Deep Salvage With Amprenavir and Lopinavir/Ritonavir

A randomized clinical trial evaluating therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for protease inhibitor-based regimens in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected individuals: week 48 results of the A5146 study

BACKGROUND

We devised an open-label, randomized trial to evaluate whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of protease inhibitors (PIs) and dose escalation based upon a normalized inhibitory quotient (NIQ), which integrates PI trough concentration and drug resistance, could improve virologic outcome in PI-experienced patients with treatment failure. Secondary analyses through 48 weeks are presented.

METHODS

Eligible HIV-infected subjects with a screening viral load of ≥ 1000 copies/mL initiated a new PI-based regimen at entry and had NIQ performed at week 2. Subjects with an NIQ ≤1 were randomized at week 4 to a standard-of-care (SOC) arm or TDM arm featuring PI dose escalation.

RESULTS

One hundred and eighty-three subjects were randomized. There was no significant treatment difference in change from randomization to week 48 in HIV-1 RNA [ P = .13, median (25th, 75th percentile log10 copies/mL change): -0.03 (-0.74, 0.62) with TDM and 0.11 (-2.3, 0.82) with SOC]. In subgroup analysis, patients with ≥ 0.69 active PIs benefited from TDM compared to those with <0.69 active PIs ( P = .05).

CONCLUSIONS

While the TDM strategy of PI dose escalation did not improve virologic response at week 48 overall, in subgroup analysis, TDM favorably impacted virologic outcome in subjects taking PI-based regimens with moderate antiviral activity.

Quality assessment for therapeutic drug monitoring in AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG 5146): a multicenter clinical trial

In a randomized trial, AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) protocol 5146 (A5146) investigated the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) to adjust doses of HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs) in patients with prior virologic failure on PI-based therapy who were starting a new PI-based regimen. The overall percentage of "PI trough repeats" such as rescheduled visits or redrawn PI trough specimens increased from 2% to 5% to 10% as the process progressed from the clinical sites, the pharmacology specialty laboratory, and the study team, respectively. Cumulatively, this represents a 17% rate of failure to obtain adequate PI trough sample. While targeting a turnaround of 7 days or less from sample receipt to a drug concentration report, 12% of the received specimens required a longer period to report concentrations. The implementation of dosing changes in the TDM arm were achieved within 7 days or less for 56% of the dose change events and within 14 days or less for 77% of dose change events. This quality assurance analysis provides a valuable summary of the specific points in the TDM process that could be improved during a multicenter clinical trial including: 1) shortening the timeline of sample shipment from clinical site to the laboratory; 2) performing the collection of PI trough specimen within the targeted sampling window by careful monitoring of the last dose times and collection times by the clinicians; 3) increasing patient adherence counseling to reduce the number of samples that are redrawn due to suspecting inconsistent adherence; and 4) decreasing the time to successful TDM-based dose adjustment. The application of some of these findings may also be relevant to single-center studies or clinical TDM programs within a hospital.

A randomized trial of therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors in antiretroviral-experienced, HIV-1-infected patients

OBJECTIVE

Whether therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors improves outcomes in HIV-infected patients is controversial. We evaluated this strategy in a randomized, open-label clinical trial, using a normalized inhibitory quotient (NIQ), which incorporates drug exposure and viral drug resistance. NIQs < or = 1 may predict poor outcome and identify patients who could benefit from dose escalation.

DESIGN/METHODS

Eligible patients had a viral load > or =1000 copies/ml on a failing regimen, and began a new protease inhibitor containing regimen at entry. All FDA-approved protease inhibitors available during the study recruitment (June 2002-May 2006) were allowed. One hundred and eighty-three participants with NIQ < or = 1, on the basis of their week 2 protease inhibitor trough concentration and pre-entry drug resistance test, were randomized at week 4 to standard of care (SOC) or protease inhibitor dose escalation (TDM). The primary endpoint was change in log10 plasma HIV-1 RNA concentration from randomization to 20 weeks later.

RESULTS

Ninety-one patients were randomized to SOC and 92 to TDM. NIQs increased more in the TDM arm compared to SOC (+69 versus +25%, P = 0.01). Despite this, TDM and SOC arms showed no difference in outcome (+0.09 versus +0.02 log10, P = 0.17). In retrospective subgroup analyses, patients with less HIV resistance to their protease inhibitors benefited from TDM (P = 0.002), as did black and Hispanic patients (P = 0.035 and 0.05, respectively). Differences between black and white patients persisted when accounting for protease inhibitor susceptibility.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no overall benefit of TDM. In post hoc subgroup analyses, TDM appeared beneficial in black and Hispanic patients, and in patients whose virus retained some susceptibility to the protease inhibitors in their regimen.

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.

Optimal timing and duration of induction therapy for HIV-1 infection

The tradeoff between the need to suppress drug-resistant viruses and the problem of treatment toxicity has led to the development of various drug-sparing HIV-1 treatment strategies. Here we use a stochastic simulation model for viral dynamics to investigate how the timing and duration of the induction phase of induction–maintenance therapies might be optimized. Our model suggests that under a variety of biologically plausible conditions, 6–10 mo of induction therapy are needed to achieve durable suppression and maximize the probability of eradicating viruses resistant to the maintenance regimen. For induction regimens of more limited duration, a delayed-induction or -intensification period initiated sometime after the start of maintenance therapy appears to be optimal. The optimal delay length depends on the fitness of resistant viruses and the rate at which target-cell populations recover after therapy is initiated. These observations have implications for both the timing and the kinds of drugs selected for induction–maintenance and therapy-intensification strategies.

Clinicians treating HIV infection must balance the need to suppress viral replication against the harmful side effects and significant cost of antiretroviral therapy. Inadequate therapy often results in the emergence of resistant viruses and treatment failure. These difficulties are especially acute in resource-poor settings, where antiretroviral agents are limited. This has prompted an interest in induction–maintenance (IM) treatment strategies, in which brief intensive therapy is used to reduce host viral levels. Induction is followed by a simplified and more easily tolerated maintenance regimen. IM approaches remain an unproven concept in HIV therapy. We have developed a mathematical model to simulate clinical responses to antiretroviral drug therapy. We account for latent infection, partial drug efficacy, cross-resistance, viral recombination, and other factors. This model accurately reflects expected outcomes under single, double, and standard three-drug antiretroviral therapy. When applied to IM therapy, we find that (1) IM is expected to be successful beyond 3 y under a variety of conditions; (2) short-term induction therapy is optimally started several days to weeks after the start of maintenance; and (3) IM therapy may eradicate some preexisting drug-resistant viral strains from the host. Our simulations may help develop new treatment strategies and optimize future clinical trials.

Randomized study of dual versus single ritonavir-enhanced protease inhibitors for protease inhibitor-experienced patients with HIV

PURPOSE

To compare activity and safety of a regimen containing lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) + fosamprenavir (FPV) to regimens with LPV/r or FPV + r and to test the hypothesis that a ritonavir-enhanced dual protease inhibitor (PI) regimen has better antiviral activity.

METHOD

This study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized study. HIV-infected adults with prior PI failure were selectively randomized based on prior PI experience to either LPV/r, FPV + r, or LPV/r + FPV. All patients received tenofovir DF and 1 to 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar across arms. Study enrollment and follow-up were stopped early (N = 56) because pharmacokinetic analyses showed significantly lower LPV and FPV exposures in the dual-PI arm. At Week 24, proportions achieving >1 log10 decline in HIV RNA or <50 copies/mL in the dual-PI versus single-PI arms combined were 75% vs. 61% in intent-to-treat (ITT, p = .17) and 100% vs. 64% in as-treated (AT) analyses (p = .02), respectively. Median CD4+ T cell/mm3 increases were 81 vs. 41 (ITT, p = .4) and 114 vs. 43 (AT, p = .08), respectively. Clinical events and toxicity rates were not different between arms.

CONCLUSION

The trial was unable to show a difference between dual versus single PIs in ITT analyses but favored dual PIs in AT analyses.

The design and implementation of A5146, a prospective trial assessing the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring using an inhibitory quotient in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected patients

The AIDS Clinical Trials Group designed and implemented a prospective, randomized, strategy trial in antiretroviral-experienced, HIV-infected patients to evaluate the virologic impact of protease inhibitor dose escalation in response to therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) with an inhibitory quotient, which integrates both drug exposure and viral drug resistance. In the process of developing this clinical trial, several unique challenges were identified that required innovative solutions. The major challenge was the need to integrate resistance testing, pharmacokinetic data, medication adherence, toxicity data, clinical assessments, randomization assignment, and protocol-specified clinical management in a way that could be utilized in real time by the protocol team, communicated promptly to the clinical sites, and transmitted accurately to the study database. In addition, the protocol team had to address the relative lack of commercially available TDM laboratories in the United States that were experienced in antiretroviral drug assays and a lack of familiarity with the principles of pharmacokinetic monitoring at participating clinical sites. This article outlines the rationale for the design of this strategy trial, specific barriers to implementation that were identified, and solutions that were developed with the hope that these experiences will facilitate the design and conduct of future trials of TDM.

Predictive values of the human immunodeficiency virus phenotype and genotype and of amprenavir and lopinavir inhibitory quotients in heavily pretreated patients on a ritonavir-boosted dual-protease-inhibitor regimen

The inhibitory quotient (IQ) of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors (PIs), which is the ratio of drug concentration to viral susceptibility, is considered to be predictive of the virological response. We used several approaches to calculate the IQs of amprenavir and lopinavir in a subset of heavily pretreated patients participating in the French National Agency for AIDS Research (ANRS) 104 trial and then compared their potentials for predicting changes in the plasma HIV RNA level. Thirty-seven patients were randomly assigned to receive either amprenavir (600 mg twice a day [BID]) or lopinavir (400 mg BID) plus ritonavir (100 or 200 mg BID) for 2 weeks before combining the two PIs. The 90% inhibitory concentration (IC(90)) was measured using a recombinant assay without or with additional human serum (IC(90+serum)). Total and unbound PI concentrations in plasma were measured. Univariate linear regression was used to estimate the relation between the change in viral load and the IC(90) or IQ values. The amprenavir phenotypic IQ values were very similar when measured with the standard and protein binding-adjusted IC(90)s. No relationship was found between the viral load decline and the lopinavir IQ. During combination therapy, the amprenavir and lopinavir genotypic IQ values were predictive of the viral response at week 6 (P = 0.03). The number of protease mutations (< 5 or > or = 5) was related to the virological response throughout the study. These findings suggest that the combined genotypic IQ and the number of protease mutations are the best predictors of virological response. High amprenavir and lopinavir concentrations in these patients might explain why plasma concentrations and the phenotypic IQ have poor predictive value.

Amprenavir and Lopinavir Pharmacokinetics following Coadministration of Amprenavir or Fosamprenavir with Lopinavir/Ritonavir, with or without Efavirenz

Background

Amprenavir (APV), fosamprenavir (FPV), lopinavir (LPV), ritonavir (RTV) and efavirenz (EFV) are to varying degrees substrates, inducers and inhibitors of CYP3A4. Coadministration of these drugs might result in complex pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions.

Methods

Two prospective, open-label, non-randomized studies evaluated APV and LPV steady-state pharmacokinetics in HIV-infected patients on APV 750 mg twice daily + LPV/RTV 533/133 mg twice daily with EFV ( n=7) or without EFV ( n=12) + background nucleosides (Study 1) and after switching FPV 1,400 mg twice daily for APV ( n=10) (Study 2).

Results

In Study 1 EFV and non-EFV groups did not differ in APV minimum plasma concentration (Cmin; 1.10 versus 1.06μg/ml, P=0.89), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC; 17.46 versus 24.34μg•h/ml, P=0.22) or maximum concentration (Cmax; 2.61 versus 4.33 μg/ml, P=0.08); for LPV there was no difference in Cmin (median: 3.66 versus 6.18μg/ml, P=0.20), AUC (81.84 versus 93.75 μg•h/ml, P=0.37) or Cmax (10.36 versus 10.93 μg/ml, P=0.61). In Study 2, after switching from APV to FPV, APV Cmin increased by 58% (0.83 versus 1.30 μg/ml, P=0.0001), AUC by 76% (19.41 versus 34.24 μg•h/ml, P=0.0001), and Cmax by 75% (3.50 versus 6.14, P=0.001). Compared with historical controls, LPV and RTV pharmacokinetics were not changed. All treatment regimens were well tolerated. Seven of eight completers (88%) maintained HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/ml 12 weeks after the switch (1 lost to follow up).

Conclusions

EFV did not appear to significantly alter APV and LPV pharmacokinetic parameters in HIV-infected patients taking APV 750 mg twice daily + LPV 533/133 mg twice daily. Switching FPV 1,400 mg twice daily for APV 750 mg twice daily resulted in an increase in APV Cmin, AUC, and Cmax without changing LPV or RTV pharmacokinetics or overall tolerability.

Approach to salvage antiretroviral therapy in heavily antiretroviral-experienced HIV-positive adults

Despite dramatic declines in HIV-associated morbidity and mortality as a result of highly active antiretroviral therapy, management of heavily treatment-experienced patients remains complex and challenging. Treatment response rates with subsequent antiretroviral regimens are lower than with initial antiretroviral therapy. Additionally, increased mortality has been associated with multidrug-resistant HIV. We review data relevant to management of such patients and offer a systematic approach to constructing a salvage antiretroviral regimen.

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.

An Update on Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Antiretroviral Drugs

There is an increasing uptake of TDM of antiretroviral drugs, particularly in Europe. There is consensus that current antiretroviral drugs meet most of the criteria of drugs that can be considered as candidates for a TDM strategy. This review examines the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for protease inibitors and non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, give an overview of the published randomised clinical trials and then summarises the scenarios for use of TDM. Finally the development of the inhibitory quotient (IQ) concept is discussed.

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.

Clinical pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: use of inhibitory quotients to optimise pharmacotherapy

The introduction of HIV-1 protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in 1996 began an era described as that of highly active antiretroviral therapy. In addition, the more recent development and availability of HIV-1 genotypic and phenotypic resistance tests and advances in pharmacological assays that support therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) have created tools that may help clinicians to provide more individualised treatment with HIV-1 protease inhibitors. All current treatment guidelines provide fixed doses of protease inhibitors with vague recommendations for the use of TDM in selected clinical situations. In patients with resistance to protease inhibitors, the combined use of resistance tests with TDM provide a mechanism for individualising the clinical pharmacodynamics of protease inhibitors. Current therapeutic approaches seek to include the monitoring of protease-inhibitor concentrations as part of a TDM programme with phenotypic assays to calculate an inhibitory quotient, virtual inhibitory quotient, or normalised inhibitory quotient, whereas genotypic tests are used with TDM to calculate a genotypic inhibitory quotient. Current investigation is focused on examining the predictive value of this approach for clinical monitoring.

Fosamprenavir

Fosamprenavir is one of the most recently approved HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs) and offers reductions in pill number and pill size, and omits the need for food and fluid requirements associated with the earlier-approved HIV-1 PIs. Three fosamprenavir dosage regimens are approved by the US FDA for the treatment of HIV-1 PI-naive patients, including fosamprenavir 1,400 mg twice daily, fosamprenavir 1,400 mg once daily plus ritonavir 200mg once daily, and fosamprenavir 700 mg twice daily plus ritonavir 100mg twice daily. Coadministration of fosamprenavir with ritonavir significantly increases plasma amprenavir exposure. The fosamprenavir 700 mg twice daily plus ritonavir 100mg twice daily regimen maintains the highest plasma amprenavir concentrations throughout the dosing interval; this is the only approved regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 PI-experienced patients and is the only regimen approved in the European Union. Fosamprenavir is the phosphate ester prodrug of the HIV-1 PI amprenavir, and is rapidly and extensively converted to amprenavir after oral administration. Plasma amprenavir concentrations are quantifiable within 15 minutes of dosing and peak at 1.5-2 hours after fosamprenavir dosing. Food does not affect the absorption of amprenavir following administration of the fosamprenavir tablet formulation; therefore, fosamprenavir tablets may be administered without regard to food intake. Amprenavir has a large volume of distribution, is 90% bound to plasma proteins and is a substrate of P-glycoprotein. With <1% of a dose excreted in urine, the renal route is not an important elimination pathway, while the principal route of amprenavir elimination is hepatic metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4. Amprenavir is also an inhibitor and inducer of CYP3A4. Furthermore, fosamprenavir is commonly administered in combination with low-dose ritonavir, which is also extensively metabolised by CYP3A4, and is a more potent CYP3A4 inhibitor than amprenavir. This potent CYP3A4 inhibition contraindicates the coadministration of certain CYP3A4 substrates and requires others to be co-administered with caution. However, fosamprenavir can be co-administered with many other antiretroviral agents, including drugs of the nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and HIV entry inhibitor classes. Coadministration with other HIV-1 PIs continues to be studied.The extensive fosamprenavir and amprenavir clinical drug interaction information provides guidance on how to co-administer fosamprenavir and fosamprenavir plus ritonavir with many other commonly co-prescribed medications, such as gastric acid suppressants, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, antibacterials and antifungal agents.

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.

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.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of atazanavir given alone or in combination with saquinavir hard-gel capsules or amprenavir in HIV-1-infected patients

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this pilot study was to examine the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir (ATV) when given in combination with amprenavir (APV) or saquinavir hard-gel capsules (SQV) to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive patients.

METHODS

Included in the study were 34 HIV-infected patients enrolled in the ATV Early Access Program, who were treated with unboosted ATV alone (group 1) or with the double protease inhibitor combinations, ATV plus APV (group 2) or ATV plus SQV (group 3). ATV was given at a daily dose of 400 mg q.d. with the morning meal with SQV 1200 mg per day or APV 1200 mg per day. Serial blood samples for steady-state ATV pharmacokinetics were collected before the morning dose and at 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 24 h post-dosing. ATV plasma concentrations were measured using a high-performance liquid chromatography method with ultraviolet detection.

RESULTS

Of the patients, 12 received ATV as a single protease inhibitor; 12 received ATV in combination with APV; and 10 in combination with SQV. Geometric mean (coefficient of variation) ATV C(trough) was 110 ng/ml (2.38), 86 ng/ml (0.84) and 149 ng/ml (2.01) in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. ATV C(trough) in both double protease inhibitor combination regimens was not significantly different from that as a single protease inhibitor [geometric mean ratio (GMR): 0.77; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.38-1.58, P=not significant for group 2 versus group 1 and 1.34, 0.40-4.49, P=not significant, for group 3 versus group 1). Patients treated with ATV plus APV had a 40.2% lower ATV C(max) and a 30.8% smaller ATV AUC than the reference group treated with unboosted ATV alone: both these differences were statistically significant (GMR, 95% CI: 0.59, 0.41-0.85, P=0.005 and 0.69, 0.48-0.99, P=0.056, respectively). No difference was observed for either C(max) or AUC between the group treated with ATV plus SQV and the reference group (GMR, 95% CI: 0.78, 0.47-1.30, P=not significant and 1.24, 0.73-2.10, P=not significant, respectively).

CONCLUSION

ATV pharmacokinetics does not seem to be influenced by the concomitant administration of SQV, whereas APV significantly lowers plasma ATV levels.

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.

Current Status and Future Prospects of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Applied Clinical Pharmacology in Antiretroviral Therapy

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 and protease inhibitors 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 in Rome, Italy. This followed an inaugural meeting in Perugia, Italy, in October 2000, which resulted in the article published in AIDS 2002, 16(Suppl 1):S5–S37. The objectives of this second meeting were to review the 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.

This report, which has been updated to include material published or presented at international conferences up to the end of September 2004, reviews pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and reports the issues discussed by the panel, offering advice to clinical care providers who may be currently, or are considering incorporating TDM into the routine care of their patients. In addition, the panel formulated a series of position statements that are relevant to the interpretation of current data and can aid the design of future clinical trials.

Part 2 of this Special article, Therapeutic drug monitoring and drug–drug interactions involving antiretroviral drugs, will be published in Antiviral Therapy 10(4).

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.

Combining fosamprenavir with lopinavir/ritonavir substantially reduces amprenavir and lopinavir exposure: ACTG protocol A5143 results

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate fosamprenavir/lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV), fosamprenavir/RTV, or LPV/RTV in antiretroviral treatment-experienced patients. Lack of drug interaction data prompted a pharmacokinetic substudy to minimize subject risk.

DESIGN

Multi-center, open-label, selectively randomized, steady-state pharmacokinetic study in HIV-infected subjects.

METHODS

A planned independent interim review occurred after at least eight subjects were randomized to each arm. Subjects received twice daily LPV/RTV 400/100 mg (arm A; n = 8); fosamprenavir/RTV 700/100 mg (arm B; n = 8) or LPV/RTV/fosamprenavir 400/100/700 mg (arm C; n = 17). Plasma samples were collected over 12 h between study weeks 2 and 4. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared based on a one-sided t-test on log-transformed data with a Peto stopping boundary (P < 0.001).

RESULTS

Amprenavir mean area under the curve over 12 h (AUC0-12 h) and concentration at 12 h (C12 h) (microg/ml) were, respectively, 42.7 microg x h/ml (range, 33.1-55.1) and 2.4 microg/ml (range, 1.4-3.2) in arm B and 17.4 microg x h/ml (range, 4.6-41.3) and 0.9 microg/ml (range, 0.2-2.7) in arm C: geometric mean ratio (GMR) arm C:B was 0.36 [99.9% upper confidence boundary (UCB), 0.64] and 0.31 (99.9% h UCB, 0.61), respectively (P < or = 0.0001). Lopinavir AUC0-12 h and C12 h were, respectively, 95.3 microg x h/ml (range, 60.3-119.3) and 6.3 microg/ml (range, 2.2-9.2) in arm A and 54.4 microg x h/ml (range, 23.5-112.2) and 3.0 microg/ml (range, 0.4-7.9) in arm C: GMR arm C:A of 0.52 (99.9% UCB, 0.89) and 0.39 (99.9% UCB, 0.98), respectively (P < or = 0.0008). Ritonavir exposure was not significantly different between arms.

CONCLUSION

APV and LPV exposures are significantly reduced using LPV/RTV/fosamprenavir, possibly increasing the risk of virologic failure. Consequently, A5143 was closed to enrollment.

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.