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

In vitro activity of antiretroviral drugs against Plasmodium falciparum

Malaria and HIV infection are both very common in many developing countries. With the increasing availability of therapy for HIV infection, it was of interest to determine whether antiretroviral drugs exert antimalarial effects. We therefore tested the in vitro activity of 19 antiretroviral drugs against the W2 and 3D7 strains of Plasmodium falciparum at concentrations up to 50 μM. None of 5 tested nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors demonstrated activity. Two nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, efavirenz (mean 50% inhibitory concentration [IC(50)] of 22 to 30 μM against the two strains) and etravirine (3.1 to 3.4 μM), were active; nevirapine was not active. Also active were the fusion inhibitor enfuvirtide (6.2 to 7.9 μM) and the entry inhibitor maraviroc (15 to 21 μM). Raltegravir was not active. However, for all active drugs mentioned above, the IC(50)s were considerably greater than the concentrations achieved with standard dosing. The effects most likely to be clinically relevant were with HIV protease inhibitors. Of the tested compounds, activity was seen with lopinavir (2.7 to 2.9 μM), atazanavir (3.3 to 13.0 μM), saquinavir (5.0 to 12.1 μM), nelfinavir (6.5 to 12.1 μM), ritonavir (9.5 to 10.9 μM), tipranavir (15.5 to 22.3 μM), and amprenavir (28.1 to 40.8) but not darunavir. Lopinavir was active at levels well below those achieved with standard dosing of coformulated lopinavir-ritonavir. Lopinavir also demonstrated modest synergy with the antimalarial lumefantrine (mean fractional inhibitory concentration index of 0.66 for W2 and 0.53 for 3D7). Prior data showed that lopinavir-ritonavir also extends the pharmacokinetic exposure of lumefantrine. Thus, when used to treat HIV infection, lopinavir-ritonavir may have clinically relevant antimalarial activity and also enhance the activity of antimalarials.

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.

Population pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted saquinavir regimens in HIV-infected individuals

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a population pharmacokinetic model in order to describe ritonavir-boosted saquinavir concentrations dosed twice and once daily in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients from the UK, Uganda and Thailand and to identify factors that may influence saquinavir pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

Pharmacokinetic data from 10 clinical studies were combined. Non-linear mixed effects modelling (NONMEM version V) was applied to determine the saquinavir pharmacokinetic parameters, interindividual/interoccasion variability (IIV/IOV) and residual error. Various covariates potentially related to saquinavir pharmacokinetics were explored, and the final model was validated by means of 95% prediction interval and testing the predictive performance of the model with data not included in the model-building process.

RESULTS

Ninety-seven patients were included from the UK (n = 52), Uganda (n = 18) and Thailand (n = 27), contributing 347 saquinavir profiles (1-14 profiles per patient). A one-compartment model with zero-order absorption and lag-time best described the data with IIV/IOV on apparent oral clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (V/F) and with IIV on duration and absorption lag-time. The ritonavir area under the curve over the dosing interval was significantly associated with saquinavir CL/F and V/F. A typical patient from the UK had approximately 1.5- and 3-fold higher saquinavir CL/F compared with patients from Uganda (89.0 versus 49.8 L/h) and Thailand (89.0 versus 26.7 L/h), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A model to characterize ritonavir-boosted saquinavir pharmacokinetics in HIV-infected adults has been developed and validated. The model could be used for dosage adaptation following therapeutic drug monitoring and to assess patients' suitability for once-daily boosted saquinavir therapy.

Pharmacokinetic analysis to assess forgiveness of boosted saquinavir regimens for missed or late dosing

OBJECTIVES

One potential concern of once-daily protease inhibitor administration is low trough concentrations and ultimately the 'forgiveness' or robustness in comparison with the originally licensed twice-daily dose. To give an estimation of 'forgiveness', we determined the length of time plasma drug concentrations were below target in HIV-infected patients receiving saquinavir/ritonavir regimens.

METHODS

Seventy-seven pharmacokinetic profiles (saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice daily, n = 34; 1600/100 mg once daily, n = 26; 2000/100 mg once daily, n = 17) from five studies were combined, presented as twice- and once-daily percentiles (P10-P90) and compared. At percentiles where trough concentrations fell below the alleged minimum effective concentration (MEC; 100 ng/mL), the length of time below MEC was determined.

RESULTS

Saquinavir concentrations were below MEC at P10 for 0.7 h for twice-daily saquinavir/ritonavir when compared with 8.6 and 6.6 h for 1600/100 and 2000/100 mg once daily, respectively. At P25, 1600/100 mg once daily produced suboptimal concentrations for 5.5 h in contrast to 0.5 h for 2000/100 mg once daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Here, we provide substantive data that indicate once-daily saquinavir, in particular 1600/100 mg, is not as robust as the twice-daily regimen based on a population of UK patients; this raises concern over late or missed doses. However, pharmacokinetic data can only ever be a guide to the impact on long-term efficacy.

Limited-sampling strategy for the prediction of boosted hard-gel saquinavir exposure at a dosage of 1000/100 mg twice daily in human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals

Area under the concentration time curve (AUC) over a dosing interval is considered to be the best estimate of drug exposure in a patient. However, determination of this parameter is costly and often impractical, requiring multiple samples and a great deal of time and resources. A limited-sampling strategy (LSS) may overcome some of these issues, making pharmacokinetic studies easier to perform, particularly in a limited-resource setting. The aim of this work was to develop and validate a pragmatic LSS for the accurate and precise prediction of boosted saquinavir AUC0-12 (AUC over the 12-hour dosing interval) at a dosage of 1000/100 mg twice daily. Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from 34 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals stable on saquinavir/ritonavir-containing therapy, randomly split into two sets (n = 17 per set). One set was used to construct prediction models using univariate and multivariate analysis (development set), and the second was used to determine the predictive performance of the models (validation set). For single samples, 6- and 10-hour concentrations correlated best with saquinavir AUC0-12 (r2: 0.913 and 0.911, respectively), yet all single samples failed to produce precise and unbiased predictions. However, combinations at 2, 6; 0, 2, 6; 0, 4, 10; 0, 4, 12; and 2, 4, 6 hours achieved good predictive performances, and both precise [root mean squared relative prediction error (%RMSE): 6.4% to 11.9%] and unbiased [mean relative prediction error (%MPE), 95% CI: -2.7%, (-0.8)-2.7 to 1.6%, (-1.8)-4.7] estimations of saquinavir AUC0-12. Of these models, concentrations obtained at 0, 2, 6 and 2, 4, 6 hours are more practical in a clinical setting and are therefore the LSS with most potential. Provided that the technique is validated in specific patient populations, an LSS approach is a potentially useful tool to evaluate the AUC0-12 of saquinavir in resource-limited settings, reducing both costs and volumes of blood taken. It may also aid the choice of sampling times for population analysis.

Exploratory study comparing the metabolic toxicities of a lopinavir/ritonavir plus saquinavir dual protease inhibitor regimen versus a lopinavir/ritonavir plus zidovudine/lamivudine nucleoside regimen

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, efficacy and metabolic toxicity of lopinavir/ritonavir + saquinavir or zidovudine/lamivudine and evaluate the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir + saquinavir.

METHODS

HIV-1-infected, antiretroviral-naive subjects were randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg) twice daily + saquinavir (800 mg) or zidovudine/lamivudine (150/300 mg) in a Phase II, 48 week study. Subjects receiving lopinavir/ritonavir + zidovudine/lamivudine initiated escalating doses of saquinavir (400, 600 and 800 mg) weekly for 3 weeks.

RESULTS

By intent-to-treat (non-completer = failure) analysis, 10/16 (63%) lopinavir/ritonavir + saquinavir-treated and 7/14 (50%) lopinavir/ritonavir + zidovudine/lamivudine-treated subjects achieved plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL (P=0.713) at week 48. Safety, tolerability, metabolic changes and truncal fat increases were similar between groups. Small decreases in the lower extremity fat in the zidovudine/lamivudine group (-6%) and a statistically significant increase in the lower extremity fat in the saquinavir group (+19%) were observed. Lopinavir/ritonavir co-administered with saquinavir 600 or 800 mg twice daily produced saquinavir concentrations similar to those previously reported for saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment regimens had similar efficacy and tolerability. Metabolic parameters suggested lipoatrophy in the zidovudine/lamivudine treatment group. Saquinavir 600 and 800 mg twice daily produced concentrations similar to those previously reported for saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice daily.

Simultaneous determination of HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, atazanavir, indinavir, lopinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir in human plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

We report a precise and accurate method for simultaneous quantification of protease inhibitors (PIs) amprenavir, atazanavir, indinavir, lopinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir in plasma. An internal standard was added to samples prior to protein precipitation with acetonitrile followed by addition of ammonium formate buffer. Analysis was by HPLC-MS/MS. Calibration curves were validated over concentration ranges encompassing both subtherapeutic and potentially 'toxic' drug concentrations. Inter- and intra-assay variation were below 11% and PI recovery was above 87%. The bioanalytical method described is successfully applied to measure PI concentrations obtained from clinical pharmacokinetic studies and routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).