Search

Background: Direct-acting antivirals have improved treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus infection significantly. Direct-acting antivirals inhibit/induce and can also be substrates of drug-metabolising enzymes and transporters. This increases the risk for drug-drug interactions., Objective: The purpose of this study was to predict drug-drug interactions with co-medication used by hepatitis C virus-infected patients., Methods: We assembled a nationwide cohort of hepatitis C patients and collected cross-sectional data on co-medication use. We compiled a list of currently available direct-acting antiviral regimens and cross-checked for potential drug-drug interactions with used co-medication., Results: The cohort included 461 patients of which 77% used co-medication. We identified 260 drugs used as co-medication. Antidepressants (7.4%), proton pump inhibitors (7.1%) and benzodiazepines (7.1%) were most frequently used. Of the patients, 60% were at risk for a clinically relevant drug-drug interaction with at least one of the direct-acting antiviral regimens. Interactions were most common with paritaprevir/ritonavir/ombitasvir/dasabuvir and least interactions were predicted with grazoprevir/elbasvir., Conclusion: Co-medication use is rich in frequency and diversity in chronic hepatitis C patients. The majority of patients are at risk for drug-drug interactions which may affect efficacy or toxicity of direct-acting antivirals or co-medication. The most recently introduced direct-acting antivirals are associated with a lower risk of drug-drug interactions.

Chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can cause severe liver cirrhosis, for which liver transplantation is the only therapy. To prevent organ rejection, transplanted patients are treated with immunosuppressive agents. We describe two transplanted patients treated with tacrolimus who were simultaneously treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for their chronic HCV infection. No pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were expected between tacrolimus and the selected DAAs. However, in both patients, tacrolimus plasma concentrations decreased during HCV treatment. We hypothesise that decreased plasma concentrations were not caused by a DDI but were an indirect result of the clearance of the HCV infection. During chronic HCV infection, pro-inflammatory cytokines may inhibit cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, which are primarily responsible for tacrolimus metabolism. If this is true, then with clearance of the virus the activity of these enzymes will normalise and tacrolimus metabolism will increase. These changes were clinically relevant because the tacrolimus dosage needed to be adjusted. Therefore, physicians should be aware that CYP substrates with narrow therapeutic ranges might require dose adaption during HCV therapy with DAAs., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. and International Society of Chemotherapy. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atazanavir is boosted with the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor ritonavir. When combined with the CYP3A4 substrate daclatasvir, the daclatasvir dosage should be reduced from 60 to 30 mg once daily. Recently, cobicistat was licensed as a CYP3A booster and used with atazanavir., Objectives: To determine whether the fixed-dose combination of atazanavir/cobicistat has an influence on daclatasvir pharmacokinetics comparable to that of the separate agents atazanavir and ritonavir., Methods: A prospective, open-label, two-period, randomized, cross-over trial was performed in 16 healthy subjects (NCT02565888). Treatment consisted of 300/100 mg of atazanavir/ritonavir plus 30 mg of daclatasvir once daily (reference) and a second period of 300/150 mg of atazanavir/cobicistat plus 30 mg of daclatasvir once daily (test). A 24 h pharmacokinetic, steady-state curve was recorded for all drugs. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) with 90% CI were calculated for daclatasvir and atazanavir AUC τ  and C max to compare the effect of both treatments (test versus reference). Laboratory safety and adverse events were evaluated throughout the trial., Results: All 16 healthy subjects completed the study. Median (range) age and BMI were 48.5 (21-55) years and 24.5 (19.0-29.2) kg/m 2 , respectively. Pharmacokinetic parameters of ritonavir and cobicistat were comparable to those in the literature. The GMRs (90% CI) of daclatasvir AUC τ and C max (test versus reference) were 101% (92%-111%) and 97% (89%-106%), respectively. Atazanavir GMRs (90% CI) of AUC τ and C max were 82% (75%-79%) and 74% (68%-81%), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported., Conclusions: Atazanavir/cobicistat and atazanavir/ritonavir had a similar influence on daclatasvir pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. Daclatasvir at 30 mg once daily is the correct dose when combined with atazanavir/cobicistat., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Treatment options for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection have drastically changed since the development and licensing of new potent direct-acting antivirals (DAAs). The majority of DAAs are extensively metabolized by liver enzymes and have the ability to influence cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. Additionally, these DAAs are both substrates and inhibitors of drug transporters, which makes the DAAs both possible victims or perpetrators of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). There is a high prevalence of mental illnesses such as depression or psychosis in HCV-infected patients; therefore, psychoactive medications are frequently co-administered with DAAs. The majority of these psychoactive medications are also metabolized by CYP enzymes but remarkably little information is available on DDIs between psychoactive medications and DAAs. Hence, the aim of this review is to provide an overview of the interaction mechanisms between DAAs and psychoactive agents. In addition, we describe evidenced-based interactions between DAAs and psychoactive drugs and identify safe options for the simultaneous treatment of mental illnesses and chronic HCV infection., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethical Standards Funding No funding was used in the preparation of this review. Conflict of interest E.J. Smolders and C.T.M.M. de Kanter declare that they have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review. R.J. de Knegt received sponsorship/research grants from BMS and Janssen; is a consultant for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Roche, and Janssen; and has delivered lectures for AbbVie, Janssen, Gilead, and Roche. J.P.H. Drenth is on the advisory boards for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, and Merck and received sponsorship/research grants from AbbVie and Janssen. D.M. Burger is on the advisory boards for AbbVie, BMS, Gilead, Janssen, and Merck and received sponsorship/research grants from BMS, Janssen, Merck, and Viiv. However, these conflicts of interests did not influence the preparation of this review.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected patients often suffer from liver cirrhosis, which can be complicated by renal impairment. Therefore, in this review we describe the treatment possibilities in HCV patients with hepatic and renal impairment. Cirrhosis alters the structure of the liver, which affects drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters. These modifications influence the plasma concentration of substrates of drugs metabolized/transported by these enzymes. The direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are substrates of, for example, cytochrome P450 enzymes in the liver. Most DAAs are not studied in HCV-infected individuals with decompensated cirrhosis, and therefore awareness is needed when these patients are treated. Most DAAs are contraindicated in cirrhotic patients; however, patients with a Child-Pugh score of B or C can be treated safely with a normal dose sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir or daclatasvir, in combination with ribavirin. Patients with renal impairment (glomerular filtration rate [GFR] <90 mL/min) or who are dependent on dialysis often tolerate ribavirin treatment poorly, even after dose adjustments. However, most DAAs can be used at the normal dose because DAAs are not renally excreted. To date, grazoprevir plus elbasvir is the preferred DAA regimen in patients with renal impairment as data are pending for sofosbuvir patients with GFR <30 mL/min (as for ledipasvir and velpatasvir). However, sofosbuvir has been used in a small number of patients with severe renal impairment and, based on these trials, we recommend sofosbuvir 400 mg every day when no other DAA regimen is available. Ledipasvir and velpatasvir are not recommended in patients with severe renal impairment.

Background: Monitoring ribavirin concentrations during hepatitis C treatment with dual therapy can help optimize treatment response and minimize anaemia. A defined therapeutic range for ribavirin during direct-acting antiviral-based therapies is lacking. This analysis explores whether a therapeutic range for ribavirin concentrations can be defined in patients treated with boceprevir- or telaprevir-based triple therapies., Methods: Treatment-naive patients from ADVANCE, ILLUMINATE, OPTIMIZE and SPRINT-2, and treatment-experienced patients from RESPOND-2 were included. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether ribavirin concentrations were an independent predictor of sustained virological response or anaemia. Optimal cutoff values and the percentage of patients within the proposed therapeutic range were determined, along with the associated chance of response., Results: Overall, 1,502 patients were included. In both regimens, ribavirin concentrations were significantly associated with anaemia (haemoglobin level <10 g/dl) at all time points (1.75 < odds ratio [OR] <2.45) and sustained virological response was associated with ribavirin concentrations at week 8 (OR=1.43 for telaprevir and 1.78 for boceprevir). A therapeutic range for ribavirin at week 8 of 2.2-3.5 mg/l was defined for telaprevir treatment. Of the 48% of patients with a concentration within this range, 81% achieved sustained virological response and only 5.1% reported anaemia. For boceprevir treatment, the week 8 optimal range was defined as 2.2-3.6 mg/l and 50% of patients had a concentration within this range, of whom 69% achieved sustained virological response and 46% developed anaemia., Conclusions: We established the therapeutic range for ribavirin in boceprevir- and telaprevir-based therapy that balances safety and efficacy.

Background: Hepatitis C virus (HCV)/HIV-coinfected patients respond worse to dual therapy with ribavirin (RBV)/peginterferon compared with HCV-monoinfected patients. Several trials found that lower RBV plasma concentrations are associated with impaired virological response rates. The aim of this study was to determine RBV plasma concentrations in a cohort of HCV-monoinfected and HCV/HIV-coinfected patients. Our hypothesis is that HCV/HIV-coinfected patients have lower RBV plasma concentrations, which may in part explain their inferior response to dual therapy., Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed in chronic HCV-monoinfected and HCV/HIV-coinfected patients who received peginterferon and weight-based RBV. Plasma RBV concentrations were determined at weeks 4 and 12 by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography assay. RBV concentrations were compared between monoinfected and coinfected patients. We calculated the proportion of patients with a subtherapeutic RBV plasma concentration defined as <2.0 mg/L., Results: A total of 61 HCV-infected patients were included, of whom 21 (34%) were coinfected with HIV. Although there was no difference in the weight-based dose of RBV between monoinfected and coinfected patients, RBV exposure was significantly lower in HCV/HIV-coinfected patients than in HCV-monoinfected patients: the mean ± SD RBV plasma concentrations were 1.82 ± 0.63 mg/L versus 2.25 ± 0.80 mg/L (P = 0.04) at week 4 and 2.14 ± 0.65 mg/L versus 2.62 ± 0.81 mg/L (P = 0.05) at week 12, respectively. The percentage of patients with subtherapeutic plasma concentrations of RBV in coinfected patients versus monoinfected patients was 62% versus 46% (P = 0.240) at week 4 and 50% versus 16% (P = 0.01) at week 12 of treatment, respectively., Conclusions: HIV/HCV-coinfected patients yield significantly lower plasma concentrations of RBV than HCV-monoinfected patients. This puts them at an increased risk of not achieving sustained virological response.

Evidence over the past decades have shown that HIV/HCV coinfected patients did not respond as well to HCV therapy as HCV mono-infected patients. However, these paradigms are being recently reassessed with the improvements of care for HIV and HCV patients. This article reviews these original paradigms and how the new data is impacting upon them. Treatment efficacy now appears comparable for HIV/HCV coinfected and HCV mono-infected patients, while liver fibrosis progression is increasingly similar in optimally managed patients. Additional importance of therapy is directed to drug-drug interactions and the impact of HCV reinfection, as well as the possibility of transmitted drug resistance., (Copyright © 2015 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Telaprevir is a protease inhibitor used in the treatment of hepatitis C virus infection. Analytical methods for telaprevir should separate the compound from its R-diastereomer VRT-127394, which is 30-fold less active. The objective of this work was to develop liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometer (LC-MS/MS) assays for telaprevir both in plasma and in dried blood spot (DBS), capable of stabilizing the equilibrium and chromatographically separating the 2 epimers., Methods: Human plasma was acidified with formic acid and frozen within 1 hour after collection to stabilize the equilibrium between the 2 telaprevir diastereomers ex vivo in plasma. After protein precipitation, the sample was analyzed with LC-MS/MS. For the DBS assay, sampling paper was impregnated with citric acid solution to achieve stabilization of the epimers on the sampling paper. DBS samples were extracted before LC-MS/MS analysis. LC-MS/MS analysis comprised online solid-phase extraction and separation on a C18 column, with the mass spectrometer operating in TurboIonSpray-negative ionization mode and performing multiple reaction monitoring., Results: The assays were linear over the concentration range of 0.1-10 mg/L in plasma and DBS. Accuracies ranged from 97% to 106% in plasma and from 93% to 99% in DBS. Within- and between-day coefficients of variation were <7.9% in plasma and <9.3% in DBS. Human whole blood samples with hematocrit values of 27%-47% gave reproducible quantitation results in the DBS assay, and spot volume did not affect results of the DBS assay either. Acidified plasma with telaprevir was stable for 5 hours at 20°C, and telaprevir on impregnated DBS paper was stable for at least 3 months at 4°C or at 20°C., Conclusions: An assay was developed and validated for the determination of telaprevir in human plasma, separating telaprevir from its R-diastereomer VRT-127394. In addition, a DBS assay was developed, which avoids immediate centrifuging, acidification, and freezing of patient samples to stabilize the equilibrium between the 2 telaprevir diastereomers.

Background: Adequate ribavirin exposure is essential for optimal sustained virological response (SVR) rates in chronic HCV treatment. It has been proposed that the area under the concentration-time curve up to 4 h after intake of ribavirin (AUC0-4 h) of the first weight-based ribavirin dose should be ≥1.755 mg•h/l to guarantee the highest chance of SVR. Our ARRIBA concept comprises a test dose of ribavirin to select the optimal starting dose to achieve adequate exposure. This study aims to evaluate whether adequate exposure can be achieved after dose advice based on the AUC0-4 h of a single weight-based ribavirin test dose., Methods: (Formerly) HCV-infected subjects received a single weight-based ribavirin test dose (<75 kg: 400 mg; ≥75 kg: 600 mg) and the AUC0-4 h was calculated. If ribavirin AUC0-4 h was ≥1.755 mg•h/l, subjects received the same dose 4 weeks later; if the AUC0-4 h was <1.755 mg•h/l, an adjusted dose was administered. The ribavirin AUC0-4 h was recorded again. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with an AUC0-4 h ≥1.755 mg•h/l after the second dose., Results: A total of 26 subjects were included. The geometric mean (95% CI) ribavirin AUC0-4 h was 1.67 (1.44-1.92) mg•h/l with 9 subjects (35%) reaching the target AUC on day 1. Thus, on day 29, 17 subjects (65%) received an adjusted dose. The geometric mean (95% CI) AUC0-4 h increased to 1.90 (1.62-2.21) mg•h/l and then 16 subjects (62%) had an AUC0-4 h ≥1.755 mg•h/l, which is significantly higher than day 1 (P<0.05)., Conclusions: Our ARRIBA concept of a ribavirin test dose, with dose adjustment if necessary, leads to an increased proportion of patients with an AUC≥1.755 mg•h/l compared to traditional weight-based ribavirin dosing.

Chronic hepatitis C is a global health problem. To prevent or reduce complications, the hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection needs to be eradicated. There have been several developments in treating these patients since the discovery of the virus. As of 1 January 2014, the drugs that are approved for treatment of chronic HCV infection are peginterferon-α, ribavirin, boceprevir, telaprevir, simeprevir and sofosbuvir. In this review we provide an overview of the clinical pharmacokinetic characteristics of these agents by describing their absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion. In the pharmacodynamic part we summarize what is known about the relationships between the pharmacokinetics of each drug and efficacy or toxicity. We briefly discuss the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of chronic hepatitis C treatment in special patient populations, such as patients with liver cirrhosis, renal insufficiency or HCV/HIV coinfection, and children. With this knowledge, physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, etc. should be educated to safely and effectively treat HCV-infected patients.

Background: Correlations between ribavirin (RBV) concentrations and sustained virological response (SVR) to hepatitis C virus treatment have been demonstrated previously. As steady state is reached after several weeks of RBV treatment, dose modifications based on steady-state levels can only be applied relatively late in treatment, possibly too late to influence SVR rates. The authors aimed to determine whether measurement of early concentrations is useful to predict optimal steady-state RBV concentrations., Methods: In 61 treatment-naive genotype 1/4 patients RBV concentrations were determined in samples collected after 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks of therapy. RBV concentrations were compared between responders and nonresponders; Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were conducted to find optimal cut-off values to predict week 8 concentrations from earlier measurements., Results: Median week 8 RBV concentrations were significantly higher in patients with SVR compared with those without: 3.4 (interquartile range 2.4-3.9) versus 2.6 (interquartile range 2.0-3.5) mg/L (P < 0.05). RBV concentration at week 8 was an independent predictor of SVR [adjusted odds ratio 2.3 (95% confidence interval: 1.1-4.9; P = 0.03)]. The optimal cut-off value of week 8 RBV concentration to predict SVR was 2.20 mg/L [sensitivity 87%, specificity 40%, positive predictive value 64%, negative predictive value 71%]. Optimal cut-off values at weeks 1, 2, or 4 to predict an RBV concentration ≥2.20 mg/L at week 8 were 0.92, 1.29, and 1.67 mg/L, respectively, with positive predictive values and negative predictive values ranging from 88% to 91% and 71% to 86%, respectively., Conclusions: RBV concentrations in the earliest stages of antiviral therapy predict therapeutic steady-state concentrations, allowing timely dose adjustments with potential implications for treatment outcome.

Objectives: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can limit the solubility of concomitant drugs, which can lead to decreased absorption and exposure. Reduced efficacy can be a consequence and in the case of an antimicrobial agent this may contribute to development of resistance. Patients chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus can be treated with a boceprevir-containing regimen and it is relevant to know if interactions between PPIs and boceprevir exist. This study was designed to investigate the influence of a frequently used PPI, omeprazole, on the pharmacokinetics of boceprevir and vice versa., Methods: In this open-label, three-period, randomized, cross-over, Phase I study, healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 40 mg of omeprazole once daily for 5 days, 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days and 40 mg of omeprazole once daily + 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days, or the same treatment in a different order. Every treatment was followed by a wash-out period. At day 5 of every treatment pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed for 8 h after medication intake. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01470690., Results: All 24 subjects (15 males) completed the study and no serious adverse events were reported. Geometric mean ratios (90% CI) of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 8 h (AUC0-8) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of boceprevir with omeprazole versus boceprevir alone were 0.92 (0.87-0.97) and 0.94 (0.86-1.02), respectively. For omeprazole these values were 1.06 (0.90-1.25) for AUC0-8 and 1.03 (0.85-1.26) for Cmax for the combination versus omeprazole alone., Conclusions: Omeprazole did not have a clinically significant effect on boceprevir exposure, and boceprevir did not affect omeprazole exposure.

Background: Patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are likely to use both HIV and HCV treatment. Drug-drug interactions have been demonstrated between boceprevir, an HCV protease inhibitor, and frequently prescribed antiretroviral drugs, such as efavirenz and boosted HIV protease inhibitors. Concomitant administration of boceprevir with these drugs should be avoided. This study was designed to investigate the absence of a drug-drug interaction between boceprevir and raltegravir, an HIV integrase inhibitor., Methods: This was an open-label, randomized, 2-period, crossover phase 1 trial in 24 healthy volunteers. All subjects were randomly assigned to receive boceprevir 800 mg every 8 hours for 9 days plus a single dose of raltegravir 400 mg on day 10 followed by a washout period and a single dose of raltegravir 400 mg on day 38, or the same medication in reverse order. Blood samples for pharmacokinetics were collected and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated., Results: The geometric mean (GM) of raltegravir area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-12h) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) for raltegravir + boceprevir vs raltegravir alone were 4.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.22-5.66) vs 4.04 (95% CI, 3.09-5.28) mg * hour/L and 1.06 (95% CI, .76-1.49) vs 0.93 (95% CI, .70-1.23) mg/L, respectively. GM ratio estimates of raltegravir AUC(0-12h) and C(max) for raltegravir + boceprevir vs raltegravir alone were 1.04 (90% CI, .88-1.22) and 1.11 (90% CI, .91-1.36), respectively. The GM of boceprevir AUC(0-8h), C(max), and C(8h) were 5.45 (95% CI, 5.11-5.81) mg * hour/L, 1.88 (95% CI, 1.72-2.06) mg/L, and 0.09 (95% CI, .07-.11) mg/L, respectively. These data are comparable to those from historical controls., Conclusions: Due to the absence of a clinically significant drug interaction, raltegravir can be recommended for combined HIV/HCV treatment including boceprevir., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01288417.

The authors describe an HIV-infected patient with moderate renal failure receiving combination antiretroviral therapy. Because of dyslipidaemia he was initially treated with pravastatin but developed rhabdomyolysis after a switch to rosuvastatin. With this case we illustrate that statins as well as antiretroviral therapy are susceptible to clinical relevant drug-drug or drug-disease interactions. Knowledge of these interactions is important to provide patients with the best possible care.

Objectives: To determine the pharmacokinetic profiles of lopinavir and ritonavir in two newly developed generic co-formulations for HIV-infected children (Lopimune paediatric tablets and granules, 100/25 mg of lopinavir/ritonavir, Cipla Pharmaceuticals), and to compare these with the branded product (Kaletra)., Methods: This Phase I, comparative, open-label, three-period, single-dose, crossover study was designed as a pilot study to exclude large (>40%) differences in the exposure to lopinavir. Single doses of medication, normalized to 400 mg of lopinavir, were administered on an empty stomach, 1 week apart. A 32 h pharmacokinetic curve was recorded. In an additional part of the study, in five of the same volunteers, a pharmacokinetic curve was recorded after administration of the Lopimune granules and Kaletra oral solution, both with food., Results: Twelve healthy subjects were enrolled (four females). The median (range) age, height and body weight were 24 (21-55) years, 1.79 (1.63-1.95) m and 72 (51-87) kg, respectively. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] AUC(0-t) of lopinavir was 71.8 (48.8-93.5), 38.7 (28.7-52.2) and 58.7 (42.5-79.4) mg.h/L with Kaletra tablets, Lopimune granules and Lopimune paediatric tablets, all taken on an empty stomach, respectively. The respective C(max) values were 7.2 (5.8-8.3), 4.6 (4.1-5.2) and 6.5 (5.0-7.1) mg/L after intake of the different formulations. When comparing the Lopimune formulations with the reference product Kaletra, for all parameters the differences were statistically significant (P