Atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir: pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of a promising double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen

OBJECTIVE: To assess the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of lopinavir (LPV), ritonavir (RTV) and atazanavir (ATV) as a double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen in HIV-infected adults. METHODS: Sixteen patients who started LPV/RTV (400/100 mg b.i.d.) and ATV (300 mg q.d.) were enrolled in the study group (arm A). LPV pharmacokinetics were compared to those of two historical groups: arm B, 15 patients who received LPV/RTV (400/100 mg b.i.d.); and arm C, 25 patients who received LPV/RTV/saquinavir (SQV) (400/100/1000 mg b.i.d.). ATV pharmacokinetics were compared to those of 15 consecutive patients who received ATV and RTV (300/100 mg q.d.) (arm D). Drug concentrations were measured by HPLC. RESULTS: LPV concentrations were significantly higher in arm A than in arms B and C. Median (interquartile range) LPV area under the curve (AUC)0-12 values were 115.7 (99.8-136.5), 85.2 (68.3-109.2) and 85.1 (60.6-110.1) microg/h/ml, respectively. C(max) values were 12.2 (10.7-14.5), 9.5 (6.8-13.9) and 10.0 (6.9-13.6) microg/ml, respectively. C(min) values were 9.1 (7.1-10.4), 5.6 (4.7-8.2) and 5.5 (4.2-7.5) microg/ml, respectively. No difference was observed for ATV AUC0-24 or C(max) between arms A and D. ATV C(min) values were 1.07 (0.61-1.79) in arm A and 0.58 (0.32-0.83) in arm D (P = 0.001). Treatment was not discontinued in any patient because of adverse effects. At 24 weeks, viral load was < 50 copies/ml in 13 of 16 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ATV and LPV/RTV provided high plasma concentrations of both PI, which seemed to be appropriate for patients with multiple prior therapeutic failures, yielding good tolerability and substantial antiviral efficacy.     

Time to virological failure with atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir, with or without an H2-receptor blocker, not significantly different in HIV observational database study

A retrospective electronic database study was conducted to determine any differences in time to virological failure and percent of virological failure among HIV-infected patients concurrently receiving H2-blockers versus patients not receiving these agents while receiving atazanavir (ATV)/ritonavir (r) or lopinavir (LPV)/r-containing antiretroviral treatment regimens. Data were culled from October 2003 (when ATV became commercially available) through February 2006. Virological failure was defined as (1) two plasma HIV-1 RNA levels >400 copies/mL after at least one HIV-1 RNA level below the level of detection or (2) failure to achieve an HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL within 24 weeks. Data from 267 ATV/r-treated patients who met the case definition were compared with data from 670 LPV/r-treated patients. Approximately 10% of the ATV/r group received concurrent H2-blockers when compared with 20% of the LPV/r group. Multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant differences regarding time to virological failure between or among the four subgroups, adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics (P = 0.79, log-rank test). At 750 days following treatment initiation, the proportion of patients not experiencing virological failure was 56% in the ATV/r-blocker subgroup, 48% in the ATV/r-alone subgroup, 45% in the LPV/r-alone subgroup and 42% in the LPV/r-blocker subgroup.     

Impact of switching from lopinavir/ritonavir to atazanavir/ritonavir on body fat redistribution in virologically suppressed HIV-infected adults

Changes in body fat distribution in virologically suppressed HIV-infected patients switching from lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) to atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) were assessed. A prospective comparative study was conducted of 37 patients receiving LPV/r regimens switching to ATV/r with 46 patients continuing with LPV/r. Body composition was assessed with whole-body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Abdominal CT scans were also performed in a subset of patients. Groups were comparable in baseline demographic, clinical, and anthropometric characteristics. After 12 months, peripheral fat did not change significantly, but an increase in trunk fat was observed only in the ATV/r group (0.87 kg, p = 0.021). The percentage of patients with an increase ≥20% in total fat was 37.8% and 15.2% in the ATV/r and LPV/r groups, respectively (p = 0.018). In the ATV/r group, the increase in trunk fat (9.4%) was significantly higher than in peripheral fat (3.7%) (p = 0.007), leading to a significant increase in fat mass ratio (3.76%, p = 0.028), whereas no significant differences were found among LPV/r patients. CT scans showed that abdominal fat increase corresponded to both visceral (28%, p = 0.008) and subcutaneous fat (42%, p = 0.008). These data suggest that switching from LPV/r to ATV/r is associated with increased trunk fat, both subcutaneous and visceral.     

Clinical validation of atazanavir/ritonavir genotypic resistance score in protease inhibitor-experienced patients

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinically relevant genotypic resistance score for boosted atazanavir (ATV) in protease inhibitor-experienced patients. METHODS: At baseline, 62 patients with HIV-1 RNA > 1000 copies/ml switched to a boosted ATV regimen (300 mg ATV, 100 mg ritonavir once daily); two were excluded from analysis at 3 months as they had undetectable plasma ATV. The impact of baseline protease mutations on virological response (> 1 log10 copies/ml plasma HIV RNA decrease) at 3 months was analysed using Fisher's exact test. Mutations with prevalence > 8% and P < 0.2 were retained. Cochran-Armitage's test was used to select the combination of mutations most strongly associated with reduced virological response. Robustness of the score was investigated using bootstrap resampling. RESULTS: At 3 months, 82% of patients had a virological response and 56% had RNA < 50 copies/ml. Eight mutations (10F/I/V, 16E, 33I/F/V, 46I/L, 60E, 84V, 85V and 90M) were retained in the genotypic resistance score (P = 8.67 x 10) and virological response was observed in 100%, 100%, 80%, 42%, and 0% of patients with none, one, two, three, and four/five mutations, respectively. There was 100% response in patients with a score < 2 independently of the number of active drugs, whereas in patients with a score > or = 3 there was a gradient of response according to the number of active drugs (0%, 29% and 60% with none, one and two/three active drugs, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of three of the eight mutations in the ATV/RTV genotypic resistance score predicted a clinically identifiable reduced response in patients.     

Viro-immunologic response to ritonavir-boosted or unboosted atazanavir in a large cohort of multiply treated patients: the CARe Study

Currently, comparative data able to define the potency of boosted versus unboosted atazanavir in highly pretreated HIV-infected patients are limited. Specifically, in clinical practice it is very important to establish whether atazanavir-boosting with ritonavir warrants potency and efficacy that overcome the profile of unboosted drug. For this reason, our goal was to evaluate viro-immunologic determinants of response to atazanavir, in unboosted ATV400 or boosted ATV300/r formulation, from baseline to week 48 in highly pretreated HIV-infected patients enrolled in a prospective observational Italian study. Data from 354 patients included in an atazanavir "Early Access Program" (AI424-900) with baseline viremia 500 copies per milliliter or more and with an available virologic follow-up were examined using as-treated analysis. Of these, 200 (56.5%) and 154 (43.5%), respectively, received regimens containing ATV300/r or ATV400. Virologic success (VS) was defined as reaching viremia of less than 500 copies per milliliter during follow-up. Estimated median time to VS was 8 weeks in the ATV300/r group and 13 weeks in the ATV400 group. Proportion of patients achieving VS was higher in the ATV300/r group than in ATV400 group at week 12 (66% versus 47%), as well as at week 48 (86% versus 64%). At multivariate Cox regression, receiving ATV300/r dosing was independently associated with increased probability of achieving VS [adjusted hazard ratio (AHR): 1.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.19-2.06]. Conversely, CDC stage C, higher baseline viral load, and more experience with protease inhibitors (PIs) were associated with poorer virologic response. In an unselected population of highly pretreated HIV-infected individuals, receiving atazanavir as part of antiretroviral regimen results in effective virologic response and immunologic recovery. The antiviral efficacy of atazanavir is greater when boosted with low-dose ritonavir.     

Quality of life in asymptomatic- and symptomatic HIV infected patients in a trial of ritonavir/saquinavir therapy. The Prometheus Study Group

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact on quality of life (QoL) of treatment with ritonavir (RTV)/saquinavir (SQV) versus RTV/SQV/stavudine (d4T) in asymptomatic [Centers for Disease Control (CDC) class A] and symptomatic HIV-infected patients (CDC B and C) who did or did not receive antiretroviral therapy (ARVT) before entry into the study. DESIGN: A multicenter randomized clinical trial. PATIENTS: Protease inhibitor- and d4T-naive patients were allocated to RTV/SQV (n = 84) versus RTV/SQV/d4T (n = 83). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes from baseline in QoL assessed by the Medical Outcomes Study Health Survey for HIV (MOS-HIV) and a symptom checklist administered at baseline and after 12, 24, 36 and 48 weeks. RESULTS: Changes in QoL were comparable in both treatments, although more neuropathy was reported in the RTV/SQV/d4T group. QoL improved significantly in both groups regarding health distress, energy/fatigue, mental health, health perceptions, physical function and overall QoL, despite an increase in reported symptoms. More favourable changes in cognitive and social function were observed in symptomatic compared with asymptomatic patients, with symptomatic patients showing an improvement and asymptomatic patients showing a decline in function after baseline. ARVT-naive patients showed more favourable changes in mental health, health distress and social function compared with patients with previous ARVT. CONCLUSION: RTV/SQV and RTV/SQV/d4T were equally effective in improving the QoL of patients over 48 weeks, despite an increase in reported symptoms. Symptomatic patients reported more QoL benefit than asymptomatic patients, and ARVT-naive patients benefitted more than those with previous ARVT. The impact on patients' QoL should be considered in the search for the optimal management of HIV infection.     

Regimen-dependent variations in adherence to therapy and virological suppression in patients initiating protease inhibitor-based highly active antiretroviral therapy

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences among four protease inhibitor (PI)-based drug regimens in adherence to therapy and rate of achievement of virological suppression in a cohort of antiretroviral-naive patients initiating highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). METHODS: Participants were antiretroviral-naive and were first dispensed combination therapy containing two nucleosides and a ritonavir (RTV)-boosted PI, or unboosted nelfinavir, between 1 January 2000 and 30 September 2003. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine associations between the prescribed PI and other baseline factors associated with being >90% adherent to therapy and then to determine the associations of prescribed drug regimen, adherence to therapy and baseline variables with the odds of achieving two consecutive viral loads of <500 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL. RESULTS A total of 385 subjects were available for analysis. Lopinavir (LPV)/RTV was prescribed for 168 patients (42% of total); 86 (22%) received indinavir (IDV)/RTV; 91 (24%) received nelfinavir (NFV) and 40 (10%) received saquinavir (SQV)/RTV. SQV/RTV-based HAART was associated with reduced adherence to therapy [odds ratio (OR)=0.40; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-0.83]. In multivariate models, IDV/RTV (OR=0.45; 95% CI 0.22-0.92), SQV/RTV (OR=0.18; 95% CI 0.07-0.43) and NFV were associated with reduced odds of achieving virological suppression within 1 year in comparison to LPV/RTV-based therapy. For patients receiving NFV, adjusting for adherence (OR=0.73; 95% CI 0.36-1.47) rendered this association nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Patients prescribed IDV/RTV, NFV or SQV/RTV were less likely to achieve virological suppression on their first regimen compared with patients prescribed LPV/RTV. Reduced adherence to these therapies only partly explained these observed differences.     

Combining fosamprenavir with lopinavir/ritonavir substantially reduces amprenavir and lopinavir exposure: ACTG protocol A5143 results

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fosamprenavir/lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV), fosamprenavir/RTV, or LPV/RTV in antiretroviral treatment-experienced patients. Lack of drug interaction data prompted a pharmacokinetic substudy to minimize subject risk. DESIGN: Multi-center, open-label, selectively randomized, steady-state pharmacokinetic study in HIV-infected subjects. METHODS: A planned independent interim review occurred after at least eight subjects were randomized to each arm. Subjects received twice daily LPV/RTV 400/100 mg (arm A; n = 8); fosamprenavir/RTV 700/100 mg (arm B; n = 8) or LPV/RTV/fosamprenavir 400/100/700 mg (arm C; n = 17). Plasma samples were collected over 12 h between study weeks 2 and 4. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared based on a one-sided t-test on log-transformed data with a Peto stopping boundary (P < 0.001). RESULTS: Amprenavir mean area under the curve over 12 h (AUC0-12 h) and concentration at 12 h (C12 h) (microg/ml) were, respectively, 42.7 microg x h/ml (range, 33.1-55.1) and 2.4 microg/ml (range, 1.4-3.2) in arm B and 17.4 microg x h/ml (range, 4.6-41.3) and 0.9 microg/ml (range, 0.2-2.7) in arm C: geometric mean ratio (GMR) arm C:B was 0.36 [99.9% upper confidence boundary (UCB), 0.64] and 0.31 (99.9% h UCB, 0.61), respectively (P < or = 0.0001). Lopinavir AUC0-12 h and C12 h were, respectively, 95.3 microg x h/ml (range, 60.3-119.3) and 6.3 microg/ml (range, 2.2-9.2) in arm A and 54.4 microg x h/ml (range, 23.5-112.2) and 3.0 microg/ml (range, 0.4-7.9) in arm C: GMR arm C:A of 0.52 (99.9% UCB, 0.89) and 0.39 (99.9% UCB, 0.98), respectively (P < or = 0.0008). Ritonavir exposure was not significantly different between arms. CONCLUSION: APV and LPV exposures are significantly reduced using LPV/RTV/fosamprenavir, possibly increasing the risk of virologic failure. Consequently, A5143 was closed to enrollment.     

Effects of atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir on glucose uptake and insulin sensitivity: demonstrable differences in vitro and clinically

BACKGROUND: The HIV protease inhibitor (PI) atazanavir does not impair insulin sensitivity acutely but ritonavir and lopinavir induce insulin resistance at therapeutic concentrations. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that atazanavir combined with a lower dose of ritonavir would have significantly less effect on glucose metabolism than lopinavir/ritonavir in vitro and clinically. METHODS: Glucose uptake was measured following insulin stimulation in differentiated human adipocytes in the presence of ritonavir (2 micromol/l) combined with either atazanavir or lopinavir (3-30 micromol/l). These data were examined clinically using the hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp and oral glucose tolerance testing (OGTT) in 26 healthy HIV-negative men treated with atazanavir/ritonavir (300/100 mg once daily) and lopinavir/ritonavir (400/100 mg twice daily) for 10 days in a randomized cross-over study. RESULTS: Atazanavir inhibited glucose uptake in vitro significantly less than lopinavir and ritonavir at all concentrations. Ritonavir (2 micromol/l) combined with either atazanavir or lopinavir (3-30 micromol/l) did not further inhibit glucose uptake. During euglycemic clamp, there was no significant change from baseline insulin sensitivity with atazanavir/ritonavir (P = 0.132), while insulin sensitivity significantly decreased with lopinavir/ritonavir from the baseline (-25%; P < 0.001) and from that seen with atazanavir/ritonavir (-18%; P = 0.023). During OGTT, the HOMA insulin resistance index significantly increased from baseline at 120 min with atazanavir/ritonavir and at 150 min with lopinavir/ritonavir. The area under the curve of glucose increased significantly with lopinavir/ritonavir but not with atazanavir/ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: Both glucose uptake in vitro and clinical insulin sensitivity in healthy volunteers demonstrate differential effects on glucose metabolism by the combination PI atazanavir/ritonavir and lopinavir/ritonavir.     

Correlation between lopinavir plasma levels and lipid abnormalities in patients taking lopinavir/ritonavir

Lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) used in combination, is a potent antiretroviral drug. However, its benefit is limited by its inherent effect on lipid metabolism, causing dislypemia in a large proportion of treated patients. Fasting triglyceride (TG) and cholesterol levels were assessed in 126 HIV-infected patients who initiated salvage therapy based on LPV/RTV. Both TG and cholesterol significantly increased from baseline to month 3. A positive correlation was found between the percentage increase in TG and LPV trough levels (r = 0.32; p = 0.003). Moreover, patients with TG elevations above the median (27%) showed higher LPV Ctrough levels than those with lower TG elevations (7.1 vs. 4.7 microg/ml, p = 0.004). In contrast, no correlation was found between LPV Ctrough and increases in cholesterol levels. Cholesterol elevations were positively correlated with RTV Ctrough concentrations (r = 0.32; p = 0.003).     

A reduced dose of darunavir/ritonavir is effective in PI-experienced HIV-infected patients

Darunavir (DRV) is an HIV-1 protease inhibitor that is used together with a low boosting dose of ritonavir as part of an antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen in treatment-experienced and naïve HIVpositive patients. In naïve and experienced patients with no DRV-mutations, DRV is licensed at the dose of 800 mg plus 100 mg of ritonavir once daily. We report our results in seven ART-experienced HIV-infected patients, in whom a reduced dose of darunavir/ritonavir (600/100 mg once daily) successfully controlled viral replication     

Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy as maintenance treatment in HIV-infected individuals with virological suppression: results from a pilot study in Brazil

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the possibility of using lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) alone as maintenance therapy in HIV-infected individuals with virological suppression. DESIGN: This was a single-armed single-centre pilot trial. METHODS: Asymptomatic HIV-infected patients on highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) including LPV/RTV, and with plasma HIV RNA <40 copies/mL for at least 6 months, were enrolled in the study, during which they continued with LPV/RTV alone. The intention was to recruit 25 patients to be followed for 2 years. Viral failure was defined as two consecutive HIV RNA measurements >40 copies/mL. Nadir and baseline CD4 cell counts, highest ever HIV RNA load, time with undetectable viraemia before monotherapy, number of previous antiretroviral (ARV) regimens, and gene polymorphism at CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 were evaluated. RESULTS: All patients (27) completed the study. Their median age was 43 years, and 66% were men. Ten patients (37%) failed to maintain virological suppression (the median time to HIV rebound was 10.5 months, with a range of 4-23 months). One patient developed full resistance to LPV and another developed neurocognitive impairment while on LPV/RTV which improved after HAART reintroduction. There were no differences between failures and nonfailures according to the analysed parameters. Patients with viral failure were successfully resuppressed. CONCLUSIONS: LPV/RTV maintenance therapy was associated with 37% failure, a higher than expected failure rate. In order to ensure that unnecessary risks are not being taken in patients on LPV/RTV, this finding should be further evaluated in large randomized trials for longer periods of follow-up.     

The effects of HIV protease inhibitors atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir on insulin sensitivity in HIV-seronegative healthy adults

BACKGROUND: Therapy with some HIV protease inhibitors (PI) contributes to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus, by inhibition of insulin-sensitive glucose transporters. Atazanavir (ATV) is a new PI with substantially less in vitro effect on glucose transport than observed with other PI, including lopinavir (LPV) or ritonavir (RTV). METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, crossover study of the effect of 5 days of administering ATV, lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or placebo on insulin-stimulated glucose disposal in 30 healthy HIV-negative subjects. Each subject was studied on two of three possible treatments with a wash-out period between treatments. RESULTS: The mean insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (mg/min per kg body weight) per unit insulin (microU/ml) (M/I) was 9.88, 9.80 and 7.52 for placebo, ATV and LPV/r, respectively (SEM, 0.84 for all). There was no significant difference between ATV and placebo. The M/I for LPV/r was 23% lower than that for ATV (P = 0.010) and 24% lower than that for placebo (P = 0.008). The mean glycogen storage rates were 3.85, 4.00 and 2.54 mg/min per kg for placebo, ATV and LPV/r, respectively (SEM, 0.39 for all). There was no significant difference between ATV and placebo. The glycogen storage rate for LPV/r was 36% lower than ATV (P = 0.003) and 34% lower than placebo (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: ATV given to healthy subjects for 5 days did not affect insulin sensitivity, while LPV/r induced insulin resistance. This observation is consistent with differential in vitro effects of these PI on glucose transport. Further data are needed to assess clinical implications for body composition.