Ritonavir and saquinavir combination therapy for the treatment of HIV infection

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and antiretroviral activity of ritonavir (Norvir) and saquinavir (Invirase) combination therapy in patients with HIV infection.

DESIGN

A multicenter, randomized, open-label clinical trial.

SETTING

Seven HIV research units in the USA and Canada.

PATIENTS

A group of 141 adults with HIV infection, CD4 T lymphocyte counts of 100-500 x 10(6) cells/l, whether treated previously or not with reverse transcriptase inhibitor therapy, but without previous HIV protease inhibitor drug therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

After discontinuation of prior therapy for 2 weeks, group I patients were randomized to receive either combination (A) ritonavir 400 mg and saquinavir 400 mg twice daily or (B) ritonavir 600 mg and saquinavir 400 mg twice daily. After an initial safety assessment of group I patients, group II patients were randomized to receive either (C) ritonavir 400 mg and saquinavir 400 mg three times daily or (D) ritonavir 600 mg and saquinavir 600 mg twice daily. Investigators were allowed to add up to two reverse transcriptase inhibitors (including at least one with which the patient had not been previously treated) to a patient's regimen after week 12 for failure to achieve or maintain an HIV RNA level < or = 200 copies/ml documented on two consecutive occasions.

MEASUREMENTS

Plasma HIV RNA levels and CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts were measured at baseline, every 2 weeks for 2 months, and monthly thereafter. Safety was assessed through the reporting of adverse events, physical examinations, and the monitoring of routine laboratory tests.

RESULTS

The 48 weeks of study treatment was completed by 75% (106/141) of the patients. Over 80% of the patients on treatment at week 48 had an HIV RNA level < or = 200 copies/ml. In addition, intent-to-treat and on-treatment analyses revealed comparable results. Suppression of plasma HIV RNA levels was similar for all treatment arms (mean areas under the curve minus baseline through 48 weeks were-1.9, -2.0, -1.6, -1.8 log10 copies/ml in ritonavir-saquinavir 400-400 mg twice daily, 600-400 mg twice daily, 400-400 mg three times daily, and 600-600 mg twice daily, respectively). Median CD4 T-lymphocyte count rose by 128 x 10(6) cells/l from baseline, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 82-221 x 10(6) cells/l. The most common adverse events were diarrhea, circumoral paresthesia, asthenia, and nausea. Reversible elevation of serum transaminases (> 5 x upper limit of normal) occurred in 10% (14/141) of the patients enrolled in this study and was associated with baseline abnormalities in liver function tests, baseline hepatitis B surface antigen positivity, or hepatitis C antibody positivity (relative risk, 5.0; 95% confidence interval 1.5-16.9). Most moderate or severe elevations in liver function tests occurred in patients treated with ritonavir-saquinavir 600-600 mg twice daily.

CONCLUSIONS

Ritonavir 400 mg combined with saquinavir 400 mg twice daily with the selective addition of reverse transcriptase inhibitors was the best-tolerated regimen of four dose-ranging regimens and was equally as active as the higher dose combinations in HIV-positive patients without previous protease inhibitor treatment.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between ritonavir and didanosine when administered concurrently to HIV-infected patients

The effect of coadministration of ritonavir and didanosine (ddI) on the pharmacokinetics of these drugs was investigated in a single-center, three-period, crossover study. Eighteen asymptomatic, HIV-positive men were assigned randomly to 6 different sequences of 3 regimens: ddI (200 mg every 12 hours) alone for 4 days, ritonavir (600 mg every 12 hours) alone for 4 days, and 4 days of ddI with ritonavir under dose-staggering conditions. Although not statistically significant, ritonavir concentrations were slightly higher on average (<10%) with concurrent administration of ddI compared with those of ritonavir alone. In contrast, ddI concentrations were lower with concurrent administration compared with those of ddI alone; maximum concentration and area under the concentration-time curve were reduced by about 15% (p < .05). The ddI elimination rate constant was unaffected by ritonavir, suggesting no change in ddI's systemic metabolism. Adverse events were similar between regimens. The relatively minor changes in ritonavir and ddI pharmacokinetics are probably not clinically relevant; therefore, dosage adjustment of either compound appears unnecessary when administered concurrently. However, the combination regimen of ddI and ritonavir continue to be evaluated clinically.

Multidose pharmacokinetics of ritonavir and zidovudine in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients

The effect of coadministration of ritonavir and zidovudine (ZDV) on the pharmacokinetics of these drugs was investigated in a three-period, multidose, crossover study. Eighteen asymptomatic, human immunodeficiency virus-positive men were assigned randomly to six different sequences of the following three regimens: ZDV (200 mg every 8 h [q8h] alone for 4 days, ritonavir (300 mg q6h) alone for 4 days, and ZDV with ritonavir for 4 days. Ritonavir pharmacokinetics were unaffected by coadministration with ZDV. However, ZDV exposure was reduced by about 26% (P < 0.05) in the presence of ritonavir. The maximum concentration in (Cmax) of ZDV plasma decreased from 748 +/- 375 (mean +/- standard deviation) to 546 +/- 296, and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) decreased from 3,052 +/- 1,007 to 2,261 +/- 715 when coadministered with ritonavir. In contrast, the ZDV elimination rate constant was unaffected by ritonavir, suggesting that there was no change in ZDV systemic metabolism. Correspondingly, differences in ZDV-glucuronide Cmax and AUC were not statistically significantly different between regimens (P > 0.31). Also, there were no apparent differences in the formation of 3'-amino-3'-deoxythymidine or in the adverse event profiles between the regimens. The lack of change in ritonavir pharmacokinetics suggests that dosage adjustment of ritonavir is unnecessary when it is administered concurrently with ZDV. The clinical relevance of a 26% reduction in ZDV exposure when ZDV is administered with ritonavir is unknown. In addition to other multidrug regimens, the long-term safety and efficacy of coadministration of ritonavir and ZDV is being investigated.

The effect of multiple doses of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of rifabutin

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of rifabutin.

METHODS

In a multiple-dose, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind study, subjects received 150 mg rifabutin daily for 24 days coadministered on days 15 to 24 with twice-daily doses of either placebo or ritonavir (300 mg on day 15, 400 mg on day 16, and 500 mg on days 17 to 24). Plasma concentrations of rifabutin and 25-O-desacetylrifabutin were measured by HPLC, and the pharmacokinetics were determined after the rifabutin doses on days 14 and 24.

RESULTS

For subjects receiving rifabutin and placebo who completed the study (n = 11), there were small but statistically significant differences (< or = 32%) in several rifabutin and 25-O-desacetylrifabutin pharmacokinetic parameters between the regimens of rifabutin alone and rifabutin with placebo. In contrast, the effect of ritonavir on rifabutin pharmacokinetics of subjects completing the study (n = 5) was substantial. Rifabutin mean minimum observed concentration (Cmin), maximum observed concentration (Cmax), and area under the concentration-time curve [AUC(0-24)] increased by approximately sixfold, 2.5-fold, and fourfold, respectively, and 25-O-desacetylrifabutin mean Cmin, Cmax, and AUC(0-24) increased by approximately 200-, 16-, and 35-fold, respectively, when coadministered with ritonavir compared with rifabutin administered alone. The sum of the mean AUC(0-24) of rifabutin and 25-O-desacetylrifabutin increased nearly sevenfold when coadministered with ritonavir.

CONCLUSIONS

Ritonavir inhibited the metabolism of rifabutin and 25-O-desacetylrifabutin, suggesting that both are metabolized at least in part by CYP3A. Ritonavir may have enhanced rifabutin bioavailability by reducing either intestinal of hepatic metabolism of both. Clarithromycin is an alternative to rifabutin for antimycobacterial therapy that may be administered concurrently with ritonavir. Administration of ritonavir with a reduced rifabutin dosage regimen (150 mg every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) is being investigated.

Evaluation of the effect of fluconazole on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir

The effects of fluconazole on the pharmacokinetics of the HIV protease inhibitor ritonavir were investigated after multiple dosing in an open-label study. In this randomized, two-period crossover study, eight healthy subjects received ritonavir alone (200 mg every 6 hr for 4 days) and ritonavir with fluconazole (400 mg on day 1, 200 mg every day on days 2-5) with a 2-week washout period. Ritonavir plasma concentrations were measured during the final four ritonavir dosing intervals (24 hr) and a 12-hr washout period. There were statistically significant increases in ritonavir C(max) and AUC0-24 (p < 0.02), with concurrent administration of fluconazole compared with administration of ritonavir alone. The difference between regimens in C(min) was marginally statistically significant (p = 0.089), and t(max) and beta were not statistically significantly different. Although some ritonavir parameters were affected by fluconazole, mean increases in C(max) and AUC were < or = 15% for the 24-hr period, and only 7-19% for individual dose intervals. Thus, the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir may be influenced only to a small extent when administered with fluconazole. These changes are probably of limited clinical significance and do not necessitate dosage adjustment of ritonavir when fluconazole is added to the regimen.

Role of population pharmacokinetics in drug development. A pharmaceutical industry perspective

Population pharmacokinetic analysis is a relatively new approach which can be used to obtain important pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information from sparse data sets routinely obtained in phase II and III clinical trials, these studies typically have many patients but few observations per patient. Similarly, this approach is beneficial for studies in which intensive blood sampling is not attainable, such as in children and patients with cancer and AIDS. It was not until the late 1980s and the early 1990s that this approach (which had been introduced by Sheiner and Beal approximately 20 years earlier) gained appreciable momentum. Today many pharmaceutical companies use this approach routinely, to differing extents, during their drug development process. Advocacy by the US Food and Drug Administration for pharmacokinetic screening during phase II and III studies was an important factor in the widespread adoption of this approach. A second factor was the gradual realisation that the approach can be cost effective in revealing clinically important information about the determinants of interpatient pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability in treated patients. However, several important issues remain to be resolved (such as the optimal study design, quality of the data and user-friendly software) which could determine the future role of the population approach in drug development.

Safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity of A77003, a C2 symmetry-based human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor

A77003, an inhibitor of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease, was administered to asymptomatic HIV-1-infected patients in a phase I trial. The drug was given by continuous intravenous infusion at dosages of 0.035, 0.07, 0.14, and 0.28 mg/kg of body weight per h. The drug was given first for 24 h and then for up to an additional 4 weeks in a second infusion period following at least a 6-day washout. Apart from reversible increases in hepatic transaminase levels in some patients, no systemic toxicities occurred during extended infusion of the drug. Dose-related local vein irritation, despite dilution of the infusate, however, caused severe infusion site phlebitis precluding dosage escalation beyond 0.28 mg/kg/h. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated dose linear increases in mean steady-state concentrations. However, clearance of the drug from plasma was unexpectedly high, averaging 62 liters/h across all groups. The concentrations of A77003 in plasma achieved the in vitro 50% inhibitory concentration (0.16 microgram/ml) only in the 0.28-mg/kg/h dosage group, but it did not attain the 90% inhibitory concentration (0.48 micrograms/ml). No statistically significant effect on CD4 cell numbers occurred in any of the groups, and there was no evidence of antiviral activity, as determined by HIV-1 p24 antigen level, quantitative plasma and cell culture, and quantitation of viral RNA in plasma. In conclusion, A77003, as formulated in the present study, causes severe phlebitis, which prevents administration of the infusates necessary to achieve high concentrations of the drug in plasma. In conclusion, A77003, as formulated in the present study, causes severe phlebitis, which prevents administration of the infusates necessary to achieve high concentrations of the drug in plasma. The lack of antiviral activity observed in the study may be a consequence of the low concentrations in plasma in all groups.