Yechiel A. Hekster

Therapeutic drug monitoring: an aid to optimising response to antiretroviral drugs?

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) has been proposed as a means to optimise response to highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in HIV infection. Protease inhibitors (PIs) and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) efavirenz and nevirapine satisfy many criteria for TDM. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are not suitable candidates for TDM, since no clear plasma concentration-effect relationships have been established for these drugs.Several important limitations to the application of TDM for antiretroviral drugs should be recognised, including uncertainty about the best pharmacokinetic predictor of response and insufficient validation of target concentrations for individual PIs and NNRTIs. Data from two clinical trials support the use of TDM in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients who start with an indinavir- or nelfinavir-based regimen. TDM either prevented virological failures (presumably by preventing the development of resistance) or treatment discontinuations due to concentration-related toxicity. Application of routine TDM in other patient groups (treatment-experienced patients) or for drugs other than indinavir or nelfinavir (NNRTIs, other PIs, combination of PIs) is speculative at this moment. However, TDM can be used in selected patient groups (children, pregnant women, patients with renal or hepatic dysfunction) to confirm adequate drug concentrations, and for management of drug-drug interactions.TDM in treatment-experienced patients may be optimally used in conjunction with resistance testing. The integration of pharmacological and virological measures in the inhibitory quotient (IQ) needs to be standardised and elaborated further. TDM should be accompanied by careful assessment of adherence and can itself help identify non-adherence, although a drug concentration only reflects the last few drug doses taken by a patient. Additional clinical trials are needed before routine TDM can be adopted as standard of care in the treatment of HIV infection.

Evaluation of antiretroviral drug measurements by an interlaboratory quality control program.

Since 1999 an ongoing international interlaboratory quality control program has analyzed antiretroviral drugs in plasma. Results of the third round of this program are presented. Quality control samples were prepared by spiking drug-free plasma with varying concentrations of the currently available protease inhibitors and the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors efavirenz and nevirapine. Thirty-three laboratories participated in the program and were requested to analyze the quality control samples. Results were from 30 laboratories. Of all measurements, 82% were performed within 80%-120% accuracy limits. Only 3 laboratories performed all their measurements within these limits, and 12 participants reported at least 90% of their analyses within the acceptance range. Mean accuracy for low drug concentrations was worse than for medium and high concentrations. The percentage of satisfactory measurements for the 6 laboratories that participated for the third time in the program increased from 54% in the first round to 85% in the third round. The program revealed a large variability in the laboratories ability to measure antiretroviral drugs accurately. This variability may have important implications for therapeutic drug monitoring of these drugs and for pharmacokinetic studies. Interlaboratory testing is useful to alert laboratories to previously undetected analytical problems.

Reappraisal of Polytherapy in Epilepsy: A Critical Review of Drug Load and Adverse Effects

Summary: Purpose: We reviewed the literature to determine whether an analysis of published data could clarify the relationship between antiepileptic drug (AED) polytherapy and adverse affects (AE). We highlight the problems encountered.

Monotherapy versus polytherapy for epilepsy: A multicenter double-blind randomized study

Summary: u2002Purpose: Monotherapy has been the gold standard in epilepsy treatment for the last 20 years, partly because of the reputation for increased toxicity of polytherapy. However, monotherapy and polytherapy have not been compared in a double‐blind clinical trial. Open trials that compared the two treatments were not optimally designed and compared the two at unequal drug loads (i.e., at nonequivalent dosages). We report on a double‐blind clinical trial in which a combination of carbamazepine (CBZ) and valproate (VPA) was compared with CBZ monotherapy. Patients started with equal drug loads, and neurotoxicity was the primary outcome measure.

The impact of side effects on long-term retention in three new antiepileptic drugs

OBJECTIVEnTo determine long-term retention, percentage of patients withdrawing because of adverse events, percentage of patients achieving seizure freedom, safety profile of the new anti-epileptic drugs lamotrigine, levetiracetam and topiramate.nnnMETHODSnAll patients treated with lamotrigine, levetiracetam or topiramate in the Epilepsy Centre were identified. Each drug was analyzed from introduction of the drug in the Netherlands up to a final assessment point 2 years later.nnnRESULTSnData from 1066 patients were included: 336 for lamotrigine, 301 for levetiracetam, 429 for topiramate. Two-year retention rates were 69.2% (lamotrigine), 45.8% (levetiracetam), 38.3% (topiramate); (LTG vs. LEV at p<0.001; LTG vs. TPM at p<0.001; LEV vs. TPM at p=0.005). Seizure freedom rates were lowest for lamotrigine and highest for levetiracetam. Adverse events played a role in drug discontinuation in 154/429 patients (35.9%) on topiramate, 52/336 patients (15.5%) on lamotrigine (p<0.001), 68/301 patients (22.5%) on levetiracetam (p<0.001). Mood and general CNS-effects are common in patients on lamotrigine and levetiracetam, and neurocognitive side effects are most prevalent in patients on topiramate. A positive effect on cognition is frequently noted in patients on lamotrigine.nnnCONCLUSIONnA drug that is only modestly efficacious but has a favourable safety profile may look better than a drug that is more efficacious but produces clinically meaningful adverse events. Therefore, a drugs retention rate is mainly determined by its side effect profile. As a consequence, retention rate was highest for lamotrigine and lowest for topiramate. Intermediate retention rates were seen with levetiracetam use.

Monotherapy or polytherapy for epilepsy revisited: a quantitative assessment

Summary: Some investigators argue that treating epilepsy with several antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) simultaneously (polytherapy) may give rise to more adverse effects than monotherapy, but this argument lacks supporting quantitative data. To reexamine this issue, we recruited a cohort of patients from the outpatients of the Special Centres for Epilepsy in The Netherlands and from the outpatients of the Department of Neurology, Nijmegen University, The Netherlands. Two tools were used for analysis. All daily doses of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) were standardized by the ratio of prescribed daily dose to defined daily dose (PDD/DDD). The DDD is the assumed average effective daily dose for a drug used for its main indication in adults. The assignment of DDD Values is the task of the World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Centre for Drugs Statistics Methodology and Nordic Council on Medicines, which regularly publishes Guidelines for Defined Daily Doses. The severity of adverse effects (AE) was assessed by using the Neurotoxicity Index and the Systemic Toxicity Index as developed by the VA Cooperative Study Group for their recent studies comparing the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs. One hundred sixty‐one patients received monotherapy; all had a PDD/DDD ratio ≤2/day; 128 of 262 patients receiving polytherapy also had ≤2 PDD/DDD ratios/day. The mono‐ and polytherapy groups were stratified according to the PDD/DDD ratio. The prevalence of neurological AE for patients with similar PDD/DDD ratios was 50–80% for monotherapy patients and 50–80% for polytherapy patients. The difference between the mono‐ and polytherapy groups was not significant. The prevalence of neurological AE for patients receiving polytherapy with a PDD/DDD ratio >2.0 was 71–100%, whereas all patients with a PDD/DDD ratio >4.0 had neurological AE. This difference between patients with a PDD/DDD ratio ≤2.0 and those with >2.0 was statistically significant; p < 0.05. The severity of neurological AE also increased with dose, but appeared to peak at ∼3.5 PDD/DDD ratio. Our study underscores the usefulness of applying quantitative methods to the analysis of drug AE. Comparison of monotherapy and polytherapy showed no difference for equipotent doses. Because distribution of the AED doses was uneven between the groups receiving mono‐ and polytherapy, our study permits only a tentative statement that the frequency and severity of AE is independent of the use of either. In addition, frequency and intensity of AE apparently are not very sensitive to changes in dose. An experimental prospective study is planned to verify or refute the conclusions of this observational pilot study.

Pharmacokinetic Study of Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate Combined with Rifampin in Healthy Volunteers

ABSTRACT Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (tenofovir DF) was studied in combination with rifampin in 24 healthy subjects in a multiple-dose, open-label, single-group, two-period study. All subjects were given tenofovir DF at 300 mg once a day (QD) from days 1 to 10 (period 1). From days 11 to 20 the subjects received tenofovir DF at 300 mg combined with rifampin at 600 mg QD (period 2). The multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of tenofovir (day 10 and 20) and rifampin (day 20) were assessed. The drug-related adverse events (AEs) experienced during this study were mostly mild. Only one grade 3 AE possibly or probably related to the treatment (raised liver enzyme levels) occurred during period 2; the subject was withdrawn from the study. Pharmacokinetic data for 23 subjects were thus evaluable. Point estimates for the mean ratios of tenofovir with rifampin versus tenofovir alone for the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h (AUC0-24), the maximum concentration of drug in plasma (Cmax), and the minimum concentration of drug in plasma (Cmin) were 0.88, 0.84, and 0.85, respectively. The 90% classical confidence intervals for AUC0-24, Cmax, and Cmin were 0.84 to 0.92, 0.78 to 0.90, and 0.80 to 0.91, respectively, thus suggesting pharmacokinetic equivalence. Similarly, coadministration of rifampin and tenofovir DF did not result in changes in the values of the tenofovir pharmacokinetic parameters. For rifampin, the values of the pharmacokinetic parameters found in this study were comparable to those found in the literature, indicating that tenofovir DF has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of rifampin. In conclusion, adaptation of either the rifampin or the tenofovir DF dose for the simultaneous treatment of tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection in HIV-infected patients is probably not required.

International Interlaboratory Quality Control Program for Measurement of Antiretroviral Drugs in Plasma

ABSTRACT An international interlaboratory quality control program for measurement of antiretroviral drugs was initiated. The first round was confined to protease inhibitors and showed large variability in the performance of participating laboratories. The results demonstrate the need for and utility of an ongoing quality control program in this area of bioanalysis.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of HIV-protease inhibitors to assess noncompliance.

Objective To determine plasma concentration ratio limits (CORALS) for HIV-protease inhibitors outside of which random plasma concentrations reflect partial compliance or noncompliance. In the absence of a gold standard for measuring compliance and to avoid complex techniques, measuring plasma concentrations may be an objective and easy way to check noncompliance. Methods Pharmacokinetic curves after observed ingestion were recorded in patients on steady-state indinavir 800 mg TID (n = 22), ritonavir 400 mg/saquinavir 400 mg BID (n = 22, ritonavir; n = 17, saquinavir hard-gel capsules), or nelfinavir 750 mg TID (n = 4) or 1250 mg BID (n = 4). Concentration ratios were calculated by dividing the measured concentration by the median population value at the corresponding sampling time. Limits were based on the minimum P05 (5th percentile) and maximum P95 of these ratios found during the sampling interval. With these limits the authors determined (1) the proportion of patients falsely judged as noncompliers after observed ingestion, (2) discrimination between compliers and noncompliers, and (3) the absolute percentage of noncompliers. To judge the last two elements, two sets of random plasma samples were included: (1) samples sent in by the physician on suspicion of noncompliance (indinavir, n = 42; nelfinavir, n = 22;) or from a study population stating imperfect compliance in a questionnaire (ritonavir/saquinavir, n = 11); (2) control samples sent in routinely for monitoring therapeutic levels (indinavir, n = 41; nelfinavir, n = 201) or drawn from patients who stated perfect compliance in the questionnaire (ritonavir/saquinavir, n = 35). Results The following CORALS were found: indinavir <0.23 or >3.3; nelfinavir <0.36 or >2.1; ritonavir <0.18 or >1.9; saquinavir <0.28 or >2.3. In 31% to 55% of the patients suspected of noncompliance a plasma concentration ratio outside these limits was found. If a ratio was outside the limits, there was a 68% to 88% chance that that plasma sample belonged to a patient suspected of noncompliance, compared with the controls (all Chi-squared tests P < 0.05). Compared with observed ingestion, these chances ranged from 87% to 92%. Conclusion By using concentration ratio limits (CORALS), plasma samples of protease inhibitors with values outside these limits are highly indicative of partial or noncompliance.

Effect of low-dose ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) on the activity of cytochrome P450 2D6 in healthy volunteers

In the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection, the protease inhibitor ritonavir is used in a low dose (100 mg twice daily) to inhibit cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and thereby increase plasma concentrations of coadministered protease inhibitors. When applied in a therapeutic dose (600 mg twice daily), ritonavir also inhibits CYP2D6. The effect of low‐dose ritonavir on CYP2D6 is unknown and was investigated in this study.