Ritonavir and saquinavir combination therapy for the treatment of HIV infection

Effect of Chronic Administration of Ritonavir on Function of Cytochrome P450 3A and P-Glycoprotein in Rats

Ritonavir (RTV) is well known as an inhibitor of many drugs that are metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A or fluxed via P-glycoprotein (Pgp), although it is also reported that RTV is a potent inducer for them. In this study, to elucidate these contradictory phenomena, functional changes of CYP3A or Pgp during chronic administration of RTV were examined in rats. After pretreatment with RTV for indicated days (day 3-day 14), rats were used in the experiments. The area under the plasma drug concentration vs. time curve (AUC(0-infinity)) after oral administration of RTV (20 mg/kg) to these rats showed an RTV-treatment period-dependent decrease, and the mean AUC(0-infinity) of RTV in Day 14 rats decreased significantly by 57% as compared to the control. The AUC(0-infinity) after intravenous (i.v.) administration of RTV to Day 3 and Day 5 rats increased significantly by 28% and 22%, respectively, while there were no significant changes in the AUC(0-infinity) in Day 7 and Day 14 rats as compared to the control. As for i.v. administration of erythromycin (EM) or midazolam (MDZ) to RTV-treated rats, the AUC(0-infinity)in Day 3 and Day 5 rats increased significantly as compared to the control, while in Day 7 rats and rifampicin-treated rats, the AUC(0-infinity) of EM decreased significantly by 82% and 42%, respectively, as compared to the control. For MDZ, there were no significant changes in the AUC(0-infinity) in Day 7 or Day 14 rats. After i.v. administration of rhodamine123 (Rho123), the excretion clearances from blood circulation to the intestinal lumen and the biliary excretion clearances in Day 14 rats increased markedly by 2.2-fold and 2.6-fold as compared to the control. It has been confirmed that RTV is not only a potent inhibitor but also a potent inducer of CYP3A, and that RTV is a potent inducer of intestinal Pgp. This property of RTV is responsible for regulating the oral bioavailability of drugs that are mediated by CYP3A and Pgp.

Nucleoside Analogue-Sparing Strategy for the Treatment of Chronic HIV Infection: Potential Interest and Clinical Experience

Nucleoside analogue-sparing antiretroviral combinations may be interesting as first-line therapies as they spare a complete class of drugs that will remain fully active for later use and prevent the risk of mitochondrial toxicity related to exposure to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). This strategy is also used in patients failing NRTIs with cross-resistance to compounds in this class. Different combinations of antiretroviral drugs are theoretically available. Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) associated with protease inhibitor (PI) and boosted double-PI combinations have been studied through small, non-comparative clinical studies and preliminary results suggest that they are efficient and often well-tolerated. However, NNRTIs and PIs are extensively metabolized in the liver through cytochrome P450, leading to pharmacokinetic interactions; a good knowledge of the interactions between NNRTIs and PIs, or between PIs, is helpful in assisting physicians in clinical practice in choosing drugs and doses. Access to a therapeutic drug monitoring service to confirm that appropriate drug exposures are achieved is useful when using such regimens. Some negative kinetic interactions may lead to complicated combinations with a high pill burden that reduces their applicability. Gastrointestinal toxicity often remains a limiting factor in the use of boosted double-PI combinations. Non-comparative studies have allowed selection of NRTI-sparing options that now need to be compared with the current standard of care in comparative clinical trials before being considered as valuable options. Other NRTI-sparing therapeutic strategies are emerging: PI monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir has been evaluated in a small group of naive patients and appears promising. Drugs belonging to new classes currently under investigation, such as entry inhibitors, might be included early in the antiretroviral treatment of patients as soon as compounds with a convenient route of administration are available, increasing the number of therapeutic combinations without NRTIs.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of a double-boosting regimen of saquinavir soft gel plus lopinavir plus minidose ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults

Management of treatment-experienced human immunodeficiency virus patients has become complex, and therapy may need to include two protease inhibitors at therapeutic doses. The objective of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics in serum of saquinavir (1,000 mg twice daily [b.i.d.]), lopinavir (400 mg b.i.d.), and ritonavir (100 mg b.i.d.) in a multidrug rescue therapy study and to investigate whether steady-state pharmacokinetics of lopinavir-ritonavir are affected by coadministration of saquinavir. Forty patients were included (25 given ritonavir, lopinavir, and saquinavir and 15 given ritonavir and lopinavir). The median pharmacokinetic parameters of lopinavir were as follows: area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), 85.1 microg/ml . h; maximum concentration of drug in serum (C(max)), 10.0 microg/ml; trough concentration of drug in serum (C(trough)), 7.3 microg/ml; and minimum concentration of drug in serum (C(min)), 5.5 microg/ml. Lopinavir concentrations were similar in patients with and without saquinavir. The median pharmacokinetic parameters for saquinavir were as follows: AUC(0-12), 22.9 microg/ml . h; C(max), 2.9 microg/ml; C(trough), 1.6 microg/ml; and C(min), 1.4 microg/ml. There was a strong linear correlation between lopinavir and ritonavir and between saquinavir and ritonavir concentrations in plasma. The correlation between lopinavir and saquinavir levels was weaker. We found higher saquinavir concentrations in women than in men, with no difference in lopinavir levels. Only patients with very high body weight presented lopinavir and saquinavir concentrations lower than the overall group. Ritonavir has a double-boosting function for both lopinavir and saquinavir, and in terms of pharmacokinetics, the drug doses selected seemed appropriate for combining these agents in a dual protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen for patients with several prior virologic failures.

Steady-State Pharmacokinetics of Saquinavir Hard-Gel/Ritonavir/Fosamprenavir in HIV-1???Infected Patients

BACKGROUND

In vitro synergy and complementary resistance profiles provide a strong rationale for combining fosamprenavir with saquinavir as part of a potent double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen. This study evaluated the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir 1000 mg twice daily (bid) and fosamprenavir 700 mg bid administered with 2 different doses of ritonavir (100 and 200 mg bid) in HIV-1-infected subjects.

METHODS

On day 1, 12-hour pharmacokinetic profiles for saquinavir/ritonavir (1000/100 mg bid) were obtained for 18 subjects. All subjects were receiving ongoing treatment with a saquinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. Fosamprenavir 700 mg bid was then added to the regimen, and pharmacokinetic sampling was repeated for all 3 agents at day 11. The ritonavir daily dose was then increased to 200 mg bid, and a 3rd pharmacokinetic profile was obtained at day 22.

RESULTS

The coadministration of fosamprenavir 700 mg bid with saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg bid resulted in a statistically nonsignificant decrease in saquinavir concentrations (by 14, 9, and 24%, for saquinavir area under the concentration-time curve [AUC]0-12, C(max), and C(trough), respectively). This was compensated for by an increased ritonavir dose of 200 mg bid, which resulted in a statistically nonsignificant increase in saquinavir exposure compared with baseline. Amprenavir levels did not appear to be significantly influenced by coadministration of saquinavir with fosamprenavir. Fosamprenavir significantly reduced ritonavir exposure, but the increased ritonavir dose compensated for this interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed that saquinavir/ritonavir/fosamprenavir was well tolerated over the study period. Saquinavir plasma concentrations were slightly lowered by the addition of fosamprenavir to the regimen. However, the addition of a further 100 mg ritonavir bid restored the small and insignificant decrease.

Treatment of the hepatitis C virus in patients coinfected with HIV

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection is common among individuals with HIV, and the progression of liver disease is accelerated in coinfected individuals compared with those with HCV alone. HCV coinfection also can decrease tolerability of highly active antiretroviral therapy. Additionally, the presence of HCV appears to increase morbidity and mortality in these individuals, and as such the management of both HCV and HIV in coinfected individuals requires careful consideration. Although coinfected patients should be considered for HCV therapy, the limited information to date indicates a lower rate of virologic response with current HCV therapies. Moreover, interactions between HCV and HIV antiviral medications may occur and potentially affect treatment efficacy. Thus, the decision to undertake HCV treatment must be individualized.

Pharmacokinetic enhancement of protease inhibitor therapy

Combination antiretroviral therapy with two or more protease inhibitors has become the standard of care in the treatment of HIV infection. Dual protein inhibitor (PI) regimens, such as lopinavir/ritonavir, are commonly used as initial PI therapy. As viral resistance increases and the development of mechanistically novel protease inhibitors decreases, clinicians turn to ritonavir-enhanced dual PI therapy to treat salvage patients. Potency of these combination regimens is increased while pill burden, food restrictions and often, side effects are decreased. These clinical advantages result from the enhancement of their pharmacological properties, including alterations in the absorption and metabolism process. Alterations in the absorption and metabolism of protease inhibitors when co-administered with a cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme inhibitor, such as low dose ritonavir, are reflected by impressive changes in pharmacokinetic parameters. For example, the addition of ritonavir 100 or 200 mg to saquinavir 1200-1800 mg has been shown to increase saquinavir area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) by approximately 300-800% compared with saquinavir alone. The ability of ritonavir to increase plasma trough concentrations (C(min)) of concomitantly administered PIs is perhaps the greatest clinical benefit of dual or ritonavir-enhanced dual PI therapy since inadequate concentrations of antiretrovirals may support long term antiretroviral resistance. For example, lopinavir 400mg alone in healthy volunteers produced plasma concentrations that briefly exceeded the concentration required to inhibit 50% of viral replication (IC(50)). Yet, when low doses of ritonavir were added, C(min) values were 50- to 100-fold greater than the concentration required to produce 50% of the maximum effect for wild-type HIV (EC(50)). The following manuscript will discuss the rationale for combining protease inhibitors and will review pertinent pharmacokinetic and clinical data on these combination regimens.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of lopinavir/ritonavir given alone or with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor

AIMS

To evaluate the interindividual variability in the plasma concentrations of lopinavir in the context of routine monitoring with or without treatment with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and to assess the interaction between the coformulation of lopinavir/ritonavir and efavirenz or nevirapine.

METHODS

Plasma trough and peak concentrations (C(trough), C(max)) of lopinavir from 182 HIV-1-infected patients were analysed by high-performace liquid chromatography. Three lopinavir/ritonavir regimens were assessed, namely (A) 400 mg lopinavir/100 mg ritonavir twice daily given alone (n = 125), (B) 400/100 mg twice daily together with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (n = 25), and (C) 533/133 mg twice daily together with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (n = 32).

RESULTS

Median (ng ml(-1)) C(trough) and C(max) lopinavir (interquartile range, CV) were: (A) 4852 (3198-6891, 56%) and 8501 (6333-11 584, 41%), (B) 2979 (1704-5186, 74%) and 5612 (3362-11 704, 76%) and (C) 5082 (2696-7226, 74%) and 9757 (4883-12 963, 60%). Median C(trough) of lopinavir was lower in patients taking both efavirenz [P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference between medians 343, 2713] and nevirapine (P = 0.019, 95% CI for difference between medians 354, 3681) compared with those taking lopinavir/ritonavir alone. A higher interindividual variability was observed when lopinavir/ritonavir was given with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The risk of achieving a 'suboptimal'C(trough) of lopinavir (below a threshold of 3000 ng ml(-1)) was statistically higher in patients treated with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (P < 0.001, 95% CI for difference between percentages 8.8, 43.1%) compared with those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results confirmed the interaction between lopinavir and efavirenz, and also demonstrated a significant interaction between the former drug and nevirapine, resulting in lower C(trough) of lopinavir. The wide interpatient variability in this interaction suggests that therapeutic drug monitoring may be useful in optimizing the dose of lopinavir.

Tuberculosis and HIV: a partnership against the most vulnerable

Tuberculosis (TB) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Each year, there are eight million new Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB) infections and three million TB-related deaths. The catastrophic effects of TB are borne disproportionately among the most vulnerable. The HIV pandemic has further increased the burden so that the risk of TB reactivation from latency is 5 to 15 percent in HIV/TB coinfection. Tuberculosis reactivation fuels further primary infections, creating a vicious cycle of increasing infection, disease, and deaths. In addition, drug-resistant TB exacerbates this increasingly common problem. The clinical presentations of TB in relation to HIV and HIV-associated immune deficiency are discussed from the perspective of clinical diagnosis and treatment in patient care. Tuberculosis prophylaxis, concurrent drug treatment of TB and HIV, drug interactions, and overlapping toxicities are detailed for the practitioner. Immune reconstitution inflammatory reactions are now a common phenomenon in HIV treatment, where similar reactions have been less commonly described in TB treatment in the past. Global distributive injustices in wealth, the burden of disease, and the provision of healthcare are obvious in TB, and clearly show us that the needs of the most vulnerable populations must be met in order to address the problems.

Reduction of Saquinavir Exposure by Coadministration of Loperamide

OBJECTIVE

To assess any pharmacokinetic interactions between loperamide and saquinavir.

DESIGN

Double-blind, double-dummy, randomised, placebo-controlled, three-way crossover trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve healthy male and female volunteers, aged 24-46 years.

METHODS

Saquinavir and loperamide pharmacokinetics were determined over a 72-hour period after single dose administration of saquinavir 600mg and/or loperamide 16mg. Plasma and urine concentrations of loperamide, its metabolites, and saquinavir were analysed using a single liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry method for all compounds.

RESULTS

Saquinavir exposure was reduced by 54% when given with loperamide (median area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity [range], 1189 [243-2113] vs 550 [234-1468] pmol . h/mL; p = 0.016) with unchanged renal clearance. In contrast, loperamide concentrations increased and desmethylloperamide concentrations decreased during saquinavir coadministration, resulting in a reduced metabolic clearance of loperamide (median [range], 544 [224-1393] vs 443 [238-692] mL/min; p = 0.016).

CONCLUSIONS

Whereas the effect of saquinavir on loperamide disposition is unlikely to be of clinical relevance, the reduced drug exposure of saquinavir when loperamide is coadministered is worrisome because a relationship between protease inhibitor drug exposure and antiviral response has been reported. Patients receiving saquinavir monotherapy should be advised not to combine these drugs, especially for prolonged periods of time because a reduction in therapeutic efficacy may result.

Clinical correlates to muscle biopsy findings in HIV patients experiencing fatigue: a case series

Muscular fatigue may result from HIV infection, and may be associated with antiretroviral drug treatment. Clinical features linked to muscle biopsy findings may assist in determining etiology, and guide treatment decisions. This case series examined HIV patients in an ambulatory HIV clinic who received antiretroviral therapy, and complained of unexplained muscular fatigue. Clinical features with measurement of acid-base status, levels of lactate, aminotransferases, triglycerides and creatine kinase were correlated to light and electron microscopic results of muscle biopsy. Three patients with acquired mitochondrial changes on biopsy shared common features of lactatemia, elevated aminotransferases and triglycerides, and ultrasonographic hepatic steatosis. A fourth patient with normal mitochondria had myositis with fibrosis, but no systemic symptoms. Biochemical parameters were unremarkable, except for a high creatine kinase. Acquired mitochondrial disease may manifest as systemic illness and muscular fatigue. Unique metabolic changes and other organ dysfunction may precede overt physical signs of HIV myopathy.

A review of low-dose ritonavir in protease inhibitor combination therapy

The pharmacokinetics of protease inhibitors center around the microsomal enzyme cytochrome P-450 3A4. As a potent inhibitor of this enzyme, ritonavir can increase the bioavailability and half-life of coadministered protease inhibitors. Evidence suggests that increased exposure to protease inhibitors is clinically relevant. Antiretroviral treatment with low-dose ritonavir-boosted lopinavir, indinavir, and saquinavir has durable virological activity and shows impressive immune reconstitution. Although tolerable in most cases, gastrointestinal side effects, hepatotoxicity, and blood lipid abnormalities remain relevant issues. Additional study will elucidate the advantages and disadvantages of twice-daily, low-dose ritonavir-boosted regimens and determine whether once-daily regimens based on this principle will have a lasting role in clinical practice.

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.

Assessing safety and efficacy of directed P-glycoprotein inhibition to improve the pharmacokinetic properties of saquinavir coadministered with ritonavir

Using a mouse model, we tested the effects of in vivo P-glycoprotein inhibition to enhance the oral uptake and penetration into pharmacological sanctuary sites of the human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor (HPI) saquinavir. The HPI ritonavir is frequently coadministered with saquinavir to improve saquinavir plasma levels since it strongly reduces the cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated metabolism of saquinavir. Previously, we demonstrated that ritonavir is not an efficient P-glycoprotein inhibitor in vivo, evidenced by the limited oral uptake of saquinavir and its penetration into brain and fetus. Increasing drug concentrations in these sites using more effective P-gp inhibitors might improve therapy but could also lead to toxicity. We orally coadministered ritonavir and saquinavir to mice, with or without the potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor N-(4-[2-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-6,7-dimethoxy-2-isoquinolinyl)ethyl]-phenyl)-9,10-dihydro-5-methoxy-9-oxo-4-acridine carboxamide (GF120918). Upon GF120918 coadministration, two of seven P-glycoprotein-deficient animals died. Using a decreased ritonavir dose, GF120918 coadministration led to a 4.4-fold increase in the saquinavir plasma area under the curve in wild-type mice, whereas no such effect was observed in P-glycoprotein-deficient mice. Despite the decreased ritonavir dose, all mice did suffer from impaired gastric emptying. Including GF120918 in a multiple (twice daily) dosing regimen, we found continued accumulation of saquinavir in brain over several days, resulting in 10-fold higher levels compared with vehicle-treated mice. Transient ritonavir-related neurotoxicity, however, was observed after the fourth and final drug dosing. Clinical attempts to efficiently inhibit P-glycoprotein function for improved HPI disposition may therefore be feasible, but they should be performed without ritonavir and monitored carefully for unexpected toxicities.

The role of observational data in monitoring trends in antiretroviral treatment and HIV disease stage: results from the Australian HIV observational database

OBJECTIVES

To illustrate how human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) observational databases may be used to monitor trends in HIV treatment and HIV disease outcomes through data reported from the Australian HIV Observational Database (AHOD).

METHODS

Time trends in the use of antiretroviral treatment, and changes in treatment strategies were calculated in patients recruited to AHOD from HIV specialist clinics including hospitals, sexual health clinics and general practices. These results were then compared to trends reported from other observational cohorts.

RESULTS

By September 2001, 1961 patients were recruited to AHOD. Since entering AHOD, 3% of patients have been diagnosed with an AIDS defining illness, and 2% of patients have died, of which, 54% were non-HIV related deaths. The proportion of patients receiving antiretroviral therapy increased from 66% between January and June 1998 and 77% between July and September 2001. The most commonly received treatment regimen was triple therapy including a protease inhibitor (PI), ranging between 36% in January and June 1998 and 31% in July to September 2001. Triple therapy including a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) more than doubled to 32% between July and September 2001. The proportion of patients receiving either stavudine (d4T) or zidovudine (AZT) treatment regimens decreased from 92% between January and June 1998 to 76% between July and September 2001. Patients receiving ritonavir in combination with another PI increased, as did the proportion of patients interrupting therapy for more than 3 months.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest there have been changes in the way antiretroviral treatments have been used in Australia, and are consistent with the current literature. Furthermore, these findings demonstrate the usefulness of observational cohorts as a surveillance tool monitoring trends in treatment and disease progression.

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with efavirenz and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in extensively pretreated human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

The steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of two oral doses of lopinavir-ritonavir (lopinavir/r; 400/100 and 533/133 mg) twice daily (BID) when dosed in combination with efavirenz, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, were assessed in a phase II, open-label, randomized, parallel arm study in 57 multiple protease inhibitor-experienced but non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects. All subjects began dosing of lopinavir/r at 400/100 mg BID; subjects in one arm increased the lopinavir/r dose to 533/133 mg BID on day 14. When codosed with efavirenz, the lopinavir/r 400/100 mg BID regimen resulted in lower lopinavir concentrations in plasma, particularly C(min), than were observed in previous studies of lopinavir/r administered without efavirenz. Increasing the lopinavir/r dose to 533/133 mg increased the lopinavir area under the concentration-time curve over a 12-h dosing interval (AUC(12)), C(predose), and C(min) by 46, 70, and 141%, respectively. The increase in lopinavir C(max) (33%,) did not reach statistical significance. Ritonavir AUC(12), C(max), C(predose), and C(min) values were increased 46 to 63%. The lopinavir predose concentrations achieved with the 533/133-mg BID dose were similar to those observed with lopinavir/r 400/100 mg BID in the absence of efavirenz. Results from univariate logistic regression analyses identified lopinavir and efavirenz inhibitory quotient (IQ) parameters, as well as the baseline lopinavir phenotypic susceptibility, as predictors of antiviral response (HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml at week 24); however, no lopinavir or efavirenz concentration parameter was identified as a predictor. Multiple stepwise logistic regressions confirmed the significance of the IQ parameters, as well as other baseline characteristics, in predicting virologic response at 24 weeks in this patient population.

Coadministration of indinavir and nelfinavir in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected adults: safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiretroviral activity

Combinations of protease inhibitors (PIs) can have potentially beneficial pharmacokinetic interactions, resulting in higher drug levels and less frequent dose administration. Indinavir (IDV) and nelfinavir (NFV) are potent inhibitors of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease and are commonly prescribed antiretroviral agents. Pilot pharmacokinetic data suggested a bidirectional enhancing interaction between IDV and NFV. A phase II study was conducted to evaluate the safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity of IDV plus NFV given in a combination every 12 h in HIV-1-infected subjects. IDV plus NFV was given as a twice-daily regimen to 20 HIV-1-infected subjects who were PI naive (11 of 20 were antiretroviral naive). After week 18, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors were added to the treatment regimen in seven subjects. The enrolled subjects had a geometric mean baseline plasma HIV-1 RNA of 63,095 copies/ml and a mean CD4(+) cell count of 266 cells/mm(3). Pharmacokinetic evaluations were performed at the following doses: IDV at 1,000 mg every 12 h (q12h) plus NFV at 750 mg q12h, IDV at 1,000 mg q12h plus NFV at 1,000 mg q12h, and IDV at 1,200 mg q12h plus NFV at 1,250 mg q12h. The coadministration of IDV plus NFV resulted in a modest inhibition of IDV elimination, resulting in a plasma profile of IDV 1200 mg q12h (with NFV at 1,250 mg q12h) that was comparable to the standard IDV dose of 800 mg q8h. In contrast, IDV had no apparent effect on the pharmacokinetic profile of NFV. The combination of IDV and NFV was generally well tolerated and resulted in sustained virologic suppression with 45% of the subjects having an HIV-1 RNA level in plasma of <400 copies/ml at week 72 (intent-to-treat).

Impaired 2',3'-dideoxy-3'-thiacytidine accumulation in T-lymphoblastoid cells as a mechanism of acquired resistance independent of multidrug resistant protein 4 with a possible role for ATP-binding cassette C11

Cellular factors may contribute to the decreased efficacy of chemotherapy in HIV infection. Indeed, prolonged treatment with nucleoside analogues, such as azidothymidine (AZT), 2',3'-deoxycytidine or 9-(2-phosphonylmethoxyethyl)adenine, induces cellular resistance. We have developed a human T lymphoblastoid cell line (CEM 3TC) that is selectively resistant to the antiproliferative effect of 2',3'-dideoxy-3'-thiacytidine (3TC) because the CEM 3TC cells were equally sensitive to AZT, as well as the antimitotic agent, vinblastine. The anti-retroviral activity of 3TC against HIV-1 was also severely impaired in the CEM 3TC cells. Despite similar deoxycytidine kinase activity and unchanged uptake of nucleosides such as AZT and 2'-deoxycytidine, CEM 3TC had profoundly impaired 3TC accumulation. Further studies indicated that CEM 3TC retained much less 3TC. However, despite a small overexpression of multidrug resistance protein (MRP) 4, additional studies with cells specifically engineered to overexpress MRP4 demonstrated there was no impact on either 3TC accumulation or efflux. Finally, an increased expression of the MRP5 homologue, ATP-binding cassette C11 (ABCC11) was observed in the CEM 3TC cells. We speculate that the decreased 3TC accumulation in the CEM 3TC might be due to the upregulation of ABCC11.

Adverse effects of antiretroviral therapy: focus on orofacial effects

The optimum anti-HIV drug has yet to be found. This paper will summarise some of the oral adverse effects associated with antiretroviral agents against HIV. The development of antiretroviral drugs for the treatment of HIV infection has been aimed at the inactivation of two HIV enzymes: reverse transcriptase and proteases. Erythema multiforme, ulcers and xerostomia are the main oral side effects associated with reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Parotid lipomatosis, taste disturbance, xerostomia and perioral paraesthesia are oral adverse effects, which are mainly related to protease inhibitor therapy. The search for new antiretrovirals with different active mechanisms and patterns of resistance constitutes a key question in HIV treatment. The use of new drugs and drug combinations will lead to the appearance of oral lesions, which will be difficult to identify and treat and which cannot be ignored by the practitioner.

Clinical implications of CNS penetration of antiretroviral drugs

The CNS serves as an important sanctuary site for HIV replication. The presence of HIV in this compartment may contribute to neurological complications in individuals infected with HIV. Understanding the CNS penetration capabilities of available antiretroviral agents may help clinicians to design treatment regimens with neuroprotective effects. Although numerous clinical studies and anecdotal reports have examined CSF antiretroviral drug exposure as a marker of CNS penetration, understanding the clinical relevance of these findings is difficult. Challenges with study design and subject recruitment often limit the investigator's ability to collect comprehensive data. Upon review of available data, the antiretroviral agents zidovudine, stavudine, lamivudine, nevirapine, efavirenz and indinavir demonstrate consistent penetration into the CSF. Zidovudine-, stavudine-, lamivudine-, didanosine- and protease inhibitor-based regimens also appear to suppress CSF viraemia or improve HIV neurological disease. These agents may be appropriate candidates for neuroprotective antiretroviral treatment regimens. Despite these data, several unanswered questions about the CSF antiretroviral drug exposure-response relationship still remain. Prospective, controlled studies examining this relationship are needed before absolute clinical recommendations are founded.

Hepatitis C in the setting of HIV co-infection

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infection is common among HIV-infected individuals and can lead to increased morbidity and mortality in this population. HIV adversely impacts the natural history of HCV disease with higher rates of liver disease progression but the effect of HCV on the natural history of HIV is disputed. Additionally, presence of HCV may decrease tolerability of highly active antiretroviral regimens for HIV treatment due to a potential increase in hepatotoxicity. Currently there is limited information available regarding HCV therapy in the setting of HIV co-infection but the HCV virologic response to interferon regimens appears to be similar to those individuals with HCV infection alone. However, additional information is required to assess the efficacy and safety of HCV therapy including possible interaction of HCV and HIV anti-viral medications in these co-infected individuals.

Ritonavir plus saquinavir versus single protease inhibitor therapy in protease inhibitor-naive HIV-infected patients: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the response to ritonavir (RTV) plus saquinavir (SQV) with single protease inhibitor (PI) therapies among PI-naive HIV-1 infected individuals.

METHODS

Response to treatment was analysed according to the intent-to-treat principle in a prospective observational cohort study of 177 patients who between May 1995 and March 2000 started a double PI therapy with RTV and SQV (nonboosting dosages) plus at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) and 2,214 patients with a single PI therapy plus two NRTIs. We used survival analysis and Cox's proportional hazard regression methods. The primary endpoint was the time to a plasma viral load of < 400 copies/mL. Secondary endpoints were taken as a gain in the CD4 count of >100 cells/microL, and change of initial PI for any reason.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics in both treatment groups were balanced. Median follow-up in both groups was 10.4 months. Time to an HIV-1 viral load of < 400 copies/mL and an increase in the CD4 count of >100 x 10(6) cells/L was shorter for RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens (log rank test for each endpoint P < 0.05). The adjusted hazard ratios of RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens were 1.21 (95% confidence interval 0.99-1.47) for achieving an HIV-1 viral load of < 400 copies/mL, 1.12 (0.88-1.42) for an increase in the CD4 count of > 100 cells/microL, and 0.90 (0.73-1.11) for change of first PI regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with RTV plus SQV compared with single PI regimens appeared to give similar results for virological or immunological response.

Antivirals against HIV-1

Morbidity and mortality associated with HIV infection increased rapidly following the recognition of this syndrome in 1981, and by 1994, AIDS was the leading cause of death in the United States among men and women ages 15-45. The antiretroviral therapy era began in 1987 following the Food and Drug Administration approval of zidovudine, a nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor; however, it was not until 1996, when HIV viral load assays were developed that could quantify the copy number of HIV RNA present in plasma, that investigators and clinicians could appropriately evaluate the antiviral efficacy of therapy. This important technical breakthrough and the availability of HIV protease inhibitors led to a dramatic decline in the morbidity and mortality associated with the disease.

Clinical efficacy of early initiation of HAART in patients with asymptomatic HIV infection and CD4 cell count > 350 x 10(6) /l

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of early initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), we compared the clinical course of two nested, matched cohorts within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study.

METHODS

We selected all asymptomatic patients who started HAART between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 1999 with a CD4 cell count > 350 x 10(6)/l. We then matched them with asymptomatic participants who were seen at around the same time and who remained untreated during the following 12 months. This control group was further matched for age, sex, CD4 cell count, viral load, and HIV risk category, generating 283 pairs of treated versus untreated patients.

RESULTS

During observation of median 3.19 versus 2.66 years, CDC stage B/C occurred in 6.4% versus 21.2%, AIDS in 1.8% versus 5.3%, death in 2.1% versus 6.4%, and AIDS or death of 'natural' causes in 2.8% versus 6.7% of the treated versus untreated patients. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, treatment reduced the risk of clinical progression by a factor of four- to five fold. During follow-up, the treated group had significantly higher CD4 counts and lower HIV-1 RNA levels. Intolerance/adverse events led to change or stop of at least one drug in 35% of treated patients. The entire regimen was interrupted at least once by 41% of patients, and 24% had no treatment anymore at the end of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The initiation of HAART in asymptomatic patients with CD4 cell count > 350 x 10(6)/l significantly delayed clinical progression. However, the risk of severe clinical events with deferred therapy was low and must be counter balanced against the burden and toxicity of HAART.

In vitro antiviral interaction of lopinavir with other protease inhibitors

The in vitro inhibition of wild-type human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by combinations of lopinavir and six other protease inhibitors over a range of two-drug combination ratios was evaluated. Combinations of lopinavir with indinavir, nelfinavir, amprenavir, tipranavir, and BMS-232632 generally displayed an additive relationship. In contrast, a consistent, statistically significant synergistic inhibition of HIV type 1 replication with combinations of lopinavir and saquinavir was observed. Analysis of the combination indices indicated that lopinavir with saquinavir was synergistic over the entire range of drug combination ratios tested and at all levels of inhibition in excess of 40%. Cellular toxicity was not observed at the highest drug concentrations tested. These results suggest that administration of combinations of the appropriate dose of lopinavir with other protease inhibitors in vivo may result in enhanced antiviral activity with no associated increase in cellular cytotoxicity. More importantly, the observed in vitro synergy between lopinavir and saquinavir provides a theoretical basis for the clinical exploration of a novel regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir and saquinavir.

Evolutionary analysis of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: Methods for design of inhibitors that evade resistance

Drug-resistant strains are rapidly selected during AIDS therapy because of the high rate of mutation in HIV. In this report, we present an evolutionary simulation method for analysis of viral mutation and its use for optimization of HIV-1 protease drugs to improve their robustness in the face of resistance mutation. We first present an analysis of the range of resistant mutants that produce viable viruses by using a volume-based viral fitness model. Then, we analyze how this range of mutant proteases allows development of resistance to an optimal inhibitor previously designed by computational coevolution techniques. Finally, we evaluate the resistance patterns of commercially available drugs, and we discuss how resistance might be overcome by optimizing the size of specific side-chains of these inhibitors.

Hepatotoxicity associated with antiretroviral therapy containing dual versus single protease inhibitors in individuals coinfected with hepatitis C virus and human immunodeficiency virus

To determine the rates of patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) who discontinued therapy as a result of protease inhibitor (PI)-related hepatotoxicity, a retrospective review was conducted. Baseline CD4 counts, plasma HIV RNA levels, and duration of therapy were comparable between single- and dual-PI-treated subjects and between subjects receiving ritonavir-containing therapy and those receiving ritonavir-sparing therapy. The proportions of patients with elevations in alanine aminotransferase level to > or =5 times the upper limit of normal (19% versus 26%) and hyperbilirubinemia (30% versus 38%) were similar between the dual-PI (n=27) and single-PI treatment groups (n=39), respectively. No difference in these characteristics was observed between ritonavir-containing (n=34) and ritonavir-sparing (n=32) treatment arms. Rates of treatment discontinuation due to hepatotoxicity were similar for single-PI and dual-PI therapy and for ritonavir-containing and ritonavir-sparing regimens. Dual-PI therapy and inclusion of ritonavir do not seem to increase the rates of hepatotoxicity in PI-treated, HIV-HCV coinfected subjects.

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.

Concentration-controlled compared with conventional antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection

OBJECTIVES

To demonstrate the feasibility of a concentration-controlled approach to combination antiretroviral therapy, and to compare the virological responses and safety of this strategy versus conventional fixed-dose therapy.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, 52 week, open-label trial of concentration-controlled compared with conventional dose zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir therapy conduced in a university-based general clinical research center in the United States.

PATIENTS

Forty antiretroviral-naive individuals with plasma HIV-RNA levels > 5000 copies/ml.

INTERVENTIONS

Zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir plasma concentrations were measured in all participants. Doses were adjusted in those assigned to concentration-controlled therapy to achieve levels equal to or greater than target values.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The proportion of patients who achieved the desired drug concentrations, the proportion of patients with HIV-RNA levels < 50 copies/ml at week 52, and safety and tolerance in the concentration-controlled versus conventional therapy arms.

RESULTS

Significantly more concentration-controlled recipients achieved the desired concentration targets for all three drugs: 15 of 16 concentration-controlled recipients compared with nine of 17 conventional recipients (P = 0.017) had HIV-RNA levels < 50 copies/ml at week 52. No difference was observed in the occurrence of drug-related clinical events or laboratory abnormalities between the two treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Concentration-controlled therapy implemented simultaneously for three antiretroviral agents was feasible, as well tolerated as conventional therapy, and resulted in a greater proportion of recipients with HIV-RNA levels < 50 copies/ml after 52 weeks. These findings provide a scientific basis to challenge the accepted practice of administering the same dose of antiretroviral agents to all adults, ignoring the concentrations actually achieved.

HIV-1 protease inhibitors in development

Several pharmaceutical companies have developed an increasing number of second generation protease inhibitors (PI) during the last few years. Many of these compounds have been in preclinical trials and some are now in clinical use. All drugs in this category have been designed to be well absorbed and overcome the crucial problem of cross-resistance within this class of compounds. Taking into account the rapid occurrence of PI cross-resistance, clinicians who are treating patients with the HIV-1 infection will need new active PIs in the near future. The clinical and antiviral efficacy of the new molecules versus the older PIs will be investigated through comparative trials that are likely to be completed over the next 12 months. These third-generation PIs currently in development will be the subject of our review.

Development and significance of resistance to protease inhibitors in HIV-1-infected adults under triple-drug therapy in clinical practice

Development of drug resistance is considered a major cause for failure of antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected patients adherent to treatment. However, the rate of emergence and the significance of HIV-1 drug resistance in clinical practice have been not investigated thoroughly. Selection of HIV-1 variants that are genotypically resistant to protease inhibitors was studied in all the patients (n = 169) who completed at least 18 months of treatment with a protease inhibitor plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors at two urban Italian hospitals. HIV-1 carrying primary protease inhibitor resistance mutations was detected in 70 (41.4%) patients. The estimated proportion of patients developing genotypic resistance to protease inhibitors at 12 and 24 months was 18.3% (95% CI, 12.5-24.2%) and 33.9% (95% CI, 26.4-41.5%), respectively. Independent predictors of development of resistance to protease inhibitors were higher HIV-1 RNA levels at the nadir (P < 0.0001) and inclusion of ritonavir or saquinavir versus indinavir in the starting regimen (P = 0.0313). Resistance to protease inhibitors was strongly associated with a lower response to treatment, as shown by HIV-1 RNA load (P = 0.0001) and CD4 cell counts (P = 0.005). However, a linear increase in CD4 cell counts was maintained up to the end of follow-up even in the protease inhibitor-resistant population. Resistance to protease inhibitors develops in a relevant proportion of patients under long-term triple-drug therapy in clinical practice and is associated with virological treatment failure and limitation of CD4 cell increase.

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.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of HIV protease inhibitors using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet or photodiode array detection

Published data suggest that therapeutic drug monitoring of human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors would improve the management of antiretroviral therapy. The authors have developed a high-pressure liquid chromatographic assay allowing simultaneous determination of six protease inhibitors (ritonavir, saquinavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, amprenavir, and lopinavir), using carbamazepine as internal standard. Detection was based on a dual wavelength ultraviolet spectrophotometer and can be improved by the use of a photodiode array detector. Monitoring was performed 1 month after initiation of therapy or in instances of therapeutic failure, side effects, suspicion of noncompliance, drug interactions, or malabsorption. Trough concentrations were 0.15 to 13.6 mg/L for ritonavir, 0.06 to 9.7 mg/L for indinavir, 0.03 to 5.5 mg/L for saquinavir, and 0.15 to 4.15 mg/L for nelfinavir. Concentrations below the limit of quantification were observed in 63/438 (14%) of the patients. Target concentrations are not well established, and reported in vitro inhibitory concentrations may be of limited value. The authors therefore chose to compare observed concentrations with mean plasma concentrations reported in clinical trials. Observed saquinavir and indinavir concentrations were often below or close to these target concentrations, particularly when used as a single protease inhibitor. Concentration-controlled studies should now be used to select proper target concentrations for each protease inhibitor, either prescribed alone or in combination.

Ritonavir induces P-glycoprotein expression, multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP1) expression, and drug transporter-mediated activity in a human intestinal cell line

The present study characterized the response of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP1) to chronic ritonavir (RIT) exposure by assessing increases in P-gp and MRP1 protein expression and activity. LS-180V intestinal carcinoma cells were exposed for 3 days to 1-100 microM RIT concurrently with controls. P-gp and MRP1 protein was quantified by Western blot analysis. Cell accumulation assays, using the P-gp substrate rhodamine 123 (RH123), the P-gp/MRP1 substrate doxorubicin (DOX), and the MRP substrate carboxyfluorescein (CBF), were performed as a measure of transporter activity. RIT strongly induced P-gp and MRP1 expression (maximum 6-fold and 3-fold increases, respectively) in a concentration-dependent fashion. Following extended exposure to RIT (> 10 microM), cells accumulated < 50% of the RH123 and DOX compared with controls, whereas accumulation of CBF was decreased by 30% at 30 microM. Differences in cell accumulation of RH123 could be eliminated with verapamil (100 microM; a P-gp inhibitor), whereas decreased DOX cell accumulation was only partially reversed by verapamil. Indomethacin (100 microM; an MRP1 inhibitor) had no significant effect on RH123 or DOX accumulation, suggesting limited MRP1-mediated activity. Thus, RIT induced protein expression of P-gp and MRP1 and increased cellular drug exclusion of RH123, DOX, and CBF. Similar in vivo phenomena may occur during anti-HIV drug therapy, explaining potential decrements in therapeutic efficacy due to decreases in bioavailability or alterations in drug distribution.

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.

Clinical Pharmacologic Considerations for HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors

Many data associate low protease inhibitor plasma concentrations with suboptimal virologic responses, whereas relatively few data associate high plasma concentrations with increased likelihood of toxicity. Knowledge of relationships between concentrations and virologic response is important because significant variability in plasma concentrations exists among HIV-infected persons. Unfortunately, a prospectively confirmed therapeutic range that reduces the risk of virologic failure has not been established for the protease inhibitors. Recent investigations have identified a relationship between the measured minimum plasma concentration, the in vitro susceptibility of the subject's virus, and virologic outcome. However, differences in virologic response may further depend on other pharmacologic factors such as protein binding, intracellular kinetics, expression of drug transporters, and drug synergies or antagonisms. In the future, dosing strategies that accommodate the variability in both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics may improve virologic outcomes. In summary, clinical pharmacologic considerations for protease inhibitors can be used to promote their optimal use.

Pharmacokinetics and resistance mutations affect virologic response to ritonavir/saquinavir-containing regimens

The authors assessed the impact of protease and reverse transcription (RT) mutations and individual pharmacokinetic parameters on virologic response to a four-drug regimen including ritonavir/saquinavir. Treatment was given at the start of the study (M0) to 22 HIV-1 protease inhibitor-naive or pretreated patients. Protease and RT genes were sequenced at M0, at the time of virologic failure, or at the end of the follow-up. Plasma ritonavir and saquinavir peak C(max), C(min), and area under the curve (AUC) were determined based on samples taken 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 hours after administration. HIV-1 RNA decreased to less than 50 copies/mL in 11 patients (group 1). At M0, five of them had no RT mutation and 10 had three or fewer secondary protease mutations with no new mutation during follow-up. Ritonavir and saquinavir pharmacokinetics showed wide interindividual variability. Treatment failed in 11 patients (group 2): 9 had three to eight protease mutations and a mean of 5.8 RT mutations at M0, with emergence of new mutations during follow-up. Pharmacokinetics was similar to those of group 1. The other two patients with virologic failure showed no baseline primary mutation but were the only patients with insufficient saquinavir and ritonavir AUC. The authors showed the complementarity between drug-resistance genotype and individual pharmacokinetics and the potential utility of AUC and Cmax to manage treatment.

Comparison of the effectiveness of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-containing and protease inhibitor-containing regimens using observational databases

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of first protease inhibitor (PI)-containing and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-containing regimens.

METHODS

Data were analysed from three large HIV patient databases: Apache HIV Insight (APACHE), Target Management Services (TMS) and Clinical Partners (CP). The effectiveness of therapy was the time taken for HIV-1 RNA to fall below detectable levels on first highly active antiretroviral therapy regimen (PI- or NNRTI-containing) and the subsequent time to failure (two consecutive detectable measurements). Comparisons were made using proportional hazards models, adjusting for differences in age, sex, previous reverse transcriptase inhibitor use, calendar year and baseline viral load and CD4 T-cell count.

RESULTS

The type of regimen was not associated with time to undetectable viral load in any of the three databases, all of which had high power to detect a difference. PI-containing regimens were significantly less likely to fail after reaching undetectable viral loads for APACHE and CP patients (relative hazard, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3--2.1 and relative hazard, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.0--2.5 respectively). These results remained significant after allowing for an unmeasured confounder with moderate effect on risk. No significant association between time to failure and regimen was found for TMS patients, possibly due to low power (67% to detect a relative hazard of 1.5). No difference was found between regimens in the time taken for an increase of > 100 x 10(9)cells/l in CD4 T-cell count. In the APACHE database, those on NNRTI-containing regimens were more likely to have a failing CD4 T-cell response.

CONCLUSIONS

PI-containing regimens have a lower risk of treatment failure than NNRTI-containing regimens.

A phase II trial of dual protease inhibitor therapy: amprenavir in combination with indinavir, nelfinavir, or saquinavir

This study evaluated dual protease inhibitor (PI) regimens containing amprenavir (APV) in PI-naive, HIV-1-infected patients over 48 weeks. Patients were randomized to 800-mg APV combined with 800-mg indinavir (IDV), 750-mg nelfinavir (NFV), or 800-mg saquinavir-soft gel capsule (SGV-SGC), all three times daily without nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, or APV given alone for 3 weeks and then with 150-mg lamivudine (3TC) and 300-mg zidovudine (ZDV), twice daily. Dual PI therapy demonstrated substantial antiviral activity and was generally safe and well tolerated. Eight patients had virologic failure; 5 were receiving dual PI therapy and 3 were in the APV/3TC/ZDV arm. The protease I50V mutation characteristic of APV resistance was not observed, although other key PI mutations were selected in 4 patients failing therapy, 2 of whom had PI resistance at baseline.

Impact of HIV type 1 protease, reverse transcriptase, cleavage site, and p6 mutations on the virological response to quadruple therapy with saquinavir, ritonavir, and two nucleoside analogs

Genotype alterations of HIV-1 protease, reverse transcriptase, cleavage sites p7/p1 and p1/p6, as well as p6(gag) and transframe protein p6* were studied in an observational cohort of 42 individuals who received antiretroviral therapy consisting of saquinavir, ritonavir, and two nucleoside analogs. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the prior protease inhibitor experience (odds ratio, 6.20; 95% CI, 1.22-31.38) and the presence of primary protease mutations (odds ratio, 9.99; 95% CI, 1.05-94.72) were independently associated with virological failure. Moreover, a trend was observed in that individuals with N-terminal amino acid insertions in the proline-rich motif of the p6(gag) protein were less likely to experience virological failure (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.02-1.35; p = 0.09). In contrast, the presence of secondary protease, reverse transcriptase, or cleavage site mutations was not independently associated with treatment failure. However, mutations at cleavage site p7/p1 (p = 0.01) and C-terminal p6* mutations (p = 0.02) were both associated with primary protease mutations. In conclusion, the presence of primary protease mutations was the most important predictor of the subsequent virological response. Moreover, there is some evidence that insertions in the proline-rich area of the p6(gag) protein may affect the virological response. The relationship between mutations of cleavage sites or C-terminal p6* residues and protease mutations suggests that these alterations may serve a compensatory role, increasing viral fitness.

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.

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.