Indinavir and rifabutin drug interactions in healthy volunteers

Lack of CYP3A4 protein induction despite mRNA induction in primary hepatocytes exposed to rifabutin as a possible explanation for its low interaction risk in vivo

Rifampicin is a strong inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP3A4) and P-glycoprotein (P-gp/ABCB1), leading to profound drug-drug interactions. In contrast, the chemically related rifabutin does not show such pronounced induction properties in vivo. The aim of our study was to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the different induction potentials of rifampicin and rifabutin in primary human hepatocytes and to analyze the mechanism of potential differences. Therefore, we evaluated CYP3A4/ABCB1 mRNA expression (polymerase chain reaction), CYP3A4/P-gp protein expression (immunoaffinity-liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, IA-LC-MS/MS), CYP3A4 activity (testosterone hydroxylation), and considered intracellular drug uptake after treatment with increasing rifamycin concentrations (0.01-10 µM). Furthermore, rifamycin effects on the protein levels of CYP2C8, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19 were analyzed (IA-LC-MS/MS). Mechanistic analysis included the evaluation of possible suicide CYP3A4 inhibition (IC50 shift assay) and drug impact on translational efficiency (cell-free luminescence assays). Rifabutin accumulated 6- to 15-fold higher in hepatocytes than rifampicin, but induced CYP3A4 mRNA comparably to rifampicin (e. g. rifampicin 61-fold vs. rifabutin 44-fold, 72 h). While rifampicin for example enhanced protein (10 µM: 21-fold) and activity levels considerably (53-fold), rifabutin only slightly increased CYP3A4 protein expression (10 µM: 3.3-fold) or activity (11-fold) compared to rifampicin after 72 h. Both rifamycins similarly influenced expression of other eliminating proteins. A potential CYP3A4 suicide inhibition by a specific rifabutin metabolite or disruption of ribosome function were excluded experimentally. In conclusion, the lack of protein enhancement, could explain rifabutin's weaker induction-related drug-drug interaction risk in vivo.

Comprehensive in vitro analysis evaluating the variable drug-drug interaction risk of rifampicin compared to rifabutin

Compared to rifampicin (600 mg/day), standard doses of rifabutin (300 mg/day) have a lower risk of drug-drug interactions due to induction of cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) or P-glycoprotein (Pgp/ABCB1) mediated by the pregnane X receptor (PXR). However, clinical comparisons with equal rifamycin doses or in vitro experiments respecting actual intracellular concentrations are lacking. Thus, the genuine pharmacological differences and the potential molecular mechanisms of the discordant perpetrator effects are unknown. Consequently, the cellular uptake kinetics (mass spectrometry), PXR activation (luciferase reporter gene assays), and impact on CYP3A4 and Pgp/ABCB1 expression and activity (polymerase chain reaction, enzymatic assays, flow cytometry) were evaluated in LS180 cells after treatment with different rifampicin or rifabutin concentrations for variable exposure times and eventually normalized to actual intracellular concentrations. In addition, inhibitory effects on CYP3A4 and Pgp activities were investigated. While rifampicin is poorly taken up by LS180 cells, it strongly activates PXR and leads to enhanced expression and activity of CYP3A4 and Pgp. In contrast, rifabutin is a significantly less potent and less efficient PXR activator and gene inducer, despite sixfold to eightfold higher intracellular accumulation. Finally, rifabutin is a potent inhibitor of Pgp (IC50 = 0.3 µM) compared to rifampicin (IC50 = 12.9 µM). Together, rifampicin and rifabutin significantly differ by their effects on the regulation and function of CYP3A4 and Pgp, even when controlled for intracellular concentrations. Rifabutin's concurrent Pgp inhibitory action might partly compensate the inducing effects, explaining its weaker clinical perpetrator characteristics.

Pharmacology, Dosing, and Side Effects of Rifabutin as a Possible Therapy for Antibiotic-Resistant Acinetobacter Infections

Acinetobacter baumannii has among the highest rates of antibiotic resistance encountered in hospitals. New therapies are critically needed. We found that rifabutin has previously unrecognized hyperactivity against most strains of A. baumannii. Here we review the pharmacology and adverse effects of rifabutin to inform potential oral dosing strategies in patients with A. baumannii infections. Rifabutin demonstrates dose-dependent increases in blood levels up to 900 mg per day, but plateaus thereafter. Furthermore, rifabutin induces its own metabolism after prolonged dosing, lowering its blood levels. Pending future development of an intravenous formulation, a rifabutin oral dose of 900-1200 mg per day for 1 week is a rational choice for adjunctive therapy of A. baumannii infections. This dosage maximizes AUC₂₄ to drive efficacy while simultaneously minimizing toxicity. Randomized controlled trials will be needed to definitively establish the safety and efficacy of rifabutin to treat A. baumannii infections.

Exceptional Risk: Healthy Volunteers' Perceptions of HIV/AIDS Clinical Trials

As with all early-stage testing of investigational drugs, clinical trials targeting HIV/AIDS can pose unknown risks to research subjects. Unlike sick participants seeking a therapeutic benefit, the motivations and barriers for healthy volunteers are more complex and understudied. Drawing on interviews and clinical trial data from 178 healthy volunteers, we examine how they perceive HIV/AIDS studies in the early stages of testing. A subset of healthy volunteers see phase I HIV/AIDS studies as particularly risky for reasons ranging from fear of catching the disease or having long-lasting and uncomfortable side effects to inexplicable fears that they cannot even articulate. Some participants have had past negative experiences in such trials that inform these views, but others cite information from staff and other participants as influential. Healthy volunteers' general fears concerning AIDS also shape their views of participating in phase I HIV/AIDS clinical trials.

Bioequivalence of indinavir capsules in healthy volunteers

Background: Indinavir, one component in the HAART regimen, plays an important role in the current treatment of HIV-infection and AIDS. Availability and accessibility of qualified generic indinavir to patients may be the keys for the success of treatment. Objective: Compare the rate and extent of absorption of a generic indinavir formulation with those of an original formulation in healthy Thai volunteers. Method: A randomized, two-period, two-treatment, two-sequence, crossover study with a two-week washout period was performed. A single dose of 2×400 mg indinavir capsules of each formulation was administered to 24 volunteers after an overnight fast. Indinavir plasma concentrations up to 10 hours postdose were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography. Relevant pharmacokinetic parameters were derived and tested for statistically significant differences using ANOVA and criteria of bioequivalence determination were applied. Results: No statistically significant differences were demonstrated for pharmacokinetic parameters including Cmax, Tmax, AUC0-t, and AUC0-∞ derived from the two formulations (n=23, p>0.05). The criteria of bioequivalence determination i.e., the 90% confidence intervals on the mean ratio (generic/original formulation) of natural logarithmtransformed values of Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 86.3-106.5%, 94.0-108.5%, and 93.9-108.5%, respectively. Conclusion: As the mean ratios of Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ of the generic and original formulations were entirely within the guideline range of bioequivalence (80.0-125.0%), the two formulations were considered bioequivalent in terms of rate and extent of absorption.

Critical Review: What Dose of Rifabutin Is Recommended With Antiretroviral Therapy?

Since the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy to successfully treat HIV infection, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) have become a significant problem as many antiretrovirals (ARVs) are metabolized in the liver. Antituberculous therapy traditionally includes rifamycins, particularly rifampicin. Rifabutin (RBT) has shown similar efficacy as rifampicin but induces CYP3A4 to a lesser degree and is less likely to have DDIs with ARVs. We identified 14 DDI pharmacokinetic studies on HIV monoinfected and HIV-tuberculosis coinfected individuals, and the remaining studies were healthy volunteer studies. Although RBT may be coadministered with most nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, identifying the optimal dose with ritonavir-boosted or cobicistat-boosted protease inhibitors is challenging because of concern about adverse effects with increased RBT exposure. Limited healthy volunteer studies on other ARV drug classes and RBT suggest that dose modification may be unnecessary. The paucity of data assessing clinical tuberculosis endpoints concurrently with RBT and ARV pharmacokinetics limits evidence-based recommendations on the optimal dose of RBT within available ARV drug classes.

Drug-Drug Interactions and HIV Therapy: What Should Pharmacists Know?

Drug-interaction issues continue to present a major dilemma for the clinician caring for complex patients such as those infected with HIV. The inherent possibility of a drug interaction is magnified by the multitude of drugs being administered in highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). In addition, other classes of medications are used to alleviate side effects, reduce toxicities associated with HAART, or treat concomitant diseases. The modification of one drug by another substance or drug-drug interaction is the main focus of this article. Drug-drug interactions may result in toxicity, treatment failure, or loss of effectiveness and can significantly affect a patient’s clinical outcome. An understanding of the fundamental mechanisms of HIV drug-drug interactions may allow for the early detection or avoidance of troublesome regimens and prudent management if they develop. Although HIV drug interactions are usually thought of as detrimental, resulting in a loss of therapeutic effect or toxicity, some drug interactions such as ritonavir boosted protease inhibitor–based antiretroviral treatments are beneficial and are commonly used in clinical practice. Therefore, pharmacists need to understand drug interaction mechanisms, remember key drug interactions, and vigilantly monitor patients for potential complications.

Population pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction pooled analysis of existing data for rifabutin and HIV PIs

OBJECTIVES

Extensive but fragmented data from existing studies were used to describe the drug-drug interaction between rifabutin and HIV PIs and predict doses achieving recommended therapeutic exposure for rifabutin in patients with HIV-associated TB, with concurrently administered PIs.

METHODS

Individual-level data from 13 published studies were pooled and a population analysis approach was used to develop a pharmacokinetic model for rifabutin, its main active metabolite 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin (des-rifabutin) and drug-drug interaction with PIs in healthy volunteers and patients who had HIV and TB (TB/HIV).

RESULTS

Key parameters of rifabutin affected by drug-drug interaction in TB/HIV were clearance to routes other than des-rifabutin (reduced by 76%-100%), formation of the metabolite (increased by 224% in patients), volume of distribution (increased by 606%) and distribution to the peripheral compartment (reduced by 47%). For des-rifabutin, clearance was reduced by 35%-76% and volume of distribution increased by 67%-240% in TB/HIV. These changes resulted in overall increased exposure to rifabutin in TB/HIV patients by 210% because of the effects of PIs and 280% with ritonavir-boosted PIs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given together with non-boosted or ritonavir-boosted PIs, rifabutin at 150 mg once daily results in similar or higher exposure compared with rifabutin at 300 mg once daily without concomitant PIs and may achieve peak concentrations within an acceptable therapeutic range. Although 300 mg of rifabutin every 3 days with boosted PI achieves an average equivalent exposure, intermittent doses of rifamycins are not supported by current guidelines.

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.

Pharmacokinetics of rifabutin in Japanese HIV-infected patients with or without antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVE

Based on drug-drug interaction, dose reduction of rifabutin is recommended when co-administered with HIV protease inhibitors for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated mycobacterial infection. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics of rifabutin administered at 300 mg/day alone to that at 150 mg every other day combined with lopinavir-ritonavir in Japanese patients with HIV/mycobacterium co-infection.

METHODS

Plasma concentrations of rifabutin and its biologically active metabolite, 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin were measured in 16 cases with HIV-mycobacterial coinfection. Nine were treated with 300 mg/day rifabutin and 7 with 150 mg rifabutin every other day combined with lopinavir-ritonavir antiretroviral therapy (ART). Samples were collected at a median of 15 days (range, 5-63) of rifabutin use.

RESULTS

The mean Cmax and AUC0-24 of rifabutin in patients on rifabutin 150 mg every other day were 36% and 26% lower than on 300 mg/day rifabutin, while the mean Cmax and AUC0-24 of 25-O-desacetyl rifabutin were 186% and 152% higher, respectively. The plasma concentrations of rifabutin plus its metabolite were similar between the groups within the first 24 hours, but it remained low during subsequent 24 to 48 hours under rifabutin 150 mg alternate day dosing.

CONCLUSION

Rifabutin dose of 150 mg every other day combined with lopinavir-ritonavir seems to be associated with lower exposure to rifabutin and its metabolite compared with rifabutin 300 mg/day alone in Japanese patients. Further studies are needed to establish the optimal rifabutin dose during ART. The results highlight the importance of monitoring rifabutin plasma concentration during ART.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN-CTR (https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr.cgi?function=search&action=input&language=E) UMIN000001102.

Adverse events in healthy individuals and MDR-TB contacts treated with anti-tuberculosis drugs potentially effective for preventing development of MDR-TB: a systematic review

A recent systematic review concluded that there is insufficient evidence on the effectiveness to support or reject preventive therapy for treatment of contacts of patients with multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Whether preventive therapy is favorable depends both on the effectiveness and the adverse events of the drugs used. We performed a systematic review to assess adverse events in healthy individuals and MDR-TB contacts treated with anti-tuberculosis drugs potentially effective for preventing development of MDR-TB. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases (August 2011). Record selection, data extraction, and study quality assessment were done in duplicate. The quality of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Of 6,901 identified references, 20 studies were eligible. Among the 16 studies in healthy volunteers (a total of 87 persons on either levofloxacin, moxifloxacin, ofloxacin, or rifabutin, mostly for 1 week), serious adverse events and treatment discontinuation due to adverse events were rare (<1 and <5%, respectively), but mild adverse events frequently occurred. Due to small sample sizes of the levofloxacin and ofloxacin studies an increased frequency of mild adverse events compared to placebo could not be demonstrated or excluded. For moxifloxacin the comparative results were inconsistent. In four studies describing preventive therapy of MDR-TB contacts, therapy was stopped for 58–100% of the included persons because of the occurrence of adverse events ranging from mild adverse events such as nausea and dizziness to serious events requiring treatment. The quality of the evidence was very low. Although the number of publications and quality of evidence are low, the available evidence suggests that shortly after starting treatment the occurrence of serious adverse events is rare. Mild adverse events occur more frequently and may be of importance because these may provoke treatment interruption.

Effect of rifampin and rifabutin on the pharmacokinetics of lersivirine and effect of lersivirine on the pharmacokinetics of rifabutin and 25-O-desacetyl-rifabutin in healthy subjects

Lersivirine is a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) with a unique resistance profile exhibiting potent antiviral activity against wild-type HIV and several clinically relevant NNRTI-resistant strains. Lersivirine, a weak inducer of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme CYP3A4, is metabolized by CYP3A4 and UDP glucuronosyltransferase 2B7 (UGT2B7). Two open, randomized, two-way (study 1; study A5271008) or three-way (study 2; study A5271043) crossover phase I studies were carried out under steady-state conditions in healthy subjects. Study 1 (n = 17) investigated the effect of oral rifampin on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of lersivirine. Study 2 (n = 18) investigated the effect of oral rifabutin on the PKs of lersivirine and the effect of lersivirine on the PKs of rifabutin and its active metabolite, 25-O-desacetyl-rifabutin. Coadministration with rifampin decreased the profile of the lersivirine area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h postdose (AUC(24)), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), and plasma concentration observed at 24 h postdose (C(24)) by 85% (90% confidence interval [CI], 83, 87), 83% (90% CI, 79, 85), and 92% (90% CI, 89, 94), respectively, versus the values for lersivirine alone. Coadministration with rifabutin decreased the lersivirine AUC(24), C(max), and C(24) by 34% (90% CI, 29, 39), 25% (90% CI, 16, 33), and 58% (90% CI, 52, 64), respectively, compared with the values for lersivirine alone. Neither the rifabutin concentration profile nor overall exposure was affected following coadministration with lersivirine. Lersivirine and rifabutin reduced the 25-O-desacetyl-rifabutin AUC(24) by 27% (90% CI, 21, 32) and C(max) by 27% (90% CI, 19, 34). Lersivirine should not be coadministered with rifampin, which is a potent inducer of CYP3A4, UGT2B7, and P-glycoprotein activity and thus substantially lowers lersivirine exposure. No dose adjustment of rifabutin is necessary in the presence of lersivirine; an upward dose adjustment of lersivirine may be warranted when it is coadministered with rifabutin.

Lack of indinavir effects on methadone disposition despite inhibition of hepatic and intestinal cytochrome P4503A (CYP3A)

BACKGROUND

Methadone disposition and pharmacodynamics are highly susceptible to interactions with antiretroviral drugs. Methadone clearance and drug interactions have been attributed to cytochrome P4503A4 (CYP3A4), but actual mechanisms are unknown. Drug interactions can be clinically and mechanistically informative. This investigation assessed effects of the protease inhibitor indinavir on methadone pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, hepatic and intestinal CYP3A4/5 activity (using alfentanil), and intestinal transporter activity (using fexofenadine).

METHODS

Twelve healthy volunteers underwent a sequential crossover. On three consecutive days they received oral alfentanil plus fexofenadine, intravenous alfentanil, and intravenous plus oral (deuterium-labeled) methadone. This was repeated after 2 weeks of indinavir. Plasma and urine analytes were measured by mass spectrometry. Opioid effects were measured by miosis.

RESULTS

Indinavir significantly inhibited hepatic and first-pass CYP3A activity. Intravenous alfentanil systemic clearance and hepatic extraction were reduced to 40-50% of control, apparent oral clearance to 30% of control, and intestinal extraction decreased by half, indicating 50% and 70% inhibition of hepatic and first-pass CYP3A activity. Indinavir increased fexofenadine area under the plasma concentration-time curve 3-fold, suggesting significant P-glycoprotein inhibition. Indinavir had no significant effects on methadone plasma concentrations, methadone N-demethylation, systemic or apparent oral clearance, renal clearance, hepatic extraction or clearance, or bioavailability. Methadone plasma concentration-effect relationships were unaffected by indinavir.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite significant inhibition of hepatic and intestinal CYP3A activity, indinavir had no effect on methadone N-demethylation and clearance, suggesting little or no role for CYP3A in clinical disposition of single-dose methadone. Inhibition of gastrointestinal transporter activity had no influence of methadone bioavailability.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions of antimicrobial drugs: a systematic review on oxazolidinones, rifamycines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and Beta-lactams

Like any other drug, antimicrobial drugs are prone to pharmacokinetic drug interactions. These drug interactions are a major concern in clinical practice as they may have an effect on efficacy and toxicity. This article provides an overview of all published pharmacokinetic studies on drug interactions of the commonly prescribed antimicrobial drugs oxazolidinones, rifamycines, macrolides, fluoroquinolones, and beta-lactams, focusing on systematic research. We describe drug-food and drug-drug interaction studies in humans, affecting antimicrobial drugs as well as concomitantly administered drugs. Since knowledge about mechanisms is of paramount importance for adequate management of drug interactions, the most plausible underlying mechanism of the drug interaction is provided when available. This overview can be used in daily practice to support the management of pharmacokinetic drug interactions of antimicrobial drugs.

Determination of rifabutin dosing regimen when administered in combination with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir

OBJECTIVES

Treatment of HIV/tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients is complex due to drug-drug interactions for these chronic diseases. This study evaluates an intermittent dosing regimen for rifabutin when it is co-administered with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A randomized, multiple-dose, parallel-group study was conducted in healthy subjects and these subjects received a daily dose of rifabutin 150 mg (n = 15, reference group) or a twice weekly dose with atazanavir 300 mg/ritonavir 100 mg once daily (n = 18, test group). Serial blood samples were collected at steady-state for pharmacokinetic analysis. Modelling and simulation techniques were utilized, integrating data across several healthy subject studies. This study is known as Study AI424-360 and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00646776.

RESULTS

The pharmacokinetic parameters (C(max), AUC(24avg) and C(min)) for rifabutin (149%, 48% and 40% increase, respectively) and 25-O-desacteyl rifabutin (6.77-, 9.90- and 10.45-fold increases, respectively) were both increased when rifabutin was co-administered with atazanavir/ritonavir than rifabutin 150 mg once daily alone. The study was stopped because subjects experienced more severe declines in neutrophil counts when rifabutin was given with atazanavir/ritonavir than alone. A post-hoc simulation analysis showed that when rifabutin 150 mg was given three times weekly with atazanavir/ritonavir, the average daily exposure of rifabutin was comparable to rifabutin 300 mg once daily, a dose necessary for reducing rifamycin resistance in HIV/TB co-infected patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits to HIV/TB co-infected patients receiving rifabutin 150 mg three times weekly or every other day may outweigh the risks of neutropenia observed here in non-HIV-infected subjects, provided that patients on combination therapy will be closely monitored for safety and tolerability.

Lack of a clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic effect of rifabutin on raltegravir: in vitro/in vivo correlation

Raltegravir is an HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor with potent activity against HIV-1. A prior investigation of raltegravir coadministered with rifampin demonstrated a decrease in plasma concentrations of raltegravir likely secondary to induction of UGT1A1, the enzyme primarily responsible for the metabolism of raltegravir. Little is known regarding the induction of UGT1A1 by rifabutin, an alternate rifamycin. In vitro characterization of the induction potency of rifampin and rifabutin on UGT1A1 was performed. In vitro studies indicate that rifabutin is a less potent inducer of UGT1A1 messenger RNA expression than is rifampin. A fixed-sequence, 2-period, clinical crossover study was conducted to assess the effect of rifabutin on plasma levels of raltegravir: period 1, 400 mg of raltegravir every 12 hours for 4 days; period 2, 400 mg of raltegravir every 12 hours and 300 mg of rifabutin once daily for 14 days. Geometric mean ratio (GMR) (coadministration of rifabutin and raltegravir vs raltegravir alone) of raltegravir area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours post dose (AUC(0-12h)) and the 90% confidence interval (CI) was 1.19 (0.86-1.63); GMR of concentration at 12 hours (C(12h)) and 90% CI was 0.80 (0.68-0.94); and GMR of time to maximal concentration (C(max)) and 90% CI was 1.39 (0.87-2.21). Overall, coadministration of rifabutin did not alter raltegravir pharmacokinetics to a clinically meaningful degree.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir and rifabutin coadministered in HIV-negative healthy volunteers

The drug-drug interaction between rifabutin (RFB) and darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) was examined in a randomized, three-way crossover study of HIV-negative healthy volunteers who received DRV/r 600/100 mg twice a day (BID) (treatment A), RFB 300 mg once a day (QD) (treatment B), and DRV/r 600/100 mg BID plus RFB 150 mg every other day (QOD) (treatment C). The sequence of treatments was randomized, and each treatment period lasted 12 days. Full pharmacokinetic profiles were determined for DRV, ritonavir, and RFB and its active metabolite, 25-O-desacetylrifabutin (desRFB), on day 13. The DRV and ritonavir areas under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to 12 h (AUC(12h)) increased by 57% and 66%, respectively, in the presence of RFB. The RFB exposure was comparable between treatment with RFB QD alone (treatment B) and treatment with DRV/r plus RFB QOD (treatment C); however, based on least-square means ratios, the minimum plasma concentration (C(min)) increased by 64% and the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) decreased by 28%, respectively. The exposure (AUC within the dosage interval and at steady state [AUC(τ)]) to desRFB was considerably increased (by 881%) following treatment with DRV/r/RFB. The exposure to the parent drug plus the metabolite increased 1.6-fold in the presence of DRV/r. Adverse events (AEs) were more commonly reported during combined treatment (83% versus 44% for RFB and 28% for DRV/r); similarly, grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 17% versus 11% and 0%, respectively, of volunteers. Eighteen of 27 volunteers (66.7%) prematurely discontinued the trial; all volunteers discontinuing for safety reasons (n = 9) did so during RFB treatment phases. These results suggest that DRV/r may be coadministered with RFB with a dose adjustment of RFB to 150 mg QOD and increased monitoring for RFB-related AEs. Based on the overall safety profile of DRV/r, no dose adjustment of DRV/r is considered to be warranted. Given the safety profile seen with the combination of RFB with a boosted protease inhibitor in this and other studies, it is not recommended to conduct further studies with this combination in healthy volunteers.

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).

Indinavir/ritonavir remains an important component of HAART for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, particularly in resource-limited settings

For over a decade, indinavir has been approved for the treatment of HIV/AIDS; however, following the introduction of new protease inhibitors (PIs) with improved safety and pharmacologic profiles, its use in developed countries has become almost obsolete. In contrast, in resource-limited settings where the majority of people living with HIV/AIDS reside, indinavir is part of the most affordable PI-based highly active antiretroviral treatment regimen. A major drawback of indinavir use is renal toxicity, but low-dose indinavir plus ritonavir (400/100 mg) twice daily is both efficacious and tolerable. Similar low dosing levels in children have also proven successful, but data in pregnant women remains limited. Due to its low cost and proven efficacy indinavir remains a key component of HIV/AIDS treatment in resource-limited settings.

Drug–drug interactions and tolerance in combining antituberculosis and antiretroviral therapy

Worldwide, tuberculosis (TB) is one of the most important infectious diseases in subjects with HIV infection. Although effective therapy is available for both conditions, there are major problems in the concurrent treatment of HIV and TB co-infection. In this article the knowledge available on drug-drug interactions between anti-HIV and anti-TB compounds is analysed, particularly with regard to pharmacological interactions secondary to interference with cytochrome P450 enzymes. Within the same setting, facts and possible interpretations of the problems encountered in terms of tolerance and safety of the concurrent treatment of TB and HIV are also reviewed. Current guidelines, as well as additional possible strategies to be adopted in this particular co-morbidity setting are discussed.