Pharmacokinetic and safety evaluation of high-dose combinations of fosamprenavir and ritonavir

Pharmacokinetic interaction of vicriviroc with other antiretroviral agents: results from a series of fixed-sequence and parallel-group clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Vicriviroc is a next-generation antiretroviral compound that blocks HIV from entering uninfected cells by binding to the virus's cellular co-receptor chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5). A potent inhibitor of HIV infection of human cells both in vitro and in vivo, vicriviroc is in development for use in treatment-naïve HIV-1-infected individuals. These patients often receive antiretroviral therapy regimens that include a ritonavir-enhanced protease inhibitor. Such regimens have a high potential for drug-drug interactions because many of the antiretroviral agents inhibit or induce elements of drug elimination pathways, such as the hepatic cytochromes, which may alter drug concentrations and affect both safety and efficacy. The aim of this set of studies was to determine what, if any, dose adjustments or monitoring would be required to use vicriviroc in regimens containing the most common antiretroviral agents.

METHODS

Drug-drug interactions between vicriviroc and 11 other antiretroviral compounds were investigated in fixed-sequence or parallel-group clinical trials lasting 12-35 days. Fixed-sequence studies were conducted with the protease inhibitors atazanavir, darunavir, fosamprenavir, indinavir, nelfinavir, saquinavir and tipranavir. In these studies vicriviroc was administered with ritonavir for a fixed duration, followed by administration of vicriviroc with ritonavir plus the protease inhibitor. Parallel-group studies conducted with lopinavir, zidovudine/lamivudine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate randomized subjects to receive vicriviroc with or without the study drug. All subjects enrolled in the studies were healthy male and female adults.

STATISTICAL METHODS

The log-transformed data for vicriviroc primary pharmacokinetic parameters on appropriate days were statistically analysed using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) model extracting the effects due to treatment. Steady state was evaluated by an ANOVA model on trough concentrations using day and subject as class variables.

RESULTS

Vicriviroc exposure was not affected by the concurrently administered antiretroviral drugs in any clinically relevant manner, nor did vicriviroc have a clinically relevant effect on the exposure of other drugs. The drug combinations studied were safe and well tolerated, with most adverse events reported as mild to moderate. Aside from the known toxicities of the other antiretroviral drugs, no clinically relevant changes in blood chemistry, haematological parameters, ECGs or vital signs were associated with either vicriviroc or combination treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

No dose modification or monitoring of vicriviroc concentrations is necessary when vicriviroc is co-administered with any of the antiretroviral agents reviewed here. The lack of drug-drug interactions suggests that it will be possible to add vicriviroc at the single clinically prescribed dose level to various background regimens that include a boosted protease inhibitor, with all other drugs also prescribed at their standard doses.

Predictive value of pharmacokinetics-adjusted phenotypic susceptibility on response to ritonavir-enhanced protease inhibitors (PIs) in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects failing prior PI therapy

The activities of protease inhibitors in vivo may depend on plasma concentrations and viral susceptibility. This nonrandomized, open-label study evaluated the relationship of the inhibitory quotient (IQ [the ratio of drug exposure to viral phenotypic susceptibility]) to the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) viral load (VL) change for ritonavir-enhanced protease inhibitors (PIs). Subjects on PI-based regimens replaced their PIs with ritonavir-enhanced indinavir (IDV/r) 800/200 mg, fosamprenavir (FPV/r) 700/100 mg, or lopinavir (LPV/r) 400/200 mg twice daily. Pharmacokinetics were assessed at day 14; follow-up lasted 24 weeks. Associations between IQ and VL changes were examined. Fifty-three subjects enrolled, 12 on IDV/r, 33 on FPV/r, and 8 on LPV/r. Median changes (n-fold) (FC) of 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC(50)s) to the study PI were high. Median 2-week VL changes were -0.7, -0.1, and -1.0 log(10) for IDV/r, FPV/r, and LPV/r. With FPV/r, correlations between the IQ and the 2-week change in VL were significant (Spearman's r range, -0.39 to -0.50; P < or = 0.029). The strongest correlation with response to FPV/r was the IC(50) FC (r = 0.57; P = 0.001), which improved when only adherent subjects were included (r = 0.68; P = 0.001). In multivariable analyses of the FPV/r arm that included FC, one measure of the drug concentration, corresponding IQ, baseline VL, and CD4, the FC to FPV was the only significant predictor of VL decline (P < 0.001). In exploratory analyses of all arms, the area under the concentration-time curve IQ was correlated with the week 2 VL change (r = -0.72; P < 0.001). In conclusion, in PI-experienced subjects with highly resistant HIV-1, short-term VL responses to RTV-enhanced FPV/r correlated best with baseline susceptibility. The IQ improved correlation in analyses of all arms where a greater range of virologic responses was observed.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN/METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Pharmacokinetic interaction between fosamprenavir-ritonavir and rifabutin in healthy subjects

Rifabutin (RFB) is administered for treatment of tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium complex infection, including use for patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Increased systemic exposure to RFB and its equipotent active metabolite, 25-O-desacetyl-RFB (dAc-RFB), has been reported during concomitant administration of CYP3A4 inhibitors, including ritonavir (RTV), lopinavir, and amprenavir (APV); therefore, a reduction in the RFB dosage is recommended when it is coadministered with these protease inhibitors. Fosamprenavir (FPV), the phosphate ester prodrug of the HIV type 1 protease inhibitor APV, is administered either with or without RTV. A randomized, open-label, two-period, two-sequence, balanced, crossover drug interaction study was conducted with 22 healthy adult subjects to compare steady-state plasma RFB pharmacokinetic parameters during concomitant administration of FPV-RTV (700/100 mg twice a day [BID]) with a 75%-reduced RFB dose (150 mg every other day [QOD]) to the standard RFB regimen (300 mg once per day [QD]) by geometric least-squares mean ratios. Relative to results with RFB (300 mg QD), coadministration of dose-adjusted RFB with FPV-RTV resulted in an unchanged RFB area under the concentration-time curve for 0 to 48 h (AUC(0-48)) and a 14% decrease in the maximum concentration of drug in plasma (C(max)), whereas the AUC(0-48) and C(max) of dAc-RFB were increased by 11- and 6-fold, respectively, resulting in a 64% increase in the total antimycobacterial AUC(0-48). Relative to historical controls, the plasma APV AUC from 0 h to the end of the dosing interval (AUC(0-tau)) and C(max) were increased approximately 35%, and the concentration at the end of the dosing interval at steady state was unchanged following coadministration of RFB with FPV-RTV. The safety profile of the combination of RFB and FPV-RTV was consistent with previously described events with RFB or FPV-RTV alone. Based on the results of this study, a reduction in the RFB dose by > or =75% (to 150 mg QOD or three times per week) is recommended when it is coadministered with FPV-RTV (700/100 mg BID).

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.

Plasma amprenavir pharmacokinetics and tolerability following administration of 1,400 milligrams of fosamprenavir once daily in combination with either 100 or 200 milligrams of ritonavir in healthy volunteers

Once-daily (QD) fosamprenavir (FPV) at 1,400 mg boosted with low-dose ritonavir (RTV) at 200 mg is effective when it is used in combination regimens for the initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Whether a lower RTV boosting dose (i.e., 100 mg QD) could ensure sufficient amprenavir (APV) concentrations with improved safety/tolerability is unknown. This randomized, two 14-day-period, crossover pharmacokinetic study compared the steady-state plasma APV concentrations, safety, and tolerability of FPV at 1,400 mg QD boosted with either 100 mg or 200 mg of RTV QD in 36 healthy volunteers. Geometric least-square (GLS) mean ratios and the associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for plasma APV maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing period (AUC0-tau), and trough concentrations (Ctau) during each dosing period. Equivalence between regimens (90% CIs of GLS mean ratios, 0.80 to 1.25) was observed for the plasma APV AUC0-tau (GLS mean ratio, 0.90 [90% CI, 0.84 to 0.96]) and Cmax (0.97 [90% CI, 0.91 to 1.04]). The APV Ctau was 38% lower with RTV at 100 mg QD than with RTV at 200 mg QD (GLS mean ratio, 0.62 [90% CI, 0.55 to 0.69]) but remained sixfold higher than the protein-corrected 50% inhibitory concentration for wild-type virus, with the lowest APV Ctau observed during the 100-mg QD period being nearly threefold higher. The GLS mean APV Ctau was 2.5 times higher than the historical Ctau for unboosted FPV at 1,400 mg twice daily. Fewer clinical adverse drug events and smaller increases in triglyceride levels were observed with the RTV 100-mg QD regimen. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of FPV at 1,400 mg QD boosted by RTV at 100 mg QD are now under way with antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients.