Pharmacokinetic study of human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors used in combination with amprenavir

Pharmacokinetic Parameters of HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors

Since the beginning of the HIV epidemic, research has been carried out to control the virus. Understanding the mechanisms of replication has given access to the various classes of drugs that over time have transformed AIDS into a manageable chronic disease. The class of protease inhibitors (PIs) gained notice in anti-retroviral therapy, once it was found that peptidomimetic molecules act by blocking the active catalytic center of the aspartic protease, which is directly related to HIV maturation. However, mutations in enzymatic internal residues are the biggest issue for these drugs, because a small change in biochemical interaction can generate resistance. Low plasma concentrations of PIs favor viral natural selection; high concentrations can inhibit even partially resistant enzymes. Food-drug/drug-drug interactions can decrease the bioavailability of PIs and are related to many side effects. Therefore, this review summarizes the pharmacokinetic properties of current PIs, the changes when pharmacological boosters are used and also lists the major mutations to help understanding of how long the continuous treatment can ensure a low viral load in patients.

Therapeutic amprenavir concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid

Antiretrovirals that reach higher concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are associated with better control of HIV in CSF and possibly better neurocognitive performance. The objective of this study was to determine whether amprenavir (APV) concentrations in CSF are in the therapeutic range. Individuals were selected based on the use of regimens that included fosamprenavir (FPV), a prodrug of APV, and the availability of stored CSF and matched plasma. Total APV was measured in 119 matched CSF-plasma pairs from 75 subjects by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) (plasma) or liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS/MS) (CSF). Concentrations were compared to the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC₅₀) for wild-type HIV (5.6 ng/ml). Subjects were predominantly middle-aged (median 44 years) white (57%) men (78%) with AIDS (77%). APV was detected in all but 4 CSF specimens, with a median concentration of 24.8 ng/ml (interquartile range [IQR], 16.2 to 44.0). The median CSF-to-plasma ratio was 0.012 (IQR, 0.008 to 0.018). CSF concentrations correlated with plasma concentrations (rho = 0.61; P < 0.0001) and with postdose sampling interval (rho = -0.29; P = 0.0019). APV concentrations in CSF exceeded the median IC₅₀ for wild-type HIV in more than 97% of CSF specimens with detectable APV by a median of 4.4-fold (IQR, 2.9 to 7.9). We conclude that administration of fosamprenavir should contribute to control of HIV replication in the central nervous system (CNS) as a component of effective antiretroviral regimens.

Efficacy and safety of ritonavir-boosted dual protease inhibitor therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected patients: the 2IP ANRS 127 study

OBJECTIVES

We evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of ritonavir-boosted dual protease inhibitor as a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing regimen in a prospective open-label randomized pilot trial in antiretroviral-naive patients.

METHODS

Thirty patients received fosamprenavir/atazanavir/ritonavir (Group 1) and 31 patients received saquinavir/atazanavir/ritonavir (Group 2). The primary endpoint for efficacy was the rate of early virological success, defined as plasma viral load <50 copies/mL at week 16. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00122603).

RESULTS

At baseline, median (range) viral load was 4.8 log(10) copies/mL (4.0-5.7) and the median CD4 cell count was 271/mm(3) (197-740). Viral load was <50 copies/mL in 12/30 patients [40%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 23%-58%] and 13/31 patients (42%, 95% CI 25%-59%) at week 16 in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Patients with failing regimens (viral load >or=400 copies/mL at week 16 or >or=50 copies/mL at week 24) were switched to a standard antiretroviral regimen. At week 48, by an intention-to-treat analysis, 23/30 patients (77%) and 26/31 patients (84%) had plasma HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Four patients discontinued treatment for adverse events, all before week 4. No major changes in the protease gene were detected at treatment failure relative to baseline. Baseline viral load <50 000 copies/mL was the only predictor of virological success at week 16.

CONCLUSIONS

Ritonavir-boosted dual protease inhibitor regimens targeting only one step of viral replication were insufficient to rapidly suppress plasma HIV RNA to <50 copies/mL in antiretroviral-naive patients with high viral load at baseline.

Compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis of oral amprenavir with secondary peaks

Amprenavir is a protease inhibitor that has been shown to have secondary peaks postulated to be due to enterohepatic recycling. We propose a model to describe the pharmacokinetics of amprenavir which accommodates the secondary peak(s). A total of 82 healthy human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-seronegative subjects were administered a single 600-mg dose of amprenavir as part of adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group protocol A5043. Serial blood samples were obtained over 24 h. Samples were analyzed for amprenavir and fit to a compartmental model using ADAPT II software, with all relevant parameters conditional with respect to bioavailability. The model accommodated secondary peaks by incorporating clearance out of the central compartment with delayed instantaneous release back into the gut compartment. The data were weighted by the inverse of the estimated measurement error variance; model discrimination was determined using Akaike's Information Criteria. A total of 76 subjects were evaluable in the study analysis. The data were best fit by a two-compartment model, with 98.7% of the subjects demonstrating a secondary peak. Amprenavir had a mean total clearance of 1.163 liters/h/kg of body weight (0.7), a central volume of distribution of 1.208 liters/kg (0.8), a peripheral volume of distribution of 8.2 liters/kg (0.81), and distributional clearance of 0.04 liters/h/kg (0.81). The time to the secondary peak was 7.86 h (0.17), and clearance into a recycling compartment was 0.111 liters/kg/h (0.74). Amprenavir pharmacokinetics has been well described using a two-compartment model with clearance to a recycling compartment and release back into the gut. The nature of the secondary peaks may be an important consideration for the interpretation of amprenavir plasma concentrations during therapeutic drug 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.

Amprenavir and efavirenz pharmacokinetics before and after the addition of nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, or saquinavir in seronegative individuals

Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5043 examined pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between amprenavir (APV) and efavirenz (EFV) both by themselves and when nelfinavir (NFV), indinavir (IDV), ritonavir (RTV), or saquinavir (SQV) is added. A PK study was conducted after the administration of single doses of APV (day 0). Subjects (n = 56) received 600 mg of EFV every 24 h (q24h) for 10 days and restarted APV with EFV for days 11 to 13 with a PK study on day 14. A second protease inhibitor (PI) (NFV, 1,250 mg, q12h; IDV, 1,200 mg, q12h; RTV, 100 mg, q12h; or SQV, 1,600 mg, q12h) was added to APV and EFV on day 15, and a PK study was conducted on day 21. Controls continued APV and EFV without a second PI. Among subjects, the APV areas under the curve (AUCs) on days 0, 14, and 21 were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the geometric mean ratios (GMR) were calculated. APV AUCs were 46% to 61% lower (median percentage of AUC) with EFV (day 14 versus day 0; P values of <0.05). In the NFV, IDV, and RTV groups, day 21 APV AUCs with EFV were higher than AUCs for EFV alone. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the GMR were 3.5 to 5.3 for NFV (P < 0.001), 2.8 to 4.5 for IDV (P < 0.001), and 7.8 to 11.5 for RTV (P = 0.004). Saquinavir modestly increased the APV AUCs (GMR, 1.0 to 1.4; P = 0.106). Control group AUCs were lower on day 21 compared to those on day 14 (GMR, 0.7 to 1.0; P = 0.042). African-American non-Hispanics had higher day 14 efavirenz AUCs than white non-Hispanics. We conclude that EFV lowered APV AUCs, but nelfinavir, indinavir, or ritonavir compensated for EFV induction.

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.

Steady-State Pharmacokinetics of Saquinavir Hard-Gel/Ritonavir/Fosamprenavir in HIV-1???Infected Patients

BACKGROUND

In vitro synergy and complementary resistance profiles provide a strong rationale for combining fosamprenavir with saquinavir as part of a potent double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen. This study evaluated the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir 1000 mg twice daily (bid) and fosamprenavir 700 mg bid administered with 2 different doses of ritonavir (100 and 200 mg bid) in HIV-1-infected subjects.

METHODS

On day 1, 12-hour pharmacokinetic profiles for saquinavir/ritonavir (1000/100 mg bid) were obtained for 18 subjects. All subjects were receiving ongoing treatment with a saquinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. Fosamprenavir 700 mg bid was then added to the regimen, and pharmacokinetic sampling was repeated for all 3 agents at day 11. The ritonavir daily dose was then increased to 200 mg bid, and a 3rd pharmacokinetic profile was obtained at day 22.

RESULTS

The coadministration of fosamprenavir 700 mg bid with saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg bid resulted in a statistically nonsignificant decrease in saquinavir concentrations (by 14, 9, and 24%, for saquinavir area under the concentration-time curve [AUC]0-12, C(max), and C(trough), respectively). This was compensated for by an increased ritonavir dose of 200 mg bid, which resulted in a statistically nonsignificant increase in saquinavir exposure compared with baseline. Amprenavir levels did not appear to be significantly influenced by coadministration of saquinavir with fosamprenavir. Fosamprenavir significantly reduced ritonavir exposure, but the increased ritonavir dose compensated for this interaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings showed that saquinavir/ritonavir/fosamprenavir was well tolerated over the study period. Saquinavir plasma concentrations were slightly lowered by the addition of fosamprenavir to the regimen. However, the addition of a further 100 mg ritonavir bid restored the small and insignificant decrease.

Pharmacokinetic enhancement of protease inhibitor therapy

Combination antiretroviral therapy with two or more protease inhibitors has become the standard of care in the treatment of HIV infection. Dual protein inhibitor (PI) regimens, such as lopinavir/ritonavir, are commonly used as initial PI therapy. As viral resistance increases and the development of mechanistically novel protease inhibitors decreases, clinicians turn to ritonavir-enhanced dual PI therapy to treat salvage patients. Potency of these combination regimens is increased while pill burden, food restrictions and often, side effects are decreased. These clinical advantages result from the enhancement of their pharmacological properties, including alterations in the absorption and metabolism process. Alterations in the absorption and metabolism of protease inhibitors when co-administered with a cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme inhibitor, such as low dose ritonavir, are reflected by impressive changes in pharmacokinetic parameters. For example, the addition of ritonavir 100 or 200 mg to saquinavir 1200-1800 mg has been shown to increase saquinavir area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) by approximately 300-800% compared with saquinavir alone. The ability of ritonavir to increase plasma trough concentrations (C(min)) of concomitantly administered PIs is perhaps the greatest clinical benefit of dual or ritonavir-enhanced dual PI therapy since inadequate concentrations of antiretrovirals may support long term antiretroviral resistance. For example, lopinavir 400mg alone in healthy volunteers produced plasma concentrations that briefly exceeded the concentration required to inhibit 50% of viral replication (IC(50)). Yet, when low doses of ritonavir were added, C(min) values were 50- to 100-fold greater than the concentration required to produce 50% of the maximum effect for wild-type HIV (EC(50)). The following manuscript will discuss the rationale for combining protease inhibitors and will review pertinent pharmacokinetic and clinical data on these combination regimens.