Richard Bertz

Use of In Vitro and In Vivo Data to Estimate the Likelihood of Metabolic Pharmacokinetic Interactions

SummaryThis article reviews the information available to assist pharmacokineticists in the prediction of metabolic drug interactions. Significant advances in this area have been made in the last decade, permitting the identification in early drug development of dominant cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoform(s) metabolising a particular drug as well as the ability of a drug to inhibit a specific CYP isoform. The major isoforms involved in human drug metabolism are CYP3A, CYP2D6, CYP2C, CYP1A2 and CYP2E1. Often patients are taking multiple concurrent medications, and thus an assessment of potential drug-drug interactions is imperative.A database containing information about the clearance routes for over 300 drugs from multiple therapeutic classes, including analgesics, anti-infectives, psychotropics, anticonvulsants, cancer chemotherapeutics, gastrointestinal agents, cardiovascular agents and others, was constructed to assist in the semiquantitative prediction of the magnitude of potential interactions with drugs under development. With knowledge of the in vitro inhibition constant of a drug (Ki) for a particular CYP isoform, it is theoretically possible to assess the likelihood of interactions for a drug cleared through CYP-mediated metabolism. For many agents, the CYP isoform involved in metabolism has not been identified and there is substantial uncertainty given the current knowledge base.The mathematical concepts for prediction based on competitive enzyme inhibition are reviewed in this article. These relationships become more complex if the inhibition is of a mixed competitive/noncompetitive nature. Sources of uncertainty and inaccuracy in predicting the magnitude of in vivo inhibition includes the nature and design of in vitro experiments to determine Ki, inhibitor concentration in the hepatic cytosol compared with that in plasma, prehepatic metabolism, presence of active metabolites and enzyme induction. The accurate prospective prediction of drug interactions requires rigorous attention to the details of the in vitro results, and detailed information about the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of the inhibitor and inhibited drug.With the discussion of principles and accompanying tabulation of literature data concerning the clearance of various drugs, a framework for reasonable semiquantitative predictions is offered in this article.

ABT-378/ritonavir plus stavudine and lamivudine for the treatment of antiretroviral-naive adults with HIV-1 infection: 48-Week results

ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and antiviral activity of different dose levels of the HIV protease inhibitor ABT-378 combined with low-dose ritonavir, plus stavudine and lamivudine in antiretroviral-naive individuals. DesignProspective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter. MethodsEligible patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA > 5000 copies/ml received ABT-378 200 or 400 mg with ritonavir 100 mg every 12 h; after 3 weeks stavudine 40 mg and lamivudine 150 mg every 12 h were added (group I, n = 32). A second group initiated treatment with ABT-378 400 mg and ritonavir 100 or 200 mg plus stavudine and lamivudine every 12 h (group II, n = 68). ResultsMean baseline HIV-1 RNA was 4.9 log10 copies/ml in both groups and CD4 cell count was 398 × 106/l and 310 × 106/l in Groups I and II respectively. In the intent-to-treat (ITT; missing value = failure) analysis at 48 weeks, HIV-1 RNA was < 400 copies/ml for 91% (< 50 copies/ml, 75%) and 82% (< 50 copies/ml, 79%) of patients in groups I and II respectively. Mean steady-state ABT-378 trough concentrations exceeded the wild-type HIV-1 EC50 (effective concentration to inhibit 50%) by 50–100-fold. The most common adverse events were abnormal stools, diarrhea and nausea. No patient discontinued before 48 weeks because of treatment-related toxicity or virologic rebound. ConclusionsABT-378 is a potent, well-tolerated protease inhibitor. The activity and durable suppression of HIV-1 observed in this study is probably attributable to the observed tolerability profile and the achievement of high ABT-378 plasma concentrations.

Protein Binding in Antiretroviral Therapies

There is marked variability in the extent to which the three classes of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs bind to plasma proteins (<5 to >99%). Protease inhibitors (PIs), with the exception of indinavir, are more than 90% protein bound, mainly to alpha1-acid glycoprotein (AAG). Efavirenz, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), is more than 99% bound, mainly to albumin. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are not highly protein bound. The pharmacological activity of ARV drugs is dependent on unbound drug entering cells that harbor the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). There has been concern that changes in protein binding could impact on antiviral activity and management. However, for PIs and NNRTIs, and for many drugs given orally, altered plasma binding would not be expected to influence the average exposure to unbound (active) drug after chronic oral dosing. Nevertheless, there will be a change in the relationship between total and unbound concentrations that will be important if, as part of therapeutic drug monitoring, the total rather than the unbound drug is measured. Measuring drug concentrations that are needed to inhibit different HIV strains (wild type and drug resistant) in vitro could also cause confusion because most methods employ bovine serum in the assay medium, and unbound concentrations are not directly measured. Estimating unbound drug concentrations in human plasma and in incubation media can be highly method dependent and thus may affect the calculated IC50 (the concentration of drug that results in 50% inhibition of viral replication). Because inhibitory quotients (IQs = C(trough)/IC50) are becoming part of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analyses of clinical trial data, the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used for the determination of unbound drug concentration in plasma and in vitro systems--ultracentrifugation, ultrafiltration, and equilibrium dialysis--need to be understood. Consensus on standard procedures must be reached. In June 2002, a panel of experts assembled by the Forum for Collaborative HIV Research met in Washington, DC, to review the basic principles of protein binding of ARV drugs, and to discuss the impact that changes in plasma protein binding may have on the PKs and activity of ARV drugs as well as on therapeutic drug monitoring. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following topics: (1) basic principles of protein binding and how changes in binding can impact on drug PKs and drug exposure in vivo, (2) variability in plasma protein binding among patients taking ARV drugs, (3) the impact of HIV infection and concomitant diseases on the extent of plasma protein binding, (4) the likelihood of clinically relevant drug interactions at the level of plasma protein binding, (5) the evidence that measuring unbound concentrations of ARV drugs in the plasma of patients gives more meaningful information than total drug concentration and, therefore, should be considered in routine therapeutic drug monitoring of ARV agents, (6) optimal method(s) for measuring the unbound concentration of drugs in vitro (for IC50 determination) and in vivo, and (7) future studies that need to be considered to fully understand the importance of plasma protein binding in therapeutic drug monitoring. This report summarizes the topics discussed at this meeting. It guides the reader through the discussions that allowed the panel to formulate a series of statements regarding the significance of plasma protein binding of ARV drugs when studied in vitro and in vivo. The roundtable participants also identified research priorities that are important for understanding the sources of inter- and intraindividual variability in protein binding in patients. These include obtaining data on unbound as well as on total concentrations in PK studies; looking at variants of AAG and whether they differ in binding affinity; and emphasizing the importance of developing a standard procedure for drug susceptibility assays used to determine IC50 values.

Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Analysis of Lopinavir-Ritonavir in Combination with Efavirenz and Two Nucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors in Extensively Pretreated Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients

ABSTRACT The steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of two oral doses of lopinavir-ritonavir (lopinavir/r; 400/100 and 533/133 mg) twice daily (BID) when dosed in combination with efavirenz, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, were assessed in a phase II, open-label, randomized, parallel arm study in 57 multiple protease inhibitor-experienced but non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects. All subjects began dosing of lopinavir/r at 400/100 mg BID; subjects in one arm increased the lopinavir/r dose to 533/133 mg BID on day 14. When codosed with efavirenz, the lopinavir/r 400/100 mg BID regimen resulted in lower lopinavir concentrations in plasma, particularly Cmin, than were observed in previous studies of lopinavir/r administered without efavirenz. Increasing the lopinavir/r dose to 533/133 mg increased the lopinavir area under the concentration-time curve over a 12-h dosing interval (AUC12), Cpredose, and Cmin by 46, 70, and 141%, respectively. The increase in lopinavir Cmax (33%,) did not reach statistical significance. Ritonavir AUC12, Cmax, Cpredose, and Cmin values were increased 46 to 63%. The lopinavir predose concentrations achieved with the 533/133-mg BID dose were similar to those observed with lopinavir/r 400/100 mg BID in the absence of efavirenz. Results from univariate logistic regression analyses identified lopinavir and efavirenz inhibitory quotient (IQ) parameters, as well as the baseline lopinavir phenotypic susceptibility, as predictors of antiviral response (HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml at week 24); however, no lopinavir or efavirenz concentration parameter was identified as a predictor. Multiple stepwise logistic regressions confirmed the significance of the IQ parameters, as well as other baseline characteristics, in predicting virologic response at 24 weeks in this patient population.

Once-Daily versus Twice-Daily Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Antiretroviral-Naive HIV-Positive Patients: A 48-Week Randomized Clinical Trial

The safety, pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity of lopinavir, a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitor, coformulated with ritonavir as a pharmacokinetic enhancer were evaluated in 38 antiretroviral-naive patients randomized 1:1 to receive open-label lopinavir/ritonavir at a dose of 800/200 mg once daily or 400/100 mg twice daily, each in combination with stavudine and lamivudine twice daily, for 48 weeks. Over the course of 48 weeks, median predose concentrations of lopinavir exceeded the protein-binding corrected concentration required to inhibit replication of wild-type HIV by 50% in vitro by 40- and 84-fold in the once- and twice-daily groups, respectively. Predose concentrations of lopinavir were more variable in the once-daily group (mean +/- SD, 3.62+/-3.38 microg/mL for the once-daily group and 7.13+/-2.93 microg/mL for the twice-daily group). At week 48, in an intent-to-treat (missing = failure) analysis, 74% of patients in the once-daily group and 79% of patients in the twice-daily group had HIV RNA levels of <50 copies/mL (P=.70). Study drug-related discontinuations occurred in 1 patient in each treatment group. Genotypic resistance testing of 4 patients with HIV RNA levels >400 copies/mL between weeks 24 and 48 demonstrated no protease inhibitor-resistance mutations.

Successful Projection of the Time Course of Drug Concentration in Plasma During a 1-Year Period From Electronically Compiled Dosing-Time Data Used as Input to Individually Parameterized Pharmacokinetic Models

Pharmacokinetic studies rely on blood sampling at times relative to predefined dosing intervals. Intensive sampling is often done under direct observation of dose taking, which, though costly, virtually eliminates uncertainty about actual dosing times. In contrast, the sparse sampling done in population pharmacokinetic studies relies on patient‐reported times of dosing, the accuracy of which the authors sought to assess by adding electronic monitoring to the usual patient reporting of dosing times. The study involved 35 antiretroviral‐naive, human immunodeficency virus—infected patients and was designed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antiviral activity of prescribed lopinavir/ritonavir (800/200 mg qd or 400/100 mg bid), stavudine, and lamivudine. The present research reports the pharmacokinetic analysis that results from taking into account the patients’ actual dosing histories. Intensive sampling for plasma lopinavir concentrations was done at week 3, and 4 additional predose (trough) concentrations were measured during the next 12 months. Convergence was achieved by fitting a simple 1‐compartment pharmacokinetic model, with first‐order absorption and elimination, to the sparse sampling data, using electronic monitoring—reported times. In contrast, convergence was not achieved using the simple model when steady state was assumed, and the times for the last qd dose or the last 2 bid doses, as reported by the patient, were used as model input. Estimated individual pharmacokinetic parameters were then combined with electronic dosing histories to project each patients internal drug exposure over long periods of time. This strategy may provide a basis for greatly increasing the informational yield and utility of conventional therapeutic drug monitoring.

Coadministration of Lopinavir/ritonavir and Phenytoin Results in Two-way Drug Interaction Through Cytochrome P-450 Induction

Summary:Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) is a CYP3A4 inhibitor and substrate; it also may induce cytochrome P-450 (CYP) isozymes. Phenytoin (PHT) is a CYP3A4 inducer and CYP2C9/CYP2C19 substrate. This study quantified the pharmacokinetic (PK) drug interaction between LPV/RTV and PHT. Open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, PK study in healthy volunteers. Subjects in arm A (n = 12) received LPV/RTV 400/100 mg twice daily (BID) (days 1–10), followed by LPV/RTV 400/100 mg BID + PHT 300 mg once daily (QD) (days 11–22). Arm B (n = 12) received PHT 300 mg QD (days 1–11), followed by PHT 300 mg QD + LPV/RTV 400/100 mg BID (days 12–23). Plasma samples were collected on day 11 and day 22; PK parameters were compared by geometric mean ratio (GMR, day 22:day 11). P values <0.05 were considered significant. Following PHT addition, LPV area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-12h) decreased from 70.9 ± 37.0 to 49.6 ± 25.1 μg·h/mL (GMR 0.67, P = 0.011) and C0h decreased from 6.0 ± 3.2 to 3.6 ± 2.3 μg/mL (GMR 0.54, P = 0.001). Following LPV/RTV addition, PHT AUC0-24h decreased from 191.0 ± 89.2 to 147.8 ± 104.5 μg·h/mL (GMR 0.69, P = 0.009) and C0h decreased from 7.0 ± 4.0 to 5.3 ± 4.1 μg/mL (GMR 0.66, P = 0.033). Concomitant LPV/RTV and PHT use results in a 2-way drug interaction. Phenytoin appears to increase LPV clearance via CYP3A4 induction, which is not offset by the presence of low-dose RTV. LPV/RTV may increase PHT clearance via CYP2C9 induction. Management should be individualized to each patient; dosage or medication adjustments may be necessary.

Assessment of pharmacokinetic interactions of the HCV NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir with antiretroviral agents: ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, efavirenz and tenofovir.

BACKGROUND Approximately one-third of all HIV-infected individuals are coinfected with HCV, many of whom will receive concomitant treatment for both infections. With the advent of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for HCV, potential drug interactions between antiretrovirals and DAAs require evaluation prior to co-therapy. METHODS Three open-label studies were conducted in healthy subjects to assess potential interactions between the investigational first-in-class HCV NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir and representative antiretrovirals atazanavir/ritonavir, efavirenz and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. RESULTS Target exposure was that of 60 mg daclatasvir alone. Dose-normalized (60 mg) geometric mean ratios of daclatasvir AUCτ for 20 mg ± atazanavir/ritonavir (2.10 [90% CI 1.95, 2.26]) and 120 mg ± efavirenz (0.68 [0.60, 0.78]) showed less than the three-fold elevation and two-fold reduction, respectively, in systemic exposure predicted by prior interaction studies with potent inhibitors/inducers of CYP3A4. Daclatasvir dose adjustment to 30 mg once daily with atazanavir/ritonavir and 90 mg once daily with efavirenz is predicted to normalize AUCτ relative to the target exposure (geometric mean ratios 1.05 [0.98, 1.13] and 1.03 [0.90, 1.16], respectively). Atazanavir exposure (Cmax, AUCτ and C24 trough) and efavirenz Ctrough under coadministration were similar to historical data without daclatasvir. No clinically relevant interactions between daclatasvir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were observed for either drug, and no dosing adjustments were indicated. Daclatasvir was well tolerated in all three studies. CONCLUSIONS The pharmacokinetic data support coadministration of daclatasvir with atazanavir/ritonavir, efavirenz and/or tenofovir. A Phase III study in HIV-HCV coinfection has commenced using the described dose modifications.

Pharmacodynamics, safety, and pharmacokinetics of BMS-663068, an oral HIV-1 attachment inhibitor in HIV-1-infected subjects.

BACKGROUND BMS-663068 is a prodrug of the small-molecule inhibitor BMS-626529, which inhibits human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection by binding to gp120 and interfering with the attachment of virus to CD4+ T-cells. METHODS Fifty HIV-1-infected subjects were randomized to 1 of 5 regimen groups (600 mg BMS-663068 plus 100 mg ritonavir every 12 hours [Q12H], 1200 mg BMS-663068 plus 100 mg ritonavir every bedtime, 1200 mg BMS-663068 plus 100 mg ritonavir Q12H, 1200 mg BMS-663068 Q12H plus 100 mg ritonavir every morning, or 1200 mg BMS-663068 Q12H) for 8 days in this open-label, multiple-dose, parallel study. The study assessed the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics, and safety of BMS-663068. RESULTS The maximum median decrease in plasma HIV-1 RNA load from baseline ranged from 1.21 to 1.73 log(10) copies/mL. Plasma concentrations of BMS-626529 were not associated with an antiviral response, while low baseline inhibitory concentrations and the minimum and average steady-state BMS-626529 plasma concentrations, when adjusted by the baseline protein binding-adjusted 90% inhibitory concentration (inhibitory quotient), were linked with antiviral response. BMS-663068 was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Administration of BMS-663068 for 8 days with or without ritonavir resulted in substantial declines in plasma HIV-1 RNA levels and was generally well tolerated. Longer-term clinical trials of BMS-663068 as part of combination antiretroviral therapy are warranted. Clinical Trials Registration.NCT01009814.

Phase I Study of the Effect of Gastric Acid pH Modulators on the Bioavailability of Oral Dasatinib in Healthy Subjects

Dasatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (including BCR‐ABL and the SRC family) that is effective in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. Dasatinib has pH‐dependent solubility and is bioavailable as an oral formulation. The effect of gastric pH modifiers on dasatinib pharmacokinetics is evaluated in an open‐label, randomized, 3‐period, 3‐treatment crossover study. Twenty‐four healthy subjects receive treatment A (2 doses of dasatinib 50 mg separated by 12 hours), treatment B (famotidine 40 mg given 2 hours after dasatinib 50 mg and 10 hours before another dose of dasatinib 50 mg), and treatment C (30 mL of an antacid containing aluminum/magnesium hydroxides given 2 hours before dasatinib 50 mg and concomitantly with dasatinib 50 mg 12 hours after the previous dasatinib dose); a 7‐day washout separates each treatment period. When famotidine is administered 2 hours after dasatinib, dasatinib exposure is similar to dasatinib administered alone. However, dasatinib exposure is reduced by ∼60% when famotidine is administered 10 hours before dasatinib dosing. In contrast, dasatinib exposure is unchanged when antacid (Maalox) is administered 2 hours before dasatinib; but when the antacid is coadministered with dasatinib, dasatinib exposure is reduced by ∼55% to 58%. This indicates that H2‐receptor antagonists should not be coadministered with dasatinib. Dasatinib may be administered with acid‐neutralizing antacids if the doses are temporally separated by at least 2 hours.