Effect of efavirenz treatment on the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir boosted by ritonavir in healthy volunteers

AIMS: A once-daily (q.d.) nucleoside-sparing regimen can prevent mitochondrial toxicity, overcome viral resistance and improve compliance. In the present study the effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of once-daily nelfinavir/ritonavir was evaluated in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was a multiple-dose, open-label, single-group, two-period study in 24 healthy subjects. Each received from days 1-10 (period 1): 1875 mg nelfinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir q.d. with a 300-kcal snack. During days 11-20 (period 2) efavirenz 600 mg q.d. was added to the regimen. Blood samples were collected up to 24 h after dosing on days 10 (period 1) and 20 (period 2). High-performance liquid chromatography methods were used for the determination of the concentrations of all compounds. The main pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study. After the first period mean nelfinavir AUC(0-24 h), C(max) and C(24) were 49.6 mg h(-1) l(-1), 5.0 mg l(-1) and 0.37 mg l(-1), and the sum of nelfinavir plus its active metabolite M8 C(24) was 0.83 mg l(-1). The relative bioavailability, expressed as a geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) for nelfinavir AUC(0-24 h), C(max) and C(24) of period 2 compared with period 1 was: 1.30 (1.21, 1.40), 1.29 (1.19, 1.40) and 1.48 (1.32, 1.66). The sum of nelfinavir and M8 C(24) in period 2 was 0.99 mg l(-1), an increase of 19%. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The studied regimens were well tolerated. Nelfinavir/ritonavir given together with efavirenz resulted in a 48% higher mean C(24) concentration for nelfinavir, and the sum of nelfinavir and M8 C(24) concentrations was 0.99 mg l(-1). Efavirenz exposure in this study was similar to that reported previously, and therefore can be used effectively in combination with ritonavir and nelfinavir.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction study of indinavir/ritonavir and the enteric-coated capsule formulation of didanosine in healthy volunteers

Didanosine enteric-coated should be taken on an empty stomach, but the once-daily combination of indinavir/ritonavir can be taken with food. Because these drugs are frequently included in 1 regimen, the food effects on the pharmacokinetics were evaluated. This was a randomized, 4-way crossover study of single doses of didanosine enteric-coated 400 mg and indinavir/ritonavir 1200/400 mg in 8 healthy subjects. The following regimens were given: didanosine enteric-coated 2 hours after breakfast (reference regimen A), indinavir/ritonavir with breakfast (reference regimen B), didanosine enteric-coated + indinavir/ritonavir 2 hours after breakfast (test regimen C), and didanosine enteric-coated + indinavir/ritonavir with breakfast (test regimen D). Breakfast was 550 kcal, 28% fat. Blood samples were drawn before and up to 24 hours after ingestion. Statistical comparisons of test regimens C and D with reference regimens A and B were made using the equivalence approach for indinavir and didanosine area under the curve and C(max) (0.80-1.25). Eight subjects (5 men, 3 women) were enrolled and completed the study. Indinavir area under the curves were bioequivalent in test regimens C and D compared to reference regimen B. A 14% increased C(max) was observed in test regimen C. Didanosine area under the curve in test regimen D was 4% lower and suggestive of bioequivalence compared to reference regimen A. However, test regimen C didanosine area under the curve was 23% lower and bioinequivalent compared to reference regimen A. Didanosine C(max) decreased 42% and 46% in test regimens C and D, respectively, in comparison to reference regimen A. In this study, dosing didanosine enteric-coated 400 mg once daily + indinavir/ritonavir 1200/400 mg once daily with breakfast indicated no decrease in the amount of absorption for either didanosine and indinavir and that this regimen could be administered with food.     

Assessment of the bioequivalence of two nelfinavir tablet formulations under fed and fasted conditions in healthy subjects

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to assess the bioequivalence between the commercial 250 mg nelfinavir tablet and the new 625 mg nelfinavir tablet (Roche) which was developed to reduce the daily pill burden for patients from 10 to 4 tablets in a nelfinavir 1250 mg twice daily regimen. METHODS: A total of 52 healthy male subjects were enrolled in this randomized four-period crossover study to receive single oral doses of 1250 mg nelfinavir administered as five commercial 250 mg tablets (reference formulation) and as two new 625 mg tablets (test formulation). Each of the two formulations were taken after an overnight fast and immediately after intake of a standard breakfast (820 kcal) on separate occasions. Blood samples were collected pre-dose and at appropriate intervals after drug administration. Plasma concentrations of nelfinavir and its main metabolite M8 were assayed by a validated LC-MS/ MS assay and the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and M8 were derived using standard non-compartmental analysis. RESULTS: The primary parameters for bioequivalence testing were the logarithmically transformed AUC(0-inf) and C(max) of nelfinavir taken from 50 subjects who completed all four treatments. Bioequivalence was accepted if the 90% confidence interval (CI) was contained entirely in the equivalence region (80%, 125%). In the fed state, this criterion was met for AUC (effect ratio = 95%; CI = 87%, 103%) and Cmax (effect ratio = 101%; CI = 94%, 109%) and bioequivalence of the two treatments could be concluded. In the fasted state, AUC clearly failed to meet the bioequivalence criteria (effect ratio = 73%; CI = 59%, 90%) and Cmax was borderline outside the lower acceptance region (effect ratio = 97%; CI = 79.6%, 118%). Therefore, bioequivalence could not be concluded under fasted condition. Food increased the systemic exposure to nelfinavir (as reflected by comparison of the logarithmically transformed AUC(0-inf) values under fed and fasted conditions) by six- and eight-fold after dosing with the 250 mg and the 625 mg tablet, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bioequivalence of the new 625 mg nelfinavir tablet relative to the commercial 250 mg tablet, at a dose of 1250 mg, was confirmed in the fed state but not under fasted conditions. As nelfinavir is recommended to be taken with food, the new tablet is well-suited to decrease the daily pill burden for patients on a nelfinavir twice daily regimen and to enhance patient's compliance and adherence.     

Absence of circadian variation in the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir given as a once daily dosing regimen in HIV-1-infected patients

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg administered once daily in the morning compared with the evening. METHODS: This was a randomized, two-way, cross-over study in HIV+ subjects. In each subject the pharmacokinetics of each drug were characterized after 2 weeks of LPV/r 800/200 mg administered once daily at 08.00 h and 19.00 h. On study days, LPV/r was taken with a standardized meal (800 kCal, 25% from fat) after fasting for at least 5 h. LPV/r concentrations were measured by LC-MS/MS, and the data were analyzed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen subjects completed the study (all men, mean age/weight 44 year/81 kg). The median (interquartile range) LPV AUC(0,24 h), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and concentration at the end of the dosing interval (C(24 h)) after am and pm dosing was, respectively, 143 (116-214) mg l(-1) h, 12.8 (10.3-17.2) mg l(-1), 1.34 (0.58-3.25) mg l(-1), and 171 (120-232) mg l(-1) h, 12.9 (8.22-16.3) mg l(-1), 1.15 (0.59-1.98) mg l(-1). The geometric mean ratio (GMR, am : pm) and 95% CI of the LPV AUC(0,24 h), C(max), and C(24 h) was 0.91 (0.79, 1.06), 1.11 (0.94, 1.32), and 1.19 (0.72, 1.96), respectively. The median ritonavir C(max) after am and pm dosing was 1.05 and 0.90 mg l(-1), respectively. The GMR (95% CI) of the RTV AUC(0,24 h), C(max), and C(24 h) was 0.93 (0.80, 1.08), 1.27 (1.00, 1.63), and 1.04 (0.68, 1.60), respectively. Administration of LPV/r in a once-daily regimen was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: No differences were observed in the pharmacokinetics of LPV/r after am or pm dosing with food, which suggests that this once daily combination, can be taken in the morning or evening. Such flexibility in dosing may improve adherence.     

The effect of different meal types on the pharmacokinetics of darunavir (TMC114)/ritonavir in HIV-negative healthy volunteers

This open-label, randomized, crossover study investigated the bioavailability, short-term safety, and tolerability of darunavir (TMC114) coadministered with low-dose ritonavir under fasted conditions and after different meal types in HIV-negative healthy volunteers. All volunteers received ritonavir 100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5, with a single darunavir 400-mg tablet given on day 3 (darunavir/rtv). Pharmacokinetic parameters for darunavir and ritonavir were determined under fasted conditions and following a standard breakfast, a high-fat breakfast, a nutritional protein-rich drink, or a croissant with coffee. Administration of darunavir/rtv in a fasting state resulted in a decrease in darunavir C(max) and AUC(last) of approximately 30% compared with administration after a standard meal. No significant differences in darunavir plasma concentrations were observed between different fed states. Darunavir/rtv should therefore be administered with food, but exposure to darunavir is not affected by the type of meal.     

Sex-related differences in the pharmacokinetics of once-daily saquinavir soft-gelatin capsules boosted with low-dose ritonavir in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To compare the steady-state pharmacokinetics and safety of saquinavir soft-gelatin capsules (SGC) plus low-dose ritonavir administered once/day in antiretroviral-naive adult patients infected with the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and to evaluate any sex-related differences. DESIGN: Single-center, open-label, pharmacokinetic study. SETTING: University-affiliated outpatient HIV clinic. PATIENTS: Six men and seven women with HIV-1. INTERVENTION: Each patient received saquinavir SGC 1600 mg and ritonavir 100 mg for a 14-day course of therapy. Nine serial blood samples during 24 hours were collected on day 14 of therapy MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Plasma saquinavir and ritonavir concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Standard noncompartmental methods were used to calculate the pharmacokinetic parameters. The unpaired Student t test was used for the statistical comparison of pharmacokinetic parameters between male and female patients. Once-daily saquinavir SGC plus ritonavir was generally well tolerated. Pharmacokinetic data from five men and five women were evaluable. The median saquinavir area under the concentration-time curve from 0-24 hours (AUC0-24) in the female patients (82,300 ng x hr/ml) was significantly (p=0.036) higher than that in the male patients (47,400 ng x hr/ml). This relationship remained significant for weight-adjusted saquinavir AUC0-24 values. Ritonavir's apparent oral clearance in the women was significantly (p=0.023) lower than that in the men. CONCLUSION: Significantly higher plasma concentrations of saquinavir were achieved in female compared with male HIV-infected patients receiving once-daily saquinavir SGC 1600 mg plus ritonavir 100 mg.     

Lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetics in HIV and hepatitis C virus co-infected patients without liver function impairment: influence of liver fibrosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of hepatitis C virus (HCV) co-infection and the extent of liver fibrosis on lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetics in HIV-infected patients without liver function impairment. METHODS: Cross-sectional, comparative study enrolling HIV-infected adults receiving lopinavir/ritonavir (400 mg/100 mg twice daily). HIV/HCV co-infected patients were grouped as having advanced fibrosis (HCV+/FIB+, n=7) or not (HCV+/FIB-, n=8) based on the FIB-4 index. A full concentration-time profile was obtained for each patient, and blood samples were collected before (0), and 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 hours after a lopinavir/ritonavir dose. Lopinavir and ritonavir concentrations in plasma were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography. Maximum and minimum plasma concentrations (Cmax and Cmin), area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC12), apparent oral clearance at steady state (CLss/F), and apparent volume of distribution after oral administration (Vd/F) were calculated for each individual using a non-compartmental approach. RESULTS: Twenty-six HCV- and 22 HCV+patients were enrolled. Lopinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics were comparable between HCV- and HCV+patients. However, the Vd/F of lopinavir was 125% higher in HCV+/FIB+patients than in HCV-patients (p=0.015) and 107% higher than in HCV+/FIB-(p=0.040) patients. The CLss/F of ritonavir was 40% lower in HCV+/FIB+patients than in HCV-patients (p=0.005) and 44% lower than in HCV+/FIB-patients (p=0.040). Thus, for ritonavir AUC12, Cmax and Cmin in HCV+/FIB+patients were 63%, 86% and 100% higher, respectively, when compared with those parameters in HCV-patients (p=0.005, p=0.012 and p=0.015, respectively), and 80%, 86% and 100% higher, respectively, when compared with levels in HCV+/FIB- patients (p=0.040, p=0.040 and p=0.029, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lopinavir exposure is similar in HIV-infected patients with or without HCV co-infection and without liver function impairment. However, ritonavir exposure may be higher in this setting, particularly in individuals with advanced liver fibrosis.     

In-vitro and in-vivo pharmacokinetic interactions of amprenavir, an HIV protease inhibitor, with other current HIV protease inhibitors in rats

The drug interactions between a new human immune deficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitor, amprenavir, and four other protease inhibitors which are presently used have been characterized by in-vitro metabolic studies using rat liver microsomal fractions and in-vivo oral administration studies. The metabolic clearance rates (Vmax/Km) of amprenavir, saquinavir, indinavir and nelfinavir in rat liver microsomes were 50.67+/- 3.77, 170.88 +/- 15.34, 73.01 +/- 2.76 and 126.06 +/- 6.23 microLmin(-1) (mg protein)(-1), respectively, and the degree of metabolicclearance was in the order of saquinavir > nelfinavir > indinavir > amprenavir > ritonavir. The inhibition constants (Ki) of ritonavir for amprenavir, indinavir, nelfinavir and saquinavir were 2.29, 0.95, 1.01 and 1.64 microM, respectively, and that of indinavir for amprenavir was 0.67, indicating that amprenavir metabolism in rat liver microsomes was strongly inhibited by indinavir. The Ki values of amprenavir for indinavir, nelfinavir and saquinavir were 7.41, 2.13 and 16.11 microM, respectively, and those of nelfinavirand saquinavirforamprenavirwere 9.15 and 34.57 microM, respectively. The area under the concentration vs time curve (AUC) of amprenavir after oral co-administration with saquinavir, indinavir, nelfinavir or ritonavir (20 mg kg(-1) for each oral dose in rats) was increased by 1.6-, 2.0-, 1.2- and 9.1-fold, respectively. The AUC values of saquinavir, indinavir and nelfinavir by co-administration with amprenavir showed about 7.3-, 1.3-, and 7.9-fold increase, respectively. These observations suggested that the oral bioavailability of amprenavir was not so affected by co-administration with saquinavir, nelfinavir or indinavir, compared with ritonavir, whereas amprenavir markedly affected the oral bioavailability of saquinavir and nelfinavir. In addition, the in-vivo effects after co-administration of two kinds of HIV protease inhibitors cannot always be predicted from in-vitro data, suggesting the presence of other interaction processes besides metabolism in the liver. However, these results provide useful information for the treatment of AIDS patients when they receive a combination therapy with two kinds of HIV protease inhibitor.     

Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and CYP2C19 activity in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients with chronic liver disease

AIMS: To evaluate the single-dose and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and its active M8 metabolite in eight HIV-seropositive patients with liver disease, and to examine the relationship between CYP2C19 activity (genotype and plasma M8/nelfinavir metabolic ratio) and the severity of liver disease in these patients. METHODS: Nelfinavir was given as a single dose (500 or 750 mg) to patients beginning therapy and twice (500, 750 or 1000 mg) or three times (250 or 750 mg) daily during chronic therapy. Single-dose pharmacokinetic values were used to predict multiple-dose regimens. Peak and total plasma exposures between 2-4 microg ml-1 and 45-75 microg ml-1 h, respectively, and predose levels > 0.7 microg ml-1 were targeted for multidose nelfinavir. Genotype was determined by analysis for CYP2C19*1, CYP2C19*2, and CYP2C19*3. Individuals were grouped according to their genotype, molar M8/nelfinavir AUC ratio (low: < 0.1, intermediate: 0.1-0.3, high > 0.3), and Child-Pugh classification for severity of liver disease. RESULTS: Nelfinavir pharmacokinetics were characterized by wide interindividual variability, low clearance (181-496 ml min-1 70 kg-1, n = 7), and prolonged half-life (5-20 h, n = 7). M8/nelfinavir AUC ratio increased 58% (n = 4) and alpha 1-acid glycoprotein levels decreased up to 39% (n = 5) from single to multiple dosing. CYP2C19 activity was low (metabolic AUC ratio < 0.1) in four patients with moderate to severe liver disease even though they were genetically extensive CYP2C19 metabolizers (*1/*1 or *1/*2). Three patients required lower daily doses than the standard regimen of 750 mg every 8 h to achieve target concentrations and maintain virologic suppression at < 50 RNA copies ml-1 (up to 20 months). CONCLUSIONS: Acquired CYP2C19 deficiency from moderate or severe liver disease resulted in decreased M8 formation. Long-term HIV suppression is possible using low nelfinavir doses in patients with liver disease.     

Variations of CYP3A activity induced by antiretroviral treatment in HIV-1 infected patients

Objective To measure the in vivo variations of CYP3A activity induced by anti-HIV drugs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)1-positive patients.Methods A low oral dose of midazolam (MID) (0.075 mg) was given to the patients and the 30-min total 1-OH midazolam (1-OHMID)/MID ratio was determined. Patients were phenotyped either before the introduction of antiretroviral treatments (control group, 90 patients) or after a variable period of antiretroviral treatment (56 patients). Twenty-one subjects underwent multiple phenotyping tests (before and during the course of the treatment).Results The median MID ratio was 3.51 in the control group (range 0.20–14.6). It was 5-fold higher in the group with efavirenz (28 patients; median, range: 16.0, 3.81–367; P<0.0001), 13-fold lower with nelfinavir (18 patients; 0.27, 0.06–36.3; P<0.0001), 17-fold lower with efavirenz+ritonavir (three patients; 0.21, 0.05–0.47; P=0.006), 50-fold lower with ritonavir (four patients; 0.07, 0.06–0.17; P=0.0007), and 7-fold lower with nevirapine+(ritonavir or nelfinavir or grapefruit juice) (three patients; 0.48, 0.03–1.83; P=0.03). CYP3A activity was lower in the efavirenz+ritonavir group (P=0.01) and in the ritonavir group (P=0.04) than in the nelfinavir group, although already strongly inhibited in the latter.Conclusion The low-dose MID phenotyping test was successfully used to measure the in vivo variations of CYP3A activity induced by antiretroviral drugs. Efavirenz strongly induces CYP3A activity, while ritonavir almost completely inhibits it. Nelfinavir strongly decreases CYP3A activity, but to a lesser extent than ritonavir. The inhibition of CYP3A by ritonavir or nelfinavir offsets the inductive effects of efavirenz or nevirapine administered concomitantly. Finally, no induction of CYP3A activity was noticeable after long-term administration of ritonavir at low dosages (200 mg/day b.i.d.) or of nelfinavir at standard dosages (2,500 mg/day b.i.d.).This work was supported in part by the Swiss National Research Foundation (project 3345-062092.99 and project 3200-065427.01).     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between mefloquine and ritonavir in healthy volunteers

AIMS: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction between ritonavir and mefloquine. METHODS: Healthy volunteers participated in two separate, nonfasted, three-treatment, three-period, longitudinal pharmacokinetic studies. Study 1 (12 completed): ritonavir 200 mg twice daily for 7 days, 7 day washout, mefloquine 250 mg once daily for 3 days then once weekly for 4 weeks, ritonavir restarted for 7 days simultaneously with the last mefloquine dose. Study 2 (11 completed): ritonavir 200 mg single dose, mefloquine 250 mg once daily for 3 days then once weekly for 2 weeks, ritonavir single dose repeated 2 days after the last mefloquine dose. Erythromycin breath test (ERMBT) was administered with and without drug treatments in study 2. RESULTS: Study 1: Ritonavir caused less than 7% changes with high precision (90% CIs: -12% to 11%) in overall plasma exposure (AUC(0,168 h)) and peak concentration (Cmax) of mefloquine, its two enantiomers, and carboxylic acid metabolite, and in the metabolite/mefloquine and enantiomeric AUC ratios. Mefloquine significantly decreased steady-state ritonavir plasma AUC(0,12 h) by 31%, Cmax by 36%, and predose levels by 43%, and did not affect ritonavir binding to plasma proteins. Study 2: Mefloquine did not alter single-dose ritonavir pharmacokinetics. Less than 8% changes in AUC and Cmax were observed with high variability (90%CIs: -26% to 45%). Mefloquine had no effect on the ERMBT whereas ritonavir decreased activity by 98%. CONCLUSIONS: Ritonavir minimally affected mefloquine pharmacokinetics despite strong inhibition of CYP3A4 activity from a single 200 mg dose. Mefloquine had variable effects on ritonavir pharmacokinetics that were not explained by hepatic CYP3A4 activity or ritonavir protein binding.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between efavirenz and dual protease inhibitors in healthy volunteers

The combination of efavirenz with HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PI) results in complex interactions secondary to mixed induction and inhibition of oxidative metabolism. ACTG A5043 was a prospective, open-label, controlled, two-period, multiple-dose study with 55 healthy volunteers. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between efavirenz and dual PIs. The subjects received a daily dose of 600 mg efavirenz for 10 days with amprenavir 600 mg twice daily added at day 11 and were randomized to receive nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, saquinavir, or no second PI on days 15-21. Intensive pharmacokinetic studies were conducted on day 14 and 21. Efavirenz plasma concentrations were fit to candidate models using weighted non-linear regression. The disposition of efavirenz was described by a linear two-compartment model with first order absorption following a fitted lag time. Apparent clearance (CLt/F), volume of distribution at steady state (Vss/F), inter-compartmental clearance, and the central and peripheral volume of distribution were estimated. The mean CLt/F and Vss/F of efavirenz were 0.126 l/h/kg and 4.412 l/kg, respectively. Both AUC and CLt/F of efavirenz remained unchanged after 7 days of dual PI dosing. The mean Vss/F of efavirenz increased an average of 89% across arms, ranging from 52% (nelfinavir) to 115% (indinavir) relative to efavirenz with amprenavir alone. Increases were also observed in Vp/F after the addition of nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir by 85%, 170%, 162% and 111%, respectively. In conclusion, concomitant administration of dual PIs is unlikely to have any clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of CYP2B6 substrates in general or oral efavirenz specifically.     

The effect of fluconazole on ritonavir and saquinavir pharmacokinetics in HIV-1-infected individuals

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.     

A bioequivalence study comparing two formulations of lopinavir/ritonavir capsules

This investigation was carried out to evaluate the bioavailability of a new single fixed-dose combination formulation of lopinavir and ritonavir, relative to reference product, Kaletra (133.3 mg lopinavir/33.3 mg ritonavir) capsules, manufactured by Abbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL, USA. The bioavailability study was carried out on 72 healthy male and female volunteers who received a single dose of 3 capsules (133.3 mg lopinavir/33.3 mg ritonavir) of the test (T) and the reference (R) products in the fasting state, in a randomized, balanced, 2-way crossover design. After dosing, serial blood samples were collected for a period of 72 hours. Plasma harvested from blood was analyzed for lopinavir and ritonavir by a sensitive and validated simultaneous liquid-chromatographic and mass-spectrometric (LC-MS/MS) assay. Mean oral clearance (Cl/F) values of the FDC were 4.92 and 23.54 l/h for lopinavir and ritonavir, respectively, the maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)), area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to the last measurable concentration (AUC(0-t)), and to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)), were analyzed statistically under the assumption of a multiplicative model. The time to maximum concentration (t(max)) was analyzed assuming an additive model. The parametric confidence intervals (90%) were calculated by Schuirmann's two 1-sided t-test criteria. It was found that the test/reference (T/R) ratios for the pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-t), AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) (after initial log transformation) were well within the bioequivalence acceptance range of 80-125% as per international regulatory guidelines. Therefore, the two formulations were considered to be bioequivalent [Food and Drug Administration 2003].     

Significant decrease in nelfinavir systemic exposure after omeprazole coadministration in healthy subjects

STUDY OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of omeprazole on the multiple-dose (steady-state) pharmacokinetics and safety of nelfinavir, and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of nelfinavir when administered alone and with omeprazole. DESIGN: Open-label, two-period, single-fixed-sequence study. SETTING: Clinical research unit of a large, teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty healthy volunteers (mean age 26 +/- 9 yrs, range 18-48 yrs). Intervention. Subjects received nelfinavir 1250 mg every 12 hours for 4 days (period 1). After a 7-day washout period, subjects were coadministered nelfinavir 1250 mg every 12 hours and omeprazole 40 mg every 24 hours for 4 days (period 2). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and its active metabolite M8 were determined on day 4 of both periods. Plasma samples were assayed by a high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet method for nelfinavir and M8 concentrations, and noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by using analytical software. In the presence of omeprazole, nelfinavir area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (AUC(tau)), maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)), and minimum observed plasma concentration (C(min)) were reduced by an average of 36%, 37%, and 39%, respectively, relative to administration of nelfinavir alone. The AUC(tau), C(max), and C(min) of M8 were reduced by an average of 92%, 89%, and 75%, respectively. The slopes of the terminal elimination phase of nelfinavir and M8 plasma concentration-time curves were similar between treatments. Nelfinavir was well tolerated when administered alone and when coadministered with omeprazole. CONCLUSION: The observed reduction in the systemic exposure to both nelfinavir and its active metabolite M8 after coadministration with omeprazole could result in loss of virologic control and potential emergence of drug resistance. Hence, omeprazole should not be coadministered to patients taking nelfinavir.