A pharmacokinetic interaction study of didanosine coadministered with trimethoprim and/or sulphamethoxazole in HIV seropositive asymptomatic male patients

Improving antibacterial prescribing safety in the management of COPD exacerbations: systematic review of observational and clinical studies on potential drug interactions associated with frequently prescribed antibacterials among COPD patients

Background

Guidelines advise the use of antibacterials (ABs) in the management of COPD exacerbations. COPD patients often have multiple comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus and cardiac diseases, leading to polypharmacy. Consequently, drug–drug interactions (DDIs) may frequently occur, and may cause serious adverse events and treatment failure.

Objectives

(i) To review DDIs related to frequently prescribed ABs among COPD patients from observational and clinical studies. (ii) To improve AB prescribing safety in clinical practice by structuring DDIs according to comorbidities of COPD.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed and Embase up to 8 February 2018 for clinical trials, cohort and case–control studies reporting DDIs of ABs used for COPD. Study design, subjects, sample size, pharmacological mechanism of DDI and effect of interaction were extracted. We evaluated levels of DDIs and quality of evidence according to established criteria and structured the data by possible comorbidities.

Results

In all, 318 articles were eligible for review, describing a wide range of drugs used for comorbidities and their potential DDIs with ABs. DDIs between ABs and co-administered drugs could be subdivided into: (i) co-administered drugs altering the pharmacokinetics of ABs; and (ii) ABs interfering with the pharmacokinetics of co-administered drugs. The DDIs could lead to therapeutic failures or toxicities.

Conclusions

DDIs related to ABs with clinical significance may involve a wide range of indicated drugs to treat comorbidities in COPD. The evidence presented can support (computer-supported) decision-making by health practitioners when prescribing ABs during COPD exacerbations in the case of co-medication.

Renal Drug Transporters and Drug Interactions

Transporters in proximal renal tubules contribute to the disposition of numerous drugs. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms of tubular secretion have been progressively elucidated during the past decades. Organic anions tend to be secreted by the transport proteins OAT1, OAT3 and OATP4C1 on the basolateral side of tubular cells, and multidrug resistance protein (MRP) 2, MRP4, OATP1A2 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) on the apical side. Organic cations are secreted by organic cation transporter (OCT) 2 on the basolateral side, and multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) proteins MATE1, MATE2/2-K, P-glycoprotein, organic cation and carnitine transporter (OCTN) 1 and OCTN2 on the apical side. Significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may affect any of these transporters, altering the clearance and, consequently, the efficacy and/or toxicity of substrate drugs. Interactions at the level of basolateral transporters typically decrease the clearance of the victim drug, causing higher systemic exposure. Interactions at the apical level can also lower drug clearance, but may be associated with higher renal toxicity, due to intracellular accumulation. Whereas the importance of glomerular filtration in drug disposition is largely appreciated among clinicians, DDIs involving renal transporters are less well recognized. This review summarizes current knowledge on the roles, quantitative importance and clinical relevance of these transporters in drug therapy. It proposes an approach based on substrate-inhibitor associations for predicting potential tubular-based DDIs and preventing their adverse consequences. We provide a comprehensive list of known drug interactions with renally-expressed transporters. While many of these interactions have limited clinical consequences, some involving high-risk drugs (e.g. methotrexate) definitely deserve the attention of prescribers.

A novel pharmacokinetic approach to predict virologic failure in HIV-1-infected paediatric patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to develop in children an HIV dynamic model able to predict simultaneously the viral load and CD4 lymphocyte evolutions, and to take into account, through a composite inhibition score, the relative contribution of each drug of the combination efavirenz-didanosine-lamivudine and use this score as a predictor of treatment failure in a multidrug therapy.

DESIGN

Open phase II trial (BURKINAME - ANRS 12103) registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database (http://clinicaltrials.gov) with the no. NCT00122538.

METHODS

Forty-nine children aged from 2.5 to 15 years were administered once-daily dose of lamivudine, didanosine and efavirenz. The three drugs effect was then characterized by a composite inhibition score combining the effect of each drug, according to their site and mechanism of action and their relative contribution.

RESULTS

Efavirenz was the most potent antiretroviral and was responsible for 65% of the total effect, and then didanosine for 23% and lamivudine was the less potent with 12% of the total observed effect. An EC90 for efavirenz was determined (3.3 mg/l). AUC90 was estimated for lamivudine and didanosine: 8.4 and 1.5 mg h/l, respectively. The composite inhibition score was the best predictor of virologic failure compared with the concentrations of each drug taken independently [hazard ratio (HR) 0.6 per 10% increase, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-0.88].

CONCLUSION

The relative contributions of three combined drugs were assessed on plasma viral load and CD4 lymphocyte count kinetics in HIV-1-infected children. Pharmacokinetics targets have been suggested for lamivudine and didanosine. A composite inhibition score has been determined to be a high predictor of treatment failure in a multidrug therapy.

Didanosine: an updated review of its use in HIV infection

Didanosine, like zidovudine, stavudine and lamivudine, is a nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI). In the target cell for HIV, didanosine is converted to its active moiety, dideoxyadenosine-5'-triphosphate (ddATP), which inhibits HIV reverse transcriptase and terminates viral DNA growth. It is now well established that didanosine therapy produces beneficial effects on virological and immunological markers of HIV disease and improves clinical outcome in adults or children with HIV infection. In numerous clinical trials, pronounced and sustained decreases in plasma HIV RNA levels and increases in CD4+ cell counts occurred in previously untreated or antiretroviral therapy-experienced patients treated with didanosine in combination with at least 1 other antiretroviral drug; zidovudine, stavudine, lamivudine, nevirapine, nelfinavir and hydroxyurea (hydroxycarbamide) are among the drugs that have been given in combination with didanosine. Of note, HIV RNA levels decreased to below the limits of detection in some patients receiving triple or dual therapy with didanosine-containing regimens. In double-blind, placebo-controlled trials, triple therapy with didanosine, zidovudine and nevirapine was significantly more effective than dual therapy with various combinations of these agents in improving surrogate disease markers in treatment-naive patients and in delaying disease progression or death in treatment-experienced patients with advanced disease. Improvements in virological and immunological markers were greater with didanosine-containing triple regimens than with dual therapy or monotherapy in comparative trials. Triple therapy with didanosine, stavudine and indinavir showed efficacy similar to that of various other triple therapy regimens in nonblind comparative trials. Comparator regimens included combinations of stavudine, lamivudine plus indinavir, zidovudine, lamivudine plus indinavir and didanosine, stavudine and nevirapine. Combination therapy with didanosine plus hydroxyurea as dual therapy or with a third agent produced marked and sustained decreases in HIV RNA levels in the plasma and in lymph nodes. Combination therapy with didanosine and zidovudine delays disease progression and prolongs survival in patients with intermediate or advanced HIV infection. In large, randomised, double-blind, clinical trials, dual therapy with didanosine plus zidovudine was significantly more effective than zidovudine monotherapy in preventing disease progression and prolonging survival in previously untreated or antiretroviral therapy-experienced patients with intermediate or advanced HIV infection. Pancreatitis and peripheral neuropathy are serious adverse effects of didanosine. These effects are dose-related and usually reversible after discontinuation of treatment. Nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and/or abdominal pain have been reported in patients receiving treatment with the drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Didanosine is an effective and generally well tolerated drug in previously untreated and antiretroviral therapy-experienced patients with HIV infection. Given once or twice daily, it has an important role as a component of triple combination regimens for the treatment of patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic HIV infection.

The pharmacokinetics and safety profile of oral ganciclovir in combination with trimethoprim in HIV- and CMV-seropositive patients

AIMS

We investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of oral ganciclovir coadministered with trimethoprim in HIV-and CMV-seropositive patients.

METHODS

In an open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover study, 12 adult males received oral ganciclovir 1000 mg every 8h, oral trimethoprim 200 mg once daily, or both drugs concomitantly in a sequence of three 7-day treatment periods. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined and adverse events recorded for each treatment.

RESULTS

The presence of trimethoprim significantly decreased CLr (12.9%, P=0.0068) and increased t1/2 (18.1%, P=0.0378) of ganciclovir. However, these changes are unlikely to be clinically meaningful. There were no statistically significant changes in trimethoprim pharmacokinetic parameters in the presence of ganciclovir, with the exception of a 12.7% increase in Cmin. Ganciclovir was well tolerated when administered alone or in combination with trimethoprin.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no clinically significant pharmacokinetic interaction between oral ganciclovir and trimethoprim when coadministered.