Amprenavir and efavirenz pharmacokinetics before and after the addition of nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, or saquinavir in seronegative individuals

Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5043 examined pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between amprenavir (APV) and efavirenz (EFV) both by themselves and when nelfinavir (NFV), indinavir (IDV), ritonavir (RTV), or saquinavir (SQV) is added. A PK study was conducted after the administration of single doses of APV (day 0). Subjects (n = 56) received 600 mg of EFV every 24 h (q24h) for 10 days and restarted APV with EFV for days 11 to 13 with a PK study on day 14. A second protease inhibitor (PI) (NFV, 1,250 mg, q12h; IDV, 1,200 mg, q12h; RTV, 100 mg, q12h; or SQV, 1,600 mg, q12h) was added to APV and EFV on day 15, and a PK study was conducted on day 21. Controls continued APV and EFV without a second PI. Among subjects, the APV areas under the curve (AUCs) on days 0, 14, and 21 were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the geometric mean ratios (GMR) were calculated. APV AUCs were 46% to 61% lower (median percentage of AUC) with EFV (day 14 versus day 0; P values of <0.05). In the NFV, IDV, and RTV groups, day 21 APV AUCs with EFV were higher than AUCs for EFV alone. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the GMR were 3.5 to 5.3 for NFV (P < 0.001), 2.8 to 4.5 for IDV (P < 0.001), and 7.8 to 11.5 for RTV (P = 0.004). Saquinavir modestly increased the APV AUCs (GMR, 1.0 to 1.4; P = 0.106). Control group AUCs were lower on day 21 compared to those on day 14 (GMR, 0.7 to 1.0; P = 0.042). African-American non-Hispanics had higher day 14 efavirenz AUCs than white non-Hispanics. We conclude that EFV lowered APV AUCs, but nelfinavir, indinavir, or ritonavir compensated for EFV induction.     

Amprenavir and ritonavir plasma concentrations in HIV-infected patients treated with fosamprenavir/ritonavir with various degrees of liver impairment

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetics of amprenavir and ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with different degrees of hepatic impairment. METHODS: HIV-positive patients receiving fosamprenavir/ritonavir (700/100 mg twice daily) were included. Patients were classified into three groups: (i) chronic hepatitis; (ii) liver cirrhosis; (iii) normal liver function. Serial blood samples for steady-state amprenavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics (>14 days on treatment) were collected in the fasting state before the morning dose (C(trough)) and then 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after drug intake. Amprenavir and ritonavir plasma concentrations were determined by HPLC. RESULTS: Twenty-one HIV-infected patients were included. Seven had chronic hepatitis, eight had liver cirrhosis and six patients were in the control group. Amprenavir AUC(0-12), AUC(0-infinity), C(max) and C(ss) were increased by 50% to 60% in the cirrhotic group when compared with controls, whereas CL/F was decreased by 40%. Patients with chronic hepatitis showed a significant increase in AUC(0-12), C(max) and C(ss) values when compared with controls. Ritonavir pharmacokinetics was different only in cirrhotic patients when compared with controls. Liver function parameters at weeks 4, 12 and 24 were not different from baseline in any of the groups. Overall, a significant correlation between amprenavir AUC(0-12) and total bilirubin values on the day of pharmacokinetic analysis was found (r = 0.64, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of these data and also of data available in the literature, it seems reasonable to adapt the dose of fosamprenavir and/or ritonavir exclusively in the presence of adverse events, possibly related to protease inhibitors (i.e. liver toxicity), in subjects with high drug plasma levels. Therapeutic drug monitoring is advised in the management of these patients.     

Plasma amprenavir pharmacokinetics and tolerability following administration of 1,400 milligrams of fosamprenavir once daily in combination with either 100 or 200 milligrams of ritonavir in healthy volunteers

Once-daily (QD) fosamprenavir (FPV) at 1,400 mg boosted with low-dose ritonavir (RTV) at 200 mg is effective when it is used in combination regimens for the initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Whether a lower RTV boosting dose (i.e., 100 mg QD) could ensure sufficient amprenavir (APV) concentrations with improved safety/tolerability is unknown. This randomized, two 14-day-period, crossover pharmacokinetic study compared the steady-state plasma APV concentrations, safety, and tolerability of FPV at 1,400 mg QD boosted with either 100 mg or 200 mg of RTV QD in 36 healthy volunteers. Geometric least-square (GLS) mean ratios and the associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for plasma APV maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing period (AUC0-tau), and trough concentrations (Ctau) during each dosing period. Equivalence between regimens (90% CIs of GLS mean ratios, 0.80 to 1.25) was observed for the plasma APV AUC0-tau (GLS mean ratio, 0.90 [90% CI, 0.84 to 0.96]) and Cmax (0.97 [90% CI, 0.91 to 1.04]). The APV Ctau was 38% lower with RTV at 100 mg QD than with RTV at 200 mg QD (GLS mean ratio, 0.62 [90% CI, 0.55 to 0.69]) but remained sixfold higher than the protein-corrected 50% inhibitory concentration for wild-type virus, with the lowest APV Ctau observed during the 100-mg QD period being nearly threefold higher. The GLS mean APV Ctau was 2.5 times higher than the historical Ctau for unboosted FPV at 1,400 mg twice daily. Fewer clinical adverse drug events and smaller increases in triglyceride levels were observed with the RTV 100-mg QD regimen. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of FPV at 1,400 mg QD boosted by RTV at 100 mg QD are now under way with antiretroviral therapy-na?ve patients.     

Dose separation does not overcome the pharmacokinetic interaction between fosamprenavir and lopinavir/ritonavir

Previous investigations have shown a significant negative two-way drug interaction between fosamprenavir (FPV) and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) in both human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients and seronegative volunteers. This randomized, nonblinded, three-way crossover study of HIV-seronegative adult volunteers investigated dose separation and increased doses of RTV as a means to overcome the interaction between FPV and LPV/RTV. Eleven HIV-seronegative volunteers were given FPV plus LPV/RTV at 700 mg plus 400/100 mg every 12 hours (q12h) simultaneously for 10 days and then randomized to receive each of three 7-day treatments in one of six possible sequences, as follows: FPV plus LPV/RTV at 700 mg plus 400 mg/100 mg q12h simultaneously, FPV/RTV at 700 mg/100 mg q12h plus LPV/RTV at 400 mg/100 mg q12h, with doses separated by 4 h, and FPV/RTV at 1,400 mg/200 mg in the morning plus LPV/RTV at 800 mg/200 mg in the evening. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on day 8 of each treatment, and samples were analyzed for FPV, amprenavir (APV), LPV, and RTV concentrations by high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Geometric mean ratios (GMR [with 95% confidence intervals]) for the 4- and 12-h dose separation strategies compared to simultaneous administration were calculated for the areas under the concentration-time curves from 0 to 24 h. Compared to simultaneous administration, RTV exposures increased with both 4-h and 12-h dose separation strategies (GMR, 5.30 [3.66 to 7.67] and 4.45 [3.09 to 6.41], respectively). LPV exposures also significantly increased with both 4-h and 12-h dose separation strategies (GMR, 1.76 [1.34 to 2.32] and 1.43 [1.02 to 2.01], respectively). However, both the 4- and 12-h strategies resulted in greater reductions in APV exposure (0.67 [0.54 to 0.83] and 0.77 [0.59 to 0.99], respectively) compared to simultaneous administration. Additional investigations are warranted to determine the optimal dosing of FPV with LPV/RTV.     

Effect of coadministration of nelfinavir,indinavir, and saquinavir on the pharmacokinetics of amprenavir

OBJECTIVE: Pharmacokinetic interactions are expected when human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitors are coadministered because many are both substrates for and inhibitors of CYP3A4. The goal of this model-based pharmacokinetic analysis was to describe the differences observed in amprenavir pharmacokinetics among treatment arms in the Adult AIDS Clinical Trial Group (AACTG) study protocol 398 and to propose mechanisms to account for them. METHODS: One hundred seventy-six HIV-positive subjects receiving 1200 mg amprenavir twice daily as part of AACTG protocol 398 were included in the pharmacokinetic study. All patients also received background medications efavirenz, adefovir dipivoxil, and abacavir and, depending on the study arm, placebo or one of the following protease inhibitors: nelfinavir, indinavir, or saquinavir. A population pharmacokinetic model was fitted to a total of 565 amprenavir concentration measurements. The blood samples for concentration measurements were drawn at week 2 (12-hour pharmacokinetic study, approximately 7 samples per study; 46 patients) and at week 24 (6-hour pharmacokinetic study, approximately 5 samples per study; 10 patients). In addition, samples were collected at 1 or more follow-up visits (population pharmacokinetic study, 1 to 3 occasions per patient; 150 patients). Results and Conclusion: Amprenavir intrinsic clearance was significantly reduced relative to placebo by nelfinavir (-41%) and indinavir (-54%) but not by saquinavir. The absolute magnitude of amprenavir intrinsic clearance suggests that CYP3A4 inhibition by nelfinavir and indinavir is balanced by enzymatic induction in the presence of the background drug(s), most likely efavirenz. Amprenavir intrinsic clearance apparently increases by more than 30% between weeks 2 and 24, possibly because of the time course of CYP3A4 induction.     

Interaction between fosamprenavir, with and without ritonavir, and nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects

Fosamprenavir (FPV) with and without ritonavir (RTV) was added to the antiretroviral regimens of human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects receiving nevirapine (NVP) to evaluate this drug interaction. Significant reductions in plasma amprenavir exposure (25 to 35%) were observed following coadministration of 1,400 mg of FPV twice a day (BID) and 200 mg of NVP BID. A regimen of 700 mg of FPV BID plus 100 mg of RTV BID may be coadministered with NVP without dose adjustment.     

Minimal effects of ritonavir and efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir

Raltegravir is a novel human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase strand transfer inhibitor with potent in vitro activity against HIV-1 (95% inhibitory concentration = 31 nM in 50% human serum). The possible effects of ritonavir and efavirenz on raltegravir pharmacokinetics were separately examined. Two clinical studies of healthy subjects were conducted: for ritonavir plus raltegravir, period 1, 400 mg raltegravir; period 2, 100 mg ritonavir every 12 h for 16 days with 400 mg raltegravir on day 14; for efavirenz plus raltegravir, period 1, 400 mg raltegravir; period 2, 600 mg efavirenz once daily for 14 days with 400 mg raltegravir on day 12. In the presence of ritonavir, raltegravir pharmacokinetics were weakly affected: the plasma concentration at 12 h (C_{12 h}) geometric mean ratio (GMR) (90% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.99 (0.70, 1.40), area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC_0-∞) was 0.84 (0.70, 1.01), and maximum concentration of drug in serum (C_max) was 0.76 (0.55, 1.04). In the presence of efavirenz, raltegravir pharmacokinetics were moderately to weakly reduced: C_{12 h} GMR (90% CI) was 0.79 (0.49, 1.28); AUC_0-∞ was 0.64 (0.52, 0.80); and C_max was 0.64 (0.41, 0.98). There were no substantial differences in the time to maximum concentration of drug in plasma or the half-life. Plasma concentrations of raltegravir were not substantially affected by ritonavir. Though plasma concentrations of raltegravir were moderately to weakly reduced by efavirenz, the degree of this reduction was not clinically meaningful. No dose adjustment is required for raltegravir with coadministration with ritonavir or efavirenz.     

The plasma and intracellular steady-state pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients

Therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors (PIs) is usually performed on plasma samples although their antiretroviral effect takes place inside cells. Little is known, however, about the intracellular accumulation and related plasma pharmacokinetics of PIs such as lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV). Therefore, we studied the plasma and intracellular (cell-associated) steady-state pharmacokinetics of this PI combination in a dosage of 400/100 mg twice daily in a non-randomized cohort of HIV-1-infected individuals. Plasma (0-12 h) and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC; 0-8 h) samples were drawn during a 12-h dosing interval in 11 subjects. The plasma concentrations versus time curves of LPV and RTV were characterized by an irregular absorption phase showing double-peaks (Cmax) in most subjects and single-peaks in the remaining patients between 1 and 3 h after drug intake. Pre-dose concentrations of both agents in plasma were significantly higher than the concentrations at the end of the dosing interval indicating the presence of a circadian rhythm in their pharmacokinetics. The course of the intracellular concentrations versus time curves appeared to be similar to the plasma concentration curves, with the highest intracellular concentration measured 3 h after drug intake. The intracellular RTV concentrations were higher than reported in vitro EC50 values and might therefore contribute to the antiretroviral effect of LPV/RTV. The median intracellular-to-plasma concentration ratios (interquartile range) were 1.18 (0.74-2.06) and 4.59 (3.20-7.70) for LPV and RTV, respectively. In conclusion, both LPV and RTV accumulate to potential therapeutic concentrations in PBMCs. Irregular absorption and circadian plasma clearance patterns were observed for the PI combination LPV/RTV.     

Tacrolimus and lopinavir/ritonavir interaction in liver transplantation

OBJECTIVE: To report an interaction between tacrolimus and the protease inhibitor combination lopinavir/ritonavir in a liver transplant patient.CASE SUMMARY: A 48-year-old white male liver transplant recipient receiving tacrolimus 5 mg twice daily for immunosuppression started highly active antiretroviral therapy for his HIV-positive status. Three days after initiation of lopinavir/ritonavir, the tacrolimus concentration rose sharply to toxic levels. Subsequent tacrolimus doses were withheld until tacrolimus concentrations normalized over 15 days. The tacrolimus dose was reestablished at a much lower dose, 0.5 mg once weekly. An objective causality assessment revealed that the adverse event was highly probable.DISCUSSION: Tacrolimus is metabolized in the liver via CYP3A4. Protease inhibitors are known to inhibit CYP3A4 and have been documented to increase tacrolimus concentrations, putting the patient at risk of developing nephrotoxic and/or neurotoxic symptoms. In this case, concomitant use of lopinavir/ritonavir caused tacrolimus concentrations to rise more dramatically than had been previously reported in the literature for other protease inhibitors.CONCLUSIONS: Extreme caution must be used when administering tacrolimus concomitantly with lopinavir/ritonavir. Therapeutic concentrations of tacrolimus can be maintained with tacrolimus doses that are far below standard dosages.