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

Saquinavir potentiates itraconazole's antifungal activity against multidrug-resistant Candida auris in vitro andin vivo

Candida species are highly opportunistic yeasts that are responsible for serious invasive fungal infections among immunocompromised patients worldwide. Due to the increase in drug resistance and incidence of infections, there is an urgent need to develop new antifungals and to identify co-drugs that can sensitize drug-resistant Candida to antifungals. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of saquinavir on the activity of azole antifungals against C. auris. The in vitro interaction of saquinavir and three azole antifungals (itraconazole, voriconazole, and fluconazole) was evaluated against a panel of C. auris isolates. The itraconazole/saquinavir combination exhibited a synergistic (SYN) relationship against all C. auris isolates tested with the fractional inhibitory concentration index ranging from 0.03 to 0.27. Moreover, a time-kill kinetics assay revealed that saquinavir restored the itraconazole's fungistatic activity against C. auris. Furthermore, saquinavir restored itraconazole's antifungal activity against other clinically important Candida species. The mechanistic investigation indicated that saquinavir significantly inhibited efflux pumps, glucose utilization, and ATP synthesis in Candida. Finally, a murine model of C. auris infection was used to evaluate the efficacy of the itraconazole/saquinavir combination in the presence of ritonavir (as a pharmacokinetic enhancer). The combination significantly reduced the fungal burden in the kidneys by 0.93-log10 colony-forming units (88%) compared to itraconazole alone. This study identified that saquinavir exhibits a potent SYN relationship in combination with itraconazole against Candida species, which warrants further consideration.

Lack of Interaction between Enfuvirtide and Ritonavir or Ritonavir-Boosted Saquinavir in HIV-1-Infected Patients

Enfuvirtide (Fuzeon) is an HIV fusion inhibitor, the first drug in a new class of antiretrovirals. The HIV protease inhibitors ritonavir and saquinavir both inhibit cytochrome P450 (CYP450) isoenzymes, and low-dose ritonavir is often used to boost pharmacokinetic exposure to full-dose protease inhibitors. These two studies were designed to assess whether ritonavir and ritonavir-boosted saquinavir influence the steady-state pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide. Both studies were single-center, open-label, one-sequence crossover clinical pharmacology studies in 12 HIV-1-infected patients each. Patients received enfuvirtide (90 mg twice daily [bid], subcutaneous injection) for 7 days and either ritonavir (200 mg bid, ritonavir study, orally) or saquinavir/ritonavir (1000/100 mg bid, saquinavir/ritonavir study, orally) for 4 days on days 4 to 7. Serial blood samples were collected up to 24 hours after the morning dose of enfuvirtide on days 3 and 7. Plasma concentrations for enfuvirtide, enfuvirtide metabolite, saquinavir, and ritonavir were measured using validated liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry methods. Efficacy and safety were also monitored. Bioequivalence criteria require the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the least squares means (LSM) of C(max) and AUC(12h) to be between 80% and 125%. In the present studies, analysis of variance showed that when coadministered with ritonavir, the ratio of LSM for enfuvirtide was 124% for C(max) (90% confidence interval [CI]: 109%-141%), 122% for AUC(12h) (90% CI: 108%-137%), and 114% for C(trough) (90% CI: 102%-128%). Although the bioequivalence criteria were not met, the increase in enfuvirtide exposure was small (< 25%) and not clinically relevant. When administered with ritonavir-boosted saquinavir, the ratio of LSM for enfuvirtide was 107% for C(max) (90% CI: 94.3%-121%) and 114% for AUC(12h) (90% CI: 105%-124%), which therefore met bioequivalence criteria, and 126% for C(trough) (90% CI: 117%-135%). The pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide are affected to a small extent when coadministered with ritonavir at a dose of 200 mg bid but not when coadministered with a saquinavir-ritonavir combination (1000/100 mg bid). However, previous clinical studies have shown that such increases in enfuvirtide exposure are not clinically relevant. Thus, no dosage adjustments are warranted when enfuvirtide is coadministered with low-dose ritonavir or saquinavir boosted with a low dose of ritonavir.

Identification of a potential pharmacological sanctuary for HIV type 1 in a fraction of CD4(+) primary cells

We have identified a subset of HIV-susceptible CD4(+)CCR5(+) cells in human PBMCs that can efficiently exclude protease inhibitors (PI) due to high P-glycoprotein (P-gp) efflux activity. Phenotypically these cells are heterogeneous, include both T and non-T cells, and some display markers of memory cells. Cells with high P-gp represent 16-56% (median = 37.3) of all CD4(+)CCR5(+) cells in healthy donors, and are selectively depleted in HIV-1-infected individuals (4.1-33%, median = 10.1). A fraction of primary cells productively infected by HIV-1, in vitro, have high P-gp pump activity, demonstrating that infection does not inhibit P-gp function. In agreement with these data, HIV-susceptible cells expressing high levels of P-gp require higher levels of PI for complete inhibition of virus spread. We conclude that the PI concentrations achieved in plasma could be suboptimal for full inhibition of virus spread in high P-gp cells, indicating that they may represent a pharmacological sanctuary for HIV-1.

How much ritonavir is needed to boost protease inhibitors? Systematic review of 17 dose-ranging pharmacokinetic trials

BACKGROUND

Ritonavir has been evaluated at boosting doses of 50–800 mg daily with seven protease inhibitors: amprenavir, atazanavir, darunavir, indinavir, lopinavir,saquinavir and tipranavir. Minimizing the boosting dose of ritonavir could improve tolerability and lower costs.

METHODS

A MEDLINE search identified 17 phamacokinetic trials using different ritonavir doses with protease inhibitors. The dose of ritonavir used was correlated with plasma levels of each boosted protease inhibitor. For the five pharmacokinetic trials of lopinavir/ritonavir, a meta-analysis was used to estimate the effects of lopinavir dose versus ritonavir dose on lopinavir pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

Saquinavir, fosamprenavir and darunavir were boosted equally well by lower(50–100 mg) versus higher doses of ritonavir. Indinavir, tipranavir and lopinavir were boosted more by higher ritonavir doses. Data on atazanavir were inconclusive. The ritonavir dose-dependence of boosting effects did not correlate with their bioavailability or their effects on ritonavir plasma levels. Atazanavir and indinavir raised plasma ritonavir levels by 69–72%, whereas saquinavir had no effects on ritonavir. Darunavir,lopinavir, tipranavir and fosamprenavir all lowered ritonavir plasma levels. For the meta-analysis of lopinavir/ritonavir trials, the 200/150 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) dose of lopinavir/ritonavir (one Meltrex 200/50mg tablet and one ritonavir 100mg b.i.d.)showed lopinavir area under the curve and minimum concentration similar to the standard 400/100mg b.i.d. dose.

CONCLUSION

It may be possible to use three protease inhibitors (saquinavir, amprenavir and darunavir) with lower doses of ritonavir. A 200/150 mg b.i.d. dose of lopinavir/ritonavir could lower costs while maintaining very similar lopinavir plasma levels to the standard dose. New pharmaco enhancer drugs may need to be used at different doses to boost different antiretrovirals.

Cytochrome P450 3A inhibition by atazanavir and ritonavir, but not demography or drug formulation, influences saquinavir population pharmacokinetics in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected adults

Inadequate concentrations of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitor saquinavir jeopardize individual therapy success or produce side effects despite treatment according to the current guidelines. We performed a population pharmacokinetic analysis with NONMEM and determined that the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir in 136 HIV type 1-infected adults was modulated by a decrease in saquinavir CL following coadministration of the cytochrome P450 3A inhibitors ritonavir and atazanavir. In contrast, age, sex, weight, pregnancy, and the pharmaceutical formulation exerted only minor, nonsignificant effects.

Reducing the boosting dose of ritonavir does not affect saquinavir plasma concentrations in HIV-1-infected individuals

Currently, the optimal boosting dose for saquinavir is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics profiles in a cross over setting comparing saquinavir/ritonavir 1500/50 mg (plus NRTI backbone) to saquinavir/ritonavir 1500/100 mg in the same HIV-infected, Thai individuals. The 50% reduction of ritonavir boosting did not result in a change in the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir, whereas the ritonavir exposure was significantly lower when a dose of 50 mg was administered.

Fosamprenavir or atazanavir once daily boosted with ritonavir 100 mg, plus tenofovir/emtricitabine, for the initial treatment of HIV infection: 48-week results of ALERT

BACKGROUND

Once-daily (QD) ritonavir 100 mg-boosted fosamprenavir 1400 mg (FPV/r100) or atazanavir 300 mg (ATV/r100), plus tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) 300 mg/200 mg, have not been compared as initial antiretroviral treatment. To address this data gap, we conducted an open-label, multicenter 48-week study (ALERT) in 106 antiretroviral-naïve, HIV-infected patients (median HIV-1 RNA 4.9 log10 copies/mL; CD4+ count 191 cells/mm3) randomly assigned to the FPV/r100 or ATV/r100 regimens.

RESULTS

At baseline, the FPV/r100 or ATV/r100 arms were well-matched for HIV-1 RNA (median, 4.9 log10 copies/mL [both]), CD4+ count (mean, 176 vs 205 cells/mm3). At week 48, intent-to-treat: missing/discontinuation = failure analysis showed similar responses to FPV/r100 and ATV/r100 (HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/mL: 75% (40/53) vs 83% (44/53), p = 0.34 [Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test]); mean CD4+ count change-from-baseline: +170 vs +183 cells/mm3, p = 0.398 [Wilcoxon rank sum test]). Fasting total/LDL/HDL-cholesterol changes-from-baseline were also similar, although week 48 median fasting triglycerides were higher with FPV/r100 (150 vs 131 mg/dL). FPV/r100-treated patients experienced fewer treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events (15% vs 57%), with differences driven by ATV-related hyperbilirubinemia. Three patients discontinued TDF/FTC because their GFR decreased to <50 mL/min.

CONCLUSION

The all-QD regimens of FPV/r100 and ATV/r100, plus TDF/FTC, provided similar virologic, CD4+ response, and fasting total/LDL/HDL-cholesterol changes through 48 weeks. Fewer FPV/r100-treated patients experienced treatment-related grade 2-4 adverse events.

Association of saquinavir plasma concentrations with side effects but not with antiretroviral outcome in patients infected with protease inhibitor-susceptible human immunodeficiency virus type 1

The objective of this study was to identify parameters among saquinavir pharmacokinetics, patients' demographics or comedications, to be addressed for improved personalized therapy. The presence of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA at therapy week 48 (principal target parameter), CD4 cell count at week 48, infections and side effects during 48 weeks, indicators of liver toxicity and lipid abnormalities at week 48, and a 12-h saquinavir plasma concentration-versus-time profile were assessed in 56 patients receiving saquinavir-ritonavir (1,000 and 100 mg, respectively) twice daily (44 therapy-naïve and 12 antiretrovirally pretreated patients) for association with saquinavir plasma concentrations, demographics, baseline values of target parameters, and coadministered antiretrovirals. Antiretroviral failure was observed in 8 of the 56 patients in whom HIV-1 RNA was detectable at week 48. This therapeutic failure was not associated with individual saquinavir pharmacokinetics. More likely, therapeutic failure was related to incidences interfering with antiretroviral therapy, causing therapy interruptions or incompliance. Weak associations were, however, seen between high maximum saquinavir plasma concentrations and both CD4 counts of > or =200 cells microl(-1) at week 48 (P = 0.014) and constitutional side effects during 48 weeks (P = 0.002). However, patients with high CD4 counts and constitutional side effects were not identical (P = 0.53). Saquinavir therapeutic drug monitoring in patients infected with protease inhibitor-susceptible HIV-1 taking saquinavir-ritonavir (1,000 and 100 mg, respectively) is not demanded for improving the antiretroviral effect. It may be contemplated in cases with constitutional side effects or low CD4 counts with weak immune responses.

Ketoconazole is inferior to ritonavir as an alternative booster for saquinavir in a once daily regimen in Thai HIV-1 infected patients

OBJECTIVE

To improve the pharmacokinetics of protease inhibitors, boosting with low-dose ritonavir is performed. However, toxicity, storage conditions and high costs of antiretroviral treatment may necessitate interruption of ritonavir. Ketoconazole was investigated as a potential booster of once-daily (o.d.) saquinavir.

METHODS

In a single-group, two-period design, 25 virologically and immunologically stable patients on saquinavir/ritonavir 2000/100 mg o.d. were switched to saquinavir/ketoconazole 2000/400 mg o.d. for 2 weeks. Two steady-state pharmacokinetic curves were recorded at both periods.

RESULTS

Fourteen females and 11 male patients were included. Median age was 34 years [interquartile range (IQR), 32-42 years], body weight 54 kg (IQR, 47-59 kg) and body mass index 21 kg/m (19-23 kg/m). The mean saquinavir area under the curve (AUC) during boosting with ritonavir was 57.93 +/- 27.96 mg/h/l, maximum observed concentration (Cmax) was 7.50 +/- 3.45 mg/l and concentration at 24 h (Cmin) was 0.35 +/- 0.30 mg/l. When ketoconazole was used, the saquinavir AUC, Cmax, and Cmin were 12.00 +/- 6.97 mg/h/l, 2.43 +/- 1.35 mg/l and 0.03 +/- 0.04 mg/l, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Boosting with ketoconazole resulted in 80% lower exposure to saquinavir. Although saquinavir AUC might still be adequate for treatment, concentrations at 24 h reached levels below the recommended trough concentrations of 0.1 mg/l, which may result in selection of resistant HIV-1 viral strains. Therefore, boosting of saquinavir by ketoconazole is not recommended.

Steady-state pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of voriconazole and ritonavir in healthy male subjects

Since there is a likelihood of coadministration of voriconazole and ritonavir, two studies were conducted to evaluate the potential of drug interaction. Study A was a randomized, placebo-controlled, two-period, parallel-group trial (n = 34). Study B had the same design without the placebo group (n = 17). In period 1, subjects received 200 mg voriconazole or placebo twice daily (BID) for 3 days (400 mg BID on day 1). In period 2, following a 7-day washout, subjects received ritonavir alone at 400 mg BID (study A) or 100 mg BID (study B) for 10 days (days 11 to 20), and then ritonavir was coadministered with 200 mg BID voriconazole or placebo for the next 10 days (days 21 to 30). Serial plasma samples were collected on days 3, 20, and 30, and safety data were collected throughout the study. High-dose (400 mg BID) ritonavir substantially reduced the steady-state mean voriconazole exposure (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h [AUC(0-12)], -82%; maximum concentration [C(max)], -66%). However, the effect of low-dose (100 mg BID) ritonavir was less pronounced (AUC(0-12), -39%; C(max), -24%). The decrease in voriconazole exposure was probably due to the induction of CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 by ritonavir. It is interesting that one subject in each study exhibited the opposite effect of ritonavir on voriconazole exposure (a 2.5- to 3-fold increase), probably due to lack of CYP2C19. Voriconazole had no apparent effect on the exposure of high-dose ritonavir but slightly decreased the exposure of low-dose ritonavir (AUC(0-12), -14%; C(max), -24%). The safety profile of combination therapy was not notably different from that of voriconazole or ritonavir alone. Due to the significant effect of ritonavir on voriconazole exposure, coadministration of voriconazole with 400 mg BID ritonavir is contraindicated; coadministration with 100 mg BID ritonavir should be avoided, unless an assessment of the benefit/risk to the patient justifies the use.

Clinical and pharmacokinetic data support once-daily low-dose boosted saquinavir (1,200 milligrams saquinavir with 100 milligrams ritonavir) in treatment-naive or limited protease inhibitor-experienced human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

We evaluated the plasma and intracellular pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety of once-daily low-dose boosted saquinavir (SQVr; 1,200 of saquinavir [SQV] with 100 mg of ritonavir) plus two nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in treatment-naive or limited protease inhibitor (PI)-experienced human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. A prospective study without entry restrictions on the plasma HIV-RNA (VL) or CD4 cell count was carried out. Plasma and intracellular SQV levels were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Efficacy was evaluated by an intention-to-treat analysis; treatment failure was defined as virological failure (a VL of >50 copies/ml after 24 weeks or a confirmed rebound to >50 copies/ml) or interruption for any reason. A total of 151 patients were included in the study (106 of them either had never received PI or had no previous virological failure on PIs) and could be characterized as follows: previous C3 stage, 28.9%; injection-drug users, 69.1%; subjects with chronic viral hepatitis, 53%; and subjects with cirrhosis, 10%. The median baseline CD4 level was 184/mul, and the median VL was 4.8 log(10) copies/ml. Median C(max), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h, and C(min) plasma and intracellular SQV levels were 3,672 and 10,105 ng/ml, 34,283 and 99,535 ng.h/ml, and 359 and 1,062 ng/ml, respectively. The efficacy as determined by intention to treat at 52 weeks was 69.7% (96% in the on-treatment analysis), with similar results regardless of the baseline VL and CD4 counts. Only five patients had virological failure despite adequate C(min) levels, but with a poor adherence (the only variable related to virological failure). Adverse events caused the withdrawal of the treatment in four patients (2.6%). In conclusion, given the pharmacokinetic profile, efficacy, and tolerability of this regimen, once-daily low-dose SQVr may be considered a treatment option in treatment-naive or limited PI-experienced HIV-infected patients, with the additional benefit of being currently the least-expensive PI-based regimen available.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between rifampicin and the once-daily combination of saquinavir and low-dose ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with tuberculosis

OBJECTIVES

To assess plasma steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of rifampicin, isoniazid, saquinavir and ritonavir in HIV and tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients, and investigate potential interactions between TB drugs and protease inhibitors (PIs).

METHODS

Open-label, single-arm, sequential PK study including 22 patients with HIV infection and TB. During the first 2 months, patients received rifampicin, isoniazid and pyrazinamide, with or without ethambutol (first PK study, n = 22). Then patients stopped pyrazinamide and ethambutol and started once-daily antiretroviral therapy (ART) with didanosine, lamivudine, ritonavir (200 mg) and saquinavir (1600 mg) (second PK study, n = 18). Patients stopped all TB drugs after 9 months continuing the same ART (third PK study, n = 15). Differences between TB drug parameters in the first and second PK studies, and between PI parameters in the second and third PK studies were used to assess interactions.

RESULTS

Rifampicin and isoniazid pharmacokinetics did not change substantially with saquinavir and ritonavir. A significant 39.5%, 34.9% and 48.7% reduction in median saquinavir AUC(0-24), C(max) and C(trough), respectively, was seen with rifampicin and isoniazid. Ritonavir AUC(0-24), C(max) and C(trough) decreased 42.5%, 49.6% and 64.3%, respectively, with rifampicin and isoniazid.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a significant interaction between saquinavir, ritonavir and rifampicin, with reduction in median plasma concentrations of saquinavir and ritonavir. Saquinavir should be given with caution in patients receiving rifampicin. Twice-daily dosing or higher saquinavir doses in once-daily administration should be tested to obtain more appropriate plasma levels.

Pharmacokinetics of saquinavir, atazanavir, and ritonavir in a twice-daily boosted double-protease inhibitor regimen

The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir (ATV), saquinavir (SQV), and ritonavir (RTV) in a boosted double-protease inhibitor (PI) therapy regimen without reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTIs). The study design was as follows. Patients with limited RTI options received a PI combination of 300/100 mg ATV/RTV once daily and 1,000 mg SQV twice daily (group 1; n=49) without RTI comedication. The results were compared to the plasma concentrations of PIs of patients taking either 300 mg ATV/100 mg RTV once daily plus RTIs (group 2; n=72) or patients taking 1,000 mg SQV/100 mg RTV plus RTIs (group 3; n=90). The study methods were as follows. Patients were given a 12/24-h pharmacokinetic assessment at steady state. Drug concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The minimum and maximum concentrations (Cmin and Cmax), area under the concentration-time curve under steady-state conditions (AUCss), elimination half-life, time of maximum concentration and lag time were subject to statistical analysis. The results show that patients treated with ATV/SQV/RTV exhibited significantly high SQV concentrations and moderate enhancement of the AUCss of ATV in comparison to those of patients of the control groups: for SQV in groups 1 and 3, the geometric mean (GM) of the AUCss was 22,794 versus 15,759 ng.h/ml (GM ratio [GMR]=1.45; P<0.05), the GM of the Cmax was 3,257 versus 2,331 ng/ml (GMR=1.40; P<0.05), and the GM of the Cmin was 438 versus 437 ng/ml (GMR=1.00); for ATV in groups 1 and 2, the GM of the AUCss was 39,154 versus 33,626 ng.h/ml (GMR=1.16), the GM of the Cmax was 3,488 versus 2,924 ng/ml (GMR=1.20), and the GM of the Cmin was 515 versus 428 ng/ml (GMR=1.21). RTV levels were comparable for all groups. A subgroup analysis detected only marginal differences in ATV plasma exposure if combined with tenofovir-disoproxilfumarate and without it. We conclude that our pharmacokinetic results support the use of a boosted double-PI regimen of ATV/SQV/RTV as a treatment option for patients who need antiretroviral therapy without RTIs.

Lack of sex-related differences in saquinavir pharmacokinetics in an HIV-seronegative cohort

AIMS

To examine the influence of sex on steady-state saquinavir pharmacokinetics in HIV-seronegative volunteers administered saquinavir without a concomitant protease inhibitor.

METHODS

Thirty-eight healthy volunteers (14 female) received saquinavir soft-gel capsules 1200 mg three times daily for 3 days to achieve steady-state conditions. Following administration of the 10th dose, blood was collected serially over 8 h for measurement of saquinavir plasma concentrations. Saquinavir pharmacokinetic parameter values were determined using noncompartmental methods and compared between males and females. CYP3A phenotype (using oral midazolam) and MDR-1 genotypes at positions 3435 and 2677 were determined for all subjects in order to characterize possible mechanisms for any observed sex-related differences.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in saquinavir AUC(0-8) or any other pharmacokinetic parameter value between the sexes. These findings persisted after mathematically correcting for total body weight. The mean weight-normalized AUC(0-8) was 29.9 (95% confidence interval 15.5, 44.3) and 29.8 (18.6, 40.9) ng h(-1) ml(-1) kg(-1) for males and females, respectively. No significant difference in CYP3A phenotype was observed between the groups; likewise, the distribution of MDR-1 genotypes was similar for males and females.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to previous study findings, results from this investigation showed no difference in saquinavir pharmacokinetics between males and females. The discrepancy between our findings and those previously reported may be explained by the fact that we evaluated HIV-seronegative volunteers and administered saquinavir in the absence of concomitant protease inhibitors such as ritonavir. Caution must be exercised when extrapolating pharmacokinetic data from healthy volunteer studies (including sex-based pharmacokinetic differences) to HIV-infected populations or to patients receiving additional concurrent medications.

Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of once-daily saquinavir soft-gelatin capsule/ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-infected patients

CONTEXT

Once-daily HIV treatment regimens are being used in clinical practice with the objective of improving patient acceptance and adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of saquinavir-soft-gelatin capsule (SGC)/ritonavir combination (1600 mg/100 mg) vs efavirenz (600 mg) both once daily and combined with 2 nucleoside analogs twice daily.

SETTING

Twenty-six centers in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico.

PATIENTS

A total of 171 antiretroviral naive HIV-infected individuals were enrolled in a 48-week, phase 3, open-label, randomized study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Proportion of patients with HIV-RNA levels < 50 copies/mL. The pharmacokinetic profile of saquinavir-SGC was analyzed in a subset of randomly selected patients.

RESULTS

In the primary intent-to-treat population at week 48, 51% (38/75) and 71% (55/77) of patients in the saquinavir-SGC/ritonavir and efavirenz groups, respectively, achieved HIV-RNA suppression < 50 copies/mL (P = .5392, 95% 1-sided confidence interval [CI] = -33.5%). In the on-treatment (OT) population, 73% (38/52) and 93% (54/58) of patients in the saquinavir-SGC/ritonavir and efavirenz groups, respectively, had effective viral suppression < 50 copies/mL (P = .5015, 95% 1-sided CI = -33.4%). Mean CD4+ cell counts increased by 239 and 204 cells/microliters (mcL), in the saquinavir-SGC/ritonavir and efavirenz groups, respectively, in the OT analysis (P = .058). Both regimens were reasonably well tolerated, although more gastrointestinal adverse events were reported with saquinavir-SGC/ritonavir. Pharmacokinetic profiles in 6 patients showed an observed median Cmin at 24 hours of 429 ng/mL (range, 68-1750 ng/mL).

CONCLUSIONS

Once-daily efavirenz was statistically superior to once-daily saquinavir-SGC/ritonavir. Gastrointestinal adverse effects were commonly associated with treatment failure in the saquinavir-SGC/ritonavir arm of the study.

Drug transporters in pharmacokinetics

This review deals with the drug transporters allowing drugs to enter and leave cells by carrier-mediated pathways. Emphasis is put on liver transporters but systems in gut, kidney, and blood-brain barrier are mentioned as well. Drug-drug interactions on carriers may provoke significant modification in pharmacokinetics as do carrier gene polymorphisms yielding functional carrier protein mutations. An integrated phase concept should reflect the interplay between drug metabolism and drug transport.

Interindividual variability of once-daily ritonavir boosted saquinavir pharmacokinetics in Thai and UK patients

OBJECTIVES

Differential exposure to saquinavir/ritonavir may lead to therapy failure. The objective was to identify factors that influence variability of saquinavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations.

METHODS

Saquinavir/ritonavir data, dosed as 1600/100 mg once daily, from three separate pharmacokinetic studies, in 45 patients from Thailand and the UK, were pooled. Pharmacokinetic parameters were based on non-compartmental analysis. Univariate analysis was performed with saquinavir as the dependent variable, and ritonavir area under the curve (AUC), gender, body weight, body mass index (BMI) and study site as independent variables. Variables with a P value <0.10 were included in a multivariate linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

Higher saquinavir AUCs, maximum concentrations (Cmax) and minimum concentrations (Cmin) were seen in Thai patients than in UK patients. Univariate analysis showed associations between body weight, gender, study site and ritonavir AUC and saquinavir AUC (P < 0.05), whereas BMI (P = 0.13) did not. In the multivariate analysis, ritonavir AUC (P = 0.0001) and study site (P = 0.0021) were significantly related to saquinavir AUC (R2 = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

The ritonavir AUC and study site appeared to be related to exposure of saquinavir. Study site should be viewed as the total of country- and study-specific differences--such as differences in lifestyle, environment, genetic background and dietary composition--between the analysed studies.

Use of nonlinear mixed effect modeling for the intestinal absorption data: Application to ritonavir in the rat

The aim of this study is to investigate in situ the mechanisms involved in the gastrointestinal absorption of ritonavir in the rat, as an animal model for preclinical studies of anti-HIV agents in vivo. Four ritonavir solutions (40, 27, 13 and 7 microM) in the presence of 1% dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) were perfused in the small intestine of anaesthetised rats. Effects of DMSO on the intestinal permeability were investigated using solutions containing antipyrine 1.33 mM and ritonavir 7 microM with and without 1% of DMSO. Antipyrine and ritonavir transport was not modified in the presence of 1% of DMSO. The population pharmacokinetic parameters of the ritonavir intestinal transport were obtained by means of nonlinear mixed effect modelling approach according to a nonlinear absorption and nonlinear secretion. The absorption and secretion kinetic parameters for ritonavir were: Vm=47.6 microM/h; Km=8.77 microM; Vms=3.66 microM/h and Kms=0 microM. The interindividual variability found to ritonavir Vm 13.1%, and the residual variability was 8.98%. The Kms value support the saturation of the carrier at the range of concentrations of ritonavir assayed. The interindividual variability value of the Vm could explain, at least in part, the variability in absorption rate constants observed.

Boosted saquinavir hard gel formulation exposure in HIV-infected subjects: ritonavir 100 mg once daily versus twice daily

OBJECTIVES

The amount of ritonavir needed to enhance saquinavir hard gel (hg) plasma concentrations is unclear. Reduced ritonavir dosing may help to reduce ritonavir-related side effects and costs. This study examined the pharmacokinetics of twice-daily saquinavir-hg (1000 mg) in the presence of ritonavir 100 mg, dosed twice-daily and once-daily on one single occasion.

METHODS

Eighteen HIV-infected adults taking saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice-daily underwent pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of saquinavir/ritonavir on day 1 following a morning saquinavir/ritonavir dose. On day 2, PK assessment was repeated when subjects took saquinavir without ritonavir. Drug intake (with a standard meal containing 20 g of fat) was timed on days -1, 1 and 2. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess changes in saquinavir PK parameters.

RESULTS

Geometric mean saquinavir AUC(0-12), C(trough), C(max) and elimination half-life on days 1 and 2 were 14 389 and 9590 ng.h/mL, 331 and 234 ng/mL, 2503 and 1893 ng/mL and 2.80 and 2.82 h, respectively. The GMR (95% CI) for these parameters were 0.67 (0.53-0.84), 0.71 (0.48-1.04), 0.76 (0.58-0.98) and 1.01 (0.86-1.18), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Withholding a ritonavir dose significantly reduces overall saquinavir exposure and C(max), but had no impact on the elimination half-life. These data establish the need to administer saquinavir and ritonavir simultaneously.

The pharmacokinetics of HIV protease inhibitor combinations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The clinical use of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens has evolved recently. This strategy offers a number of unique benefits, including pharmacokinetic enhancement of two different protease inhibitors with low dose ritonavir. We review the pharmacologic rationale for the double-boosted protease inhibitor combinations and the complex drug-drug interactions that occur among different protease inhibitors when co-administered.

RECENT FINDINGS

The discovery and widespread clinical use of low dose ritonavir as a pharmacoenhancer of other protease inhibitors has significantly improved the management of HIV infection treatment. This has subsequently led to the development of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens which have been shown to be effective in heavily pre-treated patients, in whom it is crucial to maintain drug concentrations sufficient to suppress viruses with multiple resistance mutations. Interesting pharmacokinetic data have been recently produced showing the complexity of the interactions among three protease inhibitors. As the outcome of these multidrug interactions may be difficult to predict, formal pharmacokinetic studies have been fundamental to determine which protease inhibitors are best to administer in combination.

SUMMARY

This review summarizes the current literature regarding the pharmacokinetics of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens and general considerations regarding their usage in the treatment of HIV-infected patients.

Predictive value of drug levels, HIV genotyping, and the genotypic inhibitory quotient (GIQ) on response to saquinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected patients

Plasma levels of HIV protease inhibitors (PI) are often close to IC50 values of wild-type viruses when administered without ritonavir boosting. The impact of drug levels, resistance mutations, and the genotypic inhibitory quotient (GIQ) were examined on the response to saquinavir/ritonavir (SQV/r)-based salvage therapy. Patients with prior exposure to PI other than SQV and currently failing virologically were recruited prospectively in a multicenter trial. All patients began SQV/r 1000/100 mg bid plus another two antiretrovirals. A total of 139 patients was enrolled. At month 12, virological response (VR), defined as plasma HIV-RNA decline >1 log, was recorded in 68.2% of patients on treatment (41.7% in the intent-to-treat analysis). The median baseline number of protease resistance mutations was three. The VR was significantly lower in patients with >5 protease resistance mutations and in those with plasma SQV Cmin<0.1 microg/ml. At week 48, the VR was seen in 77.1% of patients with a GIQ>0.04 compared to 18.2% of those with a lower GIQ (P=0.001). In the multivariate analysis, <or=5 protease resistance mutations and SQV Cmin>0.1 microg/ml were independently associated with VR. Interestingly, drug levels had their highest predictive value of the VR at week 12, since low SQV plasma levels often permitted ruling out poorly adherent patients. In contrast, the number of protease resistance mutations had the highest impact on the VR at week 24, suggesting that for those taking the drugs, the VR is highly dependent of the presence of resistance mutations. At any time, nevertheless, the GIQ provided the most accurate prediction of the VR.

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.

Pharmacokinetic study of saquinavir hard gel caps/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients: 1600/100 mg once-daily compared with 2000/100 mg once-daily and 1000/100 mg twice-daily

OBJECTIVES

A pharmacokinetic comparison of three dosing regimens of saquinavir/ritonavir was carried out: 1600/100 mg once-daily with 1000/100 mg twice-daily, and 1600/100 mg once-daily with 2000/100 mg once-daily.

METHODS

Twenty patients on saquinavir hard gel caps/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once-daily in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for at least 4 weeks were enrolled and randomized to either saquinavir hard gel caps/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice-daily or 2000/100 mg once-daily. Two pharmacokinetic curves were plotted, at baseline (day 0) and 7 days after the switch. Plasma concentrations were measured at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 (and 24 for once-daily dosing) hours after drug intake by validated high-performance liquid chromatographic assay (HPLC). The area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-24 or AUC0-12), maximum and minimum concentration (Cmax and Cmin) and elimination half-life were calculated using a non-compartmental model.

RESULTS

Compared with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once-daily dosing, the saquinavir AUC and Cmin improved significantly when dosed as 1000/100 mg twice-daily (53% and 299%, respectively), and as 2000/100 mg once-daily (71% and 65%, respectively). Low Cmin in three subjects at baseline was corrected after switch to the other dosages. Saquinavir/ritonavir 2000/100 mg once-daily was also associated with a significant increase in saquinavir Cmax (52%) compared with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once-daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Saquinavir/ritonavir when dosed as 2000/100 mg once-daily or 1000/100 mg twice-daily achieves higher saquinavir plasma levels compared with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once-daily. Taking the convenience of once-daily dosing into consideration, dosage of 2000/100 mg once-daily may be preferred.

Atazanavir enhances saquinavir hard-gel concentrations in a ritonavir-boosted once-daily regimen

OBJECTIVE

To determine the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard-gel capsules/ritonavir/atazanavir co-administered once daily at 1600/100/300 mg in HIV-infected individuals.

METHODS

Eighteen patients receiving saquinavir/ritonavir switched to 1600/100 mg once daily a minimum of 3 days before the study. On study day 1, levels of saquinavir and ritonavir were determined over 24 h. Atazanavir (300 mg once daily) was then added to the regimen. On day 11, a pharmacokinetic analysis was performed. Atazanavir was discontinued on day 32. Drug concentrations were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare saquinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameters, with and without atazanavir. A safety analysis was performed at screening, days 1, 11, 32 and follow-up.

RESULTS

After the addition of atazanavir, statistically significant increases in saquinavir trough plasma concentration (Ctrough GMR, 95% CI 2.12, 1.72-3.50), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax 1.42, 1.24-1.94), area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0-24 h (AUC0-24 1.60, 1.35-2.43) and ritonavir Cmax (1.58, 1.32-2.08), AUC0-24 (1.41, 1.22-1.74) were observed. The pharmacokinetics of atazanavir compared with those obtained in patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir without saquinavir. Four patients developed scleral icterus and two jaundice. Total and unconjugated bilirubin increased approximately fivefold during atazanavir therapy.

CONCLUSION

The addition of atazanavir to saquinavir/ritonavir increased saquinavir Ctrough, Cmax and AUC0-24 by 112, 42 and 60%. Ritonavir Cmax and AUCo-24 increased by 34 and 41%. The regimen was well tolerated, with no significant change in laboratory parameters, except for the occurrence of hyperbilirubinemia.

Saquinavir: a review of its use in boosted regimens for treating HIV infection

Protease inhibitor boosting involves concurrent administration of a protease inhibitor, such as saquinavir, plus a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4, usually ritonavir in subtherapeutic doses. Since protease inhibitors are extensively metabolised by CYP3A4, this results in a marked increase in systemic exposure of saquinavir or other protease inhibitors boosted by ritonavir. As with traditional protease inhibitor regimens, boosted regimens are typically used in combination with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). In protease inhibitor-experienced and -naive patients with HIV infection, twice-daily and once-daily boosted saquinavir regimens achieved good rates of viral suppression, improved CD4+ cell counts and were generally well tolerated in clinical trials. Encouraging results have also been reported in a number of small studies in heavily pretreated HIV-infected patients who received salvage therapy comprising double-boosted regimens of saquinavir plus lopinavir with subtherapeutic doses of ritonavir, along with other agents. The largest clinical trials have been multicentre, randomised comparisons of twice-daily boosted saquinavir versus twice-daily boosted indinavir (MaxCmin1) or lopinavir (MaxCmin2) regimens. In the MaxCmin1 study, >90% of patients in both groups had an undetectable viral load (<400 copies/mL) after 48 weeks of therapy in the on-treatment analysis. However, viral suppression was achieved in significantly more saquinavir than indinavir recipients in the intention-to-treat analysis, which appeared to be due to the significantly greater percentage of patients in the indinavir group who switched from randomised therapy because of adverse events. Interim 24-week results of the MaxCmin2 trial indicate that 90% of patients in both groups combined had plasma HIV RNA levels <400 copies/mL; final results at 48 weeks will report data separately for the boosted regimens of saquinavir and lopinavir.

CONCLUSION

Boosted protease inhibitor regimens (including two NRTIs) are recommended as a first-line option in current HIV treatment guidelines and are used extensively in clinical practice. The convenient administration schedule and good pharmacokinetic profile associated with boosted saquinavir regimens have the potential to increase adherence to therapy and improve antiretroviral effects through increased drug exposure. Twice-daily boosted saquinavir is one of the most extensively evaluated boosted protease inhibitor regimens and has been shown to have good efficacy on surrogate markers of HIV disease as well as significant tolerability advantages over boosted indinavir. Once-daily boosted saquinavir regimens may be most suitable for HIV-infected patients with busy lifestyles and those who would benefit from directly observed therapy.

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.

Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Twice-Daily Saquinavir Soft Gelatin Capsules (SGC), with or without Nelfinavir, and Three Times Daily Saquinavir-SGC, in Triple Combination Therapy for HIV Infection: 100-Week Follow-Up

Objectives

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of saquinavir soft gelatin capsules (SQV-SGC) (Fortovase®) in twice-daily, with or without nelfinavir (NFV), and three-times-daily regimens. This was an extension of a 48-week study, with follow-up to 100 weeks.

Design

Patients were randomized to one of three treatment arms: arm A, SQV-SGC 1200 mg three times daily plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs); arm B, SQV-SGC 1600 mg twice daily plus two NRTIs; or arm C, SQV-SGC 1200 mg twice daily plus NFV 1250 mg twice daily plus one NRTI. At week 48, patients could either withdraw or continue in the study to the common study closure date. Antiretroviral activity was assessed by changes in HIV-1 RNA values and CD4 cell counts from 48 weeks until 100 weeks.

Results

In the modified intention-to-treat population, the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA values <400 copies/ml was statistically different between arms A and C (49 vs 28%, P=0.017), and arms B and C (48 vs 28%, P=0.027). Continued suppression of HIV-1 replication (HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/ml) was observed through 100 weeks in 83% (30/36), 73% (29/40) and 62% (16/26) of patients in treatment arms A, B and C, respectively, in the on-treatment (OT) population. At 100 weeks, sustained increases were achieved in mean CD4 cell counts of +361, +273 and +309 cells/mm3, respectively (OT population). No additional adverse events or increase in the proportion of patients reporting adverse events were observed from 48 weeks to 100 weeks.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates the long-term efficacy and safety of SQV-SGC twice daily, with or without NFV, and three times daily, in triple combination therapy for HIV-1-infected patients. However, the evidence suggests that long-term treatment with SQV-SGC plus NFV may be less acceptable to patients.