Anne-Marie Taburet

Interactions between Atazanavir-Ritonavir and Tenofovir in Heavily Pretreated Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients

ABSTRACT The aim of the present study was to assess the pharmacokinetic behavior of atazanavir-ritonavir when it is coadministered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DF) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. Eleven patients enrolled in Agence Nationale de Recherche sur le SIDA (National Agency for AIDS Research, Paris, France) trial 107 were included in this pharmacokinetic study. They received atazanavir at 300 mg and ritonavir at 100 mg once a day (QD) from day 1 to the end of study. For the first 2 weeks, their nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) treatments remained unchanged. Tenofovir DF was administered QD from day 15 to the end of the study. Ongoing NRTIs were selected according to the reverse transcriptase genotype of the HIV isolates from each patient. The values of the pharmacokinetic parameters for atazanavir and ritonavir were measured before (day 14 [week 2]) and after (day 42 [week 6]) initiation of tenofovir DF and are reported for the 10 patients who completed the study. There was a significant decrease in the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) for atazanavir with the addition of tenofovir DF (AUC0-24 ratio, 0.75; 90% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.97; P = 0.05). There was a trend for a decrease in the minimum concentrations of atazanavir and ritonavir in plasma when they were combined with tenofovir, but none of the differences reached statistical significance. The median decreases in the HIV RNA loads at week 2 and week 6 were 0.1 and 0.2 log copies/ml, respectively. In summary, our data are consistent with the existence of a significant interaction between atazanavir and tenofovir DF.

High rate of virologic suppression with raltegravir plus etravirine and darunavir/ritonavir among treatment-experienced patients infected with multidrug-resistant HIV: results of the ANRS 139 TRIO trial.

BACKGROUND The introduction of 2 or 3 fully active drugs in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients receiving failing antiretroviral therapy is a key determinant of subsequent treatment efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of a regimen containing raltegravir, etravirine, and darunavir/ritonavir for treatment-experienced patients infected with multidrug-resistant HIV. METHODS Patients enrolled in this phase II, noncomparative, multicenter trial were naive to the investigational drugs and had plasma HIV RNA levels >1000 copies/mL, a history of virologic failure while receiving nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), > or =3 primary protease inhibitor and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) mutations, and < or =3 darunavir and NNRTI mutations. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with plasma HIV RNA levels <50 copies/mL at 24 weeks. RESULTS A total of 103 patients enrolled in the study. At baseline, genotypic resistance profiles showed a median of 4 primary protease inhibitor mutations, 1 NNRTI mutation, and 6 NRTI mutations. In addition to the investigational drugs, 90 patients (87%) received optimized background therapy that included NRTIs (86 patients) or enfuvirtide (12 patients). At week 24, 90% of patients (95% confidence interval, 85%-96%) had an HIV RNA level <50 copies/mL. At week 48, 86% (95% confidence interval, 80%-93%) had an HIV RNA level <50 copies/mL. The median CD4 cell count increase was 108 cells/mm(3). Grade 3 or 4 clinical adverse events were reported in 15 patients (14.6%). Only 1 patient discontinued the investigational antiretroviral regimen, because of an adverse event. CONCLUSION In patients infected with multidrug-resistant virus who have few remaining treatment options, the combination of raltegravir, etravirine, and darunavir/ritonavir is well tolerated and is associated with a rate of virologic suppression similar to that expected in treatment-naive patients.

Lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy or plus zidovudine and lamivudine in antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients.

Background:Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents for HIV-1 infection recommend combining at least three agents. The toxicity, cost, and complexity of such regimens warrant the search for other options. Methods:MONARK is a prospective, open-label, randomized, 96-week trial comparing the safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy with a standard lopinavir/ritonavir plus zidovudine and lamivudine regimen as an initial treatment regimen in HIV-infected patients with HIV-RNA levels less than 100 000 copies/ml. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1-RNA levels below 400 copies/ml at week 24 and below 50 copies/ml at week 48. Results:Eight-three and 53 patients were randomly assigned and exposed in the monotherapy and triple-drug groups, respectively. At week 48, by an intent-to-treat analysis, 53 of 83 patients (64%) in the monotherapy group and 40 of 53 patients (75%) in the triple-drug group achieved the primary endpoint (P = 0.19). The on-treatment analysis indicates that 80 and 95% of patients reached the primary endpoint in the monotherapy and triple-drug groups, respectively (P = 0.02). In the monotherapy arm, protease inhibitor-associated resistance mutations were seen in three of the 21 patients qualifying for genotypic resistance testing, with a modest impact on lopinavir susceptibility. None of the serious reported adverse events were considered to be related to study treatment. Conclusion:Our results suggest that lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy demonstrates lower rates of virological suppression when compared with lopinavir/ritonavir triple therapy and therefore should not be considered as a preferred treatment option for widespread use in antiretroviral-naive patients.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Summary of Efficacy and Tolerability of Atazanavir

The efficacy of HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs) as part of highly active antiretroviral therapy is now well established and has provided benefits to many patients with HIV infection. Atazanavir is a new azapeptide PI compound that was recently approved in the US and Europe. Atazanavir is recommended in combination with other antiretroviral agents for the treatment of HIV-1 infection.Atazanavir is rapidly absorbed and administration of a single dose of atazanavir with a light meal resulted in a 70% increase in area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC); therefore atazanavir should be taken with food. Atazanavir is 86% bound to human serum protein independently of concentration. Concentration in body fluids appeared to be lower than plasma concentration.Like other PIs, atazanavir is extensively metabolised by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A isoenzymes. The mean terminal elimination half-life in healthy volunteers was approximately 7 hours at steady state following administration of atazanavir 400mg daily with a light meal.When atazanavir 300mg was coadministered with ritonavir 100mg on a once-daily dosage regimen, atazanavir AUC from 0 to 24 hours and minimum plasma concentration were increased by 3- to 4-fold and approximately 10-fold, respectively, compared with atazanavir 300mg alone. Therefore, ritonavir boosted atazanavir regimen (ritonavir 100mg and atazanavir 300mg once daily) is increasingly favoured in some patients. Efavirenz, a potent CYP3A inducer, decreased atazanavir concentrations by 75% and, unexpectedly, tenofovir, a nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor, decreased atazanavir concentrations by 25%.Average predose concentrations in HIV-infected patients who received atazanavir 400mg once daily were 273 ng/mL, which was believed to be several-fold higher than protein-binding corrected 50% inhibitory concentration of wildtype viruses. In HIV-infected patients who received once-daily ritonavir (100mg) boosted atazanavir (300mg), mean (±SD) trough concentration was 862 (±838) ng/mL.Several clinical trials showed the efficacy of atazanavir 400mg once daily with a nucleoside analogue backbone in antiretroviral-naive patients. The atazanavir 300/ritonavir 100mg once-daily combination coadministered with other antiretrovirals showed the efficacy of this strategy in patients receiving efavirenz or in moderately antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected patients.Recommended once-daily doses of atazanavir taken with food are either 400mg or 300mg in combination with low dose ritonavir (100mg) in moderately antiretroviral-experienced patients. Major advantages of atazanavir to date are its simplicity of administration (once-daily administration) and its less undesirable effect on the lipid profiles in patients.

Intracellular Pharmacokinetics of Antiretroviral Drugs in HIV-Infected Patients, and their Correlation with Drug Action

In patients infected by HIV, the efficacy of highly active antiretroviral (ARV) therapy through the blockade of different steps of the retrovirus life cycle is now well established. As HIV is a retrovirus that replicates within the cells of the immune system, intracellular drug concentrations are important to determine ARV drug efficacy and toxicity. Indeed, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-NRTIs (NNRTIs), newly available integrase inhibitors and protease inhibitors (PIs) act on intracellular targets. NRTIs are prodrugs that require intracellular anabolic phosphorylation to be converted into their active form of triphosphorylated NRTI metabolites, most of which have longer plasma half-lives than their parent compounds. The activity of intracellular kinases and the expression of uptake transporters, which may depend on cell functionality or their activation state, may greatly influence intracellular concentrations of triphosphorylated NRTI metabolites. In contrast, NNRTIs and PIs are not prodrugs, and they exert their activity by inhibiting enzyme targets directly. All PIs are substrates of cytochrome P450 3A, which explains why most of them display poor pharmacokinetic properties with intensive presystemic first-pass metabolism and short elimination half-lives. There is evidence that intracellular concentrations of PIs depend on P-glycoprotein and/or the activity of other efflux transporters, which is modulated by genetic polymorphism and coadministration of drugs with inhibiting or inducing properties. Adequate assay of the intracellular concentrations of ARVs is still a major technical challenge, together with the isolation and counting of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Furthermore, intracellular drug could be bound to cell membranes or proteins; the amount of intracellular ARV available for ARV effectiveness is never measured, which is a limitation of all published studies.In this review, we summarize the findings of 31 studies that provided results of intracellular concentrations of ARVs in HIV-infected patients. Most studies also measured plasma concentrations, but few of them studied the relationship between plasma and intracellular concentrations. For NRTIs, most studies could not establish a significant relationship between plasma and triphosphate concentrations. Only eight published studies reported an analysis of the relationships between intracellular concentrations and the virological or immunological efficacy of ARVs in HIV patients. In prospective studies that were well designed and had a reasonable number of patients, virological efficacy was found to correlate significantly with intracellular concentrations of NRTIs but not with plasma concentrations. For PIs, the only prospectively designed trial of lopinavir found that virological efficacy was influenced by both trough plasma concentrations and intracellular concentrations. ARVs are known to cause important adverse effects through interference with cellular endogenous processes. The relationship between intracellular concentrations of ARVs and their related toxicity was investigated in only four studies. For zidovudine, the relative strength of the association between a decrease in haemoglobin levels and plasma zidovudine concentrations, as compared with intracellular zidovudine triphosphate concentrations, is still unknown. Similarly, for efavirenz and neuropsychological disorders, methodological differences confound the comparison between studies.In conclusion, intracellular concentrations of ARVs play a major role in their efficacy and toxicity, and are influenced by numerous factors. However, the number of published clinical studies in this area is limited; most studies have been small and not always adequately designed. In addition, standardization of assays and PBMC counts are warranted. Larger and prospectively designed clinical studies are needed to further investigate the links between intracellular concentrations of ARVs and clinical endpoints.

Positive outcomes of HAART at 24 months in HIV-infected patients in Cambodia

Objectives:African and Asian cohort studies have demonstrated the feasibility and efficacy of HAART in resource-poor settings. The long-term virological outcome and clinico-immunological criteria of success remain important questions. We report the outcomes at 24 months of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in patients treated in a Médecins Sans Frontières/Ministry of Health programme in Cambodia. Methods:Adults who started HAART 24 ± 2 months ago were included. Plasma HIV-RNA levels were assessed by real-time polymerase chain reaction. Factors associated with virological failure were analysed using logistic regression. Results:Of 416 patients, 59.2% were men; the median age was 33.6 years. At baseline, 95.2% were ART naive, 48.9% were at WHO stage IV, and 41.6% had a body mass index less than 18 kg/m2. The median CD4 cell count was 11 cells/μl. A stavudine–lamivudine–efavirenz-containing regimen was initiated predominantly (81.0%). At follow-up (median 23.8 months), 350 (84.1%) were still on HAART, 53 (12.7%) had died, six (1.4%) were transferred, and seven (1.7%) were lost to follow-up. Estimates of survival were 85.5% at 24 months. Of 346 tested patients, 259 (74.1%) had CD4 cell counts greater than 200 cells/μl and 306 (88.4%) had viral loads of less than 400 copies/ml. Factors associated with virological failure at 24 months were non-antiretroviral naive, an insufficient CD4 cell gain of less than 350 cells/μl or a low trough plasma ART concentration. In an intention-to-treat analysis, 73.6% of patients were successfully treated. Conclusion:Positive results after 2 years of advanced HIV further demonstrate the efficacy of HAART in the medium term in resource-limited settings.

Influence of CYP3A5 Genetic Polymorphism on Tacrolimus Daily Dose Requirements and Acute Rejection in Renal Graft Recipients

Tacrolimus is a widely used immunosuppressive drug in organ transplantation. Its oral bioavailability varies greatly between individuals, and it is a substrate of cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) and P-glycoprotein. Our objective was to determine the influence of CYP3A5 and ABCB1 genetic polymorphisms on tacrolimus daily requirements and on transplantation outcome. One hundred and thirty-six renal graft recipients treated with tacrolimus were genotyped for CYP3A5 (6986A>G), ABCB1 exon26 (3435C>T) and exon21 (2677G>T/A) single nucleotide polymorphisms. Genotypes were correlated to tacrolimus daily dose at 1-week, 1-, 6- and 12-month post-transplantation and with transplantation outcome. At 1-month post-transplantation, tacrolimus daily dose was higher for patients with CYP3A5*1/*1 genotype compared to CYP3A5*3/*3 genotype (0.26 +/- 0.03 versus 0.16 +/- 0.01 mg/kg/day, respectively, P < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained at 6- and 12-month post-transplantation. Furthermore, CYP3A5*1 homozygotes were associated with increased risk of acute rejection episodes compared to patients with CYP3A5*1/*3 and CYP3A5*3/*3 genotypes (38% versus 10% and 9%, respectively, P = 0.01). CYP3A5 genetic polymorphism was not associated with tacrolimus-related nephrotoxicity. ABCB1 polymorphisms were not related with transplantation outcome. CYP3A5 genetic polymorphism appeared in our study to affect tacrolimus daily dose requirements and transplantation outcome. Screening for this single nucleotide polymorphism before the transplantation might be helpful for the selection of adequate initial daily dose and to achieve the desired immunosuppression.

Pharmacokinetic Optimisation of Asthma Treatment

SummaryAsthma is generally managed with bronchodilator therapy and/or anti-inflammatory drugs. Guidelines now advocate selection of drugs and pharmaceutical formulations (long-acting vs short-acting, inhaled vs systemic) on the basis of disease severity.Theophylline has a narrow therapeutic margin. Clearance is highly variable and plasma concentrations should be monitored to avoid the occurrence of plasma concentration-related adverse effects. The rate of absorption of theophylline differs depending on the sustained release formulation administered. Some products do not provide sufficient plasma drug concentrations for therapeutic efficacy over a 12-hour period, particularly in patients with high clearance rates (e.g. children and patients who smoke).Administration of drugs via inhalation offers several advantages over systemic routes of administration (e.g. adverse effects are decreased). Inhalation is now advocated as first-line therapy. Aerosol medications available for the treatment of asthma are β2-agonists (including the newer long-acting agents such as salmeterol), corticosteroids, anticholinergic drugs, sodium cromoglycate (cromolyn sodium) and nedocromil. To reach the airways, aerosolised particles should be 1 to 5µm in diameter. Particles of this size can be produced by nebuliser for continuous administration or by metered-dose inhaler and drug powder inhaler for unit dose medication. For efficient use of the metered-dose inhaler, slow inhalation and actuation must be coordinated. However, efficacy and convenience can be improved when spacer devices are used. Furthermore, spacer devices lessen the oropharyngeal adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids. Dry powder inhalers are more easily used by children and elderly patients than metered-dose inhalers.Regardless of the device used, a maximum of 10% of the inhaled dose reaches the airways. The rest of the dose is swallowed and absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract. Most inhaled drugs have low oral bioavailability, either because of a high first-pass metabolism (β2-agonists and glucocorticoids) or because of lack of absorption (sodium cromoglycate). Sulphation of β2-agonists occurs in the wall of the gastrointestinal tract and extensive metabolism of inhaled corticosteroids occurs in the liver. Low bioavailability of the swallowed fraction contributes to reduced adverse effects.The pharmacokinetic properties of an inhaled drug are of interest. The fraction of the dose absorbed through the lung has the same disposition characteristics as an intravenous dose, and the swallowed fraction has the same disposition as an orally administered dose. However, for many drugs, pharmacokinetic data after inhalation are limited and cannot be used as a criteria for selection of therapy.Whatever the device used to deliver the aerosolised drug, patients should be instructed on how to use the inhaler device so that maximum benefit may be obtained from their inhaled therapy. Although inhalation therapy is the first-line treatment for asthma, aerosol delivery to the airways and convenience of the devices could be improved, without increasing the cost of therapy.

Drug-drug interactions between HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) and antiviral protease inhibitors.

The HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors are a class of drugs also known as statins. These drugs are effective and widely prescribed for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia and prevention of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Seven statins are currently available: atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pitavastatin, pravastatin, rosuvastatin and simvastatin. Although these drugs are generally well tolerated, skeletal muscle abnormalities from myalgia to severe lethal rhabdomyolysis can occur. Factors that increase statin concentrations such as drug–drug interactions can increase the risk of these adverse events. Drug–drug interactions are dependent on statins’ pharmacokinetic profile: simvastatin, lovastatin and atorvastatin are metabolized through cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A, while the metabolism of the other statins is independent of this CYP. All statins are substrate of organic anion transporter polypeptide 1B1, an uptake transporter expressed in hepatocyte membrane that may also explain some drug–drug interactions. Many HIV-infected patients have dyslipidemia and comorbidities that may require statin treatment. HIV-protease inhibitors (HIV PIs) are part of recommended antiretroviral treatment in combination with two reverse transcriptase inhibitors. All HIV PIs except nelfinavir are coadministered with a low dose of ritonavir, a potent CYP3A inhibitor to improve their pharmacokinetic properties. Cobicistat is a new potent CYP3A inhibitor that is combined with elvitegravir and will be combined with HIV-PIs in the future. The HCV-PIs boceprevir and telaprevir are both, to different extents, inhibitors of CYP3A. This review summarizes the pharmacokinetic properties of statins and PIs with emphasis on their metabolic pathways explaining clinically important drug–drug interactions. Simvastatin and lovastatin metabolized through CYP3A have the highest potency for drug–drug interaction with potent CYP3A inhibitors such as ritonavir- or cobicistat-boosted HIV-PI or the hepatitis C virus (HCV) PI, telaprevir or boceprevir, and therefore their coadministration is contraindicated. Atorvastatin is also a CYP3A substrate, but less potent drug–drug interactions have been reported with CYP3A inhibitors. Non-CYP3A-dependent statin concentrations are also affected although to a lesser extent when coadministered with HIV or HCV PIs, mainly through interaction with OATP1B1, and treatment should start with the lowest available statin dose. Effectiveness and occurrence of adverse effects should be monitored at regular time intervals.

Drug interactions with antiviral drugs.

SummaryAntiviral drug interactions are a particular problem among immuno-compromised patients because these patients are often receiving multiple different drugs, i.e. antiretroviral drugs and drugs effective against herpesvirus. The combination of zidovudine and other antiretroviral drugs with different adverse event profiles, such as didanosine, zalcitabine and lamivudine, appears to be well tolerated and no relevant pharmacokinetic interactions have been detected. The adverse effects of didanosine and zalcitabine (i.e. peripheral neuropathy and pancreatitis) should be taken into account when administering these drugs with other drugs with the same tolerability profile.Coadministration of zidovudine and ganciclovir should be avoided because of the high rate of haematological intolerance. In contrast, zidovudine and foscarnet have synergistic effect and no pharmacokinetic interaction has been detected. No major change in zidovudine pharmacokinetics was seen when the drug was combined with aciclovir, famciclovir or interferons. However, concomitant use of zidovudine and ribavirin is not advised.Although no pharmacokinetic interaction was documented when didanosine was first administered with intravenous ganciclovir, recent studies have shown that concentrations of didanosine are increased by 50% or more when coadministered with intravenous or oral ganciclovir. The mechanism of this interaction has not been elucidated. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction was demonstrated between foscarnet and didanosine or ganciclovir.Clinical trials have shown that zidovudine can be administered safely with paracetamol (acetaminophen), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, oxazepam or codeine. Inhibition of zidovudine glucuronidation has been demonstrated with fluconazole, atovaquone, valproic acid (valproate sodium), methadone, probenecid and inosine pranobex; however, the clinical consequences of this have not been fully investigated.No interaction has been demonstrated with didanosine per se but care should be taken of interaction with the high pH buffer included in the tablet formulation. Drugs that need an acidic pH for absorption (ketoconazole, itraconazole but not fluconazole, dapsone, pyrimethamine) or those that can be chelated by the ions of the buffer (quinolones and tetracyclines) should be administered 2 hours before or 6 hours after didanosine.Very few interaction studies have been undertaken with other antiviral drugs. Coadministration of zalcitabine with the antacid ‘Maalox’ results in a reduction of its absorption. Dapsone does not influence the disposition of zalcitabine. Cotrimoxazole (trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) causes an increase in lamivudine concentrations by 43%. Saquinavir, delavirdine and atevirdine appeared to be metabolised by cytochrome P450 and interactions with enzyme inducers or inhibitors could be anticipated.Some studies showed that interferons can reduce drug metabolism but only a few studies have evaluated the pathways involved.Further studies are required to better understand the clinical consequences of drug interactions with antiviral drugs. Drug-drug interactions should be considered in addition to individual drug clinical benefits and safety profiles.