Concomitant efavirenz reduces pharmacokinetic exposure to the antimalarial drug artemether-lumefantrine in healthy volunteers

Impact of Drug Exposure on Resistance Selection Following Artemether-Lumefantrine Treatment for Malaria in Children With and Without HIV in Uganda

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are the primary treatment for malaria. It is essential to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics (PDs) of ACTs in vulnerable populations at risk of suboptimal dosing. We developed a population PK/PD model using data from our previous study of artemether-lumefantrine in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected children living in a high-transmission region of Uganda. HIV-infected children were on efavirenz-, nevirapine-, or lopinavir-ritonavir-based antiretroviral regimens, with daily trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole prophylaxis. We assessed selection for resistance in two key parasite transporters, pfcrt and pfmdr1, over 42-day follow-up and incorporated genotyping into a time-to-event model to ascertain how resistance genotype in relation to drug exposure impacts recurrence risk. Two hundred seventy-seven children contributed 364 episodes to the model (186 HIV-uninfected and 178 HIV-infected), with recurrent microscopy-detectable parasitemia detected in 176 episodes by day 42. The final model was a two-compartment model with first-order absorption and an estimated age effect on bioavailability. Systemic lumefantrine exposure was highest with lopinavir-ritonavir, lowest with efavirenz, and equivalent with nevirapine and HIV-uninfected children. HIV status and lumefantrine concentration were significant factors associated with recurrence risk. Significant selection was demonstrated for pfmdr1 N86 and pfcrt K76 in recurrent infections, with no evidence of selection for pfmdr1 Y184F. Less sensitive parasites were able to tolerate lumefantrine concentrations ~ 3.5-fold higher than more sensitive parasites. This is the first population PK model of lumefantrine in HIV-infected children and demonstrates selection for reduced lumefantrine susceptibility, a concern as we confront the threat to ACTs posed by emerging artemisinin resistance in Africa.

Artemether-lumefantrine efficacy among adults on antiretroviral therapy in Malawi

BACKGROUND

When people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection (PWH) develop malaria, they are at risk of poor anti-malarial treatment efficacy resulting from impairment in the immune response and/or drug-drug interactions that alter anti-malarial metabolism. The therapeutic efficacy of artemether-lumefantrine was evaluated in a cohort of PWH on antiretroviral therapy (ART) and included measurement of day 7 lumefantrine levels in a subset to evaluate for associations between lumefantrine exposure and treatment response.

METHODS

Adults living with HIV (≥ 18 years), on ART for ≥ 6 months with undetectable HIV RNA viral load and CD4 count ≥ 250/mm³ were randomized to daily trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole (TS), weekly chloroquine (CQ) or no prophylaxis. After diagnosis of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria, a therapeutic efficacy monitoring was conducted with PCR-correction according to WHO guidelines. The plasma lumefantrine levels on day 7 in 100 episodes of uncomplicated malaria was measured. A frailty proportional hazards model with random effects models to account for clustering examined the relationship between participant characteristics and malaria treatment failure within 28 days. Pearson's Chi-squared test was used to compare lumefantrine concentrations among patients with treatment failure and adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR).

RESULTS

411 malaria episodes were observed among 186 participants over 5 years. The unadjusted ACPR rate was 81% (95% CI 77-86). However, after PCR correction to exclude new infections, ACPR rate was 94% (95% CI 92-97). Increasing age and living in Ndirande were associated with decreased hazard of treatment failure. In this population of adults with HIV on ART, 54% (51/94) had levels below a previously defined optimal day 7 lumefantrine level of 200 ng/ml. This occurred more commonly among participants who were receiving an efavirenz-based ART compared to other ART regimens (OR 5.09 [95% CI 1.52-7.9]). Participants who experienced treatment failure had lower day 7 median lumefantrine levels (91 ng/ml [95% CI 48-231]) than participants who experienced ACPR (190 ng/ml [95% CI 101-378], p-value < 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Recurrent malaria infections are frequent in this population of PWH on ART. The PCR-adjusted efficacy of AL meets the WHO criteria for acceptable treatment efficacy. Nevertheless, lumefantrine levels tend to be low in this population, particularly in those on efavirenz-based regimens, with lower concentrations associated with more frequent malaria infections following treatment. These results highlight the importance of understanding drug-drug interactions when diseases commonly co-occur.

Drug-drug Interactions of Artemisinin-based Combination Therapies in Malaria Treatment: A narrative review of the literature

Artemisinin is an antimalarial compound derived from the plant Artemisia annua L., also known as sweet wormwood. According to the World Health Organization, artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is an essential treatment for malaria, specifically Plasmodium falciparum, which accounts for most of malaria related mortality. ACT used to treat uncomplicated malaria include artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-amodiaquine, artesunate-mefloquine, artesunate-sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine, and dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine. Although the mechanism of action and clinical capabilities of artemisinin in malaria treatment are widely known, more information on the potential for drug interactions needs to be further investigated. Some studies show pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions with HIV-antiviral treatment but few studies have been conducted on most other drug classes. Based on known genotypes of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, CYP2B6 and CYP3A are primarily involved in the metabolism of artemisinin and its derivatives. Reduced functions in these enzymes can lead to subtherapeutic concentrations of the active metabolite dihydroartemisinin that may cause treatment failure which has been shown in some studies with cardiovascular, antibiotic, and antiparasitic drugs. Although the clinical importance remains unclear to date, clinicians should be aware of potential drug-drug interactions and monitor patients on ACT closely. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

An update on pharmacogenetic factors influencing the metabolism and toxicity of artemisinin-based combination therapy in the treatment of malaria

INTRODUCTION

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are recommended first-line antimalarials for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic variation associated with ACT drugs and their effect is documented. It is accepted to an extent that inter-individual variation is genetically driven, and should be explored for optimized antimalarial use.

AREAS COVERED

We provide an update on the pharmacogenetics of ACT antimalarial disposition. Beyond presently used antimalarials, we also refer to information available for the most notable next-generation drugs under development. The bibliographic approach was based on multiple Boolean searches on PubMed covering all recent publications since our previous review.

EXPERT OPINION

The last 10 years have witnessed an increase in our knowledge of ACT pharmacogenetics, including the first clear examples of its contribution as an exacerbating factor for drug-drug interactions. This knowledge gap is still large and is likely to widen as a new wave of antimalarial drug is looming, with few studies addressing their pharmacogenetics. Clinically useful pharmacogenetic markers are still not available, in particular, from an individual precision medicine perspective. A better understanding of the genetic makeup of target populations can be valuable for aiding decisions on mass drug administration implementation concerning region-specific antimalarial drug and dosage options.

Effect of high-dose rifampicin on efavirenz pharmacokinetics: drug-drug interaction randomized trial

BACKGROUND

High-dose rifampicin is considered to shorten anti-TB treatment duration but its effect on antiretroviral metabolism is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of doubling the rifampicin dose (to 20 mg/kg/day, R20) on efavirenz pharmacokinetics (PK) in HIV/TB coinfected patients.

METHODS

Open-label Phase 2 drug-drug interaction randomized trial. Pulmonary TB, ART-naive adults were randomized to R20 and either efavirenz 600 mg (EFV600) or 800 mg (EFV800), or rifampicin 10 mg/kg/day (R10) and EFV600 with a 1:1:1 ratio. Patients were first started on TB treatment and 2-4 weeks later started on ART. They were switched to R10 and EFV600 after 8 weeks. Full PK sampling was done 4 weeks (on rifampicin) and 24 weeks (off rifampicin) after ART initiation. Transaminases, plasma HIV-1 RNA and sputum cultures were monitored. The efavirenz geometric mean ratio (GMR) of AUC at 4 and 24 weeks after ART initiation within the same patient was calculated in each arm and its 90% CI was compared with a preset range (0.70-1.43).

RESULTS

Of 98 enrolled patients (32 in the R20EFV600 arm, 33 in the R20EFV800 arm and 33 in the R10EFV600 arm), 87 had full PK sampling. For the R20EFV600, R20EFV800 and R10EFV600 arms, GMRs of efavirenz AUC were 0.87 (90% CI: 0.75-1.00), 1.12 (90% CI: 0.96-1.30) and 0.96 (90% CI: 0.84-1.10). Twelve weeks after ART initiation, 78.6%, 77.4% and 72.4% of patients had HIV-1 RNA below 100 copies/mL and 85.7%, 86.7% and 80.0% had Week 8 culture conversion, respectively. Two patients per arm experienced a severe increase in transaminases.

CONCLUSIONS

Doubling the rifampicin dose had a small effect on efavirenz concentrations and was well tolerated.

Effect of nevirapine, efavirenz and lopinavir/ritonavir on the therapeutic concentration and toxicity of lumefantrine in people living with HIV at Lagos University Teaching Hospital, Nigeria

Patients living with HIV in malarial endemic regions may experience clinically significant drug interaction between antiretroviral and antimalarial drugs. Effects of nevirapine (NVP), efavirenz (EFV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPVr) on lumefantrine (LM) therapeutic concentrations and toxicity were evaluated. In a four-arm parallel study design, the blood samples of 40 participants, treated with artemether/lumefantrine (AL), were analysed. Lumefantrine Cmax was increased by 32% (p = 0.012) and 325% (p < 0.0001) in the NVP and LPVr arms respectively but decreased by 62% (p < 0.0001) in the EFV-arm. AUC of LM was, respectively, increased by 50% (p = 0.27) and 328% (p < 0.0001) in the NVP and LPVr arms but decreased in the EFV-arm by 30% (p = 0.019). Median day 7 LM concentration was less than 280 ng/mL in EFV-arm (239 ng/mL) but higher in control (290 ng/mL), NVP (369 ng/mL, p = 0.004) and LPVr (1331 ng/mL, p < 0.0001) arms. There were no clinically relevant toxicities nor adverse events in both control and test arms. Artemether/lumefantrine is safe and effective for treatment of malaria in PLWHA taking NVP and LPVr based ART regimen but not EFV-based regimen.

Pregnancy and CYP3A5 Genotype Affect Day 7 Plasma Lumefantrine Concentrations

Pregnancy and pharmacogenetics variation alter drug disposition and treatment outcome. The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of pregnancy and pharmacogenetics variation on day 7 lumefantrine (LF) plasma concentration and therapeutic responses in malaria-infected women treated with artemether-lumefantrine (ALu) in Tanzania. A total of 277 (205 pregnant and 72 nonpregnant) women with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria were enrolled. Patients were treated with ALu and followed up for 28 days. CYP3A4, CYP3A5, and ABCB1 genotyping were done. Day 7 plasma LF concentration and the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) - corrected adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) at day 28 were determined. The mean day 7 plasma LF concentrations were significantly lower in pregnant women than nonpregnant women [geometric mean ratio = 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) of geometric mean ratio (1.119-1.1745), P < 0.003]. Pregnancy, low body weight, and CYP3A5*1/*1 genotype were significantly associated with low day 7 LF plasma concentration (P < 0.01). PCR-corrected ACPR was 93% (95% CI = 89.4-96.6) in pregnant women and 95.7% (95% CI = 90.7-100) in nonpregnant women. Patients with lower day 7 LF concentration had a high risk of treatment failure (mean 652 vs. 232 ng/ml, P < 0.001). In conclusion, pregnancy, low body weight, and CYP3A5*1 allele are significant predictors of low day 7 LF plasma exposure. In turn, lower day 7 LF concentration is associated with a higher risk of recrudescence. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: This study reports a number of factors contributing to the lower day 7 lumefantrine (LF) concentration in women, which includes pregnancy, body weight, and CYP3A5*1/*1 genotype. It also shows that day 7 LF concentration is a main predictor of malaria treatment. These findings highlight the need to look into artemether-LF dosage adjustment in pregnant women so as to be able to maintain adequate drug concentration, which is required to reduce treatment failure rates in pregnant women.

An Individual Participant Data Population Pharmacokinetic Meta-analysis of Drug-Drug Interactions between Lumefantrine and Commonly Used Antiretroviral Treatment

Treating malaria in HIV-coinfected individuals should consider potential drug-drug interactions. Artemether-lumefantrine is the most widely recommended treatment for uncomplicated malaria globally. Lumefantrine is metabolized by CYP3A4, an enzyme that commonly used antiretrovirals often induce or inhibit. A population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis was conducted using individual participant data from 10 studies with 6,100 lumefantrine concentrations from 793 nonpregnant adult participants (41% HIV-malaria-coinfected, 36% malaria-infected, 20% HIV-infected, and 3% healthy volunteers).

Treating malaria in HIV-coinfected individuals should consider potential drug-drug interactions. Artemether-lumefantrine is the most widely recommended treatment for uncomplicated malaria globally. Lumefantrine is metabolized by CYP3A4, an enzyme that commonly used antiretrovirals often induce or inhibit. A population pharmacokinetic meta-analysis was conducted using individual participant data from 10 studies with 6,100 lumefantrine concentrations from 793 nonpregnant adult participants (41% HIV-malaria-coinfected, 36% malaria-infected, 20% HIV-infected, and 3% healthy volunteers). Lumefantrine exposure increased 3.4-fold with coadministration of lopinavir-ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy (ART), while it decreased by 47% with efavirenz-based ART and by 59% in the patients with rifampin-based antituberculosis treatment. Nevirapine- or dolutegravir-based ART and malaria or HIV infection were not associated with significant effects. Monte Carlo simulations showed that those on concomitant efavirenz or rifampin have 49% and 80% probability of day 7 concentrations <200 ng/ml, respectively, a threshold associated with an increased risk of treatment failure. The risk of achieving subtherapeutic concentrations increases with larger body weight. An extended 5-day and 6-day artemether-lumefantrine regimen is predicted to overcome these drug-drug interactions with efavirenz and rifampin, respectively.

Drug interactions with antimalarial medications in older travelers: a clinical guide

Increasingly older adults are traveling to international destinations with malaria as a present risk. Surveillance systems indicate that older adults are more likely to suffer severe complications from malaria. The role of health care providers in selecting an appropriate medication for chemoprophylaxis or treatment of malaria in adults becomes more difficult as older adults undergo physiologic changes that alter the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic nature of medications potentially causing increased drug interactions, adverse events and altered drug action. A comprehensive literature search from 1970 to present, with a focus on the past 10 years, was conducted on drug interactions, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects on antimalarials in adults. It was determined that due to pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic changes in older adults, especially renal and cardiovascular, special attention should be given to this population of travelers in order to minimize the likelihood of adverse events or altered drug efficacy. Antimalarial drug-disease interactions in older adults can occur more often due to QT prolongation, exacerbation of hypoglycemia, decreased renal elimination and decreased hepatic metabolism. Older antimalarials have well-documented drug-drug interactions. Tafenoquine, a new antimalarial, requires glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase screening like primaquine and monitoring of new potential drug interaction with MATE1 and OCT2 substrates. While drug-drug interactions in older travelers may occur more often as a result of polypharmacy, data did not indicate adverse reactions or decreased drug efficacy is greater compared with younger adults. Overall, with the exception of recently approved tafenoquine, much is known about antimalarial drug and disease interactions, but new drugs are always being approved, requiring travel health providers to understand the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antimalarial drugs to predict the impact on safety and efficacy in travelers. This guide provides travel health providers with valuable insights on potential outcomes associated with drug interactions in adults and recommended monitoring or drug regimen modification.

Efficacy and safety of artemether-lumefantrine as treatment for Plasmodium falciparum uncomplicated malaria in adult patients on efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy in Zambia: an open label non-randomized interventional trial

BACKGROUND

HIV-infected individuals on antiretroviral therapy (ART) require treatment with artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) when infected with malaria. Artemether-lumefantrine (AL) is the most commonly used ACT for treatment of falciparum malaria in Africa but there is limited evidence on the safety and efficacy of AL in HIV-infected individuals on ART, among whom drug-drug interactions are expected. Day-42 adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) and incidence of adverse events was assessed in HIV-infected individuals on efavirenz-based ART with uncomplicated falciparum malaria treated with AL.

METHODS

A prospective, open label, non-randomized, interventional clinical trial was conducted at St Paul's Hospital in northern Zambia, involving 152 patients aged 15-65 years with uncomplicated falciparum malaria, who were on efavirenz-based ART. They received a 3-day directly observed standard treatment of AL and were followed up until day 63. Day-42 polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-corrected ACPRs (95% confidence interval [CI]) were calculated for the intention-to-treat population.

RESULTS

Enrolled patients had a baseline geometric mean (95% CI) parasite density of 1108 (841-1463) parasites/µL; 16.4% (25/152) of the participants had a recurrent malaria episode by day 42. However, PCR data was available for 17 out of the 25 patients who had malaria recurrence. Among all the 17 patients, PCR findings demonstrated malaria re-infection, making the PCR-adjusted day-42 ACPR 100% in the 144 patients who could be evaluated. Even when eight patients with missing PCR data were considered very conservatively as failures, the day-42 ACPR was over 94%. None of the participants, disease or treatment characteristics, including day-7 lumefantrine concentrations, predicted the risk of malaria recurrence by day 42. AL was well tolerated following administration. There were only two cases of grade 3 neutropaenia and one serious adverse event of lobar pneumonia, none of which was judged as probably related to intake of AL.

CONCLUSIONS

AL was well tolerated and efficacious in treating uncomplicated falciparum malaria in HIV co-infected adults on efavirenz-based ART. However, a higher than anticipated proportion of participants experienced malaria re-infection, which highlights the need for additional malaria prevention measures in this sub-population after treatment with AL. Trial registration Pan African Clinical Trials Registry (PACTR): PACTR201311000659400. Registered on 4 October 2013. https://pactr.samrc.ac.za/Search.aspx.

Health Considerations for HIV-Infected International Travelers

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

International travel continues to steadily increase, including leisure travel, travel to one's country of origin to visit friends and relatives, travel for service work, and business travel. Travelers with HIV may have an increased risk for travel-associated infections. The pre-travel medical consultation is an important means of assessing one's risk for travel-related health issues. The aim of this review is to provide an update on key health considerations for the HIV-infected traveler.

RECENT FINDINGS

Like all travelers, the HIV-infected traveler should adhere to behavioral precautions, including safety measures with food and water consumption, safe sexual practices, and arthropod bite avoidance. HIV is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism and patients should be educated regarding this risk. Most pre-travel vaccines are safe and immunogenic in HIV-infected individuals, though live vaccines should be avoided in patients with low CD4 counts. Malaria chemoprophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients with HIV traveling to endemic areas and no significant interactions exist between the commonly used prophylactic anti-malarial agents and anti-retroviral therapy (ART). Travelers with HIV, particularly those who are not on ART or who have low CD4 cell counts, may have increased risk for tuberculosis, malaria, enteric infections, visceral leishmaniasis, American trypanosomiasis, and endemic mycoses such as histoplasmosis, talaromycosis, and coccidioidomycosis. The immune status of the HIV-infected traveler should be assessed prior to travel along with the duration, itinerary, and activities planned during travel in order to carefully consider individual risk for travel-related health issues.

Drug Interactions between Dolutegravir and Artemether-Lumefantrine or Artesunate-Amodiaquine

Across sub-Saharan Africa, patients with HIV on antiretrovirals often get malaria and need cotreatment with artemisinin-containing therapies. We undertook two pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers, using standard adult doses of artemether-lumefantrine or artesunate-amodiaquine given with 50 mg once daily dolutegravir (DTG) to investigate the drug-drug interaction between artemether-lumefantrine or artesunate-amodiaquine and dolutegravir. The dolutegravir/artemether-lumefantrine interaction was evaluated in a two-way crossover study and measured artemether, dihydroartemisinin, lumefantrine, and desbutyl-lumefantrine over 264 h. The dolutegravir/artesunate-amodiaquine interaction was investigated using a parallel study design due to long half-life of the amodiaquine metabolite, desethylamodiaquine and measured artesunate, amodiaquine, and desethylamodiaquine over 624 h. Noncompartmental analysis was performed, and geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals were generated for evaluation of both interactions. Dolutegravir did not significantly change the maximum concentration in plasma, the time to maximum concentration, and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for artemether, dihydroartemisinin, lumefantrine, and desbutyl-lumefantrine, nor did it significantly alter the AUC for artesunate, dihydroartemisinin, amodiaquine, and desethylamodiaquine. Coadministration of dolutegravir with artemether-lumefantrine resulted in a 37% decrease in DTG trough concentrations. Coadministration of dolutegravir with artesunate-amodiaquine resulted in 42 and 24% approximate decreases in the DTG trough concentrations and the AUC, respectively. The significant decreases in DTG trough concentrations with artemether-lumefantrine and artesunate-amodiaquine and dolutegravir exposure with artesunate-amodiaquine are unlikely to be of clinical significance since the DTG trough concentrations were above dolutegravir target concentrations of 300 ng/ml. Study drugs were well tolerated with no serious adverse events. Standard doses of artemether-lumefantrine and artesunate-amodiaquine should be used in patients receiving dolutegravir. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02242799.).

Impact of Efavirenz-, Ritonavir-Boosted Lopinavir-, and Nevirapine-Based Antiretroviral Regimens on the Pharmacokinetics of Lumefantrine and Safety of Artemether-Lumefantrine in Plasmodium falciparum-Negative HIV-Infected Malawian Adults Stabilized on Antiretroviral Therapy

There is conflicting evidence of the impact of commonly used antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) on the pharmacokinetics of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine. We compared the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to 14 days (AUC_{0-14 days}) of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine in malaria-negative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults in two steps. In step 1, a half-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered as a safety check in four groups (n = 6/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) nevirapine-based ART, (iii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iv) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 2, a standard-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered to a different cohort in three groups (n = 10 to 15/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iii) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 1, lumefantrine's AUC_{0-14 days} was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.82) lower in the efavirenz-based ART group than in the ART-naive group and was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.58 to 3.62) and 2.9(95% CI, 1.75 to 4.72) times higher in the nevirapine- and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir groups, respectively. In step 2, lumefantrine's AUC_{0-14 days} was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.26 to 3.00) times higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group and not significantly different between the efavirenz- and ART-naive groups (0.99 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.57]). Frequent cases of hematological abnormalities (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia) were observed in the nevirapine group in step 1, leading to a recommendation from the data and safety monitoring board not to include a nevirapine group in step 2. Artemether-lumefantrine was well tolerated in the other groups. The therapeutic implications of these findings need to be evaluated among HIV-malaria-coinfected adults. (This study has been registered at the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry under numbers PACTR2010030001871293 and PACTR2010030001971409.).

Strong correlation of lumefantrine concentrations in capillary and venous plasma from malaria patients

Background

Lumefantrine is a long-acting antimalarial drug with an elimination half-life of over 3 days and protein binding of 99 percent. Correlation of lumefantrine concentrations from capillary plasma via fingerprick (C_c) versus venous plasma (C_v) remains to be defined.

Methods

Venous and capillary plasma samples were collected simultaneously from children, pregnant women, and non-pregnant adults at 2, 24, 120hr post last dose of a standard 3-day artemether-lumefantrine regimen they received for uncomplicated malaria. Some of the enrolled children and pregnant women were also HIV-infected. Samples were analyzed via liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Linear regression analysis was performed using the program Stata® SE12.1.

Results

In children, the linear regression equations for C_c vs C_v at 2, 24, and 120hr (day 7) post dose are [C_c] = 1.05*[C_v]+95.0 (n = 142, R² = 0.977), [C_c] = 0.995*[C_v]+56.7 (n = 147, R² = 0.990) and [C_c] = 0.958*[C_v]+18.6 (n = 139, R² = 0.994), respectively. For pregnant women, the equations are [C_c] = 1.04*[C_v]+68.1 (n = 43, R² = 0.990), [C_c] = 0.997*[C_v]+37.3 (n = 43, R² = 0.993) and [C_c] = 0.941*[C_v]+11.1 (n = 41, R² = 0.941), respectively. For non-pregnant adults, the equations are [C_c] = 1.05*[C_v]-117 (n = 32, R² = 0.958), [C_c] = 0.962*[C_v]+9.21 (n = 32, R² = 0.964) and [C_c] = 1.04*[C_v]-40.1 (n = 32, R² = 0.988), respectively. In summary, a linear relationship with a slope of ~1 was found for capillary and venous lumefantrine levels in children, pregnant women and non-pregnant adults at 2hr, 24hr and 120hr post last dose, representing absorption, distribution, and elimination phases.

Conclusions

Capillary and venous plasma concentration of lumefantrine can be used interchangeably at 1:1 ratio. Capillary sampling method via finger prick is a suitable alternative for sample collection in clinical studies.

The impact of CYP2B6 polymorphisms on the interactions of efavirenz with lumefantrine: Implications for paediatric antimalarial therapy

Lumefantrine is a widely used antimalarial in children in sub-Saharan Africa and is predominantly metabolised by CYP3A4. The concomitant use of lumefantrine with the antiretroviral efavirenz, which is metabolised by CYP2B6 and is an inducer of CYP3A4, increases the risk of lumefantrine failure and can result in an increased recrudescence rate in HIV-infected children. This is further confounded by CYP2B6 being highly polymorphic resulting in a 2-3 fold higher efavirenz plasma concentration in polymorphic subjects, which enhances the potential for an efavirenz-lumefantrine drug-drug interaction (DDI). This study developed a population-based PBPK model capable of predicting the impact of efavirenz-mediated DDIs on lumefantrine pharmacokinetics in African paediatric population groups, which also considered the polymorphic nature of CYP2B6. The validated model demonstrated a significant difference in lumefantrine target day 7 concentrations (C_d7) in the presence and absence of efavirenz and confirmed the capability of efavirenz to initiate this DDI. This was more apparent in the *6/*6 compared to *1/*1 population group and resulted in a significantly lower (P < 0.001) lumefantrine C_d7. A prospective change in dosing schedule from 3-days to 7-days resulted in a greater number of *6/*6 subjects (28-57%) attaining the target C_d7 across age bands (0.25-13 years), with the greatest increase evident in the 1-4 year old group (3-day: 1%; 7-day: 28%).

Pharmaceutical interactions between antiretroviral and antimalarial drugs used in chemoprophylaxis

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the causative agent of the Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). The pandemic is believed to have originated within the Northern Congo basin covering large parts of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Cameroon and Gabon. Although over decades, HIV-1 has spread throughout the World leaving no country unaffected, sub-Saharan Africa remains the region with more than 80% of all infected individuals. The HIV-2 epidemic has largely remained restricted to West Africa along the Upper Guinean forests. Co-incident with these regions of highest HIV distribution is a part of the malaria belt and therefore, co-infections are common. In this review we carve out the consequences of HIV transmission prevention and synchronous malaria prophylaxis during occupational or leisure travelling activities within this World region. In particular, we elaborate on considering pre-existing drug resistances of both, the malaria parasites and the immunodeficiency viruses, when determining a combination for prophylactic and, if necessary, post-expositional measures with a focus on the compatibility of both medications.

Development of Guanfacine Extended-Release Dosing Strategies in Children and Adolescents with ADHD Using a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model to Predict Drug-Drug Interactions with Moderate CYP3A4 Inhibitors or Inducers

BACKGROUND

Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) is an orally administered, non-stimulant treatment for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and is primarily metabolized by the 3A4 isozyme of cytochrome P450 (CYP3A4). The results of clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) studies indicate that guanfacine is sensitive to drug-drug interactions (DDIs) perpetrated by strong inhibitors and inducers of CYP3A4.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to provide guidance on the possible requirement for GXR dose adjustment in children and adolescents with ADHD by predicting DDIs following co-administration with moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors and inducers.

METHODS

A physiologically based PK model for GXR orally administered to healthy adults was developed based on physicochemical, in vitro and clinical PK data. The model was validated using clinical PK data for co-administration of GXR with ketoconazole (strong CYP3A4 inhibitor) or rifampicin (strong CYP3A4 inducer).

RESULTS

Model predictions indicated that co-administration of GXR with the moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors erythromycin 500 mg three times a day or fluconazole 200 mg daily (q.d.) increased the guanfacine area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) by 2.31-fold or 1.98-fold, respectively, compared with GXR monotherapy. The moderate CYP3A4 inducer efavirenz 400 mg or 600 mg q.d. was predicted to reduce guanfacine AUC to 58 or 33% of its value for GXR monotherapy, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Without the requirement for additional clinical studies, the following GXR dose recommendations were developed and approved for US labeling for use in children and adolescents with ADHD: (1) decrease GXR to 50% of the usual target dose when it is co-administered with strong or moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors; (2) consider titrating GXR up to double the usual target dose over 1-2 weeks when it is co-administered with strong or moderate CYP3A4 inducers.

Concomitant nevirapine impacts pharmacokinetic exposure to the antimalarial artemether-lumefantrine in African children

BACKGROUND

The antiretroviral drug nevirapine and the antimalarial artemisinin-based combination therapy artemether-lumefantrine are commonly co-administered to treat malaria in the context of HIV. Nevirapine is a known inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A4, which metabolizes artemether and lumefantrine. To address the concern that the antiretroviral nevirapine impacts the antimalarial artemether-lumefantrine pharmacokinetics, a prospective non-randomized controlled study in children presenting with uncomplicated malaria and HIV in sub-Saharan Africa was carried out.

METHODS

Participants received artemether-lumefantrine (20/120 mg weight-based BID) for 3 days during nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) co-administration (158-266 mg/m2 QD). HIV positive participants who were not yet on ART drugs were also enrolled as the control group. The target enrollment was children aged 3-12 years (n = 24 in each group). Intensive pharmacokinetics after the last artemether-lumefantrine dose was assessed for artemether, its active metabolite dihydroartemisinin, and lumefantrine. Pharmacokinetic parameters (area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve (AUC), maximum concentration and day 7 lumefantrine concentrations) were estimated using non-compartmental methods and compared to controls.

RESULTS

Nineteen children (16 on nevirapine and three not on ART) enrolled. Fifteen of the 16 (aged 4 to 11 years) on nevirapine-based ART were included in the pharmacokinetic analysis. Due to evolving WHO HIV treatment guidelines, insufficient children were enrolled in the control group (n = 3), so the pharmacokinetic data were compared to a historical control group of 20 HIV-uninfected children 5-12 years of age who also presented with malaria and underwent identical study procedures. Decreases of pharmacokinetic exposure [as estimated by AUC (AUC0-8hr)] were marginally significant for artemether (by -46%, p = 0.08) and dihydroartemisinin (-22%, p = 0.06) in the children on nevirapine-based ART, compared to when artemether-lumefantrine was administered alone. Similarly, peak concentration was decreased by 50% (p = 0.07) for artemether and 36% (p = 0.01) for dihydroartemisinin. In contrast, exposure to lumefantrine increased significantly in the context of nevirapine [AUC0-120hr:123% (p<0.001); Cday7:116% (p<0.001), Cmax: 95% (p<0.001)].

CONCLUSIONS

Nevirapine-based ART increases the exposure to lumefantrine in pre-pubescent children with a trend toward diminished artemether and dihydroartemisinin exposure. These findings contrast with other studies indicating NVP reduces or results in no change in exposure of antimalarial drugs, and may be specific to this age group (4-12 years). Considering the excellent safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine, the increase in lumefantrine is not of concern. However, the reduction in artemisinin exposure may warrant further study, and suggests that dosage adjustment of artemether-lumefantrine with nevirapine-based ART in children is likely warranted.

Pharmacokinetic considerations for use of artemisinin-based combination therapies against falciparum malaria in different ethnic populations

INTRODUCTION

Artemisinin-based combination therapy (ACT) is used extensively as first-line treatment for uncomplicated falciparum malaria. There has been no rigorous assessment of the potential for racial/ethnic differences in the pharmacokinetic properties of ACTs that might influence their efficacy. Areas covered: A comprehensive literature search was performed that identified 72 publications in which the geographical origin of the patients could be ascertained and the key pharmacokinetic parameters maximum drug concentration (C_max), area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and elimination half-life (t_½β) were available for one or more of the five WHO-recommended ACTs (artemether-lumefantrine, artesunate-amodiaquine, artesunate-mefloquine, dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and artesunate-sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine). Comparisons of each of the three pharmacokinetic parameters of interest were made by drug (artemisinin derivative and long half-life partner), race/ethnicity (African, Asian, Caucasian, Melanesian, South American) and patient categories based on age and pregnancy status. Expert opinion: The review identified no evidence of a clinically significant influence of race/ethnicity on the pharmacokinetic properties of the nine component drugs in the five ACTs currently recommended by WHO for first-line treatment of uncomplicated falciparum malaria. This provides reassurance for health workers in malaria-endemic regions that ACTs can be given in recommended doses with the expectation of adequate blood concentrations regardless of race/ethnicity.

Drug interactions and the role of pharmacokinetic trials in guiding choices in first-line HIV therapy in low-income and middle-income countries

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face specific challenges in the treatment of people living with HIV. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) involving antiretrovirals (ARVs) are prevalent in all settings and have considerable potential to cause clinical harm to patients via toxicity or reduced efficacy of treatment. Differing comorbidities, endemic infections and traditional medicines may complicate ARV therapy (ART) in LMICs, which usually takes a public health approach in these settings, with fewer alternative regimens available. This review discusses the issues surrounding pharmacokinetic DDI studies and their application to ART in LMICs, with particular reference to first-line ART regimens.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pharmacokinetic studies with clinical endpoints are the gold standard for informing management of DDIs; however, data relevant to LMICs are sparse and of low quality. There is significant potential for clinically relevant DDIs between ARVs and antimalarials, antimycobacterials and drugs used in the treatment of neglected tropical diseases.

SUMMARY

Many pharmacokinetic studies are difficult to interpret in LMICs due to differences in patient factors including weight, disease state and genetic polymorphisms. DDI studies relevant to LMICs may also be lacking due to the neglected nature of relevant comorbidities. The ARVs currently available as first-line ART in LMICs are among those with highest propensity for DDIs.

Development of an evidence evaluation and synthesis system for drug-drug interactions, and its application to a systematic review of HIV and malaria co-infection

BACKGROUND

In all settings, there are challenges associated with safely treating patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The need to characterise, understand and limit harms resulting from medication use is therefore increasingly important. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are prevalent in patients taking antiretrovirals (ARVs) and if unmanaged, may pose considerable risk to treatment outcome. One of the biggest challenges in preventing DDIs is the substantial gap between theory and clinical practice. There are no robust methods published for formally assessing quality of evidence relating to DDIs, despite the diverse sources of information. We defined a transparent, structured process for developing evidence quality summaries in order to guide therapeutic decision making. This was applied to a systematic review of DDI data with considerable public health significance: HIV and malaria.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This was a systematic review of DDI data between antiretrovirals and drugs used in prophylaxis and treatment of malaria. The data comprised all original research in humans that evaluated pharmacokinetic data and/or related adverse events when antiretroviral agents were combined with antimalarial agents, including healthy volunteers, patients with HIV and/or malaria, observational studies, and case reports. The data synthesis included 36 articles and conference presentations published via PubMed and conference websites/abstract books between 1987-August 2016. There is significant risk of DDIs between HIV protease inhibitors, or NNRTIs and artemesinin-containing antimalarial regimens. For many antiretrovirals, DDI studies with antimalarials were lacking, and the majority were of moderate to very low quality. Quality of evidence and strength of recommendation categories were defined and developed specifically for recommendations concerning DDIs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is significant potential for DDIs between antiretrovirals and antimalarials. The application of quality of evidence and strength of recommendation criteria to DDI data is feasible, and allows the assessment of DDIs to be robust, consistent, transparent and evidence-based.

Antiretroviral Choice for HIV Impacts Antimalarial Exposure and Treatment Outcomes in Ugandan Children

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies of artemether-lumefantrine and 3 antiretroviral regimens were conducted in malaria-infected Ugandan children. Efavirenz-based treatment was associated with significant reductions in antimalarial exposure and higher risks of recurrent malaria. Caution in their concurrent use is warranted.

Background. The optimal treatment of malaria in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)–infected children requires consideration of critical drug–drug interactions in coinfected children, as these may significantly impact drug exposure and clinical outcomes.

Methods. We conducted an intensive and sparse pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic study in Uganda of the most widely adopted artemisinin-based combination therapy, artemether-lumefantrine. HIV-infected children on 3 different first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens were compared to HIV-uninfected children not on ART, all of whom required treatment for Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Pharmacokinetic sampling for artemether, dihydroartemisinin, and lumefantrine exposure was conducted through day 21, and associations between drug exposure and outcomes through day 42 were investigated.

Results. One hundred forty-five and 225 children were included in the intensive and sparse pharmacokinetic analyses, respectively. Compared with no ART, efavirenz (EFV) reduced exposure to all antimalarial components by 2.1- to 3.4-fold; lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) increased lumefantrine exposure by 2.1-fold; and nevirapine reduced artemether exposure only. Day 7 concentrations of lumefantrine were 10-fold lower in children on EFV vs LPV/r-based ART, changes that were associated with an approximate 4-fold higher odds of recurrent malaria by day 28 in those on EFV vs LPV/r-based ART.

Conclusions. The choice of ART in children living in a malaria-endemic region has highly significant impacts on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of artemether-lumefantrine treatment. EFV-based ART reduces all antimalarial components and is associated with the highest risk of recurrent malaria following treatment. For those on EFV, close clinical follow-up for recurrent malaria following artemether-lumefantrine treatment, along with the study of modified dosing regimens that provide higher exposure, is warranted.

Artemether-lumefantrine co-administration with antiretrovirals: population pharmacokinetics and dosing implications

AIM

Drug–drug interactions between antimalarial and antiretroviral drugs may influence antimalarial treatment outcomes. The aim of this study was to investigate the potential drug–drug interactions between the antimalarial drugs, lumefantrine, artemether and their respective metabolites desbutyl-lumefantrine and dihydroartemisinin, and the HIV drugs efavirenz, nevirapine and lopinavir/ritonavir.

METHOD

Data from two clinical studies, investigating the influence of the HIV drugs efavirenz, nevirapine and lopinavir/ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of the antimalarial drugs lumefantrine, artemether and their respective metabolites, in HIV infected patients were pooled and analyzed using a non-linear mixed effects modelling approach.

RESULTS

Efavirenz and nevirapine significantly decreased the terminal exposure to lumefantrine (decrease of 69.9% and 25.2%, respectively) while lopinavir/ritonavir substantially increased the exposure (increase of 439%). All antiretroviral drugs decreased the total exposure to dihydroartemisinin (decrease of 71.7%, 41.3% and 59.7% for efavirenz, nevirapine and ritonavir/lopinavir, respectively). Simulations suggest that a substantially increased artemether-lumefantrine dose is required to achieve equivalent exposures when co-administered with efavirenz (250% increase) and nevirapine (75% increase). When co-administered with lopinavir/ritonavir it is unclear if the increased lumefantrine exposure compensates adequately for the reduced dihydroartemisinin exposure and thus whether dose adjustment is required.

CONCLUSION

There are substantial drug interactions between artemether-lumefantrine and efavirenz, nevirapine and ritonavir/lopinavir. Given the readily saturable absorption of lumefantrine, the dose adjustments predicted to be necessary will need to be evaluated prospectively in malaria-HIV co-infected patients.

Artemether-Lumefantrine Exposure in HIV-Infected Nigerian Subjects on Nevirapine-Containing Antiretroviral Therapy

Coadministration of nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) and artemether-lumefantrine is reported to result in variable changes in lumefantrine exposure. We conducted an intensive pharmacokinetic study with 11 HIV-infected adults who were receiving artemether-lumefantrine plus nevirapine-based ART, and we compared the results with those for 16 HIV-negative adult historical controls. Exposure to artemether and lumefantrine was significantly lower and dihydroartemisinin exposure was unchanged in subjects receiving nevirapine-based ART, compared with controls. Nevirapine exposure was unchanged before and after artemether-lumefantrine administration.

Artemether-lumefantrine treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of day 7 lumefantrine concentrations and therapeutic response using individual patient data

BACKGROUND

Achieving adequate antimalarial drug exposure is essential for curing malaria. Day 7 blood or plasma lumefantrine concentrations provide a simple measure of drug exposure that correlates well with artemether-lumefantrine efficacy. However, the 'therapeutic' day 7 lumefantrine concentration threshold needs to be defined better, particularly for important patient and parasite sub-populations.

METHODS

The WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) conducted a large pooled analysis of individual pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data from patients treated with artemether-lumefantrine for uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria, to define therapeutic day 7 lumefantrine concentrations and identify patient factors that substantially alter these concentrations. A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials.gov and conference proceedings identified all relevant studies. Risk of bias in individual studies was evaluated based on study design, methodology and missing data.

RESULTS

Of 31 studies identified through a systematic review, 26 studies were shared with WWARN and 21 studies with 2,787 patients were included. Recrudescence was associated with low day 7 lumefantrine concentrations (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.85) per halving of day 7 concentrations) and high baseline parasitemia (HR 1.87 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.87) per 10-fold increase). Adjusted for mg/kg dose, day 7 concentrations were lowest in very young children (<3 years), among whom underweight-for-age children had 23% (95% CI -1 to 41%) lower concentrations than adequately nourished children of the same age and 53% (95% CI 37 to 65%) lower concentrations than adults. Day 7 lumefantrine concentrations were 44% (95% CI 38 to 49%) lower following unsupervised treatment. The highest risk of recrudescence was observed in areas of emerging artemisinin resistance and very low transmission intensity. For all other populations studied, day 7 concentrations ≥200 ng/ml were associated with >98% cure rates (if parasitemia <135,000/μL).

CONCLUSIONS

Current artemether-lumefantrine dosing recommendations achieve day 7 lumefantrine concentrations ≥200 ng/ml and high cure rates in most uncomplicated malaria patients. Three groups are at increased risk of treatment failure: very young children (particularly those underweight-for-age); patients with high parasitemias; and patients in very low transmission intensity areas with emerging parasite resistance. In these groups, adherence and treatment response should be monitored closely. Higher, more frequent, or prolonged dosage regimens should now be evaluated in very young children, particularly if malnourished, and in patients with hyperparasitemia.

CYP2B6*6 genotype and high efavirenz plasma concentration but not nevirapine are associated with low lumefantrine plasma exposure and poor treatment response in HIV-malaria-coinfected patients

We investigated the influence of efavirenz (EFV)- or nevirapine (NVP)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) on lumefantrine plasma exposure in HIV-malaria-coinfected patients and implication of pharmacogenetic variations. A total of 269 HIV patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria on NVP-based ART (NVP-arm), EFV-based ART (EFV-arm) or not receiving ART (control-arm) were enrolled and treated with artemether-lumefantrine. Day-7 lumefantrine, baseline EFV and NVP plasma concentrations, and CYP2B6*6,*18, CYP3A4*1B, CYP3A5*3,*6,*7, ABCB1 c.3435C>T and ABCB1 c.4036A>G genotypes were determined. The median day-7 lumefantrine plasma concentration was significantly lower in the EFV-arm compared with that in NVP- and control-arm. High EFV plasma concentrations and CYP2B6*6/*6 genotype significantly correlated with low lumefantrine plasma concentrations and high rate of recurrent parasitemia. No significant effect of NVP-based ART on lumefantrine exposure was observed. In conclusion, owing to long-term CYP3A induction, EFV-based ART cotreatment significantly reduces lumefantrine plasma exposure leading to poor malaria treatment response, which is more pronounced in CYP2B6 slow metabolizers.

The influence of nevirapine and efavirenz-based anti-retroviral therapy on the pharmacokinetics of lumefantrine and anti-malarial dose recommendation in HIV-malaria co-treatment

Background

HIV-malaria co-infected patients in most parts of sub-Saharan Africa are treated with both artemether-lumefantrine (AL) and efavirenz (EFV) or nevirapine (NVP)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). EFV, NVP, artemether and lumefantrine are substrates, inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4 and CYP2B6, creating a potential for drug-drug interactions. The effect of EFV and/or NVP on lumefantrine pharmacokinetic profile among HIV-malaria co-infected patients on ART and treated with AL was investigated. Optimal lumefantrine dosage regimen for patients on EFV-based ART was determined by population pharmacokinetics and simulation.

Methods

This was a non-randomized, open label, parallel, prospective cohort study in which 128, 66 and 75 HIV-malaria co-infected patients on NVP-based ART (NVP-arm), EFV-based ART (EFV-arm) and ART naïve (control-am) were enrolled, respectively. Patients were treated with AL and contributed sparse venous plasma samples. Pharmacokinetic analysis of lumefantrine was done using non-linear mixed effect modelling.

Results

Of the evaluated models, a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with first order absorption and lag-time described well lumefantrine plasma concentrations time profile. Patients in the EFV-arm but not in the NVP-arm had significantly lower lumefantrine bioavailability compared to that in the control-arm. Equally, 32% of patients in the EFV-arm had day-7 lumefantrine plasma concentrations below 280 ng/ml compared to only 4% in the control-arm and 3% in the NVP-arm. Upon post hoc simulation of lumefantrine exposure, patients in the EFV-arm had lower exposure (median (IQR)) compared to that in the control-arm; AUC_0-inf; was 303,130 (211,080–431,962) versus 784,830 (547,405–1,116,250); day-7 lumefantrine plasma concentrations was: 335.5 (215.8-519.5) versus 858.7 (562.3-1,333.8), respectively. The predictive model through simulation of lumefantrine exposure at different dosage regimen scenarios for patients on EFV-based ART, suggest that AL taken twice daily for five days using the current dose could improve lumefantrine exposure and consequently malaria treatment outcomes.

Conclusions

Co-treatment of AL with EFV-based ART but not NVP-based ART significantly reduces lumefantrine bioavailability and consequently total exposure. To ensure adequate lumefantrine exposure and malaria treatment success in HIV-malaria co-infected patients on EFV-based ART, an extension of the duration of AL treatment to five days using the current dose is proposed.

The epidemiological impact of HIV antiretroviral therapy on malaria in children

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to determine the epidemiological effectiveness of a first-line antiretroviral regimen with HIV protease inhibitor for preventing recurrent malaria in children under the range of HIV prevalence levels and malaria transmission intensities encountered in sub-Saharan Africa.

DESIGN

A dynamic model of malaria transmission was developed using clinical data on the protease inhibitor extended posttreatment prophylactic effect of the antimalarial treatment, artemether-lumefantrine, in addition to parameter estimates from the literature.

METHODS

To evaluate the benefits of HIV protease inhibitors on the health burden of recurrent malaria among children, we constructed a dynamic model of malaria transmission to both HIV-positive and HIV-negative children, parameterized by data from a recent clinical trial. The model was then evaluated under varying malaria transmission and HIV prevalence settings to determine the health benefits of HIV protease inhibitors in the context of artemether-lumefantrine treatment of malaria in children.

RESULTS

Comparing scenarios of low, intermediate and high newborn HIV prevalence, in a range of malaria transmission settings, our dynamic model predicts that artemether-lumefantrine with HIV protease inhibitor based regimens prevents 0.03-0.10, 5.2-13.0 and 25.5-65.8 annual incidences of malaria per 1000 children, respectively. In addition, HIV protease inhibitors save 0.002-0.006, 0.22-0.8, 1.04-4.3 disability-adjusted life-years per 1000 children annually. Considering only HIV-infected children, HIV protease inhibitors avert between 278 and 1043 annual incidences of malaria per 1000 children.

CONCLUSION

The use of HIV protease inhibitor based regimens as first-line antiretroviral therapy for HIV is an effective measure for reducing recurrent malaria among HIV-infected children in areas where HIV and malaria are coendemic, and artemether-lumefantrine is a first-line antimalarial.

Clinical pharmacokinetic drug interactions associated with artemisinin derivatives and HIV-antivirals

Management of HIV and malaria co-infection is challenging due to potential drug-drug interactions between antimalarial and HIV-antiviral drugs. Little is known of the clinical significance of these drug interactions, and this review provides a comprehensive summary and critical evaluation of the literature. Specifically, drug interactions between WHO-recommended artemisinin combination therapies (ACT) and HIV-antivirals are discussed. An extensive literature search produced eight articles detailing n = 44 individual pharmacokinetic interactions. Only data pertaining to artemether-lumefantrine and two other artesunate combinations are available, but most of the interactions are characterized on at least two occasions by two different groups. Overall, protease inhibitors (PIs) tended to increase the exposure of lumefantrine and decrease the exposures of artemether and dihydroartemisinin, a pharmacologically active metabolite of artemether. Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) tended to decrease the exposures of artemether, dihydroartemisinin, and lumefantrine when co-administered with artemether-lumefantrine. Fewer studies characterized the effects of PIs or NNRTIs on artesunate combinations, but nevirapine increased artesunate exposure and ritonavir decreased dihydroartemisinin exposure. On the other hand, artemether-lumefantrine or artesunate combinations had little effect on the pharmacokinetics of HIV-antivirals, with the exception of decreased nevirapine exposure from artemether-lumefantrine or increased ritonavir exposure from pyronaridine/artesunate co-administration. In general, pharmacokinetic interactions can be explained by the metabolic properties of the co-administered drugs. Despite several limitations to the studies, these data do provide valuable insights into the potential pharmacokinetic perturbations, and the consistently marked elevation or reduction in ACT exposure in some cases cannot be overlooked.

Outcome of artemether-lumefantrine treatment for uncomplicated malaria in HIV-infected adult patients on anti-retroviral therapy

BACKGROUND

Malaria and HIV infections are both highly prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa, with HIV-infected patients being at higher risks of acquiring malaria. The majority of antiretroviral (ART) and anti-malarial drugs are metabolized by the CYP450 system, creating a chance of drug-drug interaction upon co-administration. Limited data are available on the effectiveness of the artemether-lumefantrine combination (AL) when co-administered with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs). The aim of this study was to compare anti-malarial treatment responses between HIV-1 infected patients on either nevirapine- or efavirenz-based treatment and those not yet on ART (control-arm) with uncomplicated falciparum malaria, treated with AL.

METHOD

This was a prospective, non-randomized, open-label study conducted in Bagamoyo district, with three arms of HIV-infected adults: efavirenz-based treatment arm (EFV-arm) n = 66, nevirapine-based treatment arm (NVP-arm) n = 128, and control-arm n = 75, with uncomplicated malaria. All patients were treated with AL and followed up for 28 days. The primary outcome measure was an adequate clinical and parasitological response (ACPR) after treatment with AL by day 28.

RESULTS

Day 28 ACPR was 97.6%, 82.5% and 94.5% for the NVP-arm, EFV-arm and control-arm, respectively. No early treatment or late parasitological failure was reported. The cumulative risk of recurrent parasitaemia was >19-fold higher in the EFV-arm than in the control-arm (Hazard ratio [HR], 19.11 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 10.5-34.5]; P < 0.01). The cumulative risk of recurrent parasitaemia in the NVP-arm was not significantly higher than in the control-arm ([HR], 2.44 [95% {CI}, 0.79-7.6]; P = 0.53). The median (IQR) day 7 plasma concentrations of lumefantrine for the three arms were: 1,125 ng/m (638.8-1913), 300.4 ng/ml (220.8-343.1) and 970 ng/ml (562.1-1729) for the NVP-arm, the EFV-arm and the control-arm, respectively (P < 0.001). In all three arms, the reported adverse events were mostly mild.

CONCLUSION

After 28 days of follow-up, AL was statistically safe and effective in the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in the NVP-arm. The results of this study also provide an indication of the possible impact of EFV on the performance of AL and the likelihood of it affecting uncomplicated falciparum malaria treatment outcome.

Artemisinin-based combination therapies are efficacious and safe for treatment of uncomplicated malaria in HIV-infected Ugandan children

BACKGROUND

Artemisinin-based combination therapies (ACTs) are highly efficacious and safe, but data from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected children concurrently receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) and ACTs are limited.

METHODS

We evaluated 28-day outcomes following malaria treatment with artemether-lumefantrine (AL) or dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) in 2 cohorts of HIV-infected Ugandan children taking various ART regimens. In one cohort, children <6 years of age were randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based ART and treated with AL for uncomplicated malaria. In another cohort, children <12 months of age were started on nevirapine-based ART if they were eligible, and randomized to AL or DP for the treatment of their first and all subsequent uncomplicated malaria episodes.

RESULTS

There were 773 and 165 treatments for malaria with AL and DP, respectively. Initial response to therapy was excellent, with 99% clearance of parasites and <1% risk of repeat therapy within 3 days. Recurrent parasitemia within 28 days was common following AL treatment. The risk of recurrent parasitemia was significantly lower among children taking LPV/r-based ART compared with children taking nevirapine-based ART following AL treatment (15.3% vs 35.5%, P = .009), and those treated with DP compared with AL (8.6% vs 36.2%, P < .001). Both ACT regimens were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of uncomplicated malaria with AL or DP was efficacious and safe in HIV-infected children taking ART. However, there was a high risk of recurrent parasitemia following AL treatment, which was significantly lower in children taking LPV/r-based ART compared with nevirapine-based ART.

Relationship between weight, efavirenz exposure, and virologic suppression in HIV-infected patients on rifampin-based tuberculosis treatment in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5221 STRIDE Study

BACKGROUND

Rifampin (RIF) upregulates CYP 450 isoenzymes, potentially lowering efavirenz (EFV) exposure. The US EFV package insert recommends an EFV dose increase for patients on RIF weighing ≥50 kg. We conducted a pharmacokinetic study to evaluate EFV trough concentrations (Cmin) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) virologic suppression in patients on EFV (600 mg) and RIF-based tuberculosis treatment in the multicenter randomized trial (ACTG A5221).

METHODS

EFV Cmin was measured 20-28 hours post-EFV dose at weeks 4, 8, 16, 24 on-RIF and weeks 4, 8 off-RIF. Results were evaluated with 2-sided Wilcoxon rank-sum, χ(2), Fisher exact tests and logistic regression (5% type I error rate).

RESULTS

Seven hundred eighty patients received EFV; 543 provided ≥1 EFV Cmin. Median weight was 52.8 kg (interquartile range [IQR], 48.0-59.5), body mass index 19.4 kg/m(2) (IQR, 17.5-21.6), and age 34 years (IQR, 29-41); 63% were male, 74% black. Median Cmin was 1.96 µg/mL on-RIF versus 1.80 off-RIF (P = .067). Cmin were significantly higher on-RIF versus off-RIF in blacks (2.08 vs 1.75, P = .005). Weight ≥60 kg on-RIF, compared to <60 kg, was associated with lower EFV Cmin (1.68 vs 2.02, P = .021). However, weight ≥60 kg was associated with more frequent HIV RNA < 400 copies/mL at week 48, compared to weight <60 kg (81.9% vs 73.8%, P = .023).

CONCLUSIONS

EFV and RIF-based tuberculosis therapy coadministration was associated with a trend toward higher, not lower, EFV Cmin compared to EFV alone. Patients weighing ≥60 kg had lower median EFV Cmin versus those <60 kg, but there was no association of higher weight with reduced virologic suppression. These data do not support weight-based dosing of EFV with RIF.

Use of a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to simulate artemether dose adjustment for overcoming the drug-drug interaction with efavirenz

Purpose

To treat malaria, HIV-infected patients normally receive artemether (80 mg twice daily) concurrently with antiretroviral therapy and drug-drug interactions can potentially occur. Artemether is a substrate of CYP3A4 and CYP2B6, antiretrovirals such as efavirenz induce these enzymes and have the potential to reduce artemether pharmacokinetic exposure. The aim of this study was to develop an in vitro in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) approach to model the interaction between efavirenz and artemether. Artemether dose adjustments were then simulated in order to predict optimal dosing in co-infected patients and inform future interaction study design.

Methods

In vitro data describing the chemical properties, absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of efavirenz and artemether were obtained from published literature and included in a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model (PBPK) to predict drug disposition simulating virtual clinical trials. Administration of efavirenz and artemether, alone or in combination, were simulated to mirror previous clinical studies and facilitate validation of the model and realistic interpretation of the simulation. Efavirenz (600 mg once daily) was administered to 50 virtual subjects for 14 days. This was followed by concomitant administration of artemether (80 mg eight hourly) for the first two doses and 80 mg (twice daily) for another two days.

Results

Simulated pharmacokinetics and the drug-drug interaction were in concordance with available clinical data. Efavirenz induced first pass metabolism and hepatic clearance, reducing artemether C_max by 60% and AUC by 80%. Dose increases of artemether, to correct for the interaction, were simulated and a dose of 240 mg was predicted to be sufficient to overcome the interaction and allow therapeutic plasma concentrations of artemether.

Conclusions

The model presented here provides a rational platform to inform the design for a clinical drug interaction study that may save time and resource while the optimal dose is determined empirically. Wider application of IVIVE could help researchers gain a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning variability in drug disposition.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine or darunavir/ritonavir and artemether/lumefantrine in healthy volunteers: a two-panel, two-way, two-period, randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

Etravirine is a substrate and inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A and a substrate and inhibitor of CYP2C9 and CYPC2C19. Darunavir/ritonavir is a substrate and inhibitor of CYP3A. Artemether and lumefantrine are primarily metabolized by CYP3A; artemether is also metabolized to a lesser extent by CYP2B6, CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. Artemether has an active metabolite, dihydroartemisinin. The objective was to investigate pharmacokinetic interactions between darunavir/ritonavir or etravirine and arthemether/lumefrantrine.

METHODS

This single-centre, randomized, two-way, two-period cross-over study included 33 healthy volunteers. In panel 1, 17 healthy volunteers received two treatments (A and B) in random order, with a washout period of 4 weeks between treatments: treatment A: artemether/lumefantrine 80/480 mg alone, in a 3-day course; treatment B: etravirine 200 mg twice a day (bid) for 21 days with artemether/lumefantrine 80/480 mg from day 8 (a 3-day treatment course). In panel 2, another 16 healthy volunteers received two treatments, similar to those in panel 1 but instead of etravirine, darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid was given.

RESULTS

Overall, 28 of the 33 volunteers completed the study. Co-administration of etravirine reduced the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of artemether [by 38%; 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.80], dihydroartemisinin (by 15%; 90% CI 0.75-0.97) and lumefantrine (by 13%; 90% CI 0.77-0.98) at steady state. Co-administration of darunavir/ritonavir reduced the AUC of artemether (by 16%; 90% CI 0.69-1.02) and dihydroartemisinin (by 18%; 90% CI 0.74-0.91) but increased lumefantrine (2.75-fold; 90% CI 2.46-3.08) at steady state. Co-administration of artemether/lumefantrine had no effect on etravirine, darunavir or ritonavir AUC. No drug-related serious adverse events were reported during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-administration of etravirine with artemether/lumefantrine may lower the antimalarial activity of artemether and should therefore be used with caution. Darunavir/ritonavir can be co-administered with artemether/lumefantrine without dose adjustment but should be used with caution.