Patients prefer fewer pills and once-daily (qd) dosing without food restrictions. We assessed the impact on adherence [by Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS) cap monitoring] of switching from abacavir (ABC) and lamivudine (3TC) twice daily (bid) to ABC/3TC fixed-dose formulation (FDC, Kivexa) qd to achieve a qd regimen.A randomized, open-label, 8-week study comparing adherence, efficacy and safety of immediate vs. delayed switching from ABC/3TC to FDC qd.Ninety-four patients were dosed. Significantly improved adherence was observed at week 4 with qd ABC/3TC across all three adherence variables: taking compliance 99.2% (90.7-100%) vs. 96.6% (60.0-100%) (P=0.017); dosing compliance 97.1% (64.3-100%) vs. 91.9% (33.3-100%) (P=0.016); and timing compliance 95.5% (53.8-100%) vs. 86.3% (4.3-100%) (P=0.006). Treatment satisfaction increased significantly at week 4 with ABC/3TC qd [92% (82-99%) vs. 85% (75-93%) (P=0.004)]. Two patients were withdrawn from the study because of intolerance to ABC/3TC.Switching from ABC and 3TC bid to ABC/3TC FDC qd significantly improved adherence by MEMS cap monitoring at week 4 and improved patient satisfaction with therapy. The results remain to be confirmed over a longer follow-up. Use of qd regimens supports adherence and improves treatment satisfaction relative to bid regimens.
Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of two once-daily antiretroviral regimens containing lamivudine (3TC) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), each administered with didanosine (ddI) and efavirenz (EFV) as initial therapy to HIV-1-infected subjects. Methods: Single centre, randomized (1: 1), open-label study in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-infected adults. Subjects commenced either 3TC/ddI/EFV (3TC group) or TDF/ddI/EFV (TDF group). Safety, Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMScap) and plasma EFV concentration monitoring was performed over the study period. Comparisons between groups were assessed using χ2 test and linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between EFV concentrations and virological response. Results: Seventy-seven subjects were enrolled prior to recruitment being suspended, 36 to the 3TC group and 41 to the TDF group. Intention-to-treat analysis in which last observation carried forward (LOCF) found the mean viral log10 load [95% confidence interval (CI)] at weeks 4 and 12 to be 2.67 (2.47–2.87) and 1.83 (1.74–1.92) for the 3TC group and 2.75 (2.45–3.05) and 2.28 (1.96–2.6) for the TDF group (P = 0.013). Emergence of resistance occurred in five of 41 (12.2%) subjects in the TDF group up to week 12 compared with none of 36 in the 3TC group, (P < 0.05); these five subjects shared similar baseline characteristics (CD4+ cell counts < 200 × 106 cells/l and HIV-1 RNA > 100 000 copies/ml). Despite MEMScap monitoring showing > 99% adherence in all subjects, among the five failures, three had low EFV concentrations. Conclusion: TDF/ddI/EFV as initial therapy appears to have diminished efficacy in subjects with CD4 < 200 × 106 cells/l and viral load > 100 000 copies/ml. Treatment failure with resistance was not attributable to baseline resistance, efavirenz exposure or poor adherence.
The clinical use of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens has evolved recently. This strategy offers a number of unique benefits, including pharmacokinetic enhancement of two different protease inhibitors with low dose ritonavir. We review the pharmacologic rationale for the double-boosted protease inhibitor combinations and the complex drug-drug interactions that occur among different protease inhibitors when co-administered.The discovery and widespread clinical use of low dose ritonavir as a pharmacoenhancer of other protease inhibitors has significantly improved the management of HIV infection treatment. This has subsequently led to the development of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens which have been shown to be effective in heavily pre-treated patients, in whom it is crucial to maintain drug concentrations sufficient to suppress viruses with multiple resistance mutations. Interesting pharmacokinetic data have been recently produced showing the complexity of the interactions among three protease inhibitors. As the outcome of these multidrug interactions may be difficult to predict, formal pharmacokinetic studies have been fundamental to determine which protease inhibitors are best to administer in combination.This review summarizes the current literature regarding the pharmacokinetics of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens and general considerations regarding their usage in the treatment of HIV-infected patients.
Drug‐drug interactions are a major practical concern for physicians treating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) because of the many medications that HIV‐positive patients must take. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions can occur at different levels (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion) and are difficult to predict. Of all the processes that give rise to drug interactions, metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP3A) is the most frequent. Moreover, medications prescribed to HIV‐positive patients may also be CYP3A inhibitors and inducers: Tipranavir, in the absence of ritonavir, is a CYP3A inducer, and ritonavir is a CYP3A inhibitor. Fortunately, the drug interactions between tipranavir coadministered with ritonavir and other antiretroviral medications or with other medications commonly used in HIV therapy are well characterized. This review summarizes the pharmacokinetic interactions between tipranavir/ritonavir and 11 other antiretroviral medications and between tipranavir/ritonavir and drugs used to treat opportunistic infections such as fungal infections, antiretroviral‐treatment‐related conditions such as hyperlipidemia, and side effects such as diarrhea.
The amount of ritonavir needed to enhance saquinavir hard gel (hg) plasma concentrations is unclear. Reduced ritonavir dosing may help to reduce ritonavir-related side effects and costs. This study examined the pharmacokinetics of twice-daily saquinavir-hg (1000 mg) in the presence of ritonavir 100 mg, dosed twice-daily and once-daily on one single occasion.Eighteen HIV-infected adults taking saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice-daily underwent pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of saquinavir/ritonavir on day 1 following a morning saquinavir/ritonavir dose. On day 2, PK assessment was repeated when subjects took saquinavir without ritonavir. Drug intake (with a standard meal containing 20 g of fat) was timed on days -1, 1 and 2. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess changes in saquinavir PK parameters.Geometric mean saquinavir AUC(0-12), C(trough), C(max) and elimination half-life on days 1 and 2 were 14 389 and 9590 ng.h/mL, 331 and 234 ng/mL, 2503 and 1893 ng/mL and 2.80 and 2.82 h, respectively. The GMR (95% CI) for these parameters were 0.67 (0.53-0.84), 0.71 (0.48-1.04), 0.76 (0.58-0.98) and 1.01 (0.86-1.18), respectively.Withholding a ritonavir dose significantly reduces overall saquinavir exposure and C(max), but had no impact on the elimination half-life. These data establish the need to administer saquinavir and ritonavir simultaneously.
The pharmacokinetics and short-term safety of atazanavir 150 and 200 mg, when coadministered with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily, were evaluated. On day 1, atazanavir 150 mg once daily, was added to saquinavir/ritonavir regimens and sampling was performed to evaluate saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetics (day 11). Atazanavir was increased to 200 mg and pharmacokinetic assessment repeated (day 30). Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetic parameters in the present study and for 14 of the subjects treated with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily without and with atazanavir 300 mg who participated in a previous trial. Geometric mean (GM) saquinavir AUC0–24, Ctrough, and Cmax were 30,589 and 32,312 ng · h/ml, 166 and 182 ng/ml, and 4267 and 4261 ng/ml when coadministered with atazanavir 150 and 200 mg (n = 18). On days 11 and 30, saquinavir and atazanavir Ctrough remained >100 ng/ml in 13/18, 14/18, 18/18, and 17/18 patients. Among the above mentioned 14 subjects, significant increases in saquinavir Ctrough (87%, 92%, 99%), Cmax (40%, 55%, 44%), and AUC0–24 (51%, 60%, 63%) were observed with atazanavir 300, 150, and 200 mg. Ritonavir AUC0–24 and Cmax were significantly increased with the addition of atazanavir 300 mg only. Atazanavir enhances saquinavir and ritonavir by a mechanism that requires elucidation. While saquinavir enhancement was apparently independent of atazanavir dose, atazanavir 300 mg produced an increase in ritonavir Cmax, which is not observed with lower atazanavir doses. Atazanavir-related hyperbilirubinemia was dose dependent. However, higher saquinavir and atazanavir exposure may be required to suppress HIV-resistant strain replication.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23001489' d='M0 0v6h9V0z'/%3e%3cpath fill='%23e03c31' d='M0 0v3h9V0z'/%3e%3cg stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='2'%3e%3cpath id='d' d='m0 0 4.5 3L0 6m4.5-3H9'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' stroke='%23ffb81c' clip-path='url(%23c)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' fill='none' stroke='%23007749' stroke-width='1.2'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)