The steady-state plasma pharmacokinetics of indinavir alone and in combination with a low dose of ritonavir in twice daily dosing regimens in HIV-1-infected individuals

Ritonavir: 25 Years' Experience of Concomitant Medication Management. A Narrative Review

Ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme and is commonly used as a pharmacokinetic (PK) enhancer in antiviral therapies because it increases bioavailability of concomitantly administered antivirals. Decades of experience with ritonavir-enhanced HIV therapies and, more recently, COVID-19 therapies demonstrate that boosting doses of ritonavir are well tolerated, with an established safety profile. The mechanisms of PK enhancement by ritonavir result in the potential for drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with several classes of drugs, thus making co-medication management an important consideration with enhanced antiviral therapies. However, rates of DDIs with contraindicated medications are low, suggesting these risks are manageable by infectious disease specialists who have experience with the use of PK enhancers. In this review, we provide an overview of ritonavir's mechanisms of action and describe approaches and resources available to mitigate adverse events and manage concomitant medication in both chronic and short-term settings.

Generation of a Weakly Acidic Amorphous Solid Dispersion of the Weak Base Ritonavir with Equivalent In Vitro and In Vivo Performance to Norvir Tablet

Ritonavir is an anti-viral compound that has also been employed extensively as a CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein (Pgp) inhibitor to boost the pharmacokinetic performance of compounds that undergo first pass metabolism. For use in combination products, there is a desire to minimize the mass contribution of the ritonavir system to reduce patient pill burden in these combination products. In this study, KinetiSol® processing was utilized to produce an amorphous solid dispersion of ritonavir at two times the drug load of the commercially available form of ritonavir, and the composition was subsequently developed into a tablet dosage form. The amorphous intermediate was demonstrated to be amorphous by X-ray powder diffraction and ¹³C solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance and an intimately mixed single-phase system by modulated differential scanning calorimetry and ¹H T₁/¹H T_1ρ solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation. In vitro transmembrane flux analysis showed similar permeation rates for the KinetiSol-made tablet and the reference tablet dosage form, Norvir®. In vivo pharmacokinetic comparison between the two dosage forms resulted in equivalent exposure with approximately 20% Cmax reduction for the KinetiSol tablet. These performance gains were realized with a concurrent reduction in dosage form mass of 45%.

Pharmacokinetic Interaction Study of Indinavir/Ritonavir and the Enteric-Coated Capsule Formulation of Didanosine in Healthy Volunteers

Didanosine enteric-coated should be taken on an empty stomach, but the once-daily combination of indinavir/ritonavir can be taken with food. Because these drugs are frequently included in 1 regimen, the food effects on the pharmacokinetics were evaluated. This was a randomized, 4-way crossover study of single doses of didanosine enteric-coated 400 mg and indinavir/ritonavir 1200/400 mg in 8 healthy subjects. The following regimens were given: didanosine enteric-coated 2 hours after breakfast (reference regimen A), indinavir/ritonavir with breakfast (reference regimen B), didanosine enteric-coated + indinavir/ritonavir 2 hours after breakfast (test regimen C), and didanosine enteric-coated + indinavir/ritonavir with breakfast (test regimen D). Breakfast was 550 kcal, 28% fat. Blood samples were drawn before and up to 24 hours after ingestion. Statistical comparisons of test regimens C and D with reference regimens A and B were made using the equivalence approach for indinavir and didanosine area under the curve and C(max) (0.80-1.25). Eight subjects (5 men, 3 women) were enrolled and completed the study. Indinavir area under the curves were bioequivalent in test regimens C and D compared to reference regimen B. A 14% increased C(max) was observed in test regimen C. Didanosine area under the curve in test regimen D was 4% lower and suggestive of bioequivalence compared to reference regimen A. However, test regimen C didanosine area under the curve was 23% lower and bioinequivalent compared to reference regimen A. Didanosine C(max) decreased 42% and 46% in test regimens C and D, respectively, in comparison to reference regimen A. In this study, dosing didanosine enteric-coated 400 mg once daily + indinavir/ritonavir 1200/400 mg once daily with breakfast indicated no decrease in the amount of absorption for either didanosine and indinavir and that this regimen could be administered with food.

Phase 2 study of cobicistat versus ritonavir each with once-daily atazanavir and fixed-dose emtricitabine/tenofovir df in the initial treatment of HIV infection

OBJECTIVE

To assess efficacy and safety of cobicistat versus ritonavir as pharmacoenhancers for atazanavir when administered with emtricitabine/tenofovir df as initial treatment for HIV-1 infection.

DESIGN

Randomized, partially placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicenter study.

PARTICIPANTS

Antiretroviral treatment-naive adults, screening HIV-1 RNA of at least 5000 copies/ml and CD4 cell count more than 50 cells/μl.

INTERVENTION

Randomized 2 : 1 (stratified by HIV RNA ≤ or >100,000 copies/ml) to receive placebo-blinded once-daily cobicistat 150 mg or ritonavir 100 mg with open-label atazanavir and fixed-dose emtricitabine/tenofovir df.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Efficacy and safety at weeks 24 and 48.

RESULTS

Eighty-four percent of ATV/co participants and 86% of ATV/r participants suppressed HIV-1 RNA (<50 copies/ ml) at week 24, and 82 and 86% at week 48, respectively, and mean CD4 cell count increased 203 and 199 cells/μl at week 24 and 208 and 177 cells/μl at week 48, respectively. Study treatment discontinuation due to adverse events occurred in 4% ATV/co and in 3% ATV/r participants through 48 weeks. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 36% ATV/co and 48% ATV/r participants; hyperbilirubinemia occurred in 96 and 100%, and ocular icterus or jaundice occurred in 14 and 17%, respectively. Mean estimated glomerular filtration rate (Cockcroft-Gault, ml/min) decrease occurred in both treatment groups and was evident at week 2 (ATV/co -9, ATV/r -4), reached a nadir by week 24 (-15, -14, respectively), and did not progress further through week 48 (-13, -14).

CONCLUSION

Using cobicistat and ritonavir as pharmacoenhancers for atazanavir and administered with emtricitabine/tenofovir df achieved comparable rates of virologic suppression and CD4 cell count increase with satisfactory safety profiles.

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.

Indinavir/ritonavir remains an important component of HAART for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, particularly in resource-limited settings

For over a decade, indinavir has been approved for the treatment of HIV/AIDS; however, following the introduction of new protease inhibitors (PIs) with improved safety and pharmacologic profiles, its use in developed countries has become almost obsolete. In contrast, in resource-limited settings where the majority of people living with HIV/AIDS reside, indinavir is part of the most affordable PI-based highly active antiretroviral treatment regimen. A major drawback of indinavir use is renal toxicity, but low-dose indinavir plus ritonavir (400/100 mg) twice daily is both efficacious and tolerable. Similar low dosing levels in children have also proven successful, but data in pregnant women remains limited. Due to its low cost and proven efficacy indinavir remains a key component of HIV/AIDS treatment in resource-limited settings.

Indinavir: the forgotten HIV-protease inhibitor. Does it still have a role?

Indinavir is one of four first-generation HIV-protease inhibitors and was the most popular amongst them in the late 1990s. It was initially licensed for use alone, given three times daily, administered away from meals and together with at least 1.5 litres of fluid per day. In clinical practice, it became common for clinicians to prescribe it with a ritonavir pharmacokinetic 'boost' to remove the food restriction, reduce the pill burden and enable a more convenient twice-daily dosing schedule. However, at a ritonavir-boosted dosing schedule of indinavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg b.i.d., the regimen proved toxic and poorly tolerable, and its use diminished as newer, better tolerated PIs became available. Recent research has suggested that ritonavir-boosted indinavir administered at lower doses, particularly indinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg b.i.d., retains potency and is considerably less toxic. As a result, there is interest in its application in resource-constrained settings.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of brecanavir, a novel human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor, following repeat administration with and without ritonavir in healthy adult subjects

Brecanavir (BCV) is a novel, potent protease inhibitor in development for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection with low nM in vitro 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC50s) against many multiprotease inhibitor resistant viruses. This study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled repeat-dose escalation to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of BCV, with or without ritonavir (RTV), in 68 healthy subjects. Seven sequential cohorts (n=10) received BCV (50 to 600 mg) in combination with 100 mg RTV (every 12 h [q12h] or q24h) or alone at 800 mg q12h for 15 days. BCV alone or in combination with RTV was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported. The most common drug-related adverse event was headache. BCV was readily absorbed with median time to maximum concentration of drug in serum values ranging from 2.5 to 5.0 h postdose following single- and repeat-dose administration of BCV alone and BCV with RTV 100 mg. Geometric mean BCV accumulation ratios ranged from 1.4 to 1.56 following BCV-RTV q24h regimens and from 1.84 to 4.93 following BCV q12h regimens. BCV steady state was generally achieved by day 13 in all groups. All day 15 BCV-RTV trough concentration values in q12h regimens reached or surpassed the estimated protein-binding corrected in vitro IC50 target BCV concentration of 28 ng/ml for highly resistant isolates. The pharmacokinetic and safety profile of BCV-RTV supports continued investigation in HIV-1-infected subjects.

Improving data reliability using a non-compliance detection method versus using pharmacokinetic criteria

Data from clinical trials present numerous problems for the data analyst. These include non-compliance with the prescribed dosing regimen and inaccurate recollection of dosing history by patients as well as mistakes in recording data. Several methods have been proposed to address these issues. One such technique by Lu et al. (Selecting reliable pharmacokinetic data for explanatory analyses of clinical trials in the presence of possible noncompliance. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn. 28:343-362 (2001)) identifies occasions in pharmacokinetic (PK) data where the preceding dosing history is likely to be unreliable. We used this method, implemented in the software program NONMEM (beta) VI, to clean a dataset containing indinavir (IDV) plasma concentrations from HIV-1 infected patients. The data was also cleaned by inspection in Microsoft Excel using clinical PK criteria. A one-compartment model with first order absorption and elimination was fit to both sets of cleaned data. IDV population PK parameters obtained from these analyses were similar to those reported previously. It is established that IDV nephrotoxicity is related to high IDV exposure. However, no relationships were found between any PK parameters and nephrotoxicity in the "compliance cleaned" dataset. In the "PK cleaned" dataset, the oral clearance and apparent volume were lower by 9.1% and 6.6%, respectively in patients with any type of nephrotoxicity and the maximum IDV concentration (C(max)) was 12.1% higher. In patients suffering from nephrolithiasis in particular, C(max) was 15.5% higher. Accordingly, the use of the non-compliance detection method did not improve the reliability of our dataset over the usual method of applying clinical criteria. In fact, analyses on the compliance-cleaned dataset missed some exposure-toxicity relationships. Thus, automated methods must be tested rigorously with 'real life' datasets, used with caution, and always in conjunction with clinical reasoning to avoid overlooking a signal in noisy data.

Adherence to antiretroviral therapy and its impact on clinical outcome in HIV-infected patients

We analyse data on patient adherence to prescribed regimens and surrogate markers of clinical outcome for 168 human immunodeficiency virus infected patients treated with antiretroviral therapy. Data on patient adherence consisted of dose-timing measurements collected for an average of 12 months per patient via electronic monitoring of bottle opening events. We first discuss how such data can be presented to highlight suboptimal adherence patterns and between-patient differences, before introducing two novel methods by which such data can be statistically modelled. Correlations between adherence and subsequent measures of viral load and CD4+T-cell counts are then evaluated. We show that summary measures of short-term adherence, which incorporate pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data on the monitored regimen, predict suboptimal trends in viral load and CD4+T-cell counts better than measures based on adherence data alone.

Antiretroviral therapy 2006: Pharmacology, applications, and special situations

As we approach the completion of the first 25 years of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic, there have been dramatic improvements in the care of patients with HIV infection. These have prolonged life and decreased morbidity. There are twenty currently available antiretrovirals approved in the United States for the treatment of this infection. The medications, including their pharmacokinetic properties, side effects, and dosing are reviewed. In addition, the current approach to the use of these medicines is discussed. We have included a section addressing common comorbid conditions including hepatitis B and C along with tuberculosis.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics and tolerability of indinavir-lopinavir/r combination therapy in antiretroviral-experienced patients

Six HIV-positive antiretroviral experienced patients initiating therapy with a regimen including lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg twice per day) and indinavir (800 mg twice per day) underwent steady-state pharmacokinetic analysis. The AUC0-12 h of indinavir when combined with lopinavir/ritonavir was comparable with previously published data on indinavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg twice per day in HIV-infected individuals. However, lopinavir AUC0-12 h, Cmax, and C12 h were lower than previously reported in the absence of indinavir. The regimen was well tolerated, although 2 patients developed grade 3 hypertriglyceridemia. No patient discontinued the regimen because of indinavir-related urologic or retinoid-type adverse effects. Further study of the regimen with larger cohorts of patients is necessary.

Boosted versus Unboosted Indinavir with Zidovudine and Lamivudine in Nucleoside Pre-Treated Patients: A Randomized, Open-Label Trial with 112 Weeks of Follow-Up (HIV-Nat 005)

Introduction

The use of HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) in a ritonavir (RTV)-boosted form is now common. However, randomized data comparing boosted with unboosted PI strategies are scarce.

Methods

This randomized, open-label trial compared indinavir (IDV) 800 mg three times daily with IDV/RTV 800/100 mg twice daily, both given with zidovudine (AZT)/lamivudine (3TC) twice daily in individuals with at least 3 months previous AZT experience. The primary endpoint was the time-weighted average change in HIV RNA from baseline. Designed as a 48-week study, follow-up continued until week 112. Primary analysis is by intention to treat.

Results

One hundred and three patients commenced therapy and are included in the analysis. Patients had a median of 29 months past nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) exposure. Baseline median (interquartile range) log10 HIV RNA was 4.0 (3.3–4.5) and CD4+T-cell count 166 (40–323) cells/μl. After 112-weeks of study there was no significant difference observed between arms in the mean (sd) change in time-weighted average HIV RNA from baseline (-1.6 [1.1] HIV RNA copies/week/ml three times daily arm; -1.4 [1.1] HIV RNA copies/week/ml twice daily arm; P=0.3). Both arms were associated with substantial toxicity expressed as serious adverse events and study drug interruptions. The twice daily arm experienced greater dyslipidaemia. Mean (sd) changes in time-weighted CD4+ T-cell count from baseline were similar [88 (84) cells/week/μl three times daily arm; 70 [109] cells/week/μl twice daily arm; P=0.3).

Conclusions

RTV-boosted IDV 800/100 mg twice daily demonstrated comparable efficacy to unboosted IDV 800mg three times daily dosing. Both regimens were associated with substantial toxicity. Use of lower doses of RTV-boosted IDV may result in better tolerability without loss of efficacy and warrant further research.

Population pharmacokinetics of indinavir alone and in combination with ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients

AIMS

The aim of the study was to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of indinavir, define the relationship between the pharmacokinetics of indinavir and ritonavir, and to identify the factors influencing the pharmacokinetics of indinavir alone or when given with ritonavir.

METHODS

HIV-1-infected patients being treated with an indinavir-containing regimen were included. During regular visits, 102 blood samples were collected for the determination of plasma indinavir and ritonavir concentrations. Full pharmacokinetic curves were available from 45 patients. Concentrations of indinavir and ritonavir were determined by liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed effect modelling (NONMEM).

RESULTS

The disposition of indinavir was best described by a single compartment model with first order absorption and elimination. Values for the clearance, volume of distribution and the absorption rate constant were 46.8 l h(-1) (24.2% IIV), 82.3 l (24.6% IIV) and 02.62 h(-1), respectively. An absorption lag-time of 0.485 h was detected in patients also taking ritonavir. Furthermore this drug, independent of dose (100-400 mg) or plasma concentration, decreased the clearance of indinavir by 64.6%. In contrast, co-administration of efavirenz or nevirapine increased the clearance of indinavir by 41%, irrespective of the presence or absence of ritonavir. Female patients had a 48% higher apparent bioavailability of indinavir than males.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic parameters of indinavir were adequately described by our population model. Female gender and concomitant use of ritonavir and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors strongly influenced the pharmacokinetics of this drug. The results support the concept of ritonavir boosting, maximum inhibition of indinavir metabolized being observed at 100 mg.

Altered pharmacokinetics of zalcitabine by concurrent use of NSAIDs in rats

AIM

To investigate the pharmacokinetic interactions between zalcitabine and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in rats.

METHODS

Zalcitabine was administered to rats via an iv injection (20 mg/kg) in the presence or absence of ketoprofen or naproxen (20 mg/kg), and the pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by using non-compartmental analysis.

RESULTS

Compared with the control (zalcitabine alone), pretreatment with ketoprofen or naproxen 30 min prior to intravenous administration of zalcitabine significantly altered the pharmacokinetic profiles of zalcitabine in rats. Renal clearance of zalcitabine was reduced by approximately 3-4-fold in the presence of ketoprofen or naproxen. Consequently, systemic exposure (AUC) to zalcitabine in the rats pretreated with ketoprofen or naproxen was significantly greater than that for the control group given zalcitabine alone. The terminal plasma half-life of zalcitabine was also prolonged by 4-5-fold in the presence of ketoprofen or naproxen.

CONCLUSION

The NSAIDs ketoprofen and naproxen effectively altered the pharmacokinetics of zalcitabine. Therefore, concomitant use of ketoprofen or naproxen in patients being treated with zalcitabine may necessitate close monitoring for potential drug interactions.

Pharmacoenhancement of Protease Inhibitors

Toxicity, adherence problems, and virological failure may limit treatment by protease inhibitor-containing regimens at standard doses. Addition of low-dose ritonavir results in a high plasma concentration of coadministered protease inhibitor resulting in decreased pill burden, a reduction in the number of doses, fewer food and/or fluid restrictions, and a higher rate of virological suppression. These effects are due to improved pharmacokinetics of coadministered protease inhibitors.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Antiretroviral Therapy

Treatment with antiretroviral drugs such as the HIV protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors have contributed to the improvement of life of many HIV-infected patients in recent years, but antiretroviral therapy is not without problems. In some patients, treatment is not effective and suppression of viral replication is not achieved. Other patients experience toxicity and have to stop treatment or change to a less effective treatment. Several studies have demonstrated a relationship between plasma concentrations of the protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and viral suppression and toxicity. Therapeutic drug monitoring uses drug concentrations to individualize and optimise therapy by dosage adjustments and many clinicians have advocated for the use of therapeutic drug monitoring in HIV antiretroviral therapy. Evidence from a number of randomized clinical trials supports the use of therapeutic drug monitoring, but the studies have limitations and might not apply to all the antiretroviral drugs. However, the consensus is that certain patients are very likely to benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring. Additionally, the combination of therapeutic drug monitoring and genotypic or phenotypic resistance testing might further improve antiretroviral therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Indinavir/Ritonavir 400/100 mg Twice Daily plus Two Nucleoside Analogues in Treatment-Naive HIV-1-Infected Patients with CD4+ T-cell Counts <200 cells/mm3: 96-Week Outcomes

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of indinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg plus stavudine and lamivudine twice daily in antiretroviral-therapy-naive Thai HIV-1-infected patients.

Methods

This was an open-label, non-randomized single arm study. Antiretroviral-naive patients ( n=80) with CD4+ cell count <200x106/l were started on stavudine and lamivudine plus indinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily. CD4+ cell count and HIV RNA were determined at week 0, 12, 24, 48 and 96. HIV RNA was measured to a level of 50 copies/ml by RT-PCR assay. Primary analysis was statistically performed as intent to treat. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with plasma HIV RNA below 50 copies/ml at week 96.

Result

Eighty antiretroviral-therapy-naive patients with median CD4+ cell count 19x106/l (range: 2-197x106/l) and median baseline plasma HIV RNA of 174,000 copies/ml (range 16,800–750,000 copies/ml) were enrolled. In the intent-to-treat analysis at week 96, the proportion of patients with HIV RNA of <50 copies/ml was 68.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 68.3-69.3), whereas it was 88.7% (95% CI: 88.1-89.3) in the on-treatment analysis at week 96. The regimen was well tolerated. Hyperglycaemia, hypercholesterolaemia and hypertriglyceridaemia were found in 8.3, 33.3 and 37.0% of the patients, respectively. Treatment was stopped in 18 patients; two from intolerance, two switched therapy, four as a result of serious adverse event-related death, and ten were lost to follow-up.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrates that indinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg plus stavudine and lamivudine twice daily, the least expensive boosted protease inhibitor, appears to be effective and safe up to 96 weeks despite high baseline viraemia and low CD4+ cell count in antiretroviral-naive patients.

The long-term pharmacokinetics and safety of adding low-dose ritonavir to a nelfinavir 1250 mg twice-daily regimen in HIV-infected patients

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term pharmacokinetics and safety of adding ritonavir 100 mg twice-daily to a nelfinavir 1250 mg twice-daily regimen in HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled 24-week study. Sixteen patients receiving a nelfinavir 1250 mg twice-daily regimen with plasma viral load <1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL were randomized to continue treatment or to have ritonavir 100 mg twice-daily added. Safety, including fasting lipid levels, was evaluated at weeks 4, 12 and 24. Patients who were randomized to have ritonavir added (n=9) participated in three 12-h pharmacokinetic evaluations at baseline, week 4 and week 24.

RESULTS

Increases in median nelfinavir steady-state plasma concentrations at 12 h (C(12)) from 512 to 773 ng/mL [median difference 450 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval (CI) 116--1510 ng/mL] and in median active nelfinavir metabolite M 8 C(12) from 107 to 603 ng/mL (median difference 545 ng/mL; 95% CI 370--891) were seen after the addition of low-dose ritonavir (baseline to week 24). There were no differences between the nelfinavir or M 8 pharmacokinetic parameters at weeks 4 and 24. No significant changes or differences in the concentration of fasting total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or total triglycerides or in the occurrence of adverse events were observed within or between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nelfinavir and especially M 8 concentrations are increased when low-dose ritonavir is added to a nelfinavir-containing regimen. The combination seems to be safe and the nelfinavir/ritonavir regimen could be an option in patients with low nelfinavir+M 8 concentrations.

Coinfection with HIV and Hepatitis C Virus in Injection Drug Users and Minority Populations

Coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) is common. In the United States, it has been estimated that 25% of persons infected with HIV are also infected with HCV. The prevalence of coinfection with HIV and HCV is highest among those infected via percutaneous routes. In fact, in urban areas in the United States, 50%-90% of persons infected with HIV via injection drug use are coinfected with HCV. In addition, limited data from drug treatment centers in these urban areas suggest that the prevalence of coinfection with HIV and HCV may be highest among African Americans and Hispanics. Little information is available with regard to the epidemiology of coinfection with HIV and HCV among injection drug users (IDUs) or minority populations. Likewise, although there is a growing body of data on the potential complexities of treating HCV among IDUs and the poor response to current anti-HCV treatment among African Americans, few data address the therapy of coinfection with HIV and HCV among IDUs and minority populations.

Development and validation of a population pharmacokinetic model for ritonavir used as a booster or as an antiviral agent in HIV-1-infected patients

AIMS

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a population pharmacokinetic model of ritonavir, used as an antiviral agent or as a booster, in a large patient population and to identify factors influencing its pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

Ambulatory HIV-1-infected patients from the outpatient clinic of the Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, who were being treated with a ritonavir-containing regimen were included. During regular visits, blood samples were collected for the determination of ritonavir plasma concentrations and several clinical chemistry parameters. Furthermore, complete pharmacokinetic curves were available in some patients. Single and multiple compartment models with zero-order and first-order absorption, with and without absorption lag-time, with linear and nonlinear elimination were tested, using nonlinear mixed effect modelling (NONMEM). Pharmacokinetic parameters and interindividual, interoccasion and residual variability were estimated. In addition, the influence of several factors (e.g. patient characteristics, comedication) on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir was explored.

RESULTS

From 186 patients 505 ritonavir plasma concentrations at a single time-point and 55 full pharmacokinetic profiles were available, resulting in a database of 1228 plasma ritonavir concentrations. In total 62% of the patients used ritonavir as a booster of their protease inhibitor containing antiretroviral regimen. First order absorption in combination with one-compartment disposition best described the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir. Clearance, volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 10.5 l h(-1) (95% prediction interval (95% PI) 9.38-11.7), 96.6 l (95% PI 67.2-121) and 0.871 h(-1) (95% PI 0.429-1.47), respectively, with 38.3%, 80.0% and 169% interindividual variability, respectively. The interoccasion variability in the apparent bioavailability was 59.1%. The concomitant use of lopinavir resulted in a 2.7-fold increase in the clearance of ritonavir (P value < 0.001). No patients characteristics influenced the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetic parameters of ritonavir were adequately described by our population pharmacokinetic model. Concomitant use of the protease inhibitor lopinavir strongly influenced the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir. The model has been validated and can be used for further investigation of the interaction between ritonavir and other protease inhibitors.

Indinavir/ritonavir-based therapy in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral therapy-naive patients: comparison of 800/100 mg and 400/100 mg twice daily

Objectives To compare the efficacy and tolerability of indinavir (IDV)/ritonavir (RTV) at 800/100 and 400/100 mg twice daily (bid) in antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive patients. Methods An open comparison of two groups of ART-naive patients treated with IDV/RTV 800/100 or 400/100 mg bid plus two nucleoside analogues was carried out. Viral load, CD4 cell count and tolerability were measured at baseline and at weeks 4, 12, 24 and 48. IDV plasma concentrations were measured retrospectively. Results A total of 107 patients were included in the study. Of these, 57 were treated with 800/100 and 50 with 400/100 mg IDV/RTV bid. At week 48, a viral load of <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL was achieved by 77 and 64% of the patients, respectively, and the median CD4 cell count increases were +171 and +164 cells/muL (intent-to-treat; P not significant), respectively. Side effects leading to protease inhibitor discontinuation occurred in 61% of subjects in the 800/100 mg group vs. 20% in the 400/100 mg group (P<0.0001). Switching from 800/100 to 400/100 mg dosage improved adverse events in 16 of 20 patients. IDV concentrations were above 0.15 mg/L in 89% of the 28 patients tested in the 400/100 mg group. Conclusions Indinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg bid provided the same efficacy as 800/100 mg bid at 48 weeks in an ART-naive population, but safety and tolerance were significantly better for 400/100 mg, while convenience was also improved and cost was reduced.

Practical guidelines to interpret plasma concentrations of antiretroviral drugs

Several relationships have been reported between antiretroviral drug concentrations and the efficacy of treatment, and toxicity. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may be a valuable tool in improving the treatment of HIV-1-infected patients in daily practice. In this regard, several measures of exposure have been studied, e.g. trough and maximum concentrations, concentration ratios and the inhibitory quotient. However, it has not been unambiguously established which pharmacokinetic parameter should be monitored to maintain optimal viral suppression. Each pharmacokinetic parameter has its pros and cons. Many factors can affect the pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral agents, resulting in variability in plasma concentrations between and within patients. Therefore, plasma concentrations should be considered on several occasions. In addition, the interpretation of the drug concentration of a patient should be performed on an individual basis, taking into account the clinical condition of the patient. Important factors herewith are viral load, immunology, occurrence of adverse events, resistance pattern and comedication. In spite of the described constraints, the aim of this review is to provide a practical guide for TDM of antiretroviral agents. This article outlines pharmacokinetic target values for the HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, atazanavir, indinavir, lopinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir, and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors efavirenz and nevirapine. Detailed advice is provided on how to interpret the results of TDM of these drugs.

Pharmacokinetics of Reduced-Dose Indinavir/Ritonavir 400/100 Mg Twice Daily in HIV-1-Infected Thai Patients

Objective

To study the pharmacokinetics of indinavir/ ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily in antiretroviral-naive patients at Srinagarind Hospital in Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Methods

This was a steady-state, open-label pharmacokinetic study of 19 patients. A 12 h pharmacokinetic curve was recorded after an overnight fast. Plasma levels of indinavir and ritonavir were determined by a validated HPLC method. Virological failure was defined according to the most recent US Department of Health and Human Services guidelines as a viral load above 400 copies/ml at week 24.

Results

Median baseline values for CD4 and viral load were 13 cells/mm3 and 167000 copies/ml, respectively. The median (interquartile ranges) for indinavir AUC, Cmax and Cmin were 18.1 (15.3–23.8) mg/l•h, 4.1 (3.6–4.8) mg/l and 0.17 (0.12–0.30) mg/l, respectively. These values represent 37%, 39% and 24% of the AUC, Cmax and Cmin values found, respectively, for the indinavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg dose in HIV-1-infected Thai patients. Short-term virological response was satisfactory. There were three subjects with an indinavir Cmin below the target value of 0.10 mg/l, of whom one had virological failure (33%). Among the other 16 subjects with an indinavir Cmin above 0.10 mg/l, there was also one virological failure (6%) ( P=0.30).

Conclusions

Indinavir exposure in this reduced-dose regimen of 400 mg with 100 mg ritonavir twice daily was more than dose-proportionally lower than previously observed with the indinavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg twice daily regimen. Therapeutic Cmin levels of indinavir were achieved in >80% of the subjects and short-term virological response was satisfactory in this cohort of patients starting highly active antiretroviral therapy at an advanced disease stage with high baseline viral loads.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Delavirdine and N-Delavirdine in HIV-Infected Individuals

OBJECTIVE

Delavirdine is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor used in combination regimens for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Our objective was to characterise the population pharmacokinetics of delavirdine in HIV-infected patients who participated in the adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) 260 and 261 studies.

METHODS

ACTG 261 was a randomised, double-blind study of delavirdine 400mg three times daily, in various combination regimens; ACTG 260 was a concentration-targeted monotherapy study. Two hundred and thirty-four patients, and 1254 and 1251 plasma concentrations for delavirdine and N-delavirdine, respectively, were available for population pharmacokinetic analysis. The pharmacokinetic model (and initial parameters), based on previous studies, included two compartments for delavirdine (peripheral and central) and parallel clearance pathways (nonlinear conversion to N-delavirdine and first order clearance from the body). The model was one compartment for N-delavirdine with first order clearance. Diurnal variation of delavirdine and N-delavirdine oral clearance was modelled as a cosine function, with amplitude variation a fitted parameter. Pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were derived from iterative two-stage analysis; observed delavirdine and N-delavirdine concentrations fit with weighting by the inverse observation variance. Covariates were analysed by multiple general linear modelling.

RESULTS

The mean (percent coefficient of variation [%CV]) CD4 count was 315 (109) cells/mm(3), weight 76.9 (14.7) kg, age 37 (8.5) years, and 15% of the population were women. Mean (%CV) population pharmacokinetic parameter estimates for delavirdine were: volume of distribution at steady state 67.6 (100) L, intrinsic oral clearance 19.8 (64) L/h, concentration at half the maximum velocity of metabolism (V(max)) 6.3 (69) micromol/L and first order oral clearance 0.57 (86) L/h. For N-delavirdine, the mean (%CV) apparent volume of distribution was 24.7 (75) L and apparent clearance 29.7 (42) L/h. The mean V(max) was 1376 (68) mg/day. The final model for average intrinsic clearance of delavirdine included race, sex, weight and age as significant covariates (p < 0.05); however, these covariates do not explain a significant proportion of the overall variability in the population.

CONCLUSIONS

Delavirdine disposition exhibits nonlinear pharmacokinetics and large interpatient variability, and is significantly altered by time of day (impacting potential therapeutic drug monitoring and future pharmacokinetic study designs). Although race and sex appear to influence delavirdine pharmacokinetics, men and women and patients of different races should receive similar mg/kg dosage regimens. The presence of large interpatient variability supports the further investigation of the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring for delavirdine, if target drug concentrations can be better defined.

Determination of indinavir and nelfinavir trough plasma concentration efficacy thresholds according to virological response in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

There is evidence to suggest a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship in HIV-infected patients receiving protease inhibitor (PI)-containing highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART); however, the effective trough PI plasma concentrations achieved have not been precisely determined.

METHODS

The relationship between HIV viral load and concomitant PI trough plasma concentration (C(trough)) was evaluated in 101 patients receiving at least 4 months of thrice daily indinavir (IDV)-containing (n=68) or nelfinavir (NFV)-containing (n=33) HAART. The more discriminating C(trough) efficacy thresholds were determined statistically for each PI by using the raw C(trough) and the time-corrected C(trough), using the precise delay since the last PI intake and the half-life of each PI.

RESULTS

For IDV (P=0.002) and NFV (P=0.019) median C(trough) levels were higher in patients with undetectable viral load [0.23 mg/L (n=30) and 2.3 mg/L (n=16) respectively] than in patients with detectable viral load [0.11 mg/L (n=38) and 0.6 mg/L (n=17) respectively]. C(trough) levels of IDV (r=-0.45; P<0.0001) and NFV (r=-0.43; P=0.011) were correlated with the concomitant viral load. The more discriminating C(trough) efficacy thresholds were estimated statistically as 0.12 mg/L for IDV and 0.5 mg/L for NFV. When C(trough) values were time-corrected, the C(trough) efficacy thresholds, 8 h after the last intake, were 0.15 mg/L for IDV and 0.65 mg/L for NFV.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the importance of achieving minimal effective C(trough) to improve the virological efficacy of PI-containing HAART, and specify the target concentrations for IDV and NFV.

Pharmacokinetics of indinavir and ritonavir administered at 667 and 100 milligrams, respectively, every 12 hours compared with indinavir administered at 800 milligrams every 8 hours in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients on nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors with HIV RNA at <1,000 copies/ml were randomized in an open-label study to administration of combined indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/RTV) at 667/100 mg every 12 h (q12h) or IDV alone at 800 mg q8h to determine the regimens' pharmacokinetics. On day 14, plasma IDV and RTV levels were determined over 24 h. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetics (minimum concentration of drug in serum [C(min)], area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h [AUC(0-24)], and maximum concentration of drug in serum [C(max)]) were expressed as geometric mean values with 90% confidence intervals (CI). The primary hypothesis was that the lower bound of the protocol-specified 90% CI for the geometric mean C(min) ratio of the combination compared to IDV alone regimen would be >/=2. Twenty-seven patients were enrolled, and 24 (15 male; average age, 42 years) completed the study. The C(min), AUC(0-24), and C(max) for IDV/RTV compared to IDV alone were 1,511 versus 250 nM, 119,557 versus 77,034 nM . h, and 10,428 versus 10,407 nM, respectively. Corresponding relationships for IDV/RTV compared to IDV alone were a 6.0-fold increase in C(min) (90% CI, 4.0, 9.3), an increase in AUC(0-24) (1.5-fold, 90% CI, 1.2, 2.0), and no increase in C(max). Adverse events were similar and generally mild, with no cases of nephrolithiasis. The geometric mean ratio of IDV C(min) for IDV/RTV compared to IDV was at least 2 by a lower bound of the 90% CI, satisfying the primary hypothesis. The C(max) was not increased, suggesting an IDV/RTV 667/100-mg toxicity profile may be similar to that of unboosted IDV.

Pharmacokinetics of indinavir at 800, 600, and 400 milligrams administered with ritonavir at 100 milligrams and efavirenz in ethnic chinese patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus

We assessed the pharmacokinetics of three different doses of indinavir in five patients. All doses achieved trough concentrations above efficacy thresholds. Toxic trough concentrations were observed in all patients receiving 800 mg, in two patients receiving 600 mg, and in none receiving 400 mg. Indinavir at 400 mg may be efficacious and less toxic in patients taking ritonavir and efavirenz.

Population pharmacokinetics of indinavir in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus

Indinavir is currently used at a fixed dose of 800 mg either three times a day or twice a day in combination with 100 mg of ritonavir. Dosage individualization based on plasma concentration monitoring might, however, be indicated. This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetic profile of indinavir in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus to characterize interpatient and intrapatient variability and to build up a Bayesian approach for dosage adaptation. A population analysis was performed with the NONMEM computer program with 569 plasma samples from a cohort of 239 unselected patients receiving indinavir. A one-compartment model with first-order absorption was adapted, and the influences of clinical characteristics on oral clearance (CL) and distribution volume (V) were examined. Predicted average drug exposure and trough and peak concentrations were derived for each patient and correlated with efficacy and toxicity markers. The population estimates of CL were 32.4 liters/h for female and 42.0 liters/h for male patients; oral V was 65.7 liters; and the rate constant of absorption (K(a)) was 1.0 h(-1). CL decreased by 63% with ritonavir intake and was moderately correlated to body weight. Both interpatient variability, best assigned to oral CL (coefficient of variation [CV], 39%) and K(a) (CV, 67%), and intrapatient variability were large (CV, 41%; standard deviation, 670 microg/liter). In conclusion, initial indinavir dosage should be decided according to ritonavir intake and sex, prior to plasma concentration measurements. The high interpatient pharmacokinetic variability represents an argument for therapeutic drug monitoring.

Pharmacokinetic enhancement of protease inhibitor therapy

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

Dynamics of HIV replication in lymphocytes and the efficacy of protease inhibitors

Using a system that allows transfection of resting peripheral blood lymphocytes (PBLs) two questions were addressed: the kinetics of HIV replication from the state of proviral latency, and the impact of different parameters on the efficacy of protease inhibitors to control HIV replication. PBLs were transfected with an infectious full length HIV-DNA harboring a luciferase reporter gene and activated thereafter. Ritonavir was added at different times at doses ranging from to 0.06 to 1 microM. Viral expression was assessed by quantifying luciferase activity in cell extracts and levels of p24 HIV antigen in culture supernatants. After transfection and cell activation, intracellular expression of HIV proteins, as assessed by luciferase detection, occurred within 2 hr. HIV-gag p24 antigen was detected in culture supernatants between 6 and 8 hr post-activation. Ritonavir was effective in blocking viral replication when given within 4 hr following HIV reactivation, but a delay in ritonavir administration or breaches in ritonavir levels after 6 hr from transfection resulted in viral escape. HIV reactivation from proviral latency in PBLs is an extremely rapid process, faster than estimated from previous models. These data stress the need for maintaining effective antiretroviral concentrations to block completely viral replication.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of GW433908 and ritonavir, with and without efavirenz, in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetic interaction between GW433908, ritonavir (RTV), and efavirenz (EFV).

METHODS

In period 1, subjects received either a once daily (QD) regimen of GW433908 1395 mg + RTV 200 mg (Study 1) or a twice daily (bid) regimen of GW433908 700 mg + RTV 100 mg (Study 2) for 14 days. In period 2, subjects received EFV 600 mg QD with either the same GW433908 + RTV regimen as in period 1 (arm 1) or with a GW433908 + RTV regimen that included an additional 100 mg of RTV (arm 2) for 14 days. Amprenavir (APV) pharmacokinetic sampling and safety assessments were performed on the last day of each period.

RESULTS

Plasma APV exposure was not significantly altered when EFV was coadministered with GW433908 700 mg twice daily (BID) + RTV 100 mg BID. Plasma APV exposure was decreased when EFV was coadministered with GW433908 1395 mg QD + RTV 200 mg QD. However, administration of EFV with GW433908 1395 mg QD + RTV 300 mg QD (i.e., adding an extra 100 mg of RTV) was able to negate this interaction. Adverse events were consistent with prior data for each of the separate agents.

CONCLUSION

When EFV is coadministered with the GW433908 700 mg + RTV 100 mg BID regimen, no dosage adjustment is recommended. However, when EFV is coadministered with the GW433908 1400 mg + RTV 200 mg QD regimen, an increase to RTV 300 mg QD is needed to maintain plasma APV exposure.

Lopinavir/ritonavir vs. indinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral naive HIV-infected patients: immunovirological outcome and side effects

We compared immunovirological outcomes and toxicities of HAART regimens including LPV/r and IDV/r in antiretroviral naïve HIV-1 patients. We retrospectively selected 55 patients starting LPV/r and 52 starting IDV/r as first-line HAART. Immunovirological and metabolic parameters were recorded at baseline and every 3 months as were side effects, AIDS-defining events and deaths. Demographic characteristics and NRTIs included in the regimens were comparable. Both groups reached undetectable HIV-RNA plasma viremia from third month and maintained during follow-up. However, patients receiving IDV/r had a lower probability to obtain virological success (RH: 0.46). Patients receiving IDV/r patients showed a greater increase of total cholesterol (P = 0.01). Three patients on LPV/r and 21 on IDV/r discontinued the drug for toxicity, leading to a 8.40 higher risk of discontinuation in the latter group. In our clinical setting IDV/r showed to be less effective and more toxic than LPV/RTV as first-line HAART.

Pharmacokinetics of Indinavir/Ritonavir (800/100 mg) in Combination With Efavirenz (600 mg) in HIV-1???Infected Subjects

BACKGROUND

Addition of efavirenz (600 mg) to indinavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) results in significant decreases in indinavir levels in healthy volunteers. This study evaluated the steady-state pharmacokinetics of indinavir/ritonavir at 800/100 mg twice daily (bid) in combination with efavirenz at 600 mg once daily (qd) in HIV-infected Thai subjects who used this nucleoside-sparing combination in The HIV Netherlands Australia Thailand Research Collaboration 009 study.

METHODS

At week 4 of the study, 12-hour pharmacokinetic profiles for indinavir/ritonavir were obtained for 20 HIV-infected subjects. For efavirenz, the concentrations at 12 hours and 24 hours (Cmin) after dosing were assessed.

RESULTS

All subjects (10 males and 10 females) completed the study. The geometric mean area under the concentration versus time curve, Cmin, and maximum plasma concentration of indinavir were 45.7 mg/(L. h) (95% confidence interval [CI], 39.8-52.5), 0.32 mg/L (95% CI, 0.24-0.44), and 11.1 mg/L (95% CI, 9.4-13.0), respectively. A >10-fold variation in indinavir Cmin was observed. All subjects had an indinavir Cmin that was at least comparable with the reported mean population Cmin of indinavir at 800 mg thrice daily without ritonavir (0.15 mg/L). The geometric mean concentration at 12 hours and Cmin of efavirenz were 3.1 mg/L (95% CI, 2.5-3.7) and 2.1 mg/L (95% CI, 1.6-2.6), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the known pharmacokinetic interaction between efavirenz and indinavir/ritonavir, the combination of indinavir/ritonavir at 800/100 mg bid and efavirenz at 600 mg qd results in adequate minimum concentrations of both indinavir and efavirenz for treatment-naive patients.

Lopinavir/ritonavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV infection

Lopinavir is a novel protease inhibitor (PI) developed from ritonavir. Coadministration with low-dose ritonavir significantly improves the pharmacokinetic properties and hence the activity of lopinavir against HIV-1 protease. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir was developed for ease of administration and to ensure both drugs are taken together, as part of combination therapy with other antiretroviral agents. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens provide adequate and durable suppression of viral load and sustained improvements in CD4+ cell counts, as demonstrated in randomised trials in antiretroviral therapy-naive and -experienced adults and children. To date, development of primary resistance to lopinavir/ritonavir has not been observed in 470 antiretroviral therapy-naive patients treated for >48 weeks. The lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen was more effective than nelfinavir in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients in a phase III trial. The coformulation is also effective as 'salvage' therapy, as shown by low cross-resistance rates in patients who failed to respond to treatment with other PIs in phase II trials. Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir was well tolerated in both antiretroviral therapy-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected adults and children with low rates of study drug-related treatment discontinuations. The most common adverse event in adults associated with lopinavir/ritonavir was diarrhoea, followed by other gastrointestinal disturbances, asthenia, headache and skin rash. The incidence of moderate-to-severe adverse events in children was low, skin rash being the most common. Changes in body fat composition occurred with equal frequency in lopinavir/ritonavir- and nelfinavir-treated naive patients, through week 60 in a phase III study. Although laboratory abnormalities occurred with similar frequency in both treatment groups, triglycerides grade 3/4 elevations were significantly more frequent with lopinavir/ritonavir. Total cholesterol and triglycerides grade 3/4 elevations appear to occur more frequently in PI-experienced than in PI-naive lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients. A number of clinically important drug interactions have been reported with lopinavir/ritonavir necessitating dosage adjustments of lopinavir/ritonavir and/or the interacting drugs, and several other drugs are contraindicated in patients receiving the coformulation.

CONCLUSION

Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir is a novel PI that, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, suppresses plasma viral load and enhances immunological status in therapy-naive and -experienced patients with HIV-1 infection. Lopinavir/ritonavir appears more effective than nelfinavir in 'naive' patients and is also suitable for 'salvage' therapy, because of its high barrier to development of resistance. Given its clinical efficacy, a tolerability profile in keeping with this class of drugs, favourable resistance profile and easy-to-adhere-to administration regimen, coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir should be regarded as a first-line option when including a PI in the management of HIV-1 infection.

OVERVIEW OF PHARMACODYNAMIC PROPERTIES

Lopinavir/ritonavir is a coformulation of two structurally related protease inhibitor (PI) antiretroviral agents. Lopinavir is a highly potent and selective inhibitor of the HIV type 1 (HIV-1) protease, an essential enzyme for production of mature, infective virus. It acts by arresting maturation of HIV-1 thereby blocking its infectivity. Thus, the main antiviral action of lopinavir is to prevent subsequent infections of susceptible cells; it has no effect on cells with already integrated viral DNA. Lopinavir has an approximate, equals 10-fold higher in vitro activity against both wild-type and mutant HIV-1 proteases than ritonavir; however, its in vivo activity is greatly attenuated by a high first-pass hepatic metabolism. The low-dose ritonavir coadministered with lopinavir inhibits metabolic inactivation of lopinavir and acts only as its pharmacokinetic enhancer. Therefore, the antiretroviral activity of roviral activity of coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily is derived solely from lopinavir plasma concentrations. Combining lopinavir with low-dose ritonavir produces lopinavir concentrations far exceeding those needed to suppress 50% of in vitro and in vivo viral replication in CD4+ cells and monocyte/macrophages (main human reservoirs of HIV-1 infection). Thus far, no resistance to lopinavir has been detected in clinical trials in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients treated for up to 204 weeks and only 12% of HIV-1 strains from patients in whom prior treatment with multiple PIs have failed, have been observed to develop resistance to coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir. A strong negative correlation was found between the number of PI mutations at baseline and the viral response rates achieved with lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens in PI-experienced patients, indicating that resistance to lopinavir increases with increasing number of PI mutations and that five PI mutations represent the clinically relevant genotypic breakpoint for lopinavir.

OVERVIEW OF PHARMACOKINETIC PROPERTIES

The absolute bioavailability of lopinavir coformulated with ritonavir in humans has not yet been established. Multiple-dosage absorption pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily (the mean peak [C(max)] and trough [C(trough)] plasma concentrations at steady-state and the 12-hour area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC(12)] of either drug) were stable in antiretroviral therapy-naive and single PI-experienced adult patients receiving therapy over a 24-week evaluation period. The C(trough) values of lopinavir, achieved with lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily, were median 84-fold higher than the protein binding-adjusted 50% effective concentration (EC(50)) of lopinavir against wild-type HIV-1 in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients in a phase II study. Bioavailability of lopinavir administered in either the capsule or the liquid lopinavir/ritonavir formulation can be increased substantially with concurrent ingestion of food with moderate-to-high fat content. At steady state, lopinavir is approximately 98-99% plasma protein bound and the percentage of its unbound (i.e. pharmacologically active) fraction is dependent on total drug plasma concentration. Both lopinavir and ritonavir penetrate poorly into the human genital tracts and the cerebrospinal fluid. Both agents undergo extensive and rapid first-pass metabolism by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 isoenzyme. However, ritonavir also potently inhibits this enzyme and acts as a pharmacokinetic enhancer of lopinavir. The elimination half-life and apparent oral clearance of lopinavir average approximately 4-6 hours and approximately 6-7 L/h, respectively, with lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100mg twice daily administration. Less than 3% and 20% of the lopinavir dose is excreted unchanged in the urine and faeces, respectively. Limited data show similar pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in children as in adults.

DRUG INTERACTIONS

Coformulated lopinavir/ritonavir has the potential to interact with wide variety of drugs via several mechanisms, mostly involving the CYP enzymes. Coadministration of lopinavir/ritonavir is contraindicated with certain drugs (i.e. flecainide, propafenone, astemizole, terfenadine, ergot derivatives, cisapride, pimozide, midazolam and triazolam) that are highly dependent on CYP3A or CYP2D6 for clearance and for which elevated plasma concentrations are associated with serious and/or life-threatening events. Coadministration with lopinavir/ritonavir is also not recommended for drugs or herbal products (i.e. rifampicin [rifampin] and St. John's wort [Hypericum perforatum]) that may substantially reduce lopinavir plasma concentrations, or drugs whose plasma concentrations elevated by the coformulation may lead to serious adverse reactions (i.e. simvastatin and lovastatin). However, a recent study in healthy volunteers suggests that adequate lopinavir concentrations may be achieved during rifampicin coadministration by increasing the twice-daily dosage of lopinavir/ritonavir in conjunction with therapeutic drug monitoring. The liquid (but not the capsule) formulation of lopinavir/ritonavir contains 42.4% ethanol (v/v) and should not be coadministered with drugs capable of producing disulfiram-like reactions (e.g. disulfiram, metronidazole). Coadministration with saquinavir or indinavir requires no dosage adjustment, whereas coadministration with amprenavir, nevirapine or efavirenz requires a dosage increase of the coformulation typically by 33%. As the oral bioavailability of both didanosine and lopinavir/ritonavir is significantly affected by concurrent food ingestion, didanosine should be administered 1 hour before or 2 hours after lopinavir/ritonavir has been taken with food. Interactions between lopinavir/ritonavir and other nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are not expected. The coformulation is also likely to increase plasma concentrations of non-antiretroviral drugs metabolised through the CYP3A pathway. To reduce the risk of their toxicity when coadministered with lopinavir/ritonavir, the recommended actions include: (i) monitoring of the drug plasma concentration (antiarrhythmics and immunosuppressants) or the international normalised ratio (warfarin); (ii) the use of alternative treatment (atorvastatin) or birth control methods (ethinylestradiol); and (iii) dosage adjustment (clarithromycin [only in patients with renal failure], rifabutin, dihydropyridine calcium-channel blockers, atorvastatin, ketoconazole and itraconazole). (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Low-dose indinavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir: steady-state pharmacokinetics and long-term clinical outcome follow-up

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term efficacy and pharmacokinetics of indinavir (IDV)/ritonavir (RTV) 400/100 mg twice a day in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

METHODS

The study was retrospective with a prospective pharmacokinetic study at a single centre. All HIV-1-infected patients who started the regimen in the period from January 1999 to February 2001 were included in the study. Plasma HIV RNA and CD4 cell counts were recorded from baseline to week 120. Results were evaluated as intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses with separate analyses for protease inhibitor naive and experienced patients. Patients who were still on the regimen by August 2001 were asked to participate in a pharmacokinetic evaluation.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients started treatment with the regimen (median follow-up: 116 weeks). The percentage of patients with below 20 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL was 70.0% at week 120 and the median CD4 cell count increased from 320 to 607 cells/microL (P=0.062). The median IDV morning and evening Cmin were 434 ng/mL and 220 ng/mL, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with the IDV/RTV 400/100 mg regimen appears to be efficacious for up to 2 years. However, rather low IDV Cmin suggests that the regimen should be evaluated further before its widespread use and that the regimen probably should be guided by pharmacokinetic evaluation.

A Once-Daily Haart Regimen Containing Indinavir + Ritonavir plus One Or Two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (Pipo Study)

Introduction

There is an increased interest in developing once-daily regimens for the treatment of HIV-infected patients. A Phase II study was conducted to investigate the pharmacokinetics, and short-term safety and efficacy of an indinavir/ritonavir combination as part of a once-daily regimen.

Methods

HIV-infected patients with either proven poor compliance to HAART regimens in the past or an anticipated poor compliance to such a regimen in the future were eligible for this study. They received a once-daily regimen consisting of indinavir 1200 mg, ritonavir 400 mg, and one or two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), also administered once daily with food. A 24 h pharmacokinetic profile was constructed in a subset of patients. Short-term safety and efficacy were evaluated at 4, 12 and 24 weeks after initiation of treatment.

Results

A total of 64 patients were included in this study, of whom 27 (42.2%) were treatment-naive. The geometric mean (+95% CI) of indinavir AUC0–24h, Cmax and Cmin as determined in an unselected group of 16 patients were 84.9 (69.7–103.5) mg/l.h, 12.0 (10.2–14.1) mg/l and 0.15 (0.09–0.26) mg/l, respectively. A large interpatient variability was observed, with five out of the 16 subjects having a Cmin value below the minimum effective concentration of 0.10 mg/l. During the 24 weeks of follow-up nine patients (14.1%) discontinued study medication, two due to medication-related toxicity. Gastrointestinal adverse events were reported most frequently (50.0%), followed by skin effects (45.3%), joint pain (9.4%) and urological complaints (7.8%). No patient developed nephrolithiasis. The median (+interquartile range) serum creatinine level in the 64 patients increased slightly from 74 (63–88) μmol/l to 79 (66–92) μmol/l during the 24 weeks of follow-up. One new patient reached a grade 1 elevation in serum creatinine, which normalized during the follow-up; five other patients with elevated serum creatinine at baseline remained stable. During the 24 weeks of follow-up, the proportion of patients with a viral load <500 copies/ml increased from 35.1% at baseline to 71.4% (ITT NC=F analysis) or 83.3% (OT analysis), and from 0% at baseline to 76.2% (ITT NC=F analysis) or 100.0% (OT analysis) in treatment-experienced and -naive patients, respectively. This was accompanied by a mean increase in CD4 cell count of 52 and 220 cells/mm3 in these two sub-groups, respectively.

Conclusion

The 24-week follow-up data of this study indicate favourable pharmacokinetics of an indinavir/ritonavir 1200/400 mg combination as part of a once-daily regimen consisting also of one or two NRTIs. Short-term safety and efficacy were also satisfactory. Long-term follow up is planned to evaluate the durability of these results.

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

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

Mitochondria in HIV-1-induced apoptosis

It is now well admitted that HIV infection leading to AIDS is associated with an abnormal susceptibility of T cells to undergo apoptosis. Recent progress in research into programmed cell death has resulted in the identification of the principal pathways involved in this process. Thus the "extrinsic" as well as the "intrinsic" pathways converge to the mitochondria considered as the main sensor of programmed cell death. This review summarizes our knowledge of the influence of mitochondrial control on T cell death during HIV and SIV infections.

Continued indinavir versus switching to indinavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with suppressed viral load

OBJECTIVE

To compare continued indinavir (IDV) 8-hourly (q8h) with switching to indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/RTV) 12-hourly (q12h) in HIV-positive patients having suppressed viral load with IDV q8h plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI).

DESIGN

Multicentre, international, randomized, open-label study enrolling HIV-1 infected patients on IDV 800 mg q8h plus two NRTI with CD4 cell counts > or = 100 x 106/l and plasma HIV RNA < 500 copies/ml for > or = 3 months.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to continue on the same regimen or to switch to IDV plus liquid RTV (IDV/RTV 800 mg/100 mg q12h). Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients remaining < 500 copies/ml at 48 weeks.

RESULTS

A total of 323 patients (IDV/RTV, 162; IDV, 161) were evaluable. At 48 weeks, the proportions of patients with plasma HIV RNA < 500 copies/ml were 93%, 88% and 58% in the IDV/RTV arm versus 92% (P = 1), 86% (P = 0.87) and 74% (P = 0.003) in the IDV arm using on-treatment (OT) and intent-to-treat (ITT) [switches included (ITT, S = I) and switches = failure (ITT, S = F)] analyses respectively. Mean increase in CD4 cell count was 88 x 106/cells/l (IDV/RTV arm) and 60 x 106 cells/l (IDV arm) (P = 0.08). More patients discontinued study medication due to adverse events in the IDV/RTV arm than in the IDV arm (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Equivalence of continuing IDV q8h versus switching to IDV/RTV (liquid) q12h in suppressed stable patients was demonstrated by OT and ITT S = I analyses. However, the IDV q8h arm performed better when discontinuations were classified as failures. IDV/RTV q12h can be convenient and equally effective for patients able to tolerate it.

High variability of plasma drug concentrations in dual protease inhibitor regimens

Ritonavir (RTV) strongly increases the concentrations of protease inhibitors (PIs) in plasma in patients given a combination of RTV and another PI. This pharmacological interaction is complex and poorly characterized and shows marked inter- and intraindividual variations. In addition, RTV interacts differently with saquinavir (SQV), indinavir (IDV), amprenavir (APV), and lopinavir (LPV). In this retrospective study on 542 human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients, we compared inter- and intraindividual variability of plasma PI concentrations and correlations between the C(min) (minimum concentration of drug in plasma) values for RTV and the coadministered PI C(min) values. Mean RTV C(min)s are significantly lower in patients receiving combinations containing APV or LPV than in combinations with SQV or IDV. With the most common PI dose regimens (600 mg of IDV twice a day [BID], 800 mg of SQV BID, and 400 mg of LPV BID), the interindividual C(min) variability of patients treated with a PI and RTV seemed to be lower with APV and LPV than with IDV and SQV. As regards intraindividual variability, APV also differed from the other PIs, exhibiting lower C(min) variability than with the other combinations. Significant positive correlations between RTV C(min) and boosted PI C(min) were observed with IDV, SQV, and LPV, but not with APV. Individual dose adjustments must take into account the specificity the pharmacological interaction of each RTV/PI combination and the large inter- and intraindividual variability of plasma PI levels to avoid suboptimal plasma drug concentrations which may lead to treatment failure and too high concentrations which may induce toxicity and therefore reduce patient compliance.

Genotypic inhibitory quotient as predictor of virological response to ritonavir-amprenavir in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor-experienced patients

Forty-nine protease inhibitor (PI)-experienced but amprenavir (APV)-naïve patients experiencing virological failure were treated with ritonavir (RTV) (100 mg twice a day [b.i.d.]) plus APV (600 mg b.i.d.). Patients responded to therapy with a median viral load decrease of -1.32 log(10) by week 12. The addition of low-dose RTV enhanced the minimal APV concentration in plasma (APV C(min)) up to 10-fold compared with that obtained with APV (1,200 mg b.i.d.) without RTV. Baseline PI resistance mutations (L10F/I/V, K20M/R, E35D, R41K, I54V, L63P, V82A/F/T/S, I84V) identified by univariate analysis and included in a genotypic score and APV C(min) at week 8 were predictive of the virological response at week 12. The response to APV plus RTV was significantly reduced in patients with six or more of the resistance mutations among the ones defined above. The genotypic inhibitory quotient, calculated as the ratio of the APV C(min) to the number of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease mutations, was a better predictor than the virological or pharmacological variables used alone. This genotypic inhibitory quotient could be used in therapeutic drug monitoring to define the concentrations in plasma needed to control replication of viruses with different levels of PI resistance, as measured by the number of PI resistance mutations.

Efficacy of a twice-daily antiretroviral regimen containing 100 mg ritonavir/400 mg indinavir in HIV-infected patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, efficacy and tolerability of a low-dose boosted indinavir (IDV)/ritonavir (RTV) regimen [100 mg RTV/400 mg IDV twice daily (bid)] in patients previously receiving a standard IDV regimen [800 mg three times a day (tid)].

METHODS

In a prospective, open-label, cross-over trial, patients with plasma HIV RNA < 200 copies/ml receiving an IDV-containing regimen (800 mg tid) were switched to an RTV/IDV (100/400 mg bid)-containing regimen. Minimal and maximal IDV plasma concentrations ( Cmin and Cmax ) were determined before the switch (day 0), at week 2 and week 4 after the switch. The CD4 cell count and plasma HIV RNA were determined at day 0, week 2 and week 4, then every 8 weeks. The primary end-point was the percentage of patients with plasma HIV RNA below 200 copies ml at week 48.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were enrolled. At baseline, on IDV 800 mg tid, median IDV Cmin was 194 ng/ml and median IDV Cmax was 8449 ng/ml. On RTV/IDV (100/400 mg), median IDV Cmin increased to 536 ng/ml at week 2 and 475 ng/ml at week 4, while Cmax decreased to 2983 ng/ml at week 2 and 2997 ng/ml at week 4 ( P < 0.001). The median area under the IDV plasma concentration-time curve measured in seven patients was 25 126 ng.h/ml, and the IDV half-life (t1/2 ) was 4.4 h. All patients had plasma HIV RNA remaining < 200 copies/ml at week 48. Tolerability of RTV/IDV was excellent.

CONCLUSION

RTV/IDV (100/400 mg bid) yields significantly higher IDV plasma Cmin and lower IDV Cmax values relative to the standard IDV regimen, thereby improving both tolerability and efficacy.

Overcoming resistance: virologic response to a salvage regimen with the combination of ritonavir plus indinavir

PURPOSE

To explore the possibility of overcoming resistance to protease inhibitors (PIs) and to determine the resistance cutoff values that continue to predict treatment failure with a dual PI regimen.

METHOD

We performed a prospective study of 53 patients who had failed in several PIs and who were included in a ritonavir (RTV) plus indinavir (IDV) salvage regimen. Median HIV RNA level decrease was evaluated according to resistance assays and indinavir trough levels.

RESULTS

Eighty-seven percent of patients had previously failed on an IDV-containing regimen. Overall, median HIV RNA decrease was -1.25 log(10) copies/mL after 3 months on therapy. A significant blunted virologic response was observed only in isolates with more than 12 substitutions including the V82A (-0.75 vs. -1.3 log(10) copies/mL; p =.04), or in isolates with more than 30 fold-increase in the IC(50) (-0.43 vs. -1.2 log(10) copies/mL). Higher drug levels were observed in patients with resistant isolates who achieved an HIV RNA decrease greater than 1 log (1742 vs. 1100 ng/mL).

CONCLUSION

Our preliminary data suggest the possibility of overcoming resistance with the combination of RTV plus IDV. They also suggest the need for establishing new resistance cutoff values when using PIs in combination.

Development of a pharmacodynamic model for HIV treatment with nucleoside reverse transcriptase and protease inhibitors

There is a need for models useful for predicting the efficacy of agents developed for treating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) based on information obtained during the drug development process. A pharmacodynamic model that superimposes the pharmacokinetics of anti-HIV nucleoside reverse transcription (RT) and protease inhibitors over a previously published predator-prey model of HIV and CD4 dynamics was developed to address this need. This model was applied to in vitro measurements and patient-derived pharmacokinetics of the unbound antiviral drugs to simulate HIV-1 and CD4 counts versus time and dose. The primary mechanism for nucleoside RT inhibitors was assumed to be competitive inhibition of HIV-1-RT by the active nucleoside triphosphates (NTP). Cellular accumulation and breakdown rates of the NTP were estimated from previous in vivo pharmacokinetic studies. Median inhibition concentrations for the HIV-1 RT enzyme were estimated from previously published cell-free binding studies. The concentration of active protease inhibitor available for binding with HIV-1 protease was assumed equal to the unbound fraction in the plasma. The resulting simulations for mono- and dual nucleoside therapy with zidovudine and lamivudine single dose regimen with the protease inhibitor indinavir, produced similar HIV and CD4 response profiles to those reported in large Phase II and III clinical trials. Based on these findings this pharmacodynamic model can be applied to predict starting doses for a new agent based on simulated biological responses as a function of time for dosage regimens comprising one or two agents. However, the model overestimated the efficacy of highly effective drug combinations where all three agents are combined as in highly active anti-retroviral therapy.

Indinavir-induced cholelithiasis in a patient infected with human immunodeficiency virus

We report the first case of acute cholecystitis due to indinavir-induced cholelithiasis in a patient infected with human immunodeficiency virus who had been receiving indinavir for 56 months. Infrared spectroscopy demonstrated that the gallstone was composed of indinavir monohydrate (50%), calcium bilirubinate (28%), calcium palmitate (10%), cholesterol (7%), and proteins (5%). The role of high-level chronic unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia coupled with high blood concentrations of indinavir is discussed.

Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection

BACKGROUND

Lopinavir is a newly developed inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease that, when formulated with ritonavir, yields mean trough plasma lopinavir concentrations that are at least 75 times as high as that needed to inhibit replication of wild-type HIV by 50 percent.

METHODS

We conducted a double-blind trial in which 653 HIV-infected adults who had not received antiretroviral therapy for more than 14 days were randomly assigned to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg of lopinavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir twice daily) with nelfinavir placebo or nelfinavir (750 mg three times daily) with lopinavir-ritonavir placebo. All patients also received open-label stavudine and lamivudine. The primary efficacy end points were the presence of fewer than 400 HIV RNA copies per milliliter of plasma at week 24 and the time to the loss of virologic response through week 48.

RESULTS

At week 48, greater proportions of patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir than of patients treated with nelfinavir had fewer than 400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter (75 percent vs. 63 percent, P<0.001) and fewer than 50 copies per milliliter (67 percent vs. 52 percent, P<0.001). The time to the loss of virologic response was greater in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the nelfinavir group (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7; P<0.001). The estimated proportion of patients with a persistent virologic response through week 48 was 84 percent for patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir and 66 percent for those receiving nelfinavir. Both regimens were well tolerated, with the rate of discontinuation related to the study drugs at 3.4 percent among patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir and 3.7 percent among patients receiving nelfinavir. Among patients with more than 400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter at some point from week 24 through week 48, resistance mutations in HIV protease were demonstrated in viral isolates from 25 of 76 nelfinavir-treated patients (33 percent) and none of 37 patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For the initial treatment of HIV-infected adults, a combination regimen that includes lopinavir-ritonavir is well tolerated and has antiviral activity superior to that of a nelfinavir-containing regimen.

Critical issues in therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral drugs

The interest in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antiretroviral drugs is growing rapidly. For the protease inhibitors, and to a lesser extent for the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, relationships between plasma drug concentrations and their efficacy and toxicity have been identified. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics of especially the protease inhibitors vary widely between patients, suggesting a role for TDM to individualize antiretroviral therapy. Recently, randomized, prospective clinical trials evaluating the role of TDM in the management of HIV-1-infected patients showed promising results. However, there are still many questions to be answered before large-scale introduction of TDM can be justified (e.g., which pharmacokinetic parameter should be optimized, and what is the minimal effective concentration). This review summarizes the basis for TDM of antiretroviral drugs and discusses the problems and prospects of this potential tool in the care for HIV-1-infected individuals.

Effects of antiretroviral drugs on human immunodeficiency virus type 1-induced CD4(+) T-cell death

Apoptosis of peripheral blood T cells plays an important role in the pathogenesis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. In this study, we found that HIV type 1 (HIV-1) primes CD4(+) T cells from healthy donors for apoptosis, which occurs after CD95 ligation or CD3-T-cell receptor (TCR) stimulation. CD95-mediated death did not depend on CD4 T-cell infection, since it occurred in the presence of the reverse transcriptase inhibitor didanosine (ddI). In contrast, apoptosis induced by productive infection (CD3-TCR stimulation) is prevented by both CD95 decoy receptor and ddI. Our data suggest that HIV-1 triggers at least two distinct death pathways: a CD95-dependent pathway that does not require viral replication and a viral replication-mediated cell death independent of the CD95 pathway. Further experiments indicated that saquinavir, a protease inhibitor, at a 0.2 microM concentration, decreased HIV-mediated CD95 expression and thus cell death, which is independent of its role in inhibiting viral replication. However, treatment of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy donors with a higher concentration (10 microM) of an HIV protease inhibitor, saquinavir or indinavir, induced both a loss in mitochondrial membrane potential (DeltaPsim) and cell death. Thus, protease inhibitors have the potential for both beneficial and detrimental effects on CD4(+) T cells independent of their antiretroviral effects.