Maintenance of indinavir by dose adjustment in HIV-1-infected patients with indinavir-related toxicity

[Nephrotoxicity of antiretrovirals other than tenofovir]

The remarkable improvement of the outcome of HIV infection came with the price of substantial toxicity of some antiretrovirals. The first molecules used to treat HIV included an important nephrotoxicity. Zalcitabine, stavudine and didanosine can induce severe lactic acidosis. Lactate production is enhanced and the renal capacity to regulate pH is overwhelmed. However, this side effect is not due to a direct dysfunction of the kidneys. Zalcitabine was withdrawn from the market because of this risk. Indinavir, a protease inhibitor, is soluble only in very acidic solutions. Consequently, the small fraction that is excreted in the urine precipitates and can be responsible for uro-nephrolithiasis, leukocyturia, cristalluria, obstructive acute kidney failure, and acute or chronic interstitial nephritis. This is the reason why indinavir is almost not prescribed nowadays, even if it is still marketed. In addition to the direct nephrotoxicity of some antiretrovirals, anti-HIV treatment also includes a toxicity which pathophysiology is not completely elucidated. This nephrotoxicity is the consequence of organ accelerated ageing and of an increased vascular risk. Kidney vascularization (from renal arteries to capillaries) is essential to kidney function and all cardiovascular risks are also renal risks. It is now clearly established that combined antiretroviral treatment increases the vascular risk. A better comprehension of the links between HIV infection, its treatment and very long-term kidney risk is needed to improve the complex management of patients who have now cumulated several decades of HIV infection and treatment with various toxicities.

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice

BACKGROUND

Maintaining therapeutic concentrations of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window is a complex task. Several computer systems have been designed to help doctors determine optimum drug dosage. Significant improvements in health care could be achieved if computer advice improved health outcomes and could be implemented in routine practice in a cost-effective fashion. This is an updated version of an earlier Cochrane systematic review, first published in 2001 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether computerized advice on drug dosage has beneficial effects on patient outcomes compared with routine care (empiric dosing without computer assistance).

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched from 1996 to January 2012: EPOC Group Specialized Register, Reference Manager; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Ovid; EMBASE, Ovid; and CINAHL, EbscoHost. A "top up" search was conducted for the period January 2012 to January 2013; these results were screened by the authors and potentially relevant studies are listed in Studies Awaiting Classification. The review authors also searched reference lists of relevant studies and related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses of computerized advice on drug dosage. The participants were healthcare professionals responsible for patient care. The outcomes were any objectively measured change in the health of patients resulting from computerized advice (such as therapeutic drug control, clinical improvement, adverse reactions).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We grouped the results from the included studies by drug used and the effect aimed at for aminoglycoside antibiotics, amitriptyline, anaesthetics, insulin, anticoagulants, ovarian stimulation, anti-rejection drugs and theophylline. We combined the effect sizes to give an overall effect for each subgroup of studies, using a random-effects model. We further grouped studies by type of outcome when appropriate (i.e. no evidence of heterogeneity).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six comparisons (from 42 trials) were included (as compared with 26 comparisons in the last update) including a wide range of drugs in inpatient and outpatient settings. All were randomized controlled trials except two studies. Interventions usually targeted doctors, although some studies attempted to influence prescriptions by pharmacists and nurses. Drugs evaluated were anticoagulants, insulin, aminoglycoside antibiotics, theophylline, anti-rejection drugs, anaesthetic agents, antidepressants and gonadotropins. Although all studies used reliable outcome measures, their quality was generally low.This update found similar results to the previous update and managed to identify specific therapeutic areas where the computerized advice on drug dosage was beneficial compared with routine care:1. it increased target peak serum concentrations (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13) and the proportion of people with plasma drug concentrations within the therapeutic range after two days (pooled risk ratio (RR) 4.44, 95% CI 1.94 to 10.13) for aminoglycoside antibiotics;2. it led to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants (SMD for percentage of time spent in target international normalized ratio +0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.33) and insulin (SMD for percentage of time in target glucose range: +1.27, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.98);3. it decreased the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.04);4. it decreased the thromboembolism events (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94) and tended to decrease bleeding events for anticoagulants although the difference was not significant (rate ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08). It tended to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics (nephrotoxicity: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06) and anti-rejection drugs (cytomegalovirus infections: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.40);5. it tended to reduce the length of time spent in the hospital although the difference was not significant (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.02) and to achieve comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios than usual care;6. there was no evidence of differences in mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs and antidepressants.For all outcomes, statistical heterogeneity quantified by I(2) statistics was moderate to high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that computerized advice for drug dosage has some benefits: it increases the serum concentrations for aminoglycoside antibiotics and improves the proportion of people for which the plasma drug is within the therapeutic range for aminoglycoside antibiotics.It leads to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants and insulin. It decreases the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants. It tends to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics and anti-rejection drugs, and it significantly decreases thromboembolism events for anticoagulants. It tends to reduce the length of hospital stay compared with routine care while comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios were achieved.However, there was no evidence that decision support had an effect on mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs and antidepressants. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that some decision support technical features (such as its integration into a computer physician order entry system) or aspects of organization of care (such as the setting) could optimize the effect of computerized advice.Taking into account the high risk of bias of, and high heterogeneity between, studies, these results must be interpreted with caution.

[Evidence-based therapeutic drug monitoring for indinavir]

The HIV protease inhibitor indinavir presents a wide inter-individual variability related to an intense hepatic metabolism. Published studies were analyzed to establish whether there is evidence that therapeutic drug monitoring of indinavir could improve patient care. It was reported that indinavir virological efficacy in HIV-infected patients with wild-type virus was significantly associated with trough concentrations > 100-150 ng/mL. Concerning the exposure-toxicity relationship, the risk of occurrence of nephrotoxicity was more frequently associated with trough concentrations > 500-1 000 ng/mL. Studies with concentration-controlled indinavir therapy suggest that therapeutic drug monitoring allows to achieve safe and effective concentrations, therefore, the level of evidence of the interest of indinavir therapeutic drug monitoring is highly recommended when indinavir is not associated with ritonavir and recommended when ritonavir is combined with ritonavir.

Practical therapeutic drug management in HIV-infected patients: use of population pharmacokinetic models supplemented by individualized Bayesian dose optimization

Individualized, model-based, target-oriented optimal concentration-controlled dosing of HIV medications can be beneficial to patients for whom there are limited dosing guidelines, such as children, adolescents, or patients with altered physiologic function. Barriers to this approach include lack of training, expertise, and access to appropriate software to assist the clinician. The authors present 4 illustrative clinical cases of HIV-infected patients whose therapy was optimized using population pharmacokinetic models (here generated from published studies) and supplemented by individualized Bayesian adaptive control of dosage regimens as implemented in the MM-USCPACK software. These 4 cases illustrate how clinicians can maximize therapeutic success in (1) patients with reduced drug clearance, (2) young adolescents transitioning to adult physiology, (3) patients with dose-dependent toxicity, and (4) adolescents with limited therapeutic options.