Saquinavir drug exposure is not impaired by the boosted double protease inhibitor combination of lopinavir/ritonavir

HIV-1 replication in central nervous system increases over time on only protease inhibitor therapy

There are concerns about central nervous system (CNS)-replication of HIV-1 in patients on boosted protease inhibitors. Purpose of this study was to compare HIV-1 viral loads (VLs) from patients treated with only boosted dual protease inhibitor (bdPI), versus combination antiretroviral therapy (cART group), containing two nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) and a third partner. All patients from a large German HIV-treatment cohort with available medication, clinical and demographic data, including results from simultaneous HIV-1 viral load (VL) assessments in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood plasma, were retrospectively evaluated as controlled cross-sectional study. CSF had been obtained from patients with variable neurological symptoms during 2005-2014. Statistical analysis comprised nonparametric tests, regression and correlation techniques accounting for undetectable quantifications. Statistical analysis comprised nonparametric tests, regression and correlation techniques accounting for undetectable quantifications. Overall, 155 patients were evaluable (bdPI: 24; cART: 131). At time of CSF-collection, both groups were comparable in age, gender, CD4-cell counts, or primary HIV-transmission risks, though bdPI patients were clinically more advanced. The proportion of patients with undetectable HIV-1 (<50 copies/ml) in CSF was lower for bdPI group (25 vs 49.6 %; p = 0.026), but similar in plasma (46 vs 41 %). Median CSF-VL was higher in bdPI group (600 vs 50 copies/ml; p = 0.027) and similar in plasma. Mean VL CSF/plasma ratio was 342.91 for bdPI- and 54.48 for cART patients (p < 0.001). Pearson's regression analysis revealed a trend for an elevated VL-ratio over time within bdPI group. HIV-1 replication was higher and more frequently detectable in CSF from bdPI patients, indicating a worse CNS penetration effectiveness of used boosted PI. Within bdPI group, measured CNS-viral replication was increasing over time, suggesting an over time impaired HIV-1 suppression in CSF.

Pilot Study of Saquinavir and Lopinavir/Ritonavir Twice Daily in Protease Inhibitor-Naive HIV-Positive Patients

PURPOSE

Protease inhibitor (PI)-naive patients may have limited reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI) options due to resistance and/or toxicity. Effective, well-tolerated nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI)-sparing regimens are therefore needed.

METHOD

This prospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir (1000/400/100 mg bid) in PI-naive patients over 48 weeks. The regimen could be intensified with NRTIs if patients did not achieve virologic suppression by 12 weeks. The primary study endpoint was virologic suppression at 48 weeks. Additional study objectives included assessment of safety, CD4 cell counts, blood lipids, PI trough levels, and anthropometrics.

RESULTS

Of the 20 PI-naive study participants, 16 completed 48 weeks of study treatment, with no discontinuations attributed to virologic failure. Fourteen of 16 patients achieved virologic suppression with only the PIs; 2 patients required tenofovir intensification to achieve complete suppression. Median CD4 counts increased significantly over 48 weeks. Adverse events were generally mild and manageable. Extreme lipid elevations were uncommon, although moderate lipid elevations occurred in the majority of patients. Most patients reported some degree of central fat accumulation.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir 1000/400/100 mg bid with tenofovir intensification is a potent nucleoside-sparing regimen for PI-naive patients, associated with durable HIV suppression and improved CD4 cell counts. Fat accumulation and metabolic changes observed in this study warrant confirmation from ongoing trials.

Impact of HIV-1 replication on immunological evolution during long-term dual-boosted protease inhibitor therapy

To explore CD4-cell and viral evolution in relation to different levels of HIV-1 replication, as observed during protease inhibitor (PI)-based antiretroviral therapy. Adult HIV-1 infected cohort patients, receiving historical salvage therapy with daily doses of saquinavir (2,000 mg), ritonavir (200 mg) and either lopinavir (800 mg) or atazanavir (300 mg) for >36 weeks were retrospectively analysed for highest detectable viral load up to week 96 and assigned to groups according to the viral load level: always <50 copies/ml (1), 50-199 copies/ml (2), 200-499 copies/ml (3) and ≥500 copies/ml (4). A total of 126 patients were evaluated; at baseline, median CD4-cell count was 204/mm(3), HIV-1 RNA was 5.13 Log10-copies/ml and duration of prior HIV-1 infection was 11.7 years. Patients were assigned by 43, 30, 7 and 20 % to groups 1-4. Median observation time was 136 weeks (range: 38-304); at weeks 48/96, the CD4-cell gains for groups 1-4 were +88/+209, +209/+349, +67/+300 and +114.5/+ 128, respectively. After fitting data in a linear fixed effect model, ascending CD4 slopes were continuously increasing for group 1, similarly for 2 and clearly decreasing for 3-4 (p = 0.0006). Of 25 individuals from group 4, patient number with major IAS-USA protease mutations increased from 5 to 10 before and after failing PI therapy, whereas minor mutations remained stable (n = 18). On double-boosted PI therapy, CD4-cell increases through week 96 were similar for patients at always undetectable or with detection of low viral load. Viral detection >200 copies/ml was associated with decreasing CD4-cell slopes and emergence of major mutations, supporting this as benchmark for virological failure definition on PI therapy.

Sequential population pharmacokinetic modeling of lopinavir and ritonavir in healthy volunteers and assessment of different dosing strategies

Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling was applied to explore the relationship between lopinavir and ritonavir concentrations over 72 h following drug cessation and also to assess other lopinavir and ritonavir dosing strategies compared to the standard 400-mg-100-mg twice-daily dose. Data from 16 healthy volunteers were included. Possible covariates influencing lopinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics were also assessed. Data were modeled first separately and then together by using individually predicted ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameters in the final lopinavir model. The model was evaluated by means of a visual predictive check and external validation. A maximum-effect model in which ritonavir inhibited the elimination of lopinavir best described the relationship between ritonavir concentrations and lopinavir clearance (CL/F). A ritonavir concentration of 0.06 mg/liter was associated with a 50% maximum inhibition of the lopinavir CL/F. The population prediction of the lopinavir CL/F in the absence of ritonavir was 21.6 liters/h (relative standard error, 14.0%), and the apparent volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 55.3 liters (relative standard error, 10.2%) and 0.57 h(-1) (relative standard error, 0.39%), respectively. Overall, 92% and 94% of the observed concentrations were encompassed by the 95% prediction intervals for lopinavir and ritonavir, respectively, which is indicative of an adequate model. Predictions of concentrations from an external data set (HIV infected) (n = 12) satisfied predictive performance criteria. Simulated lopinavir exposures at lopinavir-ritonavir doses of 200 mg-150 mg and 200 mg-50 mg twice daily were 38% and 65% lower, respectively, than that of the standard dose. The model allows a better understanding of the interaction between lopinavir and ritonavir and may allow a better prediction of lopinavir concentrations and assessments of different dosing strategies.

Clinical management of treatment-experienced, HIV/AIDS patients in the combination antiretroviral therapy era

Despite the success of combination antiretroviral therapy (ART) in improving clinical outcomes, treatment failure remains a significant challenge, particularly for highly treatment-experienced patients. This review evaluates current issues in the management of HIV-infected, treatment-experienced patients. It may provide guidance in selecting active, tolerable drug combinations that promote a reasonable quality of life, full adherence and a durable treatment response. Current treatment guidelines and clinical trial data were reviewed to identify reasons for treatment failure and to summarize therapy options for treatment-experienced and highly treatment-experienced patients. Current treatment options include nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors (PIs), and inhibitors of viral fusion, entry and integration. The use of NRTIs may be limited by resistance and short- and long-term toxicities. Resistance has restricted the NNRTI class with cross-resistance preventing their sequential use. Etravirine, a next-generation NNRTI, however, demonstrates effective virological suppression in patients with baseline NNRTI resistance. Boosted PIs are key components of ART for treatment-experienced patients. The newer boosted PIs tipranavir and darunavir have demonstrated impressive activity in patients with resistance to NRTIs, NNRTIs and PIs, as well as in less treatment-experienced patients for darunavir. The fusion inhibitor enfuvirtide has demonstrated efficacy in heavily treatment-experienced patients, although injection-site reactions can be problematical. The recently approved integrase inhibitor raltegravir has also shown impressive potency and tolerability in highly treatment-experienced patients. Finally, the entry inhibitor maraviroc has also been approved recently, although its use is somewhat limited by the need for HIV tropism testing. The availability of potent next-generation PIs, NNRTIs, integrase and entry-inhibitors may offer improved therapy for treatment-experienced patients, including those with multiresistant virus. These new drugs may reduce HIV immunological and clinical progression and in doing so may also reduce treatment costs.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Pharmacokinetics, Safety and Efficacy of Saquinavir/ Ritonavir 1,000/100 Mg Twice Daily as HIV Type-1 Therapy and Transmission Prophylaxis in Pregnancy

Background

A saquinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen is one option for the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV during pregnancy. We evaluated the pharmaco-kinetics, efficacy and safety of saquinavir/ritonavir 1,000/100 mg twice daily plus nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 13 women during late pregnancy and compared the results to those of 15 non-pregnant women.

Methods

Protease inhibitor plasma concentration profiles were assessed at 12 h using a standardized therapeutic drug monitoring procedure and measured by LC-MS/MS. Minimum and maximum concentrations (Cmin and Cmax), area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC0–12 h), and total clearance (CL total) were compared between the groups and correlated to demographic, physiological and clinical cofactors. Antiviral and immunological efficacy and safety were investigated.

Results

The geometric means (90% confidence interval [CI]) for saquinavir Cmin, Cmax and AUC0–12 h of pregnant versus non-pregnant women were 572 (437–717) versus 765 (485–1,052, P=0.064) ng/ml, 2,168 (1,594–2,807) versus 3,344 (2,429–4,350; P=0.045) ng/ml and 15,512 (11,657–19,943) versus 24,027 (17,454–31,548, P=0.029) ng•h/ml. The geometric means (90% CI) for ritonavir Cmin, Cmax and AUC0–12 h were 190 (148–234) versus 310 (240–381, P=0.011) ng/ml, 781 (580–999) versus 1,552 (1,127–2,007, P=0.004) ng/ml and 5,576 (4,303–7,006) versus 10,528 (8,131–13,177, P=0.003) ng•h/ml. Age, weight, saquinavir dose per weight and body mass index differed significantly; saquinavir Cmin and AUC0–12 h were correlated with ritonavir Cmin and saquinavir dose per weight. After a mean of 11 weeks treatment, 12 of 13 pregnant women had a viral load <400 copies/ml, which was similar to the results of non-pregnant women.

Conclusions

Although saquinavir plasma concentrations were significantly lower in pregnant women compared with non-pregnant women, all pregnant women displayed a saquinavir AUC0–12 h>10,000 ng•h/ml, 92.3% had a viral load <400 copies/ml at birth. Saquinavir was well tolerated by the mothers and all newborn children were HIV type-1 negative at 18 months of age.

Two cases of multidrug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus infection treated with atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir combination therapy

The combination of atazanavir (ATV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTI) has been used as a salvage regimen for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients. In this paper, we discuss two cases of HIV-positive patients who had long histories of virological failure following a heavy treatment of antiretroviral drugs, but then achieved virological suppression with double-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) regimens. In patients with multiple genotypic resistance to PIs and NRTIs, virological suppression can be achieved with a combination of ATV plus LPV/RTV with an NRTI backbone. The two cases in this report suggest that a combination of ATV plus LPV/RTV could be a useful salvage regimen for the subset of HIV-positive patients with limited treatment options.

Pharmacokinetics of high-dose lopinavir-ritonavir with and without saquinavir or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in human immunodeficiency virus-infected pediatric and adolescent patients previously treated with protease inhibitors

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected children and adolescents who are failing antiretrovirals may have a better virologic response when drug exposures are increased, using higher protease inhibitor doses or ritonavir boosting. We studied the pharmacokinetics and safety of high-dose lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-experienced patients, using an LPV/r dose of 400/100 mg/m(2) orally every 12 h (p.o. q12h) (without nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor [NNRTI]), or 480/120 mg/m(2) p.o. q12h (with NNRTI). We calculated the LPV inhibitory quotient (IQ), and when the IQ was <15, saquinavir (SQV) 750 mg/m(2) p.o. q12h was added to the regimen. We studied 26 HIV-infected patients. The median age was 15 years (range, 7 to 17), with 11.5 prior antiretroviral medications, 197 CD4 cells/ml, viral load of 75,577 copies/ml, and a 133-fold change in LPV resistance. By treatment week 2, 14 patients had a viral-load decrease of >0.75 log(10), with a median maximal decrease in viral load of -1.57 log(10) copies/ml at week 8. At week 2, 19 subjects showed a median LPV area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of 157.2 (range, 62.8 to 305.5) microg x h/ml and median LPV trough concentration (C(trough)) of 10.8 (range, 4.1 to 25.3) microg/ml. In 16 subjects with SQV added, the SQV median AUC was 33.7 (range, 4.4 to 76.5) microg x h/ml and the median SQV C(trough) was 2.1 (range, 0.2 to 4.1) microg/ml. At week 24, 18 of 26 (69%) subjects remained in the study. Between weeks 24 and 48, one subject withdrew for nonadherence and nine withdrew for persistently high virus load. In antiretroviral-experienced children and adolescents with HIV, high doses of LPV/r with or without SQV offer safe options for salvage therapy, but the modest virologic response and the challenge of adherence to a regimen with a high pill burden may limit the usefulness of this approach.

Decrease of atazanavir and lopinavir plasma concentrations in a boosted double human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor salvage regimen

The human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor combination of atazanavir (ATV)-lopinavir-ritonavir was reported to exhibit a mutual pharmacoenhancement of plasma lopinavir and ATV concentrations which may be beneficial for salvage patients. We identified 17 patients in our pharmacokinetic database taking this combination and found conflicting results. Plasma concentrations of both ATV and lopinavir were modestly, although not significantly, decreased when the drugs were coadministered. Therefore, patients should be selected carefully for this regimen and frequent clinical and therapeutic drug monitoring is strongly advised.

Predictive Factors for Response to a Boosted Dual HIV-Protease Inhibitor Therapy with Saquinavir and Lopinavir in Extensively Pre-Treated Patients

Objective

To evaluate predictive factors for therapy outcome of a boosted double-protease inhibitor (PI) regimen in 58 extensively pre-treated patients with HIV.

Methods

Patients received lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg and saquinavir 1,000 mg twice daily without reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI). The primary outcome parameter was HIV RNA <400 copies/ml at week 48, secondary parameters were HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ T-cell count changes from baseline to week 48. Pharmacokinetics, genotypic resistance and clinical and individual parameters were correlated with the clinical outcome in regression analyses. Covariates for the analyses were minimum plasma concentration (Cmin), maximum plasma concentration, area under the concentration versus time curve, half-life and clearance of lopinavir and saquinavir, the genotypic inhibitory quotients (GIQ) of archived (GIQarch) and baseline PI resistance mutations, previously taken antiretrovirals, archived and baseline viral resistance mutations, baseline HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ T-cell count.

Results

The analyses detected correlations between the primary outcome parameter and several factors: baseline CD4+ T-cell count ( P=0.001); absence of mutations at V82T/A/F/I/S plus I54M/V/L ( P=0.002) or K20M/R ( P=0.010); and lopinavir CminGIQarch ( P=0.046). This regression model had a predictability of 97.0% for response to therapy. Covariates for the decrease of HIV-1 RNA from baseline to week 48 were baseline HIV-1 RNA ( P<0.001), lopinavir CminGIQarch ( P=0.013), presence/absence of mutations at V82T/A/F/I/S or I84A/V plus L10I/R/V/F, I54M/V/L or L63P ( P=0.018), and previously taken antiretrovirals ( P=0.034).

Conclusions

Baseline HIV-1 RNA <5.0 log10 and CD4+ T-cell count >200 cells/μl, lopinavir CminGIQarch >2,000 ng/ml and the absence of viral resistance mutations at V82T/A/F/I/S and I54M/V/L are highly predictive for therapeutic success of a regimen of saquinavir/lopinavir/ ritonavir without RTI in a heterogenic cohort of patients with an extensive pre-treatment history and highly variable pharmacokinetics.

Synergistic Inhibition of Protease-Inhibitor-Resistant HIV type 1 by Saquinavir in Combination with Atazanavir or Lopinavir

Background

Double-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) are under investigation for the treatment of patients who are unable to take nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors because of cross-resistance and/or intolerance. Evidence of synergistic inhibition of wild-type HIV has been reported for saquinavir with atazanavir or lopinavir.

Methods

We investigated the activity of these two combinations against a panel of six site-directed mutant HIV-1 strains and 14 clinically derived recombinant HIV-1 strains presenting a range of PI-resistance profiles.

Results

No evidence of synergy was observed against wild-type virus for either combination. The combination of saquinavir and lopinavir showed evidence of synergy against four viruses displaying high-level resistance to lopinavir and low-level resistance to saquinavir. Similarly, evidence of synergy between saquinavir and atazanavir was only observed in two viruses which were more susceptible to saquinavir than to atazanavir.

Conclusions

We hypothesize that differences between the PIs in intracellular protein-binding behaviour or inhibition of drug transporters (P glycoprotein, MDR1 and MDR2) could result in intracellular levels of saquinavir being increased by co-administration with lopinavir or atazanavir. The effect of this increase would be masked in cases involving viruses that were susceptible to atazanavir or lopinavir. In virus resistant to lopinavir or atazanavir but susceptible to saquinavir, the majority of the antiviral effect is due to saquinavir; thus even small increases in intracellular concentration could significantly increase virus inhibition. These results confirm that in vitro synergy can be observed between PIs and suggest that the degree of synergy observed might depend on the resistance profile of the virus.

Lopinavir plus ritonavir: a novel protease inhibitor combination for HIV infections

Lopinavir is a protease inhibitor (PI) for the treatment of HIV infection that was specifically designed to overcome the shortcomings of earlier agents in this class. It is the only PI coformulated with ritonavir, whose pharmacological boosting effect results in a highly potent, well-tolerated, clinically effective antiretroviral agent with a high genetic barrier to resistance. Lopinavir/ritonavir is a recommended first-line option for antiretroviral-naive patients initiating PI-based therapy, and has an equally important role in the management of treatment-experienced individuals. Its favorable pharmacological and clinical characteristics have recently prompted investigators to explore its potential novel applications in HIV monotherapy and double-boosted regimens.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

Pharmacokinetics of Darunavir (TMC114) and Atazanavir during Coadministration in HIV-Negative, Healthy Volunteers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To investigate the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between the protease inhibitors darunavir (DRV, TMC114) coadministered with low-dose ritonavir (darunavir/r), and atazanavir in HIV-negative, healthy volunteers.

METHODS

This was an open-label, randomised, three-period, crossover study. Darunavir/r (400/100mg twice daily), atazanavir/r (300/100mg once daily) or darunavir/r (400/100mg twice daily) plus atazanavir (300mg once daily) were administered in three separate sessions, with a washout period of at least 7 days between regimens. The follow-up lasted 30 days. Twenty-three healthy volunteers participated. Pharmacokinetic assessments were performed at steady-state on day 7. Plasma drug concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments. The safety and tolerability of the study medications were monitored throughout.

RESULTS

Darunavir pharmacokinetics were unaffected by atazanavir. No change in overall exposure to atazanavir was observed during coadministration with darunavir/r. However, there was a 52% increase in minimum atazanavir plasma concentration (least squares mean ratio [90% CI 0.99, 2.34]). Mean systemic exposure to ritonavir was increased by 65% and 106%, respectively, with the combination treatment compared with darunavir/r alone or atazanavir/r alone. There were no apparent differences in mean changes in lipids between the darunavir/r, atazanavir/r or darunavir/r plus atazanavir regimens. Hyperbilirubinaemia and ocular icterus were reported with atazanavir-containing regimens.

CONCLUSION

Atazanavir at a dose of 300mg once daily can be coadministered with a darunavir/r twice-daily regimen without any dose adjustment if there is a clinical need to combine darunavir/r and atazanavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

Recent and future therapeutic advances in the management of HIV infection

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is a worldwide pandemic that remains a major health and socio-epidemiological problem at the beginning of the 21st century, including in developed countries. In 2006, 10 years after the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), therapeutic needs in HIV are different from what they were a decade ago. Physicians now handle more than 20 different molecules, all active against HIV virus. However, they still need safe, tolerable and simple regimens in order to improve patient's compliance to therapy, as well as more potent drugs in cases of multi-resistant viral strains. Our understanding of HIV infection and its medical management has improved and will certainly continue to evolve. We are currently taking benefit from the elaboration and evaluation of various new therapeutic concepts and promising future medical approaches based on already 20 years experience in the field of HIV management, as well as on the rapidly expanding pharmaceutical development and researches in this domain. Nevertheless, the majority of these new therapeutic strategies are still to be further evaluated, and their practical application is awaiting the results of numerous ongoing clinical trials.

Population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in combination with ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients

AIMS

To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for lopinavir in combination with ritonavir, in which the interaction between both drugs was characterized, and in which relationships between patient characteristics and pharmacokinetics were identified.

METHODS

The pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in combination with ritonavir were described using NONMEM (version V, level 1.1). First, ritonavir data were fitted to a previously developed model to obtain individual Bayesian estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters. Hereafter, an integrated model for the description of the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir with ritonavir was designed.

RESULTS

From 122 outpatients 748 lopinavir and 748 ritonavir plasma concentrations were available for analysis. The interaction between the drugs was described by a time-independent inverse relationship between the exposure to ritonavir over a dosing-interval and the apparent clearance (CL/F) of lopinavir. The model parameters volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 61.6 l (95% prediction interval (PI) 22.4, 83.7) and 0.564 h(-1) (95% PI 0.208, 0.947), respectively. The model yielded a theoretical value for the CL/F of lopinavir without ritonavir of 14.8 l h(-1) (95%PI 12.1, 20.1), which translates to a value of 5.73 l h(-1) in the presence of ritonavir. The only factor with significant effect on the pharmacokinetics was concurrent use of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), which increased the CL/F of lopinavir by 39% (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a model that has defined a time-independent inverse relationship between the exposure to ritonavir and the CL/F of lopinavir, and provided an adequate description of the pharmacokinetic parameters for the latter. Concomitant use of the NNRTIs efavirenz and nevirapine increased the CL/F of lopinavir.

Pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard-gel/ritonavir and atazanavir when combined once daily in HIV Type 1-infected individuals administered different atazanavir doses

The pharmacokinetics and short-term safety of atazanavir 150 and 200 mg, when coadministered with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily, were evaluated. On day 1, atazanavir 150 mg once daily, was added to saquinavir/ritonavir regimens and sampling was performed to evaluate saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetics (day 11). Atazanavir was increased to 200 mg and pharmacokinetic assessment repeated (day 30). Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetic parameters in the present study and for 14 of the subjects treated with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily without and with atazanavir 300 mg who participated in a previous trial. Geometric mean (GM) saquinavir AUC0-24, Ctrough, and Cmax were 30,589 and 32,312 ng . h/ml, 166 and 182 ng/ml, and 4267 and 4261 ng/ml when coadministered with atazanavir 150 and 200 mg (n = 18). On days 11 and 30, saquinavir and atazanavir Ctrough remained >100 ng/ml in 13/18, 14/18, 18/18, and 17/18 patients. Among the above mentioned 14 subjects, significant increases in saquinavir Ctrough (87%, 92%, 99%), Cmax (40%, 55%, 44%), and AUC0-24 (51%, 60%, 63%) were observed with atazanavir 300, 150, and 200 mg. Ritonavir AUC0-24 and Cmax were significantly increased with the addition of atazanavir 300 mg only. Atazanavir enhances saquinavir and ritonavir by a mechanism that requires elucidation. While saquinavir enhancement was apparently independent of atazanavir dose, atazanavir 300 mg produced an increase in ritonavir Cmax, which is not observed with lower atazanavir doses. Atazanavir-related hyperbilirubinemia was dose dependent. However, higher saquinavir and atazanavir exposure may be required to suppress HIV-resistant strain replication.

Lopinavir/ritonavir induces the hepatic activity of cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP1A2 but inhibits the hepatic and intestinal activity of CYP3A as measured by a phenotyping drug cocktail in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE

The effect of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) administration on cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme activity was quantified using a phenotyping biomarker cocktail. Changes in CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP3A, CYP1A2, N-acetyltransferase-2 (NAT-2), and xanthine oxidase (XO) activities were evaluated using warfarin (WARF) + vitamin K, omeprazole (OMP), intravenous (IV) and oral (PO) midazolam (MDZ), and caffeine (CAF).

DESIGN

: Open-label, multiple-dose, pharmacokinetic study in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

Subjects (n = 14) simultaneously received PO WARF 10 mg, vitamin K 10 mg, OMP 40 mg, CAF 2 mg/kg, and IV MDZ 0.025 mg/kg on days (D) 1 and 14, and PO MDZ 5 mg on D2 and D15. LPV/r (400/100 mg twice daily) was administered on D4-17. CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 activities were quantified by S-WARF AUC0-inf and OMP/5-hydroxy OMP ratio, respectively. CYP1A2, NAT-2, and XO activities were quantified by urinary CAF metabolite ratios. Hepatic and intestinal + hepatic CYP3A activities were quantified by IV (CL) and PO (CL/F) MDZ clearance, respectively.

RESULTS

After LPV/r therapy, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP1A2 activity increased by 29%, 100%, and 43% (P = 0.001, 0.046, and 0.001), respectively. No changes were seen in NAT-2 or XO activity. Hepatic and intestinal + hepatic CYP3A activity decreased by 77% (P < 0.001) and 92% (P = 0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

LPV/r therapy results in modest induction of CYP1A2 and CYP2C9 and potent induction of CYP2C19 activity. Increasing doses of concomitant medications metabolized by these enzymes may be necessary. LPV/r inhibited intestinal CYP3A to a greater extent than hepatic CYP3A activity. Doses of concomitant CYP3A substrates should be reduced when combined with LPV/r, although intravenously administered compounds may require less of a relative dose reduction than orally administered compounds.

No significant influence of saquinavir hard-gel capsule administration on pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in combination with ritonavir: a population approach

The influence of saquinavir hard-gel capsules on lopinavir pharmacokinetic parameters was investigated using a population approach. Forty-nine patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 and treated with lopinavir/ritonavir, nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors plus saquinavir (group A), and 118 patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir plus nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (group B) were included in the study. No significant relationship was established between the presence or the daily dosage of saquinavir in the treatment and lopinavir population pharmacokinetic parameters. The values (mean+/-standard deviation) of the individual apparent clearance (5.0+/-1.8 vs. 5.0+/-3.2 L/h), volume of distribution (66.6+/-1.6 vs. 66.8+/-1.9 L), absorption rate constant (0.37+/-0.01 vs. 0.37+/-0.03 hours), and trough plasma concentration (5.5+/-2.3 vs. 5.3+/-1.9 mg/L) of lopinavir are not significantly different between groups A and B. This lack of influence of saquinavir on lopinavir pharmacokinetics makes the use of this combination in salvage therapy easier.

Atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir: pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of a promising double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen

OBJECTIVE

To assess the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of lopinavir (LPV), ritonavir (RTV) and atazanavir (ATV) as a double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen in HIV-infected adults.

METHODS

Sixteen patients who started LPV/RTV (400/100 mg b.i.d.) and ATV (300 mg q.d.) were enrolled in the study group (arm A). LPV pharmacokinetics were compared to those of two historical groups: arm B, 15 patients who received LPV/RTV (400/100 mg b.i.d.); and arm C, 25 patients who received LPV/RTV/saquinavir (SQV) (400/100/1000 mg b.i.d.). ATV pharmacokinetics were compared to those of 15 consecutive patients who received ATV and RTV (300/100 mg q.d.) (arm D). Drug concentrations were measured by HPLC.

RESULTS

LPV concentrations were significantly higher in arm A than in arms B and C. Median (interquartile range) LPV area under the curve (AUC)0-12 values were 115.7 (99.8-136.5), 85.2 (68.3-109.2) and 85.1 (60.6-110.1) microg/h/ml, respectively. C(max) values were 12.2 (10.7-14.5), 9.5 (6.8-13.9) and 10.0 (6.9-13.6) microg/ml, respectively. C(min) values were 9.1 (7.1-10.4), 5.6 (4.7-8.2) and 5.5 (4.2-7.5) microg/ml, respectively. No difference was observed for ATV AUC0-24 or C(max) between arms A and D. ATV C(min) values were 1.07 (0.61-1.79) in arm A and 0.58 (0.32-0.83) in arm D (P = 0.001). Treatment was not discontinued in any patient because of adverse effects. At 24 weeks, viral load was < 50 copies/ml in 13 of 16 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of ATV and LPV/RTV provided high plasma concentrations of both PI, which seemed to be appropriate for patients with multiple prior therapeutic failures, yielding good tolerability and substantial antiviral efficacy.

Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir-Lopinavir Combination: A Pharmacokinetic Interaction Study of Total, Unbound Plasma and Cellular Exposures

Objectives

To assess potential pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between atazanavir (ATV, 300 mg, once daily) and lopinavir (LPV, 400 mg, twice daily), both boosted by ritonavir (RTV, 100 mg).

Design

Two-parallel groups, addition of LPV in patients receiving ATV ( n=6), and addition of ATV in patients receiving LPV ( n=7), with before/after comparisons.

Methods

Each group had two complete PK profiles before and 2 weeks after the addition of the second protease inhibitor (PI). Total plasma concentrations (Ctot) were analysed by HPLC-UV and unbound plasma concentrations (Cu) and cellular concentrations (Ccell) were analysed by LC-MS/MS. Plasma and cellular PK parameters were also calculated. Unbound and cellular fractions were expressed as Cu/Ctot and Ccell/Ctot ratio. Data were analysed by paired Student t-test on log values; correlations between Ccell, Cu and Ctot were explored by log-log linear regression.

Results

Adding LPV to ATV did not influence the plasma and cellular PK parameters of ATV. Adding ATV to LPV was associated with a decrease in LPV concentrations (by 16% for area under the time-concentration curve, maximum concentration and trough concentration, NS; and by 35% for Cmin, P=0.04). The RTV PK parameters remained unmodified. The Ccell/Ctot and Cu/Ctot ratio was unaffected by the addition of the second PI and remained stable throughout dosing interval. Good correlations were observed between Ccell, Cu and Ctot for each drug. No relevant toxicity was observed.

Conclusions

Adding LPV to ATV did not influence the plasma and cellular PK parameters of ATV. Adding ATV to LPV caused a limited decrease in LPV concentrations. The clinical significance of this decrease is unknown and warrants further investigation to determine the need for tailoring LPV dosage in selected cases.

Virological and pharmacological factors associated with virological response to salvage therapy after an 8-week of treatment interruption in a context of very advanced HIV disease (GigHAART ANRS 097)

Both highly potent antiretroviral drug rescue multi therapy and treatment interruption (TI) have been suggested to be effective in HIV-1 infected-patients with multiple treatment failure. GigHAART-ANRS 097 was the only randomized trial during which an 8-week TI was beneficial in heavily pre-treated patients with multi-drug resistant virus on resuming a multiple-drug salvage regimen. The aim of this study was to analyze virological and pharmacological factors associated with a virological response. Clonal resistance analysis showed that although the viral population was highly mutated and nearly monoclonal at baseline, the 8-week interruption therapy allowed the re-emergence of more susceptible quasispecies to the subsequent salvage therapy, which were not detected by classical genotypic resistance testing. The fact that not every viral clone harbored all resistance viral mutations could explain a part of the virological response to a six to eight drug regimen for patients enrolled in the TI group. This phenomenon was associated with a transient virological response after the use of a GigHAART therapy, but was followed by the re-emergence of baseline resistance pattern and acquisition of additional mutations in patients failing this strategy. A combined factor of protease inhibitor (PI) concentration and genotypic score, expressed as a genotypic inhibitory quotient (GIQ), was used to assess the importance of genotypic resistance and plasma drug levels in the rate of response to multiple PI combination. The GIQ of each PI used in the regimen was not associated with virological success. However, the sum of PI GIQs was predictive of a virological response. These results suggest that pharmacological enhancement might overcome viral resistance and that there is some benefit in adding the activity of several boosted-PIs to improve the response to a salvage regimen.

Indinavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg bid and efavirenz 600 mg qd in patients failing treatment with combination nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors: 96-week outcomes of HIV-NAT 009

OBJECTIVE

Nucleoside reverse transcriptase (NRTI) sparing is a favourable option for patients with NRTI failure or toxicity.

METHODS

Patients judged to be failing NRTI therapy were enrolled in a single-arm, open-label study of indinavir/ritonavir (IDV/r) 800/100 mg twice a day (bid)+efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg once a day (qd). The primary endpoint was the change in time-weighted average HIV RNA from baseline. The initial 48-week protocol was extended to 96 weeks by a single amendment. Analysis was by intention to treat.

RESULTS

Sixty-one patients (23 female) were enrolled in the study. Baseline median inter-quartile range (IQR) NRTI exposure was 4.4 (3.9-4.7) years; baseline median viral load was 4.09 log(10) HIV-1 RNA copies/mL (range 3.75-4.61 log(10) copies/mL); baseline median CD4 count was 169 cells/microL (range 60-277 cells/microL). The mean (SD) change in time-weighted average HIV RNA from baseline at 48 and 96 weeks was -2.1 (0.7) and -2.1 (0.8) log(10) copies/mL respectively, resulting in 87% and 69% of patients with HIV RNA <50 copies/mL. Sixteen per cent of patients permanently ceased therapy and 26% underwent temporary drug interruptions because of study drug-related adverse events. Fasted-lipid values rose significantly over the 96 weeks of study, as did median blood glucose and median serum creatinine levels. Twelve (20%) patients underwent IDV dose reduction, mainly because of nephrotoxicity (nine of 12 patients). Blood pressure values deteriorated following switch, but markers of nucleoside toxicity improved.

CONCLUSIONS

IDV/r 800/100 mg bid+EFV 600 mg qd gave a potent, durable response in these NRTI failures and was reasonably well tolerated. However, we observed adverse effects on renal, metabolic and blood pressure parameters. Lower doses of boosted IDV might improve toxicity while maintaining efficacy, and this possibility warrants further investigation.

Virologic and immunologic response to a boosted double-protease inhibitor-based therapy in highly pretreated HIV-1-infected patients

PURPOSE

To assess the virologic and immunologic response to a boosted double-protease inhibitor (PI) regimen of highly pretreated patients infected with HIV-1 and to examine the role of PI resistance and concentration of serum saquinavir.

METHOD

In an open-label prospective study, lopinavir/ritonavir, saquinavir-sgc, lamivudine, and other nucleoside analogues were offered to highly pretreated patients who had advanced HIV-1 infection and who had failed at least 2 previous highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens including at least 1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The relationship between baseline drug resistance and steady-state saquinavir serum levels and early (week 4) and sustained (week 48) virologic response was documented.

RESULTS

35 advanced HIV-1 patients were enrolled. The boosted double-PI regimen was well tolerated. Twenty-two (63%) of the 35 patients had a > 0.8 log(10) decrease in HIV viral load at week 4. After 48 weeks of follow-up, the 22 patients who remained on the study therapy had an average decrease in viral load of 1 log(10) and had a median increase in CD4 cells of 60 cell/microL. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that genotypic resistance to both PIs and the week-3 trough concentrations of saquinavir were associated with virologic outcome at week 4. The presence of > or = 6 lopinavir mutations [odds ratio (OR) 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.79] and the 48V mutation (OR 0.01; 95%CI <0.01 to 0.88) was independently associated with lower odds of achieving an early response, whereas a higher saquinavir concentration at week 3 (OR 8.36; 95% CI 1.28 to 54.70) was associated with greater odds of an early response.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that baseline PI resistance and saquinavir concentration were associated with virologic response and should be considered when planning salvage therapy.

Pharmacokinetics and 24-week efficacy/safety of dual boosted saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir in nucleoside-pretreated children

OBJECTIVE

To assess the pharmacokinetics and 24-week efficacy and safety of dual boosted saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir combination in children.

DESIGN

Twenty reverse transcription inhibitor-pretreated children at 2 centers in Thailand were treated with saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir in an open label, single arm, 6-month prospective study. The dosage was 50 mg/kg twice daily (bid) for saquinavir and 230/57.5 mg/m bid for lopinavir/ritonavir. Ten children also received lamivudine.

METHODS

Samples were collected for a 12-hour pharmacokinetic profile in all children. Plasma concentrations of saquinavir, lopinavir and ritonavir were determined using a validated high performance liquid chromatography technique.

RESULTS

At baseline, the median age was 8.5 years, with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA 4.9 log10 copies/mL, CD4 count 129 cells/microL and CD4%, 6.5%. Median area under the concentration curve at 0-12 hours and Cmin were 39.4 mg/L.h and 1.4 mg/L for saquinavir and 118 mg/L.hr and 5.9 mg/L for lopinavir. After 24 weeks of treatment, HIV RNA was suppressed below 400 copies/mL for 16 of 20 (80%) children (intent-to-treat analysis) and below 50 copies/mL for 12 of 20 children (60%), and CD4% (count) rose by a median of 6% (216 cells/microL). Median changes of triglyceride and total cholesterol were 56 and 36.5 mg/dL, respectively (P = 0.01). Lopinavir Cmin <1 and saquinavir Cmin <0.28 mg/L correlated with HIV RNA >400 copies/mL, and lopinavir Cmax >15 mg/L correlated with rises in cholesterol (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Plasma drug concentrations of saquinavir, lopinavir and ritonavir were at the higher limits of expected ranges for adult treatment at approved dosages (1000/100 mg bid for saquinavir, 400/100 mg bid for lopinavir/ritonavir). The regimen was well-tolerated and had good efficacy at 24 weeks. This dual boosted protease inhibitor combination should be assessed in larger trials of reverse transcription inhibitor-experienced children.

Saquinavir 500 mg Film-Coated Tablets Demonstrate Bioequivalence to Saquinavir 200 mg Hard Capsules When Boosted with Twice-Daily Ritonavir in Healthy Volunteers

Objective

To establish the bioequivalence of a 500 mg film-coated tablet of saquinavir mesylate (FCT SQV) to the 200 mg hard-capsule saquinavir mesylate (HC SQV), both boosted with ritonavir and administered under fed conditions.

Methods

We carried out a multi-centre, open-label, randomized, two-sequence, four-period, two-treatment, replicated crossover study in 93 healthy men and 7 healthy women. Individuals were randomly assigned to receive sequential single doses of saquinavir in one of two treatment sequences: ABAB or BABA. Individuals received 100mg ritonavir twice daily for 24 days. On days 14, 17, 20 and 23, study participants took 1000mg of HC SQV (five 200 mg capsules, treatment A) or FCT SQV (two 500 mg tablets, treatment B) with a high-fat, high-calorie breakfast, and pharmacokinetic analyses were carried out over the next 24 hours. Area under the saquinavir concentration–time curve (AUC0–∞), maximum saquinavir plasma concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax and terminal half-life were calculated. The relative bioavailability of FCT SQV versus HC SQV was calculated as the ratio of the respective estimated mean saquinavir AUC0-∞ and Cmax. The calculation was based on an ANOVA including the factors site, sex, sequence, period, treatment and study participant to the log-transformed parameters log(AUC0-∞) and log(Cmax); the relative bioavailability and the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the treatment contrasts of the ANOVA. Bioequivalence was concluded as for both parameters, AUC0-∞ and Cmax, the 90% CIs for the relative bioavailability were entirely included in the reference region [0.80–1.25].

Results

Saquinavir plasma concentration–time profiles for the two formulations were similar. Geometric mean AUC0-∞ and Cmax values were clearly increased for FCT SQV (26 826 versus 24 430 h*ng/ml; and 3644 versus 3064 ng/ml, respectively); ratios of mean exposures were estimated to be 1.10 for AUC0-∞ and 1.19 for Cmax of saquinavir. However, the corresponding two-sided 90% CIs (1.04–1.16 and 1.14–1.25, respectively) all fell within the limits set for equivalence (0.80, 1.25). The adverse event profile for FCT SQV was similar to that for HC SQV.

Conclusion

The new 500 mg FCT SQV formulation is bioequivalent to the 200 mg HC SQV formulation, at the dose of 1000 mg, in combination with 100 mg ritonavir under fed conditions. The 500 mg FCT SQV formulation reduces pill count for boosted saquinavir (SQV/r) from six capsules to three tablets twice daily. This may increase patient acceptability of SQV/r, particularly in less treatment-experienced patients.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Drug–Drug Interactions Involving Antiretroviral Drugs

The consensus of current international guidelines for the treatment of HIV infection is that data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and protease inhibitors (PIs) provide a framework for the implementation of TDM in certain defined scenarios in clinical practice. However, the utility of TDM is considered to be on an individual basis until more data are obtained from large clinical trials showing the benefit of TDM.

In April 2004, a panel of experts met for the second time in Rome, Italy. This was following the inaugural meeting in Perugia, Italy, in October 2000, which resulted in the manuscript published in AIDS 2002, 16(Suppl 1):S5–S37. The objectives of this second meeting were to review and update the numerous questions surrounding TDM of antiretroviral drugs and discuss the clinical utility, current concerns and future prospects of drug concentration monitoring in the care of HIV-1-infected individuals. A major focus of the meeting was to discuss and critically analyse recent and precedent clinical drug–drug interaction data to provide a clear framework of the pharmacological basis of how one drug may impact the disposition of another.

This report, which has been updated to include material published or presented at international conferences up to the end of December 2004, reviews recent pivotal pharmacokinetic interaction data and provides advice to clinical care providers on how some drug–drug interactions may be prevented, avoided or managed, and, when data are available, on what dose adjustments and interventions should be performed.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The pharmacokinetics of HIV protease inhibitor combinations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Nucleoside Analogue-Sparing Strategy for the Treatment of Chronic HIV Infection: Potential Interest and Clinical Experience

Nucleoside analogue-sparing antiretroviral combinations may be interesting as first-line therapies as they spare a complete class of drugs that will remain fully active for later use and prevent the risk of mitochondrial toxicity related to exposure to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). This strategy is also used in patients failing NRTIs with cross-resistance to compounds in this class. Different combinations of antiretroviral drugs are theoretically available. Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) associated with protease inhibitor (PI) and boosted double-PI combinations have been studied through small, non-comparative clinical studies and preliminary results suggest that they are efficient and often well-tolerated. However, NNRTIs and PIs are extensively metabolized in the liver through cytochrome P450, leading to pharmacokinetic interactions; a good knowledge of the interactions between NNRTIs and PIs, or between PIs, is helpful in assisting physicians in clinical practice in choosing drugs and doses. Access to a therapeutic drug monitoring service to confirm that appropriate drug exposures are achieved is useful when using such regimens. Some negative kinetic interactions may lead to complicated combinations with a high pill burden that reduces their applicability. Gastrointestinal toxicity often remains a limiting factor in the use of boosted double-PI combinations. Non-comparative studies have allowed selection of NRTI-sparing options that now need to be compared with the current standard of care in comparative clinical trials before being considered as valuable options. Other NRTI-sparing therapeutic strategies are emerging: PI monotherapy with lopinavir/ritonavir has been evaluated in a small group of naive patients and appears promising. Drugs belonging to new classes currently under investigation, such as entry inhibitors, might be included early in the antiretroviral treatment of patients as soon as compounds with a convenient route of administration are available, increasing the number of therapeutic combinations without NRTIs.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of a double-boosting regimen of saquinavir soft gel plus lopinavir plus minidose ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults

Management of treatment-experienced human immunodeficiency virus patients has become complex, and therapy may need to include two protease inhibitors at therapeutic doses. The objective of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics in serum of saquinavir (1,000 mg twice daily [b.i.d.]), lopinavir (400 mg b.i.d.), and ritonavir (100 mg b.i.d.) in a multidrug rescue therapy study and to investigate whether steady-state pharmacokinetics of lopinavir-ritonavir are affected by coadministration of saquinavir. Forty patients were included (25 given ritonavir, lopinavir, and saquinavir and 15 given ritonavir and lopinavir). The median pharmacokinetic parameters of lopinavir were as follows: area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), 85.1 microg/ml . h; maximum concentration of drug in serum (C(max)), 10.0 microg/ml; trough concentration of drug in serum (C(trough)), 7.3 microg/ml; and minimum concentration of drug in serum (C(min)), 5.5 microg/ml. Lopinavir concentrations were similar in patients with and without saquinavir. The median pharmacokinetic parameters for saquinavir were as follows: AUC(0-12), 22.9 microg/ml . h; C(max), 2.9 microg/ml; C(trough), 1.6 microg/ml; and C(min), 1.4 microg/ml. There was a strong linear correlation between lopinavir and ritonavir and between saquinavir and ritonavir concentrations in plasma. The correlation between lopinavir and saquinavir levels was weaker. We found higher saquinavir concentrations in women than in men, with no difference in lopinavir levels. Only patients with very high body weight presented lopinavir and saquinavir concentrations lower than the overall group. Ritonavir has a double-boosting function for both lopinavir and saquinavir, and in terms of pharmacokinetics, the drug doses selected seemed appropriate for combining these agents in a dual protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen for patients with several prior virologic failures.

["State of the HAART". Current strategies for antiretroviral therapy]

The goal of antiretroviral therapy is to interrupt the disease progression and to approach normal life expectancy for individuals with HIV. The condition for this is to deter the emergence of resistant HIV. This aim is achieved by improved patient drug adherence, sufficient enteral resorption and the control of interactions, as well as good tolerability and full antiviral activity. An insufficient drug exposure for protease inhibitors is overcome by the use of a booster agent. Emerging HIV-resistance can be described in a phase model:Phase 1:replication of wild-type HIV under incomplete suppressive therapy. Phase 2:transformation of wild-type into resistant HIV through accumulation of mutations. A preventive, resistance-guided switch of therapy preserves therapeutic options for the future. Phase 3:replication of resistant HIV (no more mutations possible).a)stable immunity: continue with failing therapy.b)threatening disease progression: resistance-guided switch to a salvage-regimen.