Plasma Levels of Indinavir and Nelfinavir at Time of Virologic Response May Have a Different Impact on the Risk of Further Virologic Failure in HIV-Infected Patients

A Prospective Study of Adherence and Virologic Failure in HIV-Infected Patients: Role of a Single Determination of Plasma Levels of Antiretroviral Medications

This study explores the contribution of a single determination of plasma levels for measuring adherence by means of forecasting virologic failure. Adherence was measured by questionnaires, punctuality at appointments to withdraw drugs, and plasma levels. Virologic failure was considered when 2 detectable consecutive viral loads were observed in 2 consecutive determinations with at least 1 month between them. Univariant analysis, logistic regression, and receiver operating characteristic curves were carried out. In 29 cases, virologic failure was observed. The lowest incidence was found in patients considered adherent by plasma levels and highest in those who declared nonfulfillment. The combination of methods increased the association of the incidence of virologic failure with nonadherence. The use of questionnaires plus pharmacy information implies a gain in sensitivity and a slight loss of specificity. There is a high incidence of virologic failure in these patients and a strong link with their classification as nonadherent with methods such as questionnaires and pharmacy collection information. Plasma levels do not contribute much to the prediction of virologic failure.

Population pharmacokinetic analysis for nelfinavir and its metabolite M8 in virologically controlled HIV-infected patients on HAART

AIMS

To describe the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and its main metabolite M8 in HIV-infected patients with a sustained virological response, to characterize the effect of covariates and to estimate inter- and intra-individual variability in the pharmacokinetics.

METHODS

Three hundred and twenty concentrations of both nelfinavir and M8 were measured in 46 patients enrolled in the COPHAR 1-ANRS 102 study. Blood samples were taken at a first visit (one sample before drug administration and four samples at fixed times after) and at a second visit 1 to 3 months later (one before and one 3 h after drug administration). The data from both visits on nelfinavir and M8 were modelled jointly in all patients using a population approach.

RESULTS

A one-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination best described nelfinavir data, with an additional compartment incorporating a first order rate-constant describing the metabolism of the drug to M8. For nelfinavir, the apparent volume of distribution (V/F ) (95% confidence interval for the mean), was 309 l (185, 516), the absorption rate constant (k(a)) was 0.4 h(-1) (0.2, 0.8), and the apparent clearance (CL/F ) was 37.3 l h(-1) (32, 44). For M8, V(m) /(Fk(m)) and CL(m)/(Fk(m)) were 866 l h(-1) (351, 2161) and 1670 l (965, 2894), respectively. The interindividual variabilities were 34.9%, 34.3% and 62.2% for V/F, CL/F and CL(m)/(Fk(m)), respectively. The interoccasion variability was 27.8% for CL/F. The mean half-lives were 05.38 h and 00.44 h for nelfinavir and M8, respectively. Significant but opposite effects of comedication with zidovudine were found on nelfinavir CL/F and M8 CL(m)/(Fk(m)), but they were not considered to be clinically relevant.

CONCLUSIONS

A joint model was found to describe adequately nelfinavir and M8 concentrations and was used to estimate pharmacokinetic parameters for M8. The model can be used to build reference pharmacokinetic profiles for therapeutic drug monitoring of the drug.

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.

A review of nelfinavir for the treatment of HIV infection

Nelfinavir (NFV) is a protease inhibitor that has been widely used for several years for the treatment of HIV infection. This has led to extensive experience with NFV-containing regimens, in which the drug has shown prolonged viral suppression, good tolerability and a unique resistance profile. In recent years, several antiretroviral drugs with some advantages over NFV have been developed. Nevertheless, NFV has favourable characteristics that make it a suitable antiretroviral compound for many HIV-infected patients. It can be used in patients who do not tolerate ritonavir even at low doses, and it is well tolerated in pregnant women, has a low-grade interaction with methadone and may be well tolerated in hepatitis C virus-co-infected patients. In addition, its new simplified posology may contribute to improved adherence.

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.

Role of the Inhibitory Quotient in HIV Therapy

A systemic review is presented of all studies that have evaluated the inhibitory quotient (IQ). The IQ is defined as the ratio between (trough) drug concentration and level of drug resistance of the HIV isolate. From the studies presented, it can be concluded that for protease inhibitors (PIs) and efavirenz, the phenotypic IQ is associated with virological response. The genotypic IQ (GIQ) for PIs was also demonstrated to be associated with virological response. An intrinsic limitation of the GIQ is that it is only applicable for PIs, of which resistance is based on the cumulative effect of mutations. As the IQ can be modified by adjustment of the drug dosage, it may be of clinical value. Its application in patient care should therefore be further investigated.

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.