Pharmacokinetics of indinavir and nelfinavir in treatment-naive, human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects

Differences in the Prediction of Area Under the Curve for a Protease Inhibitor Using Trough Versus Peak Concentration: Assessment Using Published Pharmacokinetic Data for Indinavir

In the present day antiretroviral therapy, Ctrough is a key tool for efficacy assessment. The present work explored the feasibility of using Ctrough or Cmax in the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) prediction of indinavir. A simple unweighted linear regression model was developed to describe the relationship between Cmax versus AUC (r = 0.8101, P < 0.001) and Ctrough versus AUC (r = 0.8127, P < 0.001) for indinavir. The regression lines were used to predict the AUC values from literature Cmax or Ctrough data of indinavir in HIV and healthy subjects. The fold difference, defined as the quotient of the observed and predicted AUC values, was evaluated along with statistical comparison, including root mean square error (RMSE) prediction for the 2 models. The correlation between Cmax versus AUC and Ctrough versus AUC was established. Majority of the predicted values for Cmax versus AUC were within 0.75- to 1.5-fold differences. However, the Ctrough versus AUC model showed larger variability with approximately one-third of the predictions within 0.75- to 1.5-fold differences. The r value and %RMSE for observed versus predicted AUC for Ctrough (r = 0.5925, n = 65, P < 0.001, and RMSE: 67%) were inferior to the Cmax (r = 0.8773, n = 86, P < 0.001, and RMSE: 46%). In conclusion, Cmax versus AUC and Ctrough versus AUC relationships were established for indinavir showing the utility of a single concentration time point for therapeutic drug monitoring purpose. The Cmax model for indinavir may be more relevant for AUC prediction as determined by the statistical criteria.

[Consensus Statement by GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat on antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (Updated January 2013)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) guidelines for HIV-1 infected adult patients.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel composed of members of the GeSIDA/National AIDS Plan Secretariat (Grupo de Estudio de Sida and the Secretaría del Plan Nacional sobre el Sida) reviewed the efficacy and safety advances in clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals (PubMed and Embase) or presented in medical scientific meetings. The strength of the recommendations and the evidence which support them are based on a modification of the criteria of Infectious Diseases Society of America.

RESULTS

cART is recommended in patients with symptoms of HIV infection, in pregnant women, in serodiscordant couples with high risk of transmission, in hepatitisB co-infection requiring treatment, and in HIV nephropathy. cART is recommended in asymptomatic patients if CD4 is <500cells/μl. If CD4 are >500cells/μl cART should be considered in the case of chronic hepatitisC, cirrhosis, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >100.000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, neurocognitive deficits, and in people aged >55years. The objective of cART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. The first cART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI) nucleoside analogs and a third drug (a non-analog RTI, a ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor, or an integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected some drug combinations, for the first cART and specific criteria for cART in acute HIV infection, in tuberculosis and other HIV related opportunistic infections, for the women and in pregnancy, in hepatitisB or C co-infection, in HIV-2 infection, and in post-exposure prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

These new guidelines update previous recommendations related to first cART (when to begin and what drugs should be used), how to monitor, and what to do in case of viral failure or adverse drug reactions. cART specific criteria in comorbid patients and special situations are similarly updated.

[Consensus document of Gesida and Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) regarding combined antiretroviral treatment in adults infected by the human immunodeficiency virus (January 2012)]

This consensus document has been prepared by a panel consisting of members of the AIDS Study Group (Gesida) and the Spanish Secretariat for the National Plan on AIDS (SPNS) after reviewing the efficacy and safety results of clinical trials, cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in medical journals, or presented in medical scientific meetings. Gesida has prepared an objective and structured method to prioritise combined antiretroviral treatment (cART) in naïve patients. Recommendations strength (A, B, C) and the evidence which supports them (I, II, III) are based on a modification of the Infectious Diseases Society of America criteria. The current antiretroviral treatment (ART) of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs. ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection, in pregnancy, in serodiscordant couples with high transmission risk, hepatitis B fulfilling treatment criteria, and HIV nephropathy. Guidelines on ART treatment in patients with concurrent diagnosis of HIV infection and an opportunistic type C infection are included. In asymptomatic patients ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts <350 cells/μL; 2) when CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/μL, therapy will be recommended and only delayed if patient is reluctant to take it, the CD4 are stabilised, and the plasma viral load is low; 3) therapy could be deferred when CD4 counts are above 500 cells/μL, but should be considered in cases of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, plasma viral load >10(5) copies/mL, proportion of CD4 cells <14%, and in people aged >55 years. ART should include 2 reverse transcriptase inhibitors nucleoside analogues and a third drug (non-analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitor, ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor or integrase inhibitor). The panel has consensually selected and given priority to using the Gesida score for some drug combinations, some of them co-formulated. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures, but an undetectable viral load may be possible nowadays. Adverse events are a fading problem of ART. Guidelines in acute HIV infection, in women, in pregnancy, and to prevent mother-to-child transmission and pre- and post-exposition prophylaxis are commented upon. Management of hepatitis B or C co-infection, other co-morbidities, and the characteristics of ART in HIV-2 infection are included.

[AIDS Study Group/Spanish AIDS Plan consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection (updated January 2010)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of antiretroviral therapy recommendations for adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel made up of members of the Grupo de Estudio de Sida (Gesida, AIDS Study Group) and the Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS, Spanish AIDS Plan) reviewed the advances in the current understanding of the pathophysiology of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the efficacy and safety of clinical trials, and cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in biomedical journals or presented at scientific meetings. Three levels of evidence were defined according to the data source: randomized studies (level A), cohort or case-control studies (level B), and expert opinion (level C). The decision to recommend, consider or not to recommend ART was established in each situation.

RESULTS

Currently, the treatment of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs of two different classes, including 2 nucleosides or nucleotide analogs (NRTI) plus 1 non-nucleoside (NNRTI) or 1 boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r), but other combinations are possible. Initiation of ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection. In asymptomatic patients, initiation of ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts below 350 cells/microl; 2) When CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/microl, therapy should be started in case of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, HIV nephropathy, HIV viral load above 100,000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells under 14%, and in people aged over 55; 3) Therapy should be deferred when CD4 are above 500 cells/microl, but could be considered if any of previous considerations concurs. Treatment should be initiated in case of hepatitis B requiring treatment and should be considered for reduce sexual transmission. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures but undetectable viral loads maybe possible with the new drugs even in highly drug experienced patients. Genotype studies are useful in these situations. Drug toxicity of ART therapy is losing importance as benefits exceed adverse effects. Criteria for antiretroviral treatment in acute infection, pregnancy and post-exposure prophylaxis are mentioned as well as the management of HIV co-infection with hepatitis B or C.

CONCLUSIONS

CD4 cells counts, viral load and patient co-morbidities are the most important reference factors to consider when initiating ART in asymptomatic patients. The large number of available drugs, the increased sensitivity of tests to monitor viral load, and the ability to determine viral resistance is leading to a more individualized therapy approach in order to achieve undetectable viral load under any circumstances.

Improving data reliability using a non-compliance detection method versus using pharmacokinetic criteria

Data from clinical trials present numerous problems for the data analyst. These include non-compliance with the prescribed dosing regimen and inaccurate recollection of dosing history by patients as well as mistakes in recording data. Several methods have been proposed to address these issues. One such technique by Lu et al. (Selecting reliable pharmacokinetic data for explanatory analyses of clinical trials in the presence of possible noncompliance. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn. 28:343-362 (2001)) identifies occasions in pharmacokinetic (PK) data where the preceding dosing history is likely to be unreliable. We used this method, implemented in the software program NONMEM (beta) VI, to clean a dataset containing indinavir (IDV) plasma concentrations from HIV-1 infected patients. The data was also cleaned by inspection in Microsoft Excel using clinical PK criteria. A one-compartment model with first order absorption and elimination was fit to both sets of cleaned data. IDV population PK parameters obtained from these analyses were similar to those reported previously. It is established that IDV nephrotoxicity is related to high IDV exposure. However, no relationships were found between any PK parameters and nephrotoxicity in the "compliance cleaned" dataset. In the "PK cleaned" dataset, the oral clearance and apparent volume were lower by 9.1% and 6.6%, respectively in patients with any type of nephrotoxicity and the maximum IDV concentration (C(max)) was 12.1% higher. In patients suffering from nephrolithiasis in particular, C(max) was 15.5% higher. Accordingly, the use of the non-compliance detection method did not improve the reliability of our dataset over the usual method of applying clinical criteria. In fact, analyses on the compliance-cleaned dataset missed some exposure-toxicity relationships. Thus, automated methods must be tested rigorously with 'real life' datasets, used with caution, and always in conjunction with clinical reasoning to avoid overlooking a signal in noisy data.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A review of nelfinavir for the treatment of HIV infection

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

Pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and efavirenz in antiretroviral-naive, human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects when administered alone or in combination with nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors

Pharmacokinetic studies were conducted with human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients receiving efavirenz, nelfinavir, or both agents at weeks 4 and 32. Reductions of 25% and 45% were observed in the mean nelfinavir area under the concentration-time curve and minimum concentration of the drug in serum, and there was a 31% more rapid half-life for patients receiving both drugs compared to patients receiving nelfinavir alone. There were no significant differences in efavirenz pharmacokinetics.

Indinavir Plasma Concentration and Adherence Score Are Codeterminant of Early Virologic Response in HIV-Infected Patients of the APROCO Cohort

To study the respective roles of indinavir concentrations and treatment adherence as predictors of early virologic response, we analyzed the patients of the APROCO cohort treated by indinavir 800 mg TID during the first 4 months. Minimum (Cmin), maximum (Cmax), and the ratio of the measured to expected concentrations (CR) were estimated for each patient at M4, from a population pharmacokinetic analysis of all data. The relationship among virologic success at M4 [plasma HIV RNA (VL) <500 copies/mL], baseline characteristics, estimated indinavir concentrations, and adherence score measured by a self-administered questionnaire, was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression. In the 216 studied patients, baseline median HIV RNA was 4.4 log10 copies/mL, and CD4 cell count was 309/mm. Virologic success was achieved in 195 (90%) patients; it was independently related to baseline viral load (OR = 0.524, CI 0.29-0.93; P = 0.03), antiretroviral treatment naive status (OR = 3.89, CI 1.29-11.76; P = 0.01), and indinavir Cmin (OR = 1.06, CI 1.02-1.10; P = 0.004) when adherence score was not included in the model, whereas full adherence was the only independent related factor when included in the model (OR = 8.8, 95% CI 2.85-27.3; P < 10). In the 168 fully adherent patients, virologic success was more frequent in patients with shorter duration of antiretrovirals at baseline (P = 0.03), lower baseline HIV RNA (P = 0.03), and higher indinavir CR (P < 10); the most discriminating Cmin cut-off was 194 ng/mL. Data on the relationship between indinavir plasma concentration and virologic success are therefore misleading without a concomitant assessment of adherence. These data suggest that any strategy of therapeutic drug monitoring must imply first a combined evaluation of plasma concentrations and adherence level and second an intervention target based on the results of both assessments.

Drug interactions with antiretrovirals

The recent development of new antiretroviral drugs, along with the evolution in clinical practice guidelines that include the recommendation of the use of three- to four-drug combination regimens for achieving optimal suppression of viral replication, has focused clinicians on the relevance of drug-drug interactions in the chronic care of HIV-infected individuals. However, the routine clinical management of drug interactions is complicated by our expanding knowledge of the physiologic mechanisms underlying pharmacokinetic interactions, particularly as they relate to drug transport and tissue distribution (eg, P-glycoprotein) and biotransformation (hepatic cytochrome p450 mono-oxygenase induction and inhibition). This review provides an updated summary of key drug interactions that have been reported since its initial publication.