Concentration-targeted therapy and the future of HIV management

Effects of minocycline and valproic acid coadministration on atazanavir plasma concentrations in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults receiving atazanavir-ritonavir

Minocycline and valproic acid are potential adjuvant therapies for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated cognitive impairment. The purpose of this study was to determine whether minocycline alone or in combination with valproic acid affected atazanavir plasma concentrations. Twelve adult HIV-infected subjects whose regimen included atazanavir (300 mg)-ritonavir (100 mg) daily for at least 4 weeks were enrolled. Each subject received atazanavir-ritonavir on day 1, atazanavir-ritonavir plus 100 mg minocycline twice daily on days 2 to 15, and atazanavir-ritonavir plus 100 mg minocycline twice daily and 250 mg valproic acid twice daily on days 16 to 30 with meals. The subjects had 11 plasma samples drawn over a dosing interval on days 1, 15, and 30. The coadministration of minocycline and valproic acid with atazanavir-ritonavir was well tolerated in all 12 subjects (six male; mean [+/- standard deviation] age was 43.1 [8.2] years). The geometric mean ratios (GMRs; 95% confidence interval [CI]) for the atazanavir area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h at steady state (AUC(0-24)), the plasma concentration 24 h after the dose (C(min)), and the maximum concentration during the dosing interval (C(max)) with and without minocycline were 0.67 (0.50 to 0.90), 0.50 (0.28 to 0.89), and 0.75 (0.58 to 0.95), respectively. Similar decreases in atazanavir exposure were seen after the addition of valproic acid. The GMRs (95% CI) for atazanavir AUC(0-24), C(min), and C(max) with and without minocycline plus valproic acid were 0.68 (0.43 to 1.06), 0.50 (0.24 to 1.06), and 0.66 (0.41 to 1.06), respectively. Coadministration of neither minocycline nor minocycline plus valproic acid appeared to influence the plasma concentrations of ritonavir (P > 0.2). Minocycline coadministration resulted in decreased atazanavir exposure, and there was no evidence that the addition of valproic acid mediated this effect.

High variability of indinavir and nelfinavir pharmacokinetics in HIV-infected patients with a sustained virological response on highly active antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVES

To describe plasma concentrations of indinavir alone or combined with ritonavir, and of nelfinavir and its active metabolite M8, and to measure their variabilities in HIV-infected patients treated with a stable antiretroviral regimen and experiencing a sustained virological response for at least 12 months.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective trial, blood samples were drawn during a 6-hour time interval between two doses at enrolment to assess protease inhibitor (PI) pharmacokinetic parameters, and 4 months later to assess plasma trough and peak concentrations. Safety and adherence assessments and laboratory data were collected during an 8-month period. PI pharmacokinetic characteristics were analysed using a non-compartmental approach. Inter- and intrapatient variabilities were estimated using a linear mixed-effect model. The impact of different covariates on plasma trough concentrations was investigated. Eighty-eight patients were analysed: 42 treated with indinavir and 46 with nelfinavir.

RESULTS

The interquartile range (IQR) of the plasma trough concentration corrected for the sampling time (Ccalc) was 116-374 microg/L for indinavir alone and 163-508 microg/L for indinavir/ritonavir. Ritonavir significantly increased indinavir elimination half-life and plasma exposure. For nelfinavir, the IQR of Ccalc was 896-2059 microg/L for three-times-daily administration and 998-2124 microg/L for twice-daily administration. Variabilities were high for both PIs. Intrapatient variability for indinavir alone (and indinavir + ritonavir) was 76% (107%) and interpatient variability was 58% (10%) in adherent patients. Intrapatient variability for nelfinavir three times daily (and twice daily) was 41% (74%) and interpatient variability was 62% (50%). Intrapatient variability was lowered in patients with a high adherence level.

CONCLUSION

Although performed in a homogeneous population, this study documented a high interpatient but also intrapatient variability of indinavir and nelfinavir pharmacokinetics, which should be taken into account when interpreting therapeutic drug monitoring. Once patients have reached a sustained virological response, plasma PI monitoring may have a limited impact.

Effects of valproic acid coadministration on plasma efavirenz and lopinavir concentrations in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults

Valproic acid (VPA) has the potential to benefit patients suffering from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated cognitive impairment. The purpose of this study was to determine if VPA affects the plasma concentration of efavirenz (EFV) or lopinavir. HIV type 1 (HIV-1)-infected patients receiving EFV or lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) had 9 or 10 blood samples drawn over 8 to 24 h of a dosing interval at steady state before and after receiving 250 mg of VPA twice daily for 7 days. VPA blood samples drawn before (C(0)) and 8 h after the morning dose (8 h) were compared to blood samples from a group of HIV-1-infected subjects who were taking either combined nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors alone or had discontinued antiretroviral therapy. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by noncompartmental analysis, and tests of bioequivalence were based on 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for ratios or differences. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) (90% CI) of the areas under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)s) of EFV (n = 11) with and without VPA was 1.00 (0.85, 1.17). The GMR (90% CI) of the AUC(0-8)s of LPV (n = 8) with and without VPA was 1.38 (0.98, 1.94). The differences (90% CI) in mean C(0) and 8-h VPA concentrations versus the control (n = 11) were -1.0 (-9.4, 7.4) microg/ml and -2.1 (-11.1, 6.9) microg/ml for EFV (n = 10) and -5.0 (-13.2, 3.3) microg/ml and -6.7 (-17.6, 4.2) microg/ml for LPV/r (n = 11), respectively. EFV administration alone is bioequivalent to EFV and VPA coadministration. LPV concentrations tended to be higher when the drug was combined with VPA. Results of VPA comparisons fail to raise concern that coadministration with EFV or LPV/r will significantly influence trough concentrations of VPA.

HIV protease inhibitors as new treatment options for Kaposi's sarcoma

A reduced incidence and regression of Kaposi's sarcoma (KS) and other tumours has been reported in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) patients treated with antiretroviral combination therapies containing Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) protease inhibitors (PIs) such as indinavir or saquinavir. Indeed, evidence indicates that although PIs were designed to selectively inhibit the HIV protease activity, they can interfere with several cellular pathways and can inhibit tumour growth. In particular, our recent results indicate that doses of indinavir or saquinavir similar to those employed to treat AIDS patients can induce regression of experimental KS by directly blocking two fundamental steps of KS initiation and progression: new blood vessel formation (angiogenesis) and KS tumour cell invasion. This is because indinavir or saquinavir inhibit the activation of matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2), a basement membrane-degrading enzyme, which is required for the progression of most tumours. Based on these results, a multicentre clinical trial is now starting in Italy, which will assess PI effects on the progression of KS in HIV-uninfected individuals (classical KS).

The Role of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in the Management of HIV-infected Patients

The concept of targeting drug therapy based on plasma concentrations, also called therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), has been used in the treatment of infectious diseases and other illnesses for decades. A number of clinical trials have demonstrated that drug concentrations are an important factor in response to therapy for HIV, but whether TDM will become a tool for the routine management of HIV infection remains to be determined. The concept of the inhibitory quotient, which integrates drug concentrations and resistance testing, also shows promise in a number of retrospective analyses. Logistical problems still remain with regard to its feasibility, and theoretical issues such as protein binding, variability, and the appropriate time of sampling continue to be debated. A growing body of literature supports the concept of TDM in HIV, but it is important that it be used with other interventions such as resistance testing, adherence monitoring, and patient counseling to be an effective tool in patient management.