Clinical Impact of Double Protease Inhibitor Boosting with Lopinavir/Ritonavir and Amprenavir as Part of Salvage Antiretroviral Therapy

Outcomes of patients on dual-boosted PI regimens: experience of the Swiss HIV cohort study

Dual-boosted protease inhibitors (DBPI) are an option for salvage therapy for HIV-1 resistant patients. Patients receiving a DBPI in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study between January1996 and March 2007 were studied. Outcomes of interest were viral suppression at 24 weeks. 295 patients (72.5%) were on DBPI for over 6 months. The median duration was 2.2 years. Of 287 patients who had HIV-RNA >400 copies/ml at the start of the regimen, 184 (64.1%) were ever suppressed while on DBPI and 156 (54.4%) were suppressed within 24 weeks. The median time to suppression was 101 days (95% confidence interval 90-125 days). The median number of past regimens was 6 (IQR, 3-8). The main reasons for discontinuing the regimen were patient's wish (48.3%), treatment failure (22.5%), and toxicity (15.8%). Acquisition of HIV through intravenous drug use and the use of lopinavir in combination with saquinavir or atazanavir were associated with an increased likelihood of suppression within 6 months. Patients on DBPI are heavily treatment experienced. Viral suppression within 6 months was achieved in more than half of the patients. There may be a place for DBPI regimens in settings where more expensive alternates are not available.

Effectiveness of boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens in HIV type 1-infected patients who experienced virological failure with NNRTI-based antiretroviral therapy in a resource-limited setting

A number of patients have experienced treatment failure while receiving non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART), particularly in resource-limited countries. The need remains for clinical data on protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimens in these patients. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among HIV-1-infected patients who had failed NNRTI-based regimens, were naive to protease inhibitors (PIs), and subsequently initiated a salvage PI-based regimen between January 2004 and December 2006. The study period ended on 30 December 2007. One hundred and forty patients received a single-boosted PI +/- optimized background regimen (OBR) and 64 received double-boosted PIs. The median (IQR) duration of follow-up was 19 (13-29) months. The overall virological failure rate at 24 months was 15.2%. No statistically significant difference was detected between the two regimen groups (single-boosted PI +/- OBR 16.4% vs. double-boosted PIs 12.5%, log rank p = 0.818). At the end of the study, the median (IQR) change in CD4 cell counts for patients in the double-boosted PI group was higher than for patients in the single-boosted PI +/- OBR group [149 (53-322) vs. 105 (23-199), respectively, p = 0.012]. Patients receiving double-boosted PI regimens displayed a higher frequency of hypertriglyceridemia than those patients who received a single boosted PI +/- OBR (31% vs. 11%, respectively, p = 0.001). Boosted PI-based regimens showed acceptable virological outcomes among patients who had failed NNRTI-based ART. In the subgroup analysis, patients who received double-boosted PIs demonstrated a superior immunological response but not better virological outcomes compared to the single-boosted PI +/- OBR group.

Randomized study of dual versus single ritonavir-enhanced protease inhibitors for protease inhibitor-experienced patients with HIV

PURPOSE

To compare activity and safety of a regimen containing lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) + fosamprenavir (FPV) to regimens with LPV/r or FPV + r and to test the hypothesis that a ritonavir-enhanced dual protease inhibitor (PI) regimen has better antiviral activity.

METHOD

This study was a multicenter, open-label, randomized study. HIV-infected adults with prior PI failure were selectively randomized based on prior PI experience to either LPV/r, FPV + r, or LPV/r + FPV. All patients received tenofovir DF and 1 to 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar across arms. Study enrollment and follow-up were stopped early (N = 56) because pharmacokinetic analyses showed significantly lower LPV and FPV exposures in the dual-PI arm. At Week 24, proportions achieving >1 log10 decline in HIV RNA or <50 copies/mL in the dual-PI versus single-PI arms combined were 75% vs. 61% in intent-to-treat (ITT, p = .17) and 100% vs. 64% in as-treated (AT) analyses (p = .02), respectively. Median CD4+ T cell/mm3 increases were 81 vs. 41 (ITT, p = .4) and 114 vs. 43 (AT, p = .08), respectively. Clinical events and toxicity rates were not different between arms.

CONCLUSION

The trial was unable to show a difference between dual versus single PIs in ITT analyses but favored dual PIs in AT analyses.

Virologic efficacy of boosted double versus boosted single protease inhibitor therapy

OBJECTIVE

Although regimens containing two protease inhibitor (PI) together with ritonavir boosting are used with the aim of improving virologic response to salvage therapy, there is little evidence to support or reject this approach. We compared the probability of attaining an undetectable HIV RNA level after using either boosted double or boosted single PI regimens.

DESIGN

Retrospective clinical cohort.

METHODS

PI-experienced subjects in a Northern California-based database who initiated either a boosted single or boosted double PI salvage therapy regimen were analysed. Traditional multivariable regression and marginal structural model analyses were used to compare the effects of the two regimens on virologic suppression 12-36 weeks after initiation of salvage therapy, controlling for confounding by baseline HIV RNA level, CD4 lymphocyte count, treatment history, drug resistance, and multiple characteristics of the salvage regimen.

RESULTS

Fifty-one percent of boosted single PI regimens (n=805) and 51.6% of boosted double PI regimens (n=183) achieved a plasma HIV RNA level of <75 copies/ml at week 12-36. In models including multiple potentially confounding variables, estimates of the relative odds of suppression on boosted double versus boosted single PI regimens ranged from 1.17 (95% CI, 0.54-2.55) to 1.33 (95% CI, 0.82-2.14).

CONCLUSIONS

We were not able to reject the null hypothesis that boosted double versus boosted single PI regimens, resulted in equivalent probabilities of virologic success.

Lopinavir plus ritonavir: a novel protease inhibitor combination for HIV infections

Lopinavir is a protease inhibitor (PI) for the treatment of HIV infection that was specifically designed to overcome the shortcomings of earlier agents in this class. It is the only PI coformulated with ritonavir, whose pharmacological boosting effect results in a highly potent, well-tolerated, clinically effective antiretroviral agent with a high genetic barrier to resistance. Lopinavir/ritonavir is a recommended first-line option for antiretroviral-naive patients initiating PI-based therapy, and has an equally important role in the management of treatment-experienced individuals. Its favorable pharmacological and clinical characteristics have recently prompted investigators to explore its potential novel applications in HIV monotherapy and double-boosted regimens.

Role of efflux pumps and metabolising enzymes in drug delivery

The impact of efflux pumps and metabolic enzymes on the therapeutic activity of various drugs has been well established. The presence of efflux pumps on various tissues and tumours has been shown to regulate the intracellular concentration needed to achieve therapeutic activity. The notable members of efflux proteins include P-glycoprotein, multi-drug resistance protein and breast cancer resistance protein. These efflux pumps play a pivotal role not only in extruding xenobiotics but also in maintaining the body's homeostasis by their ubiquitous presence and ability to coordinate among themselves. In this review, the role of efflux pumps in drug delivery and the importance of their tissue distribution is discussed in detail. To improve pharmacokinetic parameters of substrates, various strategies that modulate the activity of efflux proteins are also described. Drug metabolising enzymes mainly include the cytochrome P450 family of enzymes. Extensive drug metabolism due to the this family of enzymes is the leading cause of therapeutic inactivity. Therefore, the role of metabolising enzymes in drug delivery and disposition is extensively discussed in this review. The synergistic relationship between metabolising enzymes and efflux proteins is also described in detail. In summary, this review emphasises the urgent need to make changes in drug discovery and drug delivery as efflux pumps and metabolising enzymes play an important role in drug delivery and disposition.

Virologic and immunologic response to a boosted double-protease inhibitor-based therapy in highly pretreated HIV-1-infected patients

PURPOSE

To assess the virologic and immunologic response to a boosted double-protease inhibitor (PI) regimen of highly pretreated patients infected with HIV-1 and to examine the role of PI resistance and concentration of serum saquinavir.

METHOD

In an open-label prospective study, lopinavir/ritonavir, saquinavir-sgc, lamivudine, and other nucleoside analogues were offered to highly pretreated patients who had advanced HIV-1 infection and who had failed at least 2 previous highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens including at least 1 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The relationship between baseline drug resistance and steady-state saquinavir serum levels and early (week 4) and sustained (week 48) virologic response was documented.

RESULTS

35 advanced HIV-1 patients were enrolled. The boosted double-PI regimen was well tolerated. Twenty-two (63%) of the 35 patients had a > 0.8 log(10) decrease in HIV viral load at week 4. After 48 weeks of follow-up, the 22 patients who remained on the study therapy had an average decrease in viral load of 1 log(10) and had a median increase in CD4 cells of 60 cell/microL. Multiple logistic regression analysis indicated that genotypic resistance to both PIs and the week-3 trough concentrations of saquinavir were associated with virologic outcome at week 4. The presence of > or = 6 lopinavir mutations [odds ratio (OR) 0.03; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.79] and the 48V mutation (OR 0.01; 95%CI <0.01 to 0.88) was independently associated with lower odds of achieving an early response, whereas a higher saquinavir concentration at week 3 (OR 8.36; 95% CI 1.28 to 54.70) was associated with greater odds of an early response.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that baseline PI resistance and saquinavir concentration were associated with virologic response and should be considered when planning salvage therapy.

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.

Salvage Therapy with Amprenavir, Lopinavir and Ritonavir 200 Mg/D or 400 Mg/D in HIV-Infected Patients in Virological Failure

Objectives

To compare the antiviral efficacy of a salvage therapy combining lopinavir and amprenavir with 200 mg/d or 400 mg/d ritonavir, together with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, over a 26-week period in HIV-infected patients in whom multiple anti-retroviral regimens had failed.

Design

Phase IIb, randomized, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients were eligible if they had <500 CD4+ cells/mm3 and >4 log10 copies/ml HIV-RNA after treatment with at least two protease inhibitors (PIs) and one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor.

Results

At baseline ( n=37), the median CD4+ cell count was 207/mm3 and the median plasma HIV-1 RNA level was 4.7 log10 copies/ml; the median number of PI mutations was seven and the median decrease in phenotypic susceptibility to lopinavir and amprenavir was 9.7 and 2.6, respectively. The mean number of antiretrovirals received prior to randomization was 7.7. The fall in the median HIV-1 RNA level at week 26 was -1.4 log10 copies/ml in the 200 mg/d ritonavir group and -2.5 log10 copies/ml in the 400 mg/d group ( P=0.02). Viral load fell below 50 copies/ml in 32% and 61% of patients, respectively ( P=0.07). After adjustment for the ritonavir dose, a smaller number of PI mutations was the only baseline characteristic associated with a better virological response at week 26. Amprenavir concentrations were significantly lower in presence of lopinavir. The lopinavir inhibitory quotient at week 6 correlated weakly with the change in the HIV-RNA level at week 26.

Conclusion

Combination of amprenavir, lopinavir and 400 mg/d ritonavir shows significant virological efficacy without increased toxicity in HIV-infected patients in whom multiple antiretroviral regimens have failed.