Pharmacotherapeutic management of HIV in transplant patients

INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, an increasing number of people living with HIV (PLWH) have undergone solid-organ and hematopoietic cell transplantation as a treatment of end-stage organ and hematological diseases, respectively. Although transplant outcomes are more than satisfactory, transplantation in PLWH is still challenging for clinicians because of concerns regarding potentially higher rates of infective complications, higher risks of allograft rejection, and drug-drug interactions between antiretroviral drugs and immunosuppressive agents.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of transplantation in PLWH, with focus on the management of combination antiretroviral therapy in this population.

EXPERT OPINION

Solid-organ and hematopoietic cell transplantations should be proposed without any reservation to all PLWH who may benefit from them. Particular attention should be paid to possible drug-drug interactions between antiretrovirals and immunosuppressive agents; moreover, when feasible, integrase strand transfer inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimens should be preferred to protease and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Considering the worse prognosis in HIV/hepatitis C virus (HCV) transplant recipients, treatment of HCV with new direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) represents a key issue in the management of this population. However, the timing of treatment (before or early after transplant) should be individualized by considering short-term prognosis, access to transplant, and comorbidities.

Impact of Protease Inhibitor-Based Anti-Retroviral Therapy on Outcomes for HIV+ Kidney Transplant Recipients

Excellent outcomes have been demonstrated among select HIV-positive kidney transplant (KT) recipients with well-controlled infection, but to date, no national study has explored outcomes among HIV+ KT recipients by antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen. Intercontinental Marketing Services (IMS) pharmacy fills (1/1/01-10/1/12) were linked with Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) data. A total of 332 recipients with pre- and posttransplantation fills were characterized by ART at the time of transplantation as protease inhibitor (PI) or non-PI-based ART (88 PI vs. 244 non-PI). Cox proportional hazards models were adjusted for recipient and donor characteristics. Comparing recipients by ART regimen, there were no significant differences in age, race, or HCV status. Recipients on PI-based regimens were significantly more likely to have an Estimated Post Transplant Survival (EPTS) score of >20% (70.9% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.02) than those on non-PI regimens. On adjusted analyses, PI-based regimens were associated with a 1.8-fold increased risk of allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.77, p = 0.003), with the greatest risk observed in the first posttransplantation year (aHR 4.48, 95% CI 1.75-11.48, p = 0.002), and a 1.9-fold increased risk of death as compared to non-PI regimens (aHR 1.91, 95% CI 1.02-3.59, p = 0.05). These results suggest that whenever possible, recipients should be converted to a non-PI regimen prior to kidney transplantation.

Cobicistat Versus Ritonavir: Similar Pharmacokinetic Enhancers But Some Important Differences

OBJECTIVE

To describe properties of cobicistat and ritonavir; compare boosting data with atazanavir, darunavir, and elvitegravir; and summarize antiretroviral and comedication interaction studies, with a focus on similarities and differences between ritonavir and cobicistat. Considerations when switching from one booster to another are discussed.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of MEDLINE was performed (1985 to April 2017) using the following search terms: cobicistat, ritonavir, pharmacokinetic, drug interactions, booster, pharmacokinetic enhancer, HIV, antiretrovirals. Abstracts from conferences, article bibliographies, and product monographs were reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language studies or those conducted in humans were considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Similar exposures of elvitegravir, darunavir, and atazanavir are achieved when combined with cobicistat or ritonavir. Cobicistat may not be as potent a CYP3A4 inhibitor as ritonavir in the presence of a concomitant inducer. Ritonavir induces CYP1A2, 2B6, 2C9, 2C19, and uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase, whereas cobicistat does not. Therefore, recommendations for cobicistat with comedications that are extrapolated from studies using ritonavir may not be valid. Pharmacokinetic properties of the boosted antiretroviral can also affect interaction outcome with comedications. Problems can arise when switching patients from ritonavir to cobicistat regimens, particularly with medications that have a narrow therapeutic index such as warfarin.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessing and managing potential interactions with ritonavir- or cobicistat-based regimens, clinicians need to be aware of important differences and distinctions between these agents. This is especially important for patients with multiple comorbidities and concomitant medications. Additional monitoring or medication dose adjustments may be needed when switching from one booster to another.