Ritonavir enables combined therapy with rifampin and saquinavir

Pharmacological interactions between rifampicin and antiretroviral drugs: challenges and research priorities for resource-limited settings

Coadministration of antituberculosis and antiretroviral therapy is often inevitable in high-burden countries where tuberculosis (TB) is the most common opportunistic infection associated with HIV/AIDS. Concurrent use of rifampicin and many antiretroviral drugs is complicated by pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Rifampicin is a very potent enzyme inducer, which can result in subtherapeutic antiretroviral drug concentrations. In addition, TB drugs and antiretroviral drugs have additive (pharmacodynamic) interactions as reflected in overlapping adverse effect profiles. This review provides an overview of the pharmacological interactions between rifampicin-based TB treatment and antiretroviral drugs in adults living in resource-limited settings. Major progress has been made to evaluate the interactions between TB drugs and antiretroviral therapy; however, burning questions remain concerning nevirapine and efavirenz effectiveness during rifampicin-based TB treatment, treatment options for TB-HIV-coinfected patients with nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance or intolerance, and exact treatment or dosing schedules for vulnerable patients including children and pregnant women. The current research priorities can be addressed by maximizing the use of already existing data, creating new data by conducting clinical trials and prospective observational studies and to engage a lobby to make currently unavailable drugs available to those most in need.

Management of HIV-associated tuberculosis in resource-limited settings: a state-of-the-art review

The HIV-associated tuberculosis (TB) epidemic remains a huge challenge to public health in resource-limited settings. Reducing the nearly 0.5 million deaths that result each year has been identified as a key priority. Major progress has been made over the past 10 years in defining appropriate strategies and policy guidelines for early diagnosis and effective case management. Ascertainment of cases has been improved through a twofold strategy of provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling in TB patients and intensified TB case finding among those living with HIV. Outcomes of rifampicin-based TB treatment are greatly enhanced by concurrent co-trimoxazole prophylaxis and antiretroviral therapy (ART). ART reduces mortality across a spectrum of CD4 counts and randomized controlled trials have defined the optimum time to start ART. Good outcomes can be achieved when combining TB treatment with first-line ART, but use with second-line ART remains challenging due to pharmacokinetic drug interactions and cotoxicity. We review the frequency and spectrum of adverse drug reactions and immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (IRIS) resulting from combined treatment, and highlight the challenges of managing HIV-associated drug-resistant TB.

Human immunodeficiency virus and leprosy coinfection: challenges in resource-limited setups

Mycobacteria leprae(leprosy) and HIV coinfection are rare in Kenya. This is likely related to the low prevalence (1 per 10,000 of population) of leprosy. Because leprosy is no longer a public health challenge there is generally a low index of suspicion amongst clinicians for its diagnosis. Management of a HIV-1-leprosy-coinfected individual in a resource-constrained setting is challenging. Some of these challenges include difficulties in establishing a diagnosis of leprosy; the high pill burden of cotreatment with both antileprosy and antiretroviral drugs (ARVs); medications' side effects; drug interactions; scarcity of drug choices for both diseases. This challenge is more profound when managing a patient who requires second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART). We present an adult male patient coinfected with HIV and leprosy, who failed first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) and required second-line treatment. Due to limited choices in antileprosy drugs available, the patient received monthly rifampicin and daily lopinavir-/ritonavir-based antileprosy and ART regimens, respectively. Six months into his cotreatment, he seemed to have adequate virological control. This case report highlights the challenges of managing such a patient.

Pharmacokinetic interaction study of ritonavir-boosted saquinavir in combination with rifabutin in healthy subjects

The effect of multiple doses of rifabutin (150 mg) on the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir-ritonavir (1,000 mg of saquinavir and 100 mg of ritonavir [1,000/100 mg]) twice daily (BID) was assessed in 25 healthy subjects. Rifabutin reduced the area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h postdose (AUC(0-12)), maximum observed concentration of drug in plasma (C(max)), and minimum observed concentration of drug in plasma at the end of the dosing interval (C(min)) for saquinavir by 13%, 15%, and 9%, respectively, for subjects receiving rifabutin (150 mg) every 3 days with saquinavir-ritonavir BID. No effects of rifabutin on ritonavir AUC(0-12), C(max), and C(min) were observed. No adjustment of the saquinavir-ritonavir dose (1,000/100 mg) BID is required when the drugs are administered in combination with rifabutin. The effect of multiple doses of saquinavir-ritonavir on rifabutin pharmacokinetics was evaluated in two groups of healthy subjects. In group 1 (n = 14), rifabutin (150 mg) was coadministered every 3 days with saquinavir-ritonavir BID. The AUC(0-72) and C(max) of the active moiety (rifabutin plus 25-O-desacetyl-rifabutin) increased by 134% and 130%, respectively, compared with administration of rifabutin (150 mg) once daily alone. Rifabutin exposure increased by 53% for AUC(0-72) and by 86% for C(max). In group 3 (n = 13), rifabutin was coadministered every 4 days with saquinavir-ritonavir BID. The AUC(0-96) and C(max) of the active moiety increased by 60% and 111%, respectively, compared to administration of 150 mg of rifabutin once daily alone. The AUC(0-96) of rifabutin was not affected, and C(max) increased by 68%. Monitoring of neutropenia and liver enzyme levels is recommended for patients receiving rifabutin with saquinavir-ritonavir BID.

Management of individuals requiring antiretroviral therapy and TB treatment

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Globally, tuberculosis (TB) is the commonest opportunistic infection in people living with HIV. Many co-infected patients first present with advanced immunosuppression and require antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation during TB treatment. The incidence of TB in patients established on ART remains high. Co-treatment presents several management challenges. Recent data on these management issues are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

Efavirenz concentrations at standard doses are similar with and without concomitant rifampicin-based TB treatment. Nevirapine concentrations are frequently subtherapeutic during lead-in dosing at 200 mg daily in patients on rifampicin-based TB treatment, which may result in inferior virological outcomes. Hepatotoxicity occurred in three pharmacokinetic studies (conducted in healthy volunteers) of boosted protease inhibitors initiated in participants on rifampicin. Results of a clinical trial comparing efavirenz-based and nevirapine-based ART in patients on TB treatment, with no lead-in dosing of nevirapine, are awaited. Concurrent TB treatment increases the need for stavudine substitutions, mainly related to neuropathy. Consensus case definitions for TB immune reconstitution inflammatory syndrome (TB-IRIS) have been published. It is important to exclude TB drug resistance in patients with suspected TB-IRIS. A clinical trial demonstrated benefit of prednisone for treating TB-IRIS, reducing a combined endpoint of days of hospitalization and outpatient therapeutic procedures. Starting ART during TB treatment improved survival in patients with CD4 cell count less than 500 cells/mul, but the optimal interval between starting TB treatment and starting ART remains to be determined in several ongoing trials.

SUMMARY

ART improves survival in co-infected TB patients, but is complicated by several management challenges that compromise programmatic implementation in resource-limited settings. Recent findings and the findings of ongoing studies will assist clinicians in dealing with these challenges.

Unexpected Hepatotoxicity of Rifampin and Saquinavir/Ritonavir in Healthy Male Volunteers

OBJECTIVES: Rifampin is a potent inducer of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme (CYP3A4) that metabolizes most protease inhibitor (PI) antiretrovirals. This study was designed to evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetics and tolerability of the coadministration of the PIs saquinavir and ritonavir (a CYP3A4 inhibitor used as a pharmacoenhancer of other PIs) and rifampin when coadministered in healthy HIV-negative volunteers. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized, one sequence, two-period crossover study involving 28 healthy HIV-negative volunteers, arm 1 was randomized to receive saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice daily while arm 2 received rifampin 600 mg once daily for 14 days. Both arms were then to receive concomitant saquinavir/ritonavir and rifampin for 2 additional weeks. Vital signs, electrocardiography, laboratory analyses, and blood levels of total saquinavir, ritonavir, rifampin, and desacetyl-rifampin, the primary metabolite of rifampin, were measured. RESULTS: In arm 1, 10/14 (71%) and, in arm 2, 11/14 (79%) participants completed the first study phase; eight participants in arm 1 and nine in arm 2 went on to receive both saquinavir/ritonavir and rifampin. Following substantial elevations (>/= grade 2) in hepatic transaminases in participants receiving the coadministered agents, the study was discontinued prematurely. Two participants in arm 1 displayed moderate elevations after five and four doses of rifampin, respectively. In arm 2, all participants experienced severe elevations within 4 days of initiating saquinavir/ritonavir. Clinical symptoms (e.g., nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and headache) were more common and severe in arm 2. Clinical symptoms abated and transaminases normalized following drug discontinuation. Limited pharmacokinetic data suggest a possible relationship between transaminase elevation and elevated rifampin and desacetyl-rifampin concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: Although not confirmed in HIV-infected patients, the data indicate that rifampin should not be coadministered with saquinavir/ritonavir.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between rifampicin and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) is a common opportunistic infection among HIV-infected people, and rifampicin is an important drug for the treatment of TB. However, administration of rifampicin in combination with antiretroviral therapy, particularly protease inhibitors, is difficult because of drug-drug interactions.

METHODS

We have performed a prospective study in three HIV-infected patients with TB treated with a rifampicin-containing regimen (rifampicin 600 mg per day) and antiretroviral therapy including only nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus atazanavir 300 mg once a day (qd) and ritonavir 100 mg qd, to evaluate whether the inducing effect of rifampicin on the drug-metabolizing enzyme cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 could be overcome by the inhibitory effect of ritonavir. A complete pharmacokinetic evaluation of the steady-state concentrations of atazanavir and ritonavir was performed.

RESULTS

In all three cases, more than 50% of the time the atazanavir level was below the minimum recommended trough plasma level (150 ng/mL according to current pharmacokinetic guidelines) to inhibit HIV wild-type replication.

CONCLUSION

These results strongly indicate that the administration of rifampicin with a combination of atazanavir 300 mg qd plus ritonavir 100 mg qd must be avoided because subtherapeutic concentrations of atazanavir are produced.

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.

Effect of rifampin on steady-state pharmacokinetics of atazanavir with ritonavir in healthy volunteers

Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a concern in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Rifampin (RIF), an agent used against M. tuberculosis, is contraindicated with most HIV protease inhibitors. Atazanavir (ATV) has clinical efficacy comparable to a standard of care regimen in naive patients and, when dosed with low-dose ritonavir (RTV), also in treatment-experienced patients. We evaluated here the safety and pharmacokinetics of ATV, resulting from three regimens of ATV, RTV, and RIF in 71 healthy subjects. The pharmacokinetics for ATV and RTV were assessed after 6 and 10 days of dosing with ATV 400 mg (n = 53) and with ATV-RTV at 300 and 100 mg (ATV/RTV 300/100; n = 52), respectively. Steady-state pharmacokinetics for ATV, RTV, RIF, and desacetyl-rifampin (des-RIF) were measured after 10 days of dosing of ATV/RTV/RIF 300/100/600 (n = 17), ATV/RTV/RIF 300/200/600 (n = 17), or ATV/RTV/RIF 400/200/600 (n = 14). An RIF 600-alone arm was enrolled as a control group (n = 18). With ATV/RTV/RIF 400/200/600, ATV area under the concentration-time curve values were comparable, but the C(min) values were lower relative to ATV 400 alone. ATV exposures were substantially reduced for the other RIF-containing regimens relative to ATV 400 alone and for all regimens relative to ATV/RTV 300/100 alone. RIF and des-RIF exposures were 1.6- to 2.5-fold higher than with RIF 600 alone. The incidence of grade 3/4 alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase values was limited to 1 subject each in both the ATV/RTV/RIF 300/200/600 and the ATV/RTV/RIF 400/200/600 treatments. Coadministration of ATV with RIF was safe and generally well tolerated. Since ATV exposures were reduced in all regimens, ATV and RIF should not be coadministered at the dosing regimens studied.

Safety, Efficacy and Pharmacokinetics of Ritonavir 400mg/Saquinavir 400mg Twice Daily plus Rifampicin Combined Therapy in HIV Patients with Tuberculosis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the drug concentrations, efficacy and safety of concomitant use of rifampicin and regimens containing ritonavir/saquinavir (400mg/400mg twice daily) in tuberculosis-HIV treatment-naive patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This was an open-label, non-randomised, multiple-dose study. On study day (D)1, tuberculosis treatment (rifampicin 600mg/isoniazid 400mg per day fasting plus pyrazinamide 2 g/day) was introduced in 30 patients. On D31, highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) consisting of two nucleoside analogues plus ritonavir/saquinavir 400mg/400mg twice daily was initiated (n = 20). The pharmacokinetics were assayed with a validated reversed-phase HPLC method before the introduction of HAART on D30 (for rifampicin), after 30 days of HAART at D60 (for rifampicin plus ritonavir/saquinavir), and at the end of the study (without rifampicin) on D210 (for ritonavir/saquinavir). Clinical evaluations were performed on a monthly basis. CD4 counts and viral load were collected on D30, D60 and D180. Genotyping test for HIV was collected at baseline and at D180. Primary endpoints were drug concentration and viral load at D180 (<80 copies/mL). Secondary endpoints were presence of grade 3 and serious adverse events, clinical improvement, CD4 count and genotypic resistance to ritonavir/saquinavir.

RESULTS

Ten patients dropped out of the study during tuberculosis therapy alone. Mean (+/- SD) baseline CD4 count (on D30) was 151.89 (+/- 146.77) cells/mm(3) and viral load was 5.34 (+/- 0.4) log. During the antiretroviral therapy, 15 patients dropped out, 14 because of adverse events. One patient (of five) presented a viral load of <80 copies/mL at D180. All but one patient increased CD4 counts from baseline. No genotypic resistance was detected. Clinical improvement was evident in all five patients who tolerated the therapy. Serum concentrations of ritonavir/saquinavir and rifampicin remained within the therapeutic range.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic concentrations of the studied drugs and reduction of viral load were achieved; adverse events are the main limitation of use of a ritonavir/saquinavir regimen in treatment-naive patients, but its clinical benefits were evident.

Once-Daily Regimen of Saquinavir, Ritonavir, Didanosine, and Lamivudine in HIV-Infected Patients With Standard Tuberculosis Therapy (TBQD Study)

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of a once-daily regimen with didanosine, lamivudine, saquinavir, and low-dose ritonavir in antiretroviral (ARV)-naive patients with tuberculosis treated with rifampin and the influence of rifampin on plasma trough concentration (Ctrough) of saquinavir.

METHODS

Single-arm, prospective, multicenter, open-label pilot study, including 32 adult ARV-naive subjects with HIV infection and tuberculosis under standard treatment that included rifampin (600 mg q.d.) and isoniazid (300 mg q.d.). After 2 months of tuberculosis treatment, patients were started on once-daily ARV therapy, consisting of didanosine, lamivudine, ritonavir (200 mg), and saquinavir soft gel capsules (1600 mg). HIV RNA level, CD4 cell count, clinical and laboratory toxicity, and saquinavir Ctrough during and after antituberculosis therapy were analyzed.

RESULTS

After 48 weeks of follow-up, 20 of 32 patients (62.5%; 95% CI: 45.8% to 79.2%) in the intent-to-treat population and 20 of 28 (71.4%; 95% CI: 54.4% to 88.4%) in the on-treatment population had an HIV RNA level <50 copies/mL. Treatment tolerance was acceptable in all patients except for 2 with biologic hepatic toxicity leading to discontinuation. Seven patients had virologic failure. In 10 patients (36%), saquinavir Ctrough was <0.05 microg/mL during tuberculosis therapy and 5 of them had virologic failure. The median saquinavir Ctrough was 44% lower (interquartile range: 19% to 71%) with coadministration of rifampin than without.

CONCLUSION

The combination of didanosine, lamivudine, saquinavir, and ritonavir may be a useful treatment regimen for patients with tuberculosis in whom a once-daily protease inhibitor-containing regimen is considered indicated. Nevertheless, on the basis of pharmacokinetic profile the dose of 1600/200 mg of saquinavir/ritonavir cannot be recommended. Further studies with higher doses of saquinavir (2000 mg) boosted with ritonavir are warranted.

Drug–drug interactions and tolerance in combining antituberculosis and antiretroviral therapy

Worldwide, tuberculosis (TB) is one of the most important infectious diseases in subjects with HIV infection. Although effective therapy is available for both conditions, there are major problems in the concurrent treatment of HIV and TB co-infection. In this article the knowledge available on drug-drug interactions between anti-HIV and anti-TB compounds is analysed, particularly with regard to pharmacological interactions secondary to interference with cytochrome P450 enzymes. Within the same setting, facts and possible interpretations of the problems encountered in terms of tolerance and safety of the concurrent treatment of TB and HIV are also reviewed. Current guidelines, as well as additional possible strategies to be adopted in this particular co-morbidity setting are discussed.

Drug interactions in the management of HIV infection

The availability of antiretroviral therapy has significantly reduced the morbidity and mortality of HIV infection. In addition, improved treatment of opportunistic infections and comorbidities common to patients with HIV is further prolonging the lives of patients. Improvement in the treatment of HIV has led to a significant increase in the number of medications which caregivers are able to utilise to manage HIV/AIDS. Antiretroviral medications, as well as many of the drugs used in the management of opportunistic infections and primary care (e.g., macrolide antibiotics, azole antifungals, cholesterol-lowering medications), are particularly prone to drug interactions. The interpretation of clinically significant interactions is complicated by the rate at which new information on drug metabolism and transport is becoming available. Management of drug interactions in HIV is further confounded by conflicting study results and differences between documented and theoretical inter-actions. The mechanisms and significance of interactions involving antiretrovirals, drugs used for opportunistic infections, and other medications commonly used in HIV patients will be reviewed.

Pharmacokinetics of adjusted-dose lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin in healthy volunteers

Coadministration of lopinavir-ritonavir, an antiretroviral protease inhibitor, at the standard dose (400/100 mg twice a day [BID]) with the antituberculous agent rifampin is contraindicated because of a significant pharmacokinetic interaction due to induction of cytochrome P450 3A by rifampin. In the present study, two adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir were tested in combination with rifampin. Thirty-two healthy subjects participated in a randomized, two-arm, open-label, multiple-dose, within-subject controlled study. All subjects were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/100 mg BID from days 1 to 15. From days 16 to 24, the subjects in arm 1 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 800/200 mg BID in a dose titration, and the subjects in arm 2 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/400 mg BID in a dose titration. Rifampin was given at 600 mg once daily to all subjects from days 11 to 24. The multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of lopinavir, ritonavir, and rifampin were assessed. Twelve of 32 subjects withdrew from the study. For nine subjects lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin resulted in liver enzyme level elevations. Pharmacokinetic data for 19 subjects were evaluable. Geometric mean ratios for the lopinavir minimum concentration in serum and the maximum concentration in serum (C(max)) on day 24 versus that on day 10 were 0.43 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.96) and 1.02 (90% CI, 0.85 to 1.23), respectively, for arm 1 (n = 10) and 1.03 (90% CI, 0.68 to 1.56) and 0.93 (90% CI, 0.81 to 1.07), respectively, for arm 2 (n = 9). Ritonavir exposure increased from days 10 to 24 in both arms. The geometric mean C(max) of rifampin was 13.5 mg/liter (day 24) and was similar between the two arms. Adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with therapeutic drug monitoring and monitoring of liver function may allow concomitant use of rifampin.

Utility of Tuberculosis Directly Observed Therapy Programs as Sites for Access to and Provision of Antiretroviral Therapy in Resource-Limited Countries

The overwhelming share of the global human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and disease burden is borne by resource-limited countries. The explosive spread of HIV infection and growing burden of disease in these countries has intensified the need to find solutions to improved access to treatment for HIV infection. The epidemic of HIV infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) has been accompanied by a severe epidemic of tuberculosis. Tuberculosis has become the major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with HIV disease worldwide. Among the various models of provision of HIV/AIDS care, one logical but unexplored strategy is to integrate HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis care and treatment, including highly active antiretroviral therapy, through existing tuberculosis directly observed therapy programs. This strategy could address the related issues of inadequate access and infrastructure and need for enhanced adherence to medication and thereby potentially improve the outcome for both diseases.

Prevention of opportunistic infections in adult and adolescent patients with HIV infection. GESIDA/National AIDS Plan guidelines, 2004 [correction]

OBJECTIVE

To provide an update of guidelines from the Spanish AIDS Study Group (GESIDA) and the National AIDS Plan (PNS) committee on the prevention of opportunistic infections in adult and adolescent HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

These consensus recommendations have been produced by a group of experts from GESIDA and/or the PNS after reviewing the earlier document and the scientific advances in this field in the last years. The system used by the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the United States Public Health Service has been used to classify the strength and quality of the data.

RESULTS

This document provides a detailed review of the measures for the prevention of infections caused by viruses, bacteria, fungi and parasites in the context of HIV infection. Recommendations are given for preventing exposure and for primary and secondary prophylaxis for each group of pathogens. In addition, criteria are established for the withdrawal of prophylaxis in patients who respond well to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).

CONCLUSIONS

HAART is the best strategy for the prevention of opportunistic infections in HIV-positive patients. Nevertheless, prophylaxis is still necessary in countries with limited economic resources, in highly immunodepressed patients until HAART achieves beneficial effects, in patients who refuse to take or who cannot take HAART, in those in whom HAART is not effective, and in the small group of infected patients with inadequate recovery of CD4+ T lymphocyte counts despite good inhibition of HIV replication.

Clinical Management of Tuberculosis in the Context of HIV Infection

Globally, the HIV and tuberculosis epidemics are stoking each other, creating a public health crisis of enormous proportions. At the level of individuals, contemporaneous infection with M. tuberculosis and HIV poses great challenges to clinical management. This chapter provides an overview of active and latent tuberculosis treatment in HIV-infected and -uninfected individuals. The discussion focuses on medication issues, including interactions between antitubercular drugs, antiretroviral drugs, and medicines used for opportunistic infections and treatment in the face of comorbidities. Clinical questions specific to coinfection are discussed, including duration and timing initiation of therapy and immune reconstitution. Most of the data presented were generated in industrialized settings and are presented to assist patient management in such settings. However, given the disproportionate amount of TB/HIV in less-developed nations and the increasing availability of antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings, the issues presented will become increasingly relevant globally.

Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Rifampin and the Combination of Indinavir and Low‐Dose Ritonavir in HIV‐Infected Patients

Rifampin is an important drug in the treatment of tuberculosis, but administration of rifampin in combination with protease inhibitors is complicated because of drug-drug interactions. A prospective, controlled, multiple-dose study involving 6 HIV-infected patients receiving a combination of indinavir (800 mg) and ritonavir (100 mg) twice a day was performed to evaluate whether the inducing effect of rifampin on the drug-metabolizing enzyme cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 could be overcome by the inhibitory effect of ritonavir. Pharmacokinetic evaluations of steady-state concentrations of indinavir and ritonavir were performed before and after administration of rifampin (300 mg every day for 4 days). An 87% reduction (from 837 to 112 ng/mL) in median indinavir and a 94% reduction (from 431 to 27 ng/mL) in median ritonavir concentrations were seen 12 h after the last dose of rifampin was administered (P=.031). These results strongly indicate that the administration of rifampin with a combination of indinavir (800 mg) and ritonavir (100 mg) could lead to subtherapeutic concentrations of indinavir.

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.

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.

Drug interactions between antiretroviral drugs and comedicated agents

HIV-infected individuals usually receive a wide variety of drugs in addition to their antiretroviral drug regimen. Since both non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors are extensively metabolised by the cytochrome P450 system, there is a considerable potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions when they are administered concomitantly with other drugs metabolised via the same pathway. In addition, protease inhibitors are substrates as well as inhibitors of the drug transporter P-glycoprotein, which also can result in pharmacokinetic drug interactions. The nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are predominantly excreted by the renal system and may also give rise to interactions. This review will discuss the pharmacokinetics of the different classes of antiretroviral drugs and the mechanisms by which drug interactions can occur. Furthermore, a literature overview of drug interactions is given, including the following items when available: coadministered agent and dosage, type of study that is performed to study the drug interaction, the subjects involved and, if specified, the type of subjects (healthy volunteers, HIV-infected individuals, sex), antiretroviral drug(s) and dosage, interaction mechanism, the effect and if possible the magnitude of interaction, comments, advice on what to do when the interaction occurs or how to avoid it, and references. This discussion of the different mechanisms of drug interactions, and the accompanying overview of data, will assist in providing optimal care to HIV-infected patients.

Ritonavir-enhanced pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir/M8 during rifampin use

OBJECTIVE

To describe a case of successful protease inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) concomitant with rifampin.

CASE SUMMARY

In a 7-month-old male infant with tuberculosis and HIV-1 infection, tuberculosis therapy including rifampin and HAART containing the protease inhibitor nelfinavir 40 mg/kg every 8 hours was started. Intensive steady-state pharmacokinetic sampling from baseline to 8 hours revealed very low plasma concentrations of nelfinavir: area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0-24)) <10% of adult population values for 750 mg every 8 hours and nonquantifiable concentrations of nelfinavir's principal metabolite (M8). Nelfinavir 40 mg/kg every 8 hours was then substituted with nelfinavir 30 mg/kg twice daily plus ritonavir 400 mg/m(2) twice daily. Intensive steady-state (0-12 h) pharmacokinetic sampling was repeated. Nelfinavir concentrations had improved, but remained low when compared with adult population values of 1250 mg every 12 hours: AUC(0-24) 21.9 versus 47.6 mg/L*h (46%) and 12-hour trough level (C(12)) 0.25 versus 0.85 mg/L (29%). However, concentrations of M8 considerably exceeded population values: AUC(0-24) 57.5 versus 13.6 mg/L*h (443%) and C(12) 1.35 versus 0.28 mg/L (482%). Since M8 concentrations were highly elevated, pharmacokinetic parameters for (nelfinavir + M8) were used rather than those for nelfinavir alone. Thus, AUC(0-24) (nelfinavir + M8) and C(12) (nelfinavir + M8) comprised 130% and 142%, respectively of the adult population values. This, in addition to good clinical response and tolerability, favored continuation of the regimen.

CONCLUSIONS

In an infant, nelfinavir-containing HAART was successfully used with rifampin after the addition of ritonavir. Ritonavir resolved the pharmacokinetic interaction between rifampin and nelfinavir by boosting nelfinavir and, especially, M8 concentrations. More research is needed to confirm these results.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between efavirenz and rifampicin in HIV-infected patients with tuberculosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interactions between efavirenz and rifampicin (rifampin) in patients with HIV infection and tuberculosis.

DESIGN

Nonblind, randomised, pharmacokinetic study.

PATIENTS

24 patients (21 male, 3 female; mean age 37 years) with HIV infection and tuberculosis.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomised to one of the following treatments: group A (n = 16) received antituberculosis drugs without rifampicin, plus highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) including efavirenz 600 mg once daily, on days 1 to 7. Patients were then switched to rifampicin in bodyweight-adjusted fixed-dose combination plus HAART including efavirenz 600 mg once daily (group A-1; n = 8) or efavirenz 800 mg once daily (group A-2; n = 8). Group B (n = 8) received rifampicin in bodyweight-adjusted fixed-dose combination on days 1 to 7; on day 8, HAART including efavirenz 800 mg once daily was added. Blood samples were obtained on days 7 and 14.

METHODS

Plasma concentrations of efavirenz and rifampicin were quantified by using validated high performance liquid chromatography assays, and pharmacokinetic parameter values were determined by noncompartmental methods. The differences between pharmacokinetic parameters on days 7 and 14 were used to assess interactions.

RESULTS

There was a correlation between the pharmacokinetic parameters of efavirenz and the dose/kg administered. For efavirenz, mean (median) peak concentration, trough concentration and area under the concentration-time curve over the administration interval decreased 24% (24%), 25% (18%) and 22% (10%), respectively, in the presence of rifampicin. Large interpatient variability was observed, suggesting that plasma concentration monitoring of efavirenz may be advisable. Overall, the pharmacokinetics of efavirenz 800 mg plus rifampicin were similar to those of efavirenz 600 mg without rifampicin. The pharmacokinetics of rifampicin did not change substantially in the presence of efavirenz. Differences in patients' bodyweight appeared to cause further differences in exposure to efavirenz. Plasma concentrations of efavirenz in patients weighing <50 kg were similar to those previously described in HIV-infected patients without concomitant tuberculosis. However, plasma concentrations in patients weighing >or=50 kg were almost halved compared with those in patients weighing <50 kg.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the minimal effective efavirenz plasma concentration that assures virological success is not currently known, it may be advisable to increase the dosage of efavirenz to 800 mg once daily when it is coadministered with rifampicin. Rifampicin can be used with efavirenz without dosage modification.

Interaction between saquinavir soft-gel and rifabutin in patients infected with HIV

AIMS

To evaluate the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between the HIV protease inhibitor saquinavir and rifabutin.

METHODS

Fourteen HIV-infected patients provided full steady-state pharmacokinetic profiles following administration of rifabutin alone (300 mg once daily) or saquinavir soft-gel formulation (1200 mg three times daily) plus rifabutin (300 mg once daily) in this open label, partially randomized study.

RESULTS

Coadministration of saquinavir and rifabutin resulted in a reduction in saquinavir AUC(0,8 h) and C(max)(0,8 h) of 47% (95% CI 30, 60%) and 39% (95% CI 11, 59%), respectively. Rifabutin AUC(0,24 h) and C(max)(0,24 h) was increased by an average of 44% (95% CI 17, 78%) and 45% (95% CI 14, 85%), respectively. Saquinavir in combination with rifabutin was well tolerated. Gastrointestinal intolerance and asymptomatic increases in liver enzymes were the only adverse events of note.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of rifabutin with saquinavir may decrease the efficacy of this HIV protease inhibitor.

Clinically significant interactions with drugs used in the treatment of tuberculosis

Clinically significant interactions occurring during antituberculous chemotherapy principally involve rifampicin (rifampin), isoniazid and the fluoroquinolones. Such interactions between the antituberculous drugs and coadministered agents are definitely much more important than among antituberculous drugs themselves. These can be associated with consequences even amounting to therapeutic failure or toxicity. Most of the interactions are pharmacokinetic rather than pharmacodynamic in nature. The cytochrome P450 isoform enzymes are responsible for many interactions (especially those involving rifampicin and isoniazid) during drug biotransformation (metabolism) in the liver and/or intestine. Generally, rifampicin is an enzyme inducer and isoniazid acts as an inhibitor. The agents interacting significantly with rifampicin include anticoagulants, anticonvulsants, anti-infectives, cardiovascular therapeutics, contraceptives, glucocorticoids, immunosuppressants, psychotropics, sulphonylureas and theophyllines. Isoniazid interacts principally with anticonvulsants, theophylline, benzodiapines, paracetamol (acetaminophen) and some food. Fluoroquinolones can have absorption disturbance due to a variety of agents, especially the metal cations. Other important interactions of fluoroquinolones result from their enzyme inhibiting potential or pharmacodynamic mechanisms. Geriatric and immunocompromised patients are particularly at risk of drug interactions during treatment of their tuberculosis. Among the latter, patients who are HIV infected constitute the most important group. This is largely because of the advent of new antiretroviral agents such as the HIV protease inhibitors and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in the armamenterium of therapy. Compounding the complexity of drug interactions, underlying medical diseases per se may also contribute to or aggravate the scenario. It is imperative for clinicians to be on the alert when treating tuberculosis in patients with difficult co-morbidity requiring polypharmacy. With advancement of knowledge and expertise, it is hoped that therapeutic drug monitoring as a new paradigm of care can enable better management of these drug interactions.

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.

Comparative pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the rifamycin antibacterials

The rifamycin antibacterials, rifampicin (rifampin), rifabutin and rifapentine, are uniquely potent in the treatment of patients with tuberculosis and chronic staphylococcal infections. Absorption is variably affected by food; the maximal concentration of rifampicin is decreased by food, whereas rifapentine absorption is increased in the presence of food. The rifamycins are well-known inducers of enzyme systems involved in the metabolism of many drugs, most notably those metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A. The relative potency of the rifamycins as CYP3A inducers is rifampin > rifapentine > rifabutin; rifabutin is also a CYP3A substrate. The antituberculosis activity of rifampicin is decreased by a modest dose reduction from 600 to 450mg. This somewhat surprising finding may be due to the binding of rifampicin to serum proteins, limiting free, active concentrations of the drug. However, increasing the administration interval (after the first 2 to 8 weeks of therapy) has little effect on the sterilising activity of rifampicin, suggesting that relatively brief exposures to a critical concentration of rifampicin are sufficient to kill intermittently metabolising mycobacterial populations. The high protein binding of rifapentine (97%) may explain the suboptimal efficacy of the currently recommended dose of this drug. The toxicity of rifampicin is related to dose and administration interval, with increasing rates of presumed hypersensitivity with higher doses combined with administration frequency of once weekly or less. Rifabutin toxicity is related to dose and concomitant use of CYP3A inhibitors. The rifamycins illustrate the complexity of predicting the pharmacodynamics of treatment of an intracellular pathogen with the capacity for dormancy.

Saquinavir soft-gel capsule: an updated review of its use in the management of HIV infection

Saquinavir is a potent and highly selective HIV protease inhibitor. Initially formulated as a hard-gel capsule (HGC), saquinavir was the first protease inhibitor available commercially for the treatment of patients with HIV infection. The limited oral bioavailability of saquinavir HGC has been improved significantly with the introduction of a soft-gel capsule (SGC) formulation. Saquinavir SGC displays greater than dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values are 8- to 10-fold higher with saquinavir SGC 1200 mg 3 times daily than with the HGC formulation 600 mg 3 times daily, the recommended dosages of the 2 formulations. In combination with other protease inhibitors (particularly "low dose" ritonavir), the oral bioavailability of saquinavir (as either the HGC or SGC formulation) is markedly increased, allowing for reduced dosing frequency and/or dosage. The efficacy and tolerability of once- or twice-daily saquinavir SGC/"low dose" ritonavir combinations are currently being evaluated in patients with HIV infection. Data (up to 48 weeks) from noncomparative and comparative clinical trials evaluating saquinavir SGC-containing combination regimens in adult patients with HIV infection, support and strengthen the clinical efficacy profile of the drug that was demonstrated in initial trials. In antiretroviral therapy-naive and -experienced patients, saquinavir SGC combined with > or =2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), or nelfinavir, or nelfinavir plus 2 NRTIs or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), markedly improved immunological and virological surrogate markers (increased mean CD4+ cell counts and decreased mean plasma HIV RNA levels) of HIV infection. Saquinavir SGC demonstrated a trend to greater antiviral efficacy (measured by improvements in surrogate markers) than the HGC formulation (not statistically significant); a significantly greater proportion of patients treated with saquinavir SGC had plasma HIV RNA levels <400 copies/ml than patients receiving the HGC formulation. In the first direct comparison of 2 protease inhibitors, saquinavir SGC plus 2 NRTIs demonstrated similar antiviral efficacy to indinavir plus 2 NRTIs in patients with HIV infection (almost all of whom were antiretroviral therapy-naive); at 24 weeks, a significantly greater increase in CD4+ cell count from baseline was obtained in the saquinavir SGC group compared with the indinavir group, although this difference was not apparent at week 32. Triple therapy with saquinavir SGC plus 2 NRTIs was as effective as nelfinavir-containing triple therapy, or quadruple therapy (saquinavir SGC plus 2 NRTIs plus nelfinavir) in markedly suppressing HIV RNA levels in antiretroviral therapy-experienced or -naive patients. Saquinavir SGC is generally well tolerated. Gastrointestinal disturbances (generally nausea, diarrhoea, abdominal pain, vomiting and dyspepsia of moderate or greater intensity) are the most common adverse events associated with saquinavir SGC-containing therapy. In comparative trials, saquinavir SGC-containing therapy was as well tolerated as indinavir- and nelfinavir-containing therapy; although there were no statistical differences between treatment groups, the incidence of diarrhoea was lower in patients receiving saquinavir SGC compared with nelfinavir, saquinavir SGC plus nelfinavir (all combined with 2 NRTIs) or saquinavir SGC plus nelfinavir without additional therapy. Compared with the HGC formulation, saquinavir SGC appears to be associated with a higher overall incidence of adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical trial data have shown that as part of triple or quadruple combination therapy, saquinavir SGC is an effective and generally well tolerated protease inhibitor in antiretroviral therapy-naive or -experienced patients with HIV infection. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)