Search

Lopinavir-ritonavir is frequently prescribed to HIV-1-infected women during pregnancy. Decreased lopinavir exposure has been reported during pregnancy, but the clinical significance of this reduction is uncertain. This analysis aimed to evaluate the need for lopinavir dose adjustment during pregnancy. We conducted a population pharmacokinetic analysis of lopinavir and ritonavir concentrations collected from 84 pregnant and 595 nonpregnant treatment-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected subjects enrolled in six clinical studies. Lopinavir-ritonavir doses in the studies ranged between 400/100 and 600/150 mg twice daily. In addition, linear mixed-effect analysis was used to compare the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC0-12) and concentration prior to dosing (Cpredose) in pregnant women and nonpregnant subjects. The relationship between lopinavir exposure and virologic suppression in pregnant women and nonpregnant subjects was evaluated. Population pharmacokinetic analysis estimated 17% higher lopinavir clearance in pregnant women than in nonpregnant subjects. Lopinavir clearance values postpartum were 26.4% and 37.1% lower than in nonpregnant subjects and pregnant women, respectively. As the tablet formulation was estimated to be 20% more bioavailable than the capsule formulation, no statistically significant differences between lopinavir exposure in pregnant women receiving the tablet formulation and nonpregnant subjects receiving the capsule formulation were identified. In the range of lopinavir AUC0-12 or Cpredose values observed in the third trimester, there was no correlation between lopinavir exposure and viral load or proportion of subjects with virologic suppression. Similar efficacy was observed between pregnant women and nonpregnant subjects receiving lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/100 mg twice daily. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results support the use of a lopinavir-ritonavir 400/100-mg twice-daily dose during pregnancy., (Copyright © 2015, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.)

The potential drug-to-drug interaction between darunavir and raltegravir in the setting of HIV infection is a highly debated issue still unresolved. In the present study we have evaluated the pharmacokinetics of darunavir and ritonavir in 53 HIV-1 infected patients with or without concomitant raltegravir administration. The assessment of trough plasma drug concentrations was carried out in all subjects and the potential influence of raltegravir on darunavir and ritonavir disposition, assessed by specific pharmacokinetic evaluations in a subgroup of 25 patients. No significant differences on darunavir and ritonavir plasma trough levels were observed between patients receiving or not raltegravir. Co-administration of raltegravir was, however, associated with a 40% reduction in darunavir C(max) and estimated AUC(0-24), as well a 60% increase in the estimated darunavir clearance compared with values measured in patients not given raltegravir. Notably, this interaction was independent of the dosage of darunavir and not due to effects of raltegravir on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir. These results should be taken into account when darunavir-based regimens are implemented in the setting of HIV, especially considering that this drug is usually administered at fixed daily dose and no therapeutic drug monitoring is performed in most centres., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The use of highly active antiretroviral treatment (HAART) regimens with unboosted protease inhibitors (PIs) has resulted in a high level of virological failure primarily due to the development of resistant virus. Current boosted PI regimens combine successfully low-dose ritonavir (r) with a second PI. The aim of the study was to estimate the proportion of patients, in a population based setting, who develop virological failure on a PI/r regimen. Through The Danish HIV Cohort Study 1,007 patients who received PI/r based treatment between 1995 and 2008 were identified. Twenty-three (2.3%) experienced virological failure, of whom 19 (83%) started PI/r treatment before 2001. Patients from Copenhagen (n=19) were selected to study the development of protease (PR) and gag cleavage site (CS) mutations during PI/r treatment and PI plasma levels at the time of virological failure. Three patients (16%) developed major PI resistance mutations. Mutations in the p7/p1 and p1/p6 gag CS only developed in patients with major or minor mutations in PR. Drug concentrations were low or undetectable in 10 out of the 19 patients. In total PR resistance mutations and low drug levels could account for 12 (63%) of the failure cases. In conclusion, virological failure to PI/r is a low and decreasing problem primarily caused by low plasma drug levels and to a lesser extent major PR mutations. Gag CS mutations did not contribute significantly to resistance development and virological failure., (Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of the study was to determine total and unbound lopinavir (LPV) plasma concentrations in HIV-infected pregnant women receiving lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r tablet) undergoing therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) during pregnancy and postpartum., Methods: Women were enrolled in the study who were receiving the LPV/r tablet as part of their routine prenatal care. Demographic and clinical data were collected and LPV plasma (total) and ultrafiltrate (unbound) concentrations were determined in the first, second and third trimesters using high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). Postpartum sampling was performed where applicable. Antepartum and postpartum trough concentrations (C(trough) ) were compared independently [using analysis of variance (anova)] and on a longitudinal basis (using a paired t-test)., Results: Forty-six women were enrolled in the study (38 Black African). Forty women initiated LPV/r treatment in pregnancy. Median (range) gestation at initiation was 25 (15-36) weeks and median (range) baseline CD4 count and viral load were 346 (14-836) cells/μL and 8724 (<50-267408) HIV-1 RNA copies/mL, respectively. Forty women (87%) had LPV concentrations above the accepted minimum effective concentration for wild-type virus (MEC; 1000 ng/mL). Geometric mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) total LPV concentrations in the first/second [3525 (2823-4227) ng/mL; n=16] and third [3346 (2813-3880) ng/mL; n=43] trimesters were significantly lower relative to postpartum [5136 (3693-6579) ng/mL; n=12] (P=0.006). In a paired analysis (n=12), LPV concentrations were reduced in the third trimester [3657 (2851-4463) ng/mL] vs. postpartum (P=0.021). No significant differences were observed in the LPV fraction unbound (fu%). Conclusions The above target concentrations achieved in the majority of women and similarities in the fu% suggest standard dosing of the LPV/r tablet is appropriate during pregnancy. However, reduced LPV concentrations in the second/third trimesters and potentially compromised adherence highlight the need for TDM-guided dose adjustment in certain cases., (© 2010 British HIV Association.)

We report a case of a vertically infected woman treated with darunavir/ritonavir plus a standard backbone before pregnancy. The analysis of darunavir/ritonavir concentrations in peripheral maternal plasma throughout pregnancy, as well as in umbilical cord blood at delivery, showed low levels of darunavir in the mother and limited transfer across the placenta.

Objective: To assess pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) and optimized background regimen in treatment-experienced patients (6-17 years)., Design: Forty-eight-week, open-label, two-part, phase II study., Methods: In part I, 44 patients were randomized (1: 1 ratio) to receive a body weight-adjusted, adult-equivalent dose (group A) or a 20-33% higher DRV/r twice daily (b.i.d.) dose (group B). Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy were assessed following 2-week dosing (part I), which determined dosing for part II (evaluated 48-week safety and efficacy)., Results: In part I, both groups met the protocol-specified criteria for pharmacokinetics and showed favorable tolerability and efficacy. The following body-weight doses were selected: DRV/r 375/50 mg b.i.d. (20-<30 kg), 450/60 mg b.i.d. (30-<40 kg) and 600/100 mg b.i.d. (> or =40 kg); these gave an AUC24h, C0h and Cmax of 102, 114 and 112%, respectively, versus the corresponding mean adult pharmacokinetic parameter. In part II, 80 patients received DRV/r (median age: 14 years, mean baseline HIV-1 RNA: 4.64 log(10)copies/ml). One patient (1%) discontinued (treatment-unrelated grade 3 anxiety). An abnormal mean baseline triglyceride level was normalized at 48 weeks (P < 0.01). At week 48, 65% had at least 1.0 log(10)HIV-1 RNA reduction; 59 and 48% achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 400 and less than 50 copies/ml, respectively (time-to-loss-of-virologic response). Mean age-adjusted weight z-score increased by 0.2 (P = 0.003)., Conclusion: In treatment-experienced children and adolescents, DRV/r showed comparable exposure to adults with appropriate dose selection, favorable safety and tolerability, improved body weight and significant virologic response. DRV/r is a valuable therapeutic option for this population.

Currently, the optimal boosting dose for saquinavir is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated the pharmacokinetics profiles in a cross over setting comparing saquinavir/ritonavir 1500/50 mg (plus NRTI backbone) to saquinavir/ritonavir 1500/100 mg in the same HIV-infected, Thai individuals. The 50% reduction of ritonavir boosting did not result in a change in the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir, whereas the ritonavir exposure was significantly lower when a dose of 50 mg was administered.

Background: Generic drugs can contribute to access to treatment for HIV-infected patients. However quality and safety remains an issue of concern. Therefore, we evaluated minimal plasma concentrations and short-term safety of a generic lopinavir/ritonavir 200/50 mg tablet formulation., Methods: In a single-centre prospective pilot study, patients receiving protease-inhibitor-based antiretroviral treatment were switched to a generic lopinavir/ritonavir tablet at the standard dose (400/100 mg twice daily). Minimum drug concentrations (C(min)) of lopinavir and ritonavir were performed before switching (in 16 patients who were on Kaletra((R)) soft-gel capsules) and after 4 weeks (in all patients). Plasma levels of lopinavir and ritonavir were determined by a validated HPLC method. Either the Wilcoxon signed-rank or Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the groups., Results: A total of 37 patients (18 females) were included in the study. Two stopped their study medications prematurely because of intolerance. The median (interquartile range) lopinavir C(min) was 7.2 mg/l (5.8-8.3) and no patients had subtherapeutic levels <1.0 mg/l. No significant difference of lopinavir C(min) levels was found between Kaletra((R)), and the generic product (P=0.224). By contrast, the C(min) of generic ritonavir was higher (P=0.012). Food did not affect the drug levels. Mild gastrointestinal complaints were reported in 12 patients., Conclusions: The generic lopinavir/ritonavir tablet showed C(min) plasma concentrations similar to what is described for the branded product, with good stability, independent of food intake. These data support the efforts in scaling up access to generic second-line treatment in middle- and low-income countries.

Objective: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of efavirenz (EFV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in HIV-infected persons requiring hemodialysis., Design: Prospective, observational study of HIV-infected hemodialysis patients receiving one 600 mg tablet daily of EFV (N = 13) or three 133.3/33.3 mg capsules twice daily of LPV/RTV (N = 13)., Methods: Twenty-four-hour EFV and 12-h LPV/RTV pharmacokinetics were assessed. Geometric mean ratios were calculated using historical controls with normal renal function. The effects of several candidate gene polymorphisms were also explored., Results: The geometric mean [95% confidence interval (CI); percentage of coefficient of variation (% CV)] Cmin, Cmax, and area under the curve (AUC) for the EFV group were 1.81 microg/ml (0.93, 3.53; 103%), 5.04 microg/ml (3.48, 7.29; 72%), and 71.5 microg h/ml (43.2, 118.3; 93%), respectively. These parameters were 2.76 microg/ml (1.86, 4.11; 53%), 8.45 microg/ml (6.41, 11.15; 52%), and 69.6 microg h/ml (55.6, 87.2; 37%) for LPV and 0.08 microg/ml (0.05, 0.14; 63%), 0.58 microg/ml (0.44, 0.76; 41%), and 3.74 microg h/ml (2.91, 4.80; 37%) for RTV. The AUC geometric mean ratios (90% CI) for EFV, LPV, and RTV were 132% (89, 197), 81% (67, 97), and 92% (76, 111), respectively. LPV Cmin was lower than expected in the hemodialysis group. Higher EFV concentrations were associated with the CYP2B6 516G>T polymorphism., Conclusion: The pharmacokinetics of EFV and LPV/RTV in hemodialysis suggests that no dosing adjustments are necessary in treatment-naive patients. As HIV-infected hemodialysis patients are disproportionately black, the increased frequency of the CYP2B6 516G>T polymorphism may lead to higher EFV levels. The potentially lower LPV trough levels in this population suggest that LPV/RTV should be used with caution in protease-inhibitor-experienced patients.

We investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of saquinavir/ritonavir when administered with omeprazole simultaneously and 2 h apart to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) subjects. Saquinavir/ritonavir 12-h pharmacokinetics was assessed with and without omeprazole 40 mg. Subjects were randomized to group A (saquinavir/ritonavir and omeprazole simultaneously/2 h apart) or group B (saquinavir/ritonavir and omeprazole 2 h apart/simultaneously). Saquinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetics was assessed on days 1, 8, and 22. Within-subject changes were evaluated by geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence interval (CI). Twelve subjects completed the study. GM (90% CI) for saquinavir area under the curve (AUC)(0-12) (ng h/ml), trough concentration (C(trough)) (ng/ml), and maximum concentration (C(max)) (ng/ml) were 14,698 (13,242-20,636), 433 (368-758), 2,513 (2,243-3,329) without omeprazole; 22,646 (18,536-131,861), 750 (619-1,280), 3,890 (3,223-5,133) with omeprazole simultaneously; and 24,549 (20,884-38,894), 851 (720-1,782), 4,141 (3,554-5,992) with omeprazole 2 h earlier. Simultaneous administration of omeprazole significantly increased saquinavir AUC(0-12), C(trough), and C(max) by 54, 73, and 55%, whereas staggered administration by 67, 97, and 65%. No grade 3/4 toxicity or lab abnormalities were observed. In the presence of omeprazole, saquinavir plasma exposure is significantly increased in HIV-infected subjects whether administered simultaneously or 2 h apart.

Objective: Our objective was to evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir when coadministered with tenofovir in HIV-1-infected adult patients., Design: Forty adult HIV-1-infected patients received either atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors with (n = 20) or without (n = 20) tenofovir-disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir-DF) 300 mg once daily. Twenty-four-hour pharmacokinetics were assessed after at least 2 weeks of therapy according to a standardised therapeutic drug monitoring protocol., Methods: Atazanavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, and the geometric means of minimum and maximum concentrations (C(min), C(max)), the area under the time-concentration curve (AUC), half-life (t(1/2)) and total clearance (CL(tot)) were subject to a matched pairs-analysis. Patients' pairs were matched for gender, ethnicity, weight and Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) status., Results: The respective geometric means (90% CI) for atazanavir C(min), C(max) and AUC with tenfovir vs. without tenofovir were 405 (314-523) vs. 417 (304-572) ng/ml, 3,022 (2,493-3,664) vs. 2,817 (2,341-3,390) ng/ml and 34,822 (29,315-41,363) vs. 32,101 (26,206-39,321) ng x h/ml showing no significant differences between the groups. Atazanavir plasma concentrations measured at week 5 of therapy or later were lower than in the first 4 weeks (T-test for C(max), p = .080; AUC, p = .050 and CL(tot), p = .051)., Conclusions: The coadministration of tenofovir-DF did not impair the plasma concentrations of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in a pharmacokinetic analysis of patient pairs matched for gender, ethnicity, weight and CDC status.

Objective: To improve the pharmacokinetics of protease inhibitors, boosting with low-dose ritonavir is performed. However, toxicity, storage conditions and high costs of antiretroviral treatment may necessitate interruption of ritonavir. Ketoconazole was investigated as a potential booster of once-daily (o.d.) saquinavir., Methods: In a single-group, two-period design, 25 virologically and immunologically stable patients on saquinavir/ritonavir 2000/100 mg o.d. were switched to saquinavir/ketoconazole 2000/400 mg o.d. for 2 weeks. Two steady-state pharmacokinetic curves were recorded at both periods., Results: Fourteen females and 11 male patients were included. Median age was 34 years [interquartile range (IQR), 32-42 years], body weight 54 kg (IQR, 47-59 kg) and body mass index 21 kg/m (19-23 kg/m). The mean saquinavir area under the curve (AUC) during boosting with ritonavir was 57.93 +/- 27.96 mg/h/l, maximum observed concentration (Cmax) was 7.50 +/- 3.45 mg/l and concentration at 24 h (Cmin) was 0.35 +/- 0.30 mg/l. When ketoconazole was used, the saquinavir AUC, Cmax, and Cmin were 12.00 +/- 6.97 mg/h/l, 2.43 +/- 1.35 mg/l and 0.03 +/- 0.04 mg/l, respectively., Conclusion: Boosting with ketoconazole resulted in 80% lower exposure to saquinavir. Although saquinavir AUC might still be adequate for treatment, concentrations at 24 h reached levels below the recommended trough concentrations of 0.1 mg/l, which may result in selection of resistant HIV-1 viral strains. Therefore, boosting of saquinavir by ketoconazole is not recommended.

Background: Different approaches using genotypic, pharmacokinetic parameters or combination of both have been recently developed to monitor antiretroviral treatment in HIV-1-infected individuals. Their uses in clinical practice may improve the benefit of protease inhibitor-based salvage therapy while reducing treatment toxicity and emergence of viral resistance., Objectives: To assess the prediction of genotypic inhibitory quotient (GIQ) using different genotypic drug resistance interpretation's algorithms and lopinavir plasma concentration in PI-experienced patients treated by lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r). Genotypic susceptibility score (GSS) was also evaluated., Study Design: Forty-seven HIV-1 PI-experienced, but LPV naïve patients were included in a retrospective cohort study. Plasma HIV-1 viral load (VL), CD4 cell count and LPV plasma concentrations were assessed at weeks (W) 12 and 24. Interpretation of baseline resistance genotype was achieved according to four different algorithms and GSS calculated using two expert systems. GIQ was defined as the ratio of LPV concentration to the number of LPV resistance mutations at day 0 (D0) and patients classified by units of GIQ. The end point of the study was the virological response expressed in HIV VL median decrease from D0 to W24., Results: The overall median VL decrease from D0 to W24 was -2.42 log(10)copies/mL and 60% of patients had VL below 400 copies/mL. The LPV mutation score was predictive of response for all algorithms whereas plasma concentrations of LPV were not. Mean VL decrease was greater for higher GIQ classes and difference reached statistical significance at W24. When considering virological response at W24, GSS calculated with ANRS and Stanford system were good predictor scores as areas under the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves were 0.76 for both., Conclusion: GIQ was found to be a useful drug-monitoring tool which could be helpful in targeting LPV concentrations in order to achieve long-term undetectable viral load, particularly in genotypic resistant patients.

Large intra-individual variability in plasma levels may limit the interest of therapeutic drug monitoring based on a single determination. Indinavir concentrations were determined both in plasma and hair samples, and correlated with concomitant plasma HIV-RNA in 43 HIV-infected patients. In multivariate analysis, significant association was found between HIV-RNA below 50 copies/ml and indinavir concentrations in hair but not in plasma, suggesting that hair concentrations gave more extensive information on drug exposure than a single plasma sample.

Background: Significant interactions between abacavir and other antiretrovirals have not been reported. This study investigated the steady-state plasma pharmacokinetics of abacavir when co-administered with atazanavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected individuals., Methods: HIV-infected subjects on abacavir (600 mg once daily) plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) (excluding tenofovir) underwent a 24 h pharmacokinetic assessment for plasma abacavir concentrations. Atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg once daily; arm (1) or lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg twice daily; arm (2) were then added and the 24 h pharmacokinetic assessment repeated. Arm 3 included subjects stable on atazanavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir and two NRTIs (excluding tenofovir or abacavir). These patients underwent a pharmacokinetic assessment for atazanavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir concentrations on day 1, abacavir (600 mg once daily) was then added to the regimen and the pharmacokinetic assessment repeated. Within-subject changes in drug exposure were evaluated by geometric mean (GM) ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CI)., Results: Twenty-four patients completed the study. GM (95% CI) abacavir area under the curve (AUC) was 18,621 (15,900-21,807) and 15,136 (13,339-17,174) ng.h/ml without and with atazanavir/ritonavir and 15,136 (12,298-18,628) and 10,471 (9,270-11,828) ng.h/ml without and with lopinavir/ritonavir. GM (95% CI) atazanavir AUC without and with abacavir was 26,915 (13,252-54,666) and 28,840 (19,213-43,291) ng.h/ml; lopinavir AUC without and with abacavir was 60,253 (48,084-75,509) and 63,096 (48,128-82,718) ng.h/ml., Conclusions: No changes in atazanavir or lopinavir exposures were observed following the addition of abacavir; however, decreases in abacavir plasma exposure of 17% and 32% were observed following the addition of atazanavir/ritonavir or lopinavir/ritonavir, respectively.

Background: The pathogenesis of metabolic disturbances in treated HIV infection is incompletely understood., Methods: Relationships between fasted metabolic parameters, body composition, and drug plasma concentrations were investigated in 59 patients who switched from failed nucleoside analogue treatment to ritonavir-boosted indinavir and efavirenz therapy. Metabolic parameters, peripheral fat, visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and drug plasma concentrations were measured prospectively., Results: Ritonavir exposure was found to be negatively correlated with high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c) changes, with a 2.4% decrease in HDL-c for each unit increase in ritonavir concentration ratio. Significant associations between indinavir or efavirenz concentrations and metabolic disturbances were not observed. Total cholesterol (TC) correlated positively with high body mass index (BMI) and negatively with baseline limb fat mass: each unit increase in BMI and each kilogram reduction in baseline limb fat corresponded with a TC increase of 2.4% and 4.1%, respectively. Baseline triglyceride levels were lower in those patients with relatively greater limb fat mass: each kilogram reduction of total limb fat mass was associated with a 15.7% increase in triglyceride concentration. Changes in VAT were positively correlated with TC: for every unit TC increase a 0.3% VAT increase was observed (over 48 weeks)., Conclusions: Reduced limb fat mass at the start of the study treatment, increases in VAT mass, and higher plasma concentrations of ritonavir on study treatment were each--to varying degrees--associated with various metabolic disturbances.

Background: Optimal antiretroviral exposure during pregnancy is critical for prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission and for maternal health. Pregnancy can alter antiretroviral pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to describe lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) pharmacokinetics during pregnancy., Methods: We performed intensive steady-state 12-h pharmacokinetic profiles of lopinavir and ritonavir (three capsules: LPV 400 mg/r 100 mg) at 30-36 weeks gestation and 6-12 weeks postpartum. Maternal and umbilical cord blood samples were obtained at delivery. We measured LPV and ritonavir by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Target LPV area under concentration versus time curve (AUC) was > or = 52 microg h/ml, the estimated 10th percentile LPV AUC in non-pregnant historical controls (mean AUC = 83 microg h/ml)., Results: Seventeen women completed antepartum evaluations; average gestational age was 35 weeks. Geometric mean antepartum LPV AUC was 44.4 microg h/ml [90% confidence interval (CI), 38.7-50.9] and 12-h post-dose concentration (C12h) was 1.6 microg/ml (90% CI, 1.1-2.5). Twelve women completed postpartum evaluations; geometric mean LPV AUC was 65.2 microg h/ml (90% CI, 49.7-85.4) and C12h was 4.6 microg/ml (90% CI, 3.7-5.7). The geometric mean ratio of antepartum/postpartum LPV AUC was 0.72 (90% CI, 0.54-0.96). Fourteen of 17 (82%) pregnant and three of 12 (25%) postpartum women did not meet our target LPV AUC. The ratio of cord blood/maternal LPV concentration in ten paired detectable samples was 0.2 +/- 0.13., Conclusions: LPV/r exposure during late pregnancy was lower compared to postpartum and compared to non-pregnant historical controls. Small amounts of lopinavir cross the placenta. The pharmacokinetics, safety, and effectiveness of increased LPV/r dosing during the third trimester of pregnancy should be investigated.

Aims: To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for lopinavir in combination with ritonavir, in which the interaction between both drugs was characterized, and in which relationships between patient characteristics and pharmacokinetics were identified., Methods: The pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in combination with ritonavir were described using NONMEM (version V, level 1.1). First, ritonavir data were fitted to a previously developed model to obtain individual Bayesian estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters. Hereafter, an integrated model for the description of the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir with ritonavir was designed., Results: From 122 outpatients 748 lopinavir and 748 ritonavir plasma concentrations were available for analysis. The interaction between the drugs was described by a time-independent inverse relationship between the exposure to ritonavir over a dosing-interval and the apparent clearance (CL/F) of lopinavir. The model parameters volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 61.6 l (95% prediction interval (PI) 22.4, 83.7) and 0.564 h(-1) (95% PI 0.208, 0.947), respectively. The model yielded a theoretical value for the CL/F of lopinavir without ritonavir of 14.8 l h(-1) (95%PI 12.1, 20.1), which translates to a value of 5.73 l h(-1) in the presence of ritonavir. The only factor with significant effect on the pharmacokinetics was concurrent use of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), which increased the CL/F of lopinavir by 39% (P < 0.001)., Conclusions: We have developed a model that has defined a time-independent inverse relationship between the exposure to ritonavir and the CL/F of lopinavir, and provided an adequate description of the pharmacokinetic parameters for the latter. Concomitant use of the NNRTIs efavirenz and nevirapine increased the CL/F of lopinavir.

Objective: The normalized inhibitory quotient (NIQ) has been proposed as a measure for refining the precision of HIV resistance testing when selecting antiretroviral therapy (ART). We undertook an assessment of NIQ and 48-week virological outcome in patients commencing ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (PI) regimens., Design: A cohort of 87 HIV-infected individuals who all had extensive prior exposure to ART were assigned a new boosted PI regimen following resistance testing. PI therapy consisted of lopinavir, indinavir, saquinavir and amprenavir at 50, 32, 11 and 6%, respectively. Fold change (FC) for each PI was determined from the resistance test at baseline. Trough drug concentration (Cmin) was determined at week 4., Methods: NIQ was derived individually by taking the logarithm of the ratio of Cmin/FC divided by the fixed ratio of population mean trough drug concentration/clinical cut off. Associations between viral load (VL) response over 48 weeks with baseline VL, FC, Cmin, NIQ and selected PI were assessed., Results: Mean change from baseline VL reduced by 0.83 log at week 48. In multivariate analyses, baseline VL and NIQ were the parameters most associated with change from baseline VL at week 48 (P = 0.012 and 0.003, respectively). FC, Cmin and selected PI were not significantly associated with VL changes., Conclusion: In this cohort of highly treatment-experienced individuals treated with boosted PI regimens, baseline VL and NIQ were significantly predictive of virological response over 48 weeks whereas FC and Cmin were not. These results support the use of a NIQ at week 4, as a tool for predicting response to therapy in this setting.

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term pharmacokinetics and safety of adding ritonavir 100 mg twice-daily to a nelfinavir 1250 mg twice-daily regimen in HIV-infected patients., Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label, controlled 24-week study. Sixteen patients receiving a nelfinavir 1250 mg twice-daily regimen with plasma viral load <1000 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL were randomized to continue treatment or to have ritonavir 100 mg twice-daily added. Safety, including fasting lipid levels, was evaluated at weeks 4, 12 and 24. Patients who were randomized to have ritonavir added (n=9) participated in three 12-h pharmacokinetic evaluations at baseline, week 4 and week 24., Results: Increases in median nelfinavir steady-state plasma concentrations at 12 h (C(12)) from 512 to 773 ng/mL [median difference 450 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval (CI) 116--1510 ng/mL] and in median active nelfinavir metabolite M 8 C(12) from 107 to 603 ng/mL (median difference 545 ng/mL; 95% CI 370--891) were seen after the addition of low-dose ritonavir (baseline to week 24). There were no differences between the nelfinavir or M 8 pharmacokinetic parameters at weeks 4 and 24. No significant changes or differences in the concentration of fasting total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol or total triglycerides or in the occurrence of adverse events were observed within or between the two groups., Conclusions: Nelfinavir and especially M 8 concentrations are increased when low-dose ritonavir is added to a nelfinavir-containing regimen. The combination seems to be safe and the nelfinavir/ritonavir regimen could be an option in patients with low nelfinavir+M 8 concentrations.

Objective: To assess the pharmacokinetic interaction of saquinavir and lopinavir/ritonavir., Design: Patients from the Frankfurt HIV cohort with limited reverse transcriptase inhibitor (RTI) options received the protease inhibitor (PI) combination of saquinavir (soft-gel capsules, 1000 mg twice a day) plus lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg twice a day), without RTI (LOPSAQ group). A control group received the same doses of saquinavir and ritonavir plus two to three RTI (RITSAQ group). A steady-state 12 h pharmacokinetic assessment was performed., Methods: Plasma levels of saquinavir, ritonavir and lopinavir were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrophotometry. Minimum and maximum plasma concentrations (Cmin and Cmax), the clearance (Cltot) and the area under the concentration time curve (AUC) were calculated., Results: Data were collected from 45 patients (LOPSAQ) and 32 patients (RITSAQ). There was no significant difference between the groups for median saquinavir Cmin, Cmax, Cltot and AUC (LOPSAQ: 543 ng/ml, 2300 ng/ml, 1020 ml/min and 16 977 ng*h/ml; RITSAQ: 427 ng/ml, 2410 ng/ml, 1105 ml/min and 15 130 ng*h/ml). Median ritonavir Cmin, Cmax and AUC were lower, the Cltot was higher in the LOPSAQ group (78 ng/ml, 428 ng/ml and 2972 ng*h/ml, 551 ml/min) compared with RITSAQ (194 ng/ml, 683 ng/ml and 6506 ng*h/ml, 266 ml/min; P < 0.001). Lopinavir levels were similar to historical data., Conclusion: Effective plasma levels of both saquinavir and lopinavir can be achieved by the co-administration of saquinavir soft-gel capsules and lopinavir/ritonavir. This boosted double PI combination could be an effective option for patients with limited RTI options.

Coadministration of amprenavir (APV) with small doses of ritonavir (RTV) results in a significant increase in APV plasma concentrations. Viruses showing resistance to other protease inhibitors (PI) may remain susceptible to APV, supporting a role for this drug in salvage therapy. We enrolled 35 patients who began a rescue intervention based on APV/RTV 600/100 mg twice daily. Their median viral load before beginning APV/RTV was 4.15 logs and their median CD4 count was 247 cells per microliter. The median prior PI exposure was of 43 months. At baseline, the median number of PI resistance mutations was 7. A significant virologic response (VR) (>1 log drop in plasma HIV-RNA and/or to <50 copies per milliliter) was recorded in 21.7% (5/23) of treated patients at week 48 (14.3% in the intent-to-treat analysis). The VR was significantly more frequent among subjects with less than 5 PI resistance mutations (66.6% vs. 5.8%; p = 0.008). Patients with prior exposure to lopinavir showed VR significantly less frequently than those not exposed to that drug (11% versus 60%; p < 0.05). The mean APV plasma trough concentration at week 12 was 1.3 microg/mL, and did not differ significantly comparing subjects having or not having VR. A trend toward a higher VR rate at week 48 was noticed among subjects with high genotypic inhibitory quotients (GIQ). In summary, HIV genotyping but not drug levels might be helpful to predict which patients would benefit from a rescue intervention based on APV/RTV 600/100 twice daily.

Human CD4+ T cells express P-glycoprotein (P-gp), the ATP binding cassette efflux transporter encoded by MDR1. A common MDR1 single-nucleotide polymorphism in exon 26 (C3435T), which is linked to an exon 21 polymorphism (G2677T/A) and reportedly alters expression, has been associated with greater CD4+ T-cell increases during antiretroviral therapy. P-gp overexpression prevents apoptosis and inhibits HIV-1 replication in model systems, suggesting a potential effect on T-cell turnover. This study explored relationships between MDR1 polymorphisms and phase 1 viral decay among 31 HIV-infected individuals initiating antiretroviral therapy. Position 3435 genotypes were CC in 7 (23%), CT in 14 (45%), and TT in 10 (32%). Position 2677 genotypes were GG in 8 (26%), GT in 18 (58%), and TT in 5 (16%). There was no significant relationship between allelic variants in either exon 26 or 21 and phase 1 or phase 2 viral decay, changes in lymphocyte subsets over time, or plasma trough ritonavir concentrations. It is concluded with 95% confidence that phase 1 viral decay differences between exon 26 TT and CC groups are unlikely to exceed 18%.

Objectives: To evaluate the long-term efficacy and pharmacokinetics of indinavir (IDV)/ritonavir (RTV) 400/100 mg twice a day in combination with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors., Methods: The study was retrospective with a prospective pharmacokinetic study at a single centre. All HIV-1-infected patients who started the regimen in the period from January 1999 to February 2001 were included in the study. Plasma HIV RNA and CD4 cell counts were recorded from baseline to week 120. Results were evaluated as intention-to-treat and on-treatment analyses with separate analyses for protease inhibitor naive and experienced patients. Patients who were still on the regimen by August 2001 were asked to participate in a pharmacokinetic evaluation., Results: Twenty-one patients started treatment with the regimen (median follow-up: 116 weeks). The percentage of patients with below 20 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL was 70.0% at week 120 and the median CD4 cell count increased from 320 to 607 cells/microL (P=0.062). The median IDV morning and evening Cmin were 434 ng/mL and 220 ng/mL, respectively., Conclusions: Treatment with the IDV/RTV 400/100 mg regimen appears to be efficacious for up to 2 years. However, rather low IDV Cmin suggests that the regimen should be evaluated further before its widespread use and that the regimen probably should be guided by pharmacokinetic evaluation.

Forty-nine protease inhibitor (PI)-experienced but amprenavir (APV)-naïve patients experiencing virological failure were treated with ritonavir (RTV) (100 mg twice a day [b.i.d.]) plus APV (600 mg b.i.d.). Patients responded to therapy with a median viral load decrease of -1.32 log(10) by week 12. The addition of low-dose RTV enhanced the minimal APV concentration in plasma (APV C(min)) up to 10-fold compared with that obtained with APV (1,200 mg b.i.d.) without RTV. Baseline PI resistance mutations (L10F/I/V, K20M/R, E35D, R41K, I54V, L63P, V82A/F/T/S, I84V) identified by univariate analysis and included in a genotypic score and APV C(min) at week 8 were predictive of the virological response at week 12. The response to APV plus RTV was significantly reduced in patients with six or more of the resistance mutations among the ones defined above. The genotypic inhibitory quotient, calculated as the ratio of the APV C(min) to the number of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease mutations, was a better predictor than the virological or pharmacological variables used alone. This genotypic inhibitory quotient could be used in therapeutic drug monitoring to define the concentrations in plasma needed to control replication of viruses with different levels of PI resistance, as measured by the number of PI resistance mutations.

The protease inhibitor (PI) ritonavir is used as a strong inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A4, which boosts the activities of coadministered PIs, resulting in augmented plasma PI levels, simplification of the dosage regimen, and better efficacy against resistant viruses. The objectives of the present open-label, multiple-dose study were to determine the steady-state pharmacokinetics of amprenavir administered at 600 mg twice daily (BID) and ritonavir administered at 100 mg BID in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1)-infected adults treated with different antiretroviral combinations including or not including a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). Nineteen patients completed the study. The steady-state mean minimum plasma amprenavir concentration (C(min,ss)) was 1.92 microg/ml for patients who received amprenavir and ritonavir without an NNRTI and 1.36 microg/ml for patients who received amprenavir and ritonavir plus efavirenz. For patients who received amprenavir-ritonavir without an NNRTI, the steady-state mean peak plasma amprenavir concentration (C(max,ss)) was 7.12 microg/ml, the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 10 h (AUC(0-10)) was 32.06 microg. h/ml, and the area under the concentration-time curve over a dosing interval (12 h) at steady-state (AUC(ss)) was 35.74 microg. h/ml. Decreases in the mean values of C(min,ss) (29%), C(max,ss) (42%), AUC(0-10) (42%), and AUC(ss) (40%) for amprenavir occurred when efavirenz was coadministered with amprenavir-ritonavir. No unexpected side effects were observed. As expected, coadministration of amprenavir with ritonavir resulted in an amprenavir C(min,ss) markedly higher than those previously reported for the marketed dose of amprenavir. When amprenavir-ritonavir was coadministered with efavirenz, amprenavir-ritonavir maintained a mean amprenavir C(min,ss) above the mean 50% inhibitory concentration of amprenavir previously determined for both wild-type HIV-1 isolates and HIV-1 strains isolated from PI-experienced patients. These data support the use of low-dose ritonavir to enhance the level of exposure to amprenavir and increase the efficacy of amprenavir.

Background: Protease inhibitors (PIs) are substrates for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp/170) encoded by the multi-drug resistance gene (MDR-1). HIV infection is associated with increased expression of P-gp. The role of MDR gene overexpression in clinical pharmacokinetics is not known., Method: We determined by HPLC, at trough and peak levels, the current PI concentrations in plasma (P) and in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) (intracellular concentration [IC]) from 49 HIV-infected patients receiving different treatment combinations: nelfinavir ([NFV] n = 12); indinavir ([IDV] n = 10); amprenavir ([APV] n = 5); ritonavir (RTV) 100 bid/IDV 800 mg bid (n = 6); RTV 400 bid/IDV 400 mg bid (n = 3); RTV 100 bid/saquinavir (SQV) 600 mg tid (n = 9); APV 600 bid/RTV 100 mg bid (n = 4). We determined the mean ratio of intracellular/plasma PI concentration for each treatment group. The MDR-1 gene expression was determined by a semi-quantitative reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR). HIV viral load was simultaneously measured., Results: 49 patients (mean age 41 +/- 8.7 years; mean CD4 cell count 418 [57-972]; mean HIV RNA 2.1 +/- 0.8 log(10)) were included in the study. Patients who overexpressed the MDR-1 gene had significantly lower trough intracellular PI levels (p =.02) or lower intracellular accumulation of PI (p =.042). Patients treated with low-dose RTV in combined regimens with detectable RTV intracellular concentration showed lack of MDR-1 gene expression (p =.01). Patients with HIV RNA < 40 copies/mL had significantly higher RTV intracellular accumulation (p =.029)., Conclusion: In HIV-infected patients, IC of PI is inversely correlated with MDR-1 gene overexpression. Undetectable viral load was associated with the use of low-dose RTV, probably linked to better intracellular accumulation of the drug. Nevertheless, further investigation is needed to confirm these results.

Purpose: To study the presence of three HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs) in the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), semen, and lymph nodes and to assess the correlations with residual viral replication in these compartments., Method: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of sanctuary samples from 41 HIV-infected patients on stable highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimens containing indinavir, nelfinavir, or lopinavir combined with ritonavir (lopinavir/r) and a longitudinal analysis of PI levels and HIV-1 RNA in plasma and CSF of 6 additional patients on nelfinavir or lopinavir/r monotherapy (3 cases each). Plasma, CSF, semen, and a lymph node (LN) biopsy were taken on the same day. Samples were assayed for PI concentrations, HIV-1 RNA levels, and, when detectable, sequencing of the reverse transcriptase and protease genes on seminal viral RNA., Results: In the cross-sectional analysis, the CSF/plasma ratio was 0.14 for indinavir. Nelfinavir and lopinavir/r were consistently undetectable in CSF. The semen/plasma ratio was 1.9 for indinavir, 0.07 for nelfinavir, and 0.07 for lopinavir. The LN/plasma ratio was 2.07 for indinavir, 0.58 for nelfinavir, 0.21 for lopinavir, and 0.64 for ritonavir. Plasma HIV-1 RNA was <50 copies/mL in 28 patients and was detectable in 13 patients. HIV-1 RNA was <50 copies/mL in CSF samples when plasma RNA was undetectable. Three semen samples taken from patients with viremia <50 copies/mL showed detectable HIV-1 RNA with resistance mutations. HIV-1 RNA was detectable in all LNs, with no differences in patients on indinavir compared with those on nelfinavir or lopinavir/r. In the longitudinal analysis, HIV-1 RNA decreased in the plasma of the 6 patients on nelfinavir or lopinavir/r monotherapy, although CSF HIV-1 RNA decreased only in patients on lopinavir/r., Conclusion: Major differences exist between PIs in terms of detection in non-blood compartments. An undetectable PI level in CSF does not rule out drug activity in the brain for lopinavir/r, although this is not the case for nelfinavir. Poor penetration of PIs in semen in some patients can lead to double nucleoside therapy in this compartment. The persistence of HIV-1 RNA in LNs does not seem to be related to PI levels in this tissue.

Aims: To study the effect of fluconazole on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of the protease inhibitors ritonavir and saquinavir in HIV-1-infected patients., Methods: Five subjects treated with saquinavir and three with ritonavir received the protease inhibitor alone (saquinavir 1200 mg three times daily, ritonavir 600 mg twice daily) on day 1, and the same protease inhibitor in combination with fluconazole (400 mg on day 2 and 200 mg on days 3 to 8). Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined on days 1 and 8., Results: In the saquinavir group, the median increase in the area under the plasma concentration vs time curve was 50% from 1800 microg l(-1) h to 2700 microg l(-1) h (P = 0.04, median increase: 900 microg l(-1) h; 2.5 and 97.5 percentile: 500-1300), and 56% for the peak concentration in plasma (from 550 to 870 microg l(-1), P = 0.04; median increase: 320 microg l(-1) h, 2.5 and 97.5 percentile: 60-450 microg l(-1)). In the ritonavir group, there were no detectable changes in the pharmacokinetic parameters on addition of fluconazole., Conclusions: Because of the favourable safety profile of saquinavir, dose adjustments are probably not necessary with concomitant use of fluconazole, as is the case for ritonavir.

Objective: To assess the HIV-1-RNA response and drug concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and serum during treatment with saquinavir (SQV)/ritonavir (RTV) or SQV/RTV plus stavudine (d4T) in HIV-1 -infected patients., Design: A multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial., Methods: A total of 208 protease inhibitor (PI) and d4T-naive, HIV-1-infected patients were treated with RTV 400 mg twice daily and SQV 400 mg twice daily with or without d4T 40 mg twice daily. Intensification with reverse transcriptase inhibitors was allowed if serum HIV RNA remained above 400 copies/ml after 12 weeks. In 27 volunteers, CSF and serum HIV RNA were measured at baseline, weeks 12 and 48, using the Roche Amplicor and the ultrasensitive assay. In 22 patients, serum and CSF drug concentrations were determined at week 12., Results: The median baseline serum and CSF HIV-RNA concentrations were 4.81 and 3.21 log10 copies/ml, respectively. A difference in the proportion of patients with a CSF HIV-RNA level below the limit of quantification (< LLQ) after 12 weeks was found: four out of 14 (RTV/SQV) versus 12 out of 13 (RTV/SQV/d4T) (P = 0.001). The same results were found using the ultrasensitive assay. Patients with a baseline HIV-RNA level < LLQ in CSF remained < LLQ, regardless of the treatment regimen. Treatment with RTV/SQV alone was the only independent predictor of a CSF HIV-RNA level > LLQ at week 12 in logistic regression analysis (P = 0.005). CSF RTV and SQV concentrations were < LLQ in most patients., Conclusion: RTV/SQV alone cannot suppress detectable CSF HIV-1-RNA levels to < LLQ after 12 weeks of treatment in the majority of patients. CSF drug concentrations of RTV and SQV < LLQ may explain the suboptimal antiretroviral effect in the CSF.

Objective: To explore the steady-state plasma pharmacokinetics of indinavir in twice daily dosing regimens with and without the co-administration of 100 mg ritonavir., Design: Observational pharmacokinetic study., Patients: HIV-1-infected individuals who use indinavir alone (1200 mg twice daily, n = 6), or the combination of 100 mg ritonavir twice daily plus either 800 mg (n = 6), or 1200 mg indinavir twice daily (n = 2)., Methods: Steady-state pharmacokinetics of indinavir and ritonavir were assessed by drawing 12 blood samples during an 8-h period after ingestion of the medication., Results: Significant differences were observed for indinavir pharmacokinetics between the dosing regimens indinavir 1200 mg twice daily alone and indinavir/ ritonavir 800/100 mg twice daily with respect to the mean trough concentration (0.21 and 0.99 microg/ml, respectively, P = 0.002), the mean maximum concentration (13.79 and 8.74 microg/ml, respectively, P = 0.028), and for the mean plasma elimination half-life (1.6 and 3.2 h, respectively, P = 0.001). The combination indinavir/ritonavir 1200/100 mg twice daily led to very high exposure to indinavir and was not well tolerated. However, the combination indinavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg twice daily was well tolerated and resulted in therapeutic concentrations of indinavir with improved trough concentrations and similar maximum concentrations as observed with the licensed dosage of 800 mg three times daily., Conclusion: Combination of indinavir and 100 mg ritonavir in twice daily dosing regimens significantly affects the pharmacokinetic profile of indinavir. The results of this observational study provide a pharmacologic basis for the combination of indinavir (800 mg) and ritonavir (100 mg) in twice daily dosing regimens.