Pharmacokinetics of once-daily saquinavir/ritonavir in HIV-infected subjects: comparison with the standard twice-daily regimen

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the steady-state pharmacokinetics and safety of two once-daily saquinavir/ritonavir (SQV/RTV) regimens, 1600/100 and 2000/100 mg, in HIV-positive patients. METHODS: Eighteen HIV-infected adults treated with the standard twice-daily SQV/RTV 1000/100 mg regimen were enrolled in this open-label, two-phase, crossover pharmacokinetic study. The steady-state pharmacokinetics of SQV administered with 100 mg RTV were investigated following once-daily doses of 1600 mg or 2000 mg or a twice-daily dose of 1000 mg. Plasma drug concentrations were determined by high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental model. RESULTS: Compared with SQV 1000 mg twice daily, the Cmax of SQV following a 1600 mg and 2000 mg dose increased in a dose-proportional manner [geometric mean (95% CI) 1915 (1656-2850) ng/ml for 1000 mg, 2782 (2249-4330) ng/ml for 1600 mg and 4179 (3429-6105) ng/ml for 2000 mg doses, respectively]. SQV Ctrough values were 539 (453-1011), 106 (76-223) and 231 (75-822) ng/ml, respectively. A SQV Ctrough value greater than 100 ng/ml was achieved in all subjects on the twice-daily regimen, in 9/18 (50%) subjects on the 1600/100 mg once-daily regimen, and in 14/17 (82%) subjects on the 2000/100 mg once-daily regimen. The once-daily regimens were well tolerated, with mild-to-moderate gastrointestinal symptoms being the only events reported by a small number of patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of once-daily SQV/RTV 2000/100 mg in HIV-infected subjects. Our findings suggest that this regimen may be an alternative to twice-daily 1000/100 mg doses and should be further evaluated in efficacy studies. The data indicate that most patients (14/17) on once-daily 2000/100 mg achieve trough concentrations above target values (determined for HIV wild-type) for efficacy of SQV with the use of just 100 mg RTV/day and with good tolerability.     

Pharmacokinetics and safety of saquinavir/ritonavir and omeprazole in HIV-infected subjects

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

Interindividual variability of once-daily ritonavir boosted saquinavir pharmacokinetics in Thai and UK patients

OBJECTIVES: Differential exposure to saquinavir/ritonavir may lead to therapy failure. The objective was to identify factors that influence variability of saquinavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations. METHODS: Saquinavir/ritonavir data, dosed as 1600/100 mg once daily, from three separate pharmacokinetic studies, in 45 patients from Thailand and the UK, were pooled. Pharmacokinetic parameters were based on non-compartmental analysis. Univariate analysis was performed with saquinavir as the dependent variable, and ritonavir area under the curve (AUC), gender, body weight, body mass index (BMI) and study site as independent variables. Variables with a P value <0.10 were included in a multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Higher saquinavir AUCs, maximum concentrations (Cmax) and minimum concentrations (Cmin) were seen in Thai patients than in UK patients. Univariate analysis showed associations between body weight, gender, study site and ritonavir AUC and saquinavir AUC (P < 0.05), whereas BMI (P = 0.13) did not. In the multivariate analysis, ritonavir AUC (P = 0.0001) and study site (P = 0.0021) were significantly related to saquinavir AUC (R2 = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The ritonavir AUC and study site appeared to be related to exposure of saquinavir. Study site should be viewed as the total of country- and study-specific differences--such as differences in lifestyle, environment, genetic background and dietary composition--between the analysed studies.     

Assessing safety and efficacy of directed P-glycoprotein inhibition to improve the pharmacokinetic properties of saquinavir coadministered with ritonavir

Using a mouse model, we tested the effects of in vivo P-glycoprotein inhibition to enhance the oral uptake and penetration into pharmacological sanctuary sites of the human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor (HPI) saquinavir. The HPI ritonavir is frequently coadministered with saquinavir to improve saquinavir plasma levels since it strongly reduces the cytochrome P450 3A4-mediated metabolism of saquinavir. Previously, we demonstrated that ritonavir is not an efficient P-glycoprotein inhibitor in vivo, evidenced by the limited oral uptake of saquinavir and its penetration into brain and fetus. Increasing drug concentrations in these sites using more effective P-gp inhibitors might improve therapy but could also lead to toxicity. We orally coadministered ritonavir and saquinavir to mice, with or without the potent P-glycoprotein inhibitor N-(4-[2-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-6,7-dimethoxy-2-isoquinolinyl)ethyl]-phenyl)-9,10-dihydro-5-methoxy-9-oxo-4-acridine carboxamide (GF120918). Upon GF120918 coadministration, two of seven P-glycoprotein-deficient animals died. Using a decreased ritonavir dose, GF120918 coadministration led to a 4.4-fold increase in the saquinavir plasma area under the curve in wild-type mice, whereas no such effect was observed in P-glycoprotein-deficient mice. Despite the decreased ritonavir dose, all mice did suffer from impaired gastric emptying. Including GF120918 in a multiple (twice daily) dosing regimen, we found continued accumulation of saquinavir in brain over several days, resulting in 10-fold higher levels compared with vehicle-treated mice. Transient ritonavir-related neurotoxicity, however, was observed after the fourth and final drug dosing. Clinical attempts to efficiently inhibit P-glycoprotein function for improved HPI disposition may therefore be feasible, but they should be performed without ritonavir and monitored carefully for unexpected toxicities.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between rifampicin and the once-daily combination of saquinavir and low-dose ritonavir in HIV-infected patients with tuberculosis

OBJECTIVES: To assess plasma steady-state pharmacokinetics (PK) of rifampicin, isoniazid, saquinavir and ritonavir in HIV and tuberculosis (TB) co-infected patients, and investigate potential interactions between TB drugs and protease inhibitors (PIs). METHODS: Open-label, single-arm, sequential PK study including 22 patients with HIV infection and TB. During the first 2 months, patients received rifampicin, isoniazid and pyrazinamide, with or without ethambutol (first PK study, n = 22). Then patients stopped pyrazinamide and ethambutol and started once-daily antiretroviral therapy (ART) with didanosine, lamivudine, ritonavir (200 mg) and saquinavir (1600 mg) (second PK study, n = 18). Patients stopped all TB drugs after 9 months continuing the same ART (third PK study, n = 15). Differences between TB drug parameters in the first and second PK studies, and between PI parameters in the second and third PK studies were used to assess interactions. RESULTS: Rifampicin and isoniazid pharmacokinetics did not change substantially with saquinavir and ritonavir. A significant 39.5%, 34.9% and 48.7% reduction in median saquinavir AUC(0-24), C(max) and C(trough), respectively, was seen with rifampicin and isoniazid. Ritonavir AUC(0-24), C(max) and C(trough) decreased 42.5%, 49.6% and 64.3%, respectively, with rifampicin and isoniazid. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant interaction between saquinavir, ritonavir and rifampicin, with reduction in median plasma concentrations of saquinavir and ritonavir. Saquinavir should be given with caution in patients receiving rifampicin. Twice-daily dosing or higher saquinavir doses in once-daily administration should be tested to obtain more appropriate plasma levels.     

Safety and efficacy of ritonavir and saquinavir in combination with zidovudine and lamivudine.

BACKGROUND: Ritonavir is a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P4503A4 that strongly increases saquinavir bioavailability. In this study we assessed the safety and antiretroviral efficacy of the combination of these two compounds in patients pretreated and receiving continued treatment with zidovudine and lamivudine who were protease inhibitor naive and who had a CD4 cell counts below 200/mm3. METHODS: In this 48-week pilot study, all patients received 600 mg ritonavir and 400 mg saquinavir twice daily. Administration of zidovudine and lamivudine was continued without a change in previous doses. Viral load, CD4 cell count, and the emergence of resistance to the two protease inhibitors were evaluated repeatedly up to week 48. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were included in the study. Previous nucleoside analog treatment duration was 48+/-22 months (mean +/- SD). Two patients quit taking both protease inhibitors within 2 weeks. The ritonavir dose had to be reduced in 10 other patients because of side effects. Between inclusion and week 48, plasma viremia varied from 4.87+/-0.43 to 3.00+/-1.29 log10 copies/mL and CD4 cell counts ranged from 98+/-61 to 250+/-139/mm3. Ten patients (63%) had viral loads below 200 copies/mL and 7 (44%) had viral loads below 50 copies/mL. A single key mutation that conferred ritonavir resistance I84V and V82A/V developed in two patients. A mutation at codon 54 developed in another patient. These mutations were associated with repeated cessations of antiretroviral treatment. No lipodystrophy was observed. CONCLUSION: Ritonavir and saquinavir in combination are quite well tolerated and induce a high and sustained antiretroviral efficacy. A four-drug combination that includes these two protease inhibitors should be considered as a first line of treatment in patients with low CD4 cell counts.     

Safety and pharmacokinetics of once-daily regimens of soft-gel capsule saquinavir plus minidose ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus-negative adults

Human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease inhibitors have dramatically improved treatment options for HIV infection, but frequent dosing may impact adherence to highly active antiretroviral treatment regimens (HAART). Previous studies demonstrated that combined therapy with ritonavir and saquinavir allows a decrease in frequency of saquinavir dosing to twice daily. In this study, we evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of combining once-daily doses of the soft-gel capsule (SGC) formulation of saquinavir (saquinavir-SGC) and minidose ritonavir. Forty-four healthy HIV-negative volunteers were randomized into groups receiving once-daily doses of saquinavir-SGC (1,200 to 1,800 mg) plus ritonavir (100 to 200 mg) or a control group receiving only saquinavir-SGC (1,200 mg) three times daily. Saquinavir-SGC alone and saquinavir-SGC-ritonavir combinations were generally well tolerated, and there were no safety concerns. Addition of ritonavir (100 mg) to saquinavir-SGC (1,200 to 1,800 mg/day) increased the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for saquinavir severalfold, and the intersubject peak concentration in plasma and AUC variability were reduced compared to those achieved with saquinavir-SGC alone (3,600 mg/day), while trough saquinavir levels (24 h post-dose) were substantially higher than the 90% inhibitory concentration calculated from HIV-1 clinical isolates. Neither increasing the saquinavir-SGC dose to higher than 1,600 mg nor increasing ritonavir from 100 to 200 mg appeared to further enhance the AUC. These results suggest that an all once-daily HAART regimen, utilizing saquinavir-SGC plus a more tolerable low dose of ritonavir, may be feasible. Studies of once-daily saquinavir-SGC (1,600 mg) in combination with ritonavir (100 mg) in HIV-infected patients are underway.     

The efficacy and safety of high-dose arbekacin sulfate therapy (once-daily treatment) in patients with MRSA infection

The efficacy and safety of once-daily high-dose arbekacin sulfate therapy for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infection were evaluated, with analysis of their relationship to blood drug levels. The study was conducted in patients with pneumonia or sepsis, the cause of which was suspected to be MRSA, who were admitted to the Nagasaki University Hospital or its affiliated hospitals between January 2009 and December 2010. The initial drug dose was set at a level expected to yield the goal peak of 20 μg/ml and a trough level of less than 2 μg/ml, using the Habekacin Therapeutic Drug Monitoring analysis software. Thirteen patients were enrolled: 10 patients had pneumonia and 3 patients had sepsis. Patient mean age was 72.0 years; mean initial drug dose was 269.2 mg. Clinical efficacy at completion of treatment and bacterial eradication-reduction were achieved in 66.7% (6/9) and 62.5% (5/8) of patients, respectively. Incidence of adverse reactions was 38.5% (5/13). In analysis of efficacy in relationship to serum drug levels, the peak drug level was 22.7 ± 5.50 μg/ml, on average, and 15 μg/ml or higher in all 6 responders. Also, in patients with renal dysfunction, it seemed to be essential to ensure a certain peak drug level and to control the trough level appropriately. Although the number of patients was limited, once-daily high-dose arbekacin sulfate therapy may be highly effective, without posing any major safety problems. Further larger-scale studies are needed.     

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

OBJECTIVE: To identify a genotypic score for resistance to saquinavir boosted with ritonavir (SQV/r; 1,000/100 mg twice daily)-based regimens in protease inhibitor (PI)-experienced patients. METHODS: One-hundred and fifty-one PI-experienced patients receiving a SOV/r-containing regimen were enrolled retrospectively. The virological response (VR) was defined as the decrease in HIV RNA at months 3-5. The effect of each mutation in the protease gene on the VR to SQV/r regimen was assessed using non-parametric univariate analyses and then a step-by-step analysis was carried out using a Jonckheere-Tepstra (JT) nonparametric test to retain the group of mutations most strongly associated with VR. RESULTS: Among the 138 patients with detectable plasma SQV, the median VR was -1.48 [range: -4 to +1.2] log10 copies/ml. Changes at 12 codons were associated with a reduced VR to SQV/r: codons 10, 15, 20, 24, 46, 54, 62, 71, 73, 82, 84 and 90. The JT procedure led to selection of the following genotypic score, 10+15+20+ 24+62+73+82+84+90, as providing the strongest association with VR. In the 35 patients with none of the mutations in this score, the median decrease in HIV RNA was -2.24 log10 copies/ml and it was -1.88 (n=29), -1.43 (n=24), -0.52 (n=30), -0.18 (n=9), -0.11 (n=6) and -0.30 (n=5) log10 copies/ml in those with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mutations, respectively. CONCLUSION: With this resistance score to SQV/r, the isolates were classified as having no evidence of resistance (0-2), possible resistance (3) or resistance (> or =4) by grouping the number of mutations in samples for which the viral load reduction was similar.