimens and at the first follow-up visit. Coadministration of clarithromycin and amprenavir significantly increased the mean amprenavir AUC(ss), C(max,ss), and C(min,ss) by 18, 15, and 39%, respectively. Amprenavir had no significant effect on the AUC(ss) of clarithromycin, but the median T(max,ss)for clarithromycin increased by 2.0 h, renal clearance increased by 34%, and the AUC(ss) for 14-(R)-hydroxyclarithromycin decreased by 35% when it was given with amprenavir. Amprenavir and clarithromycin reduced the ERMBT result by 85 and 67%, respectively, and by 87% when the two drugs were coadministered. The baseline ERMBT value did not correlate with clearance of amprenavir or clarithromycin. A pharmacokinetic interaction occurs when amprenavir and clarithromycin are coadministered, but the effects are not likely to be clinically important, and coadministration does not require a dosage adjustment for either drug.

Practical approaches to HIV therapy. Recommendations for the year 2000

Despite advances in treatment, HIV infection continues to present a daunting global medical challenge. Rapid development of new pharmaceutical agents has led to significant increases in the effectiveness of therapy. However, as use of antiretroviral drugs increases, so does our appreciation of the potential toxic effects of these agents. In-depth knowledge of HIV pathophysiology and the characteristics of individual drugs is mandatory for any physician caring for patients with HIV infection. In this article, Dr Wolfe outlines a practical approach to HIV therapy based on current consensus and his own recommendations.

Amprenavir in Combination with Lamivudine and Zidovudine versus Lamivudine and Zidovudine Alone in HIV-1-Infected Antiretroviral-Naive Adults

Objectives

To compare the antiviral activity and safety of a new protease inhibitor, amprenavir (141W94) in combination with lamivudine and zidovudine, versus lamivudine and zidovudine alone in HIV-1 infected, antiretroviral-naive subjects.

Design

Subjects ( n=232) with a CD4 T cell count of ≥200 cells/mm3, plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of ≥10000 copies/ml, and ≤4 weeks of prior nucleoside antiretroviral therapy, were stratified according to baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA level (10000–30000; 30000–100000; or >100000 copies/ml). Subjects received double-blind treatment with either 1200 mg amprenavir twice daily in combination with lamivudine (150 mg twice daily) and zidovudine (300 mg twice daily) (amprenavir/lamivudine/zidovudine) or matched placebo, lamivudine and zidovudine for 16 weeks. Thereafter, subjects with confirmed plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of ≥400 copies/ml could add open-label amprenavir or switch to other antiretrovirals and continue treatment for up to a minimum of 48 weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was defined as the proportion of subjects with plasma HIV-1 RNA of <400 copies/ml at 48 weeks.

Results

At 48 weeks, a significantly greater proportion of amprenavir/lamivudine/zidovudine subjects had plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <400 copies/ml than lamivudine/ zidovudine subjects in the overall population: 41 versus 3% (intent-to-treat missing equals failure analysis) ( P<0.001); 93 versus 42% (as-treated analysis) ( P<0.001); and within each of the three randomization strata ( P<0.001). Subjects on amprenavir/lamivudine/ zidovudine experienced longer time to event (permanent discontinuation of randomized therapy or viral rebound) than those on lamivudine/ zidovudine (median of 33 versus 13 weeks; P<0.001). A significantly greater incidence of drug-related nausea, vomiting, rash and oral/perioral paresthesia was observed with amprenavir/lamivudine/zidovudine than with lamivudine/zidovudine.

Conclusions

Amprenavir, in combination with lamivudine and zidovudine, has potent and durable antiviral activity in antiretroviral-naive subjects over 48 weeks. Amprenavir was safe and generally well tolerated.