Tenofovir comedication does not impair the steady-state pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in HIV-1-infected adults

Drug-Drug Interactions with Antiretroviral Drugs in Pregnant Women Living with HIV: Are They Different from Non-Pregnant Individuals?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although the separate effects of drug-drug interactions and pregnancy on antiretroviral drug pharmacokinetics have been widely studied and described, their combined effect is largely unknown. Physiological changes during pregnancy may change the extent or clinical relevance of a drug-drug interaction in a pregnant woman. This review aims to provide a detailed overview of the mechanisms, magnitude, and clinical significance of antiretroviral drug-drug interactions in pregnant women.

METHODS

We performed a literature search and selected studies that compared the magnitude of drug-drug interactions with antiretroviral drugs in pregnant vs non-pregnant women.

RESULTS

Forty-eight papers examining drug-drug interactions during pregnancy were selected, of which the majority focused on pharmacokinetic boosting. Other selected studies examined the drug-drug interactions between efavirenz and lumefantrine, efavirenz and tuberculosis drugs, etravirine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, atazanavir and tenofovir disoproxil, and mefloquine and nevirapine in pregnant compared to non-pregnant women. The clinical significance of antiretroviral drug-drug interactions changed during pregnancy from a minimal effect to a contra-indication. In almost all cases, the clinical significance of a drug-drug interaction was more relevant in pregnant women, owing to the combined effects of pregnancy-induced physiological changes and drug-drug interactions leading to a lower absolute drug exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple studies show that the clinical relevance of a drug-drug interaction can change during pregnancy. Unfortunately, many potential interactions have not been studied in pregnancy, which may place pregnant women living with human immunodeficiency virus and their newborns at risk.

Highly active antiretroviral therapy dysregulates proliferation and differentiation of human pre-adipocytes

AIM

To investigate the mechanism(s) by which potential effects of multi-drug highly-active antiretroviral therapy contributes to lipodystrophy syndrome.

METHODS

Preadipocytes from healthy donors were assessed for proliferation and differentiation in the presence of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), and protease inhibitors (PIs) individually and in combination. Effects on proliferation were assessed with a 3-[4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl]-2,5-diphenyl tetrazolium bromide assay and effects on differentiation were assessed from glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GP DH) activity and quantitation of Oil Red O staining for intracellular lipid. Data were analyzed with a randomized block ANOVA with post-hoc Fisher’s Least Significant Difference test.

RESULTS

Preadipocyte proliferation was inhibited by a combination of NNRTI + NRTI (14% at 48 h, P < 0.001) and PI + NRTI (19% at 48 h, P < 0.001) with additional suppression when ritonavir (RTV) was added (26% at 48 h). The drug combination of atazanavir (ATV) + RTV + emtricitabine (FTC) + tenofovir (TDF) had the greatest inhibitory effect on proliferation at 48 h. Preadipocyte differentiation was most significantly reduced by the efavirenz + FTC + TDF assessed either by GPDH activity (64%) or lipid accumulation (39%), P < 0.001. Combining NRTIs with a PI (ATV + FTC + TDF) significantly suppressed differentiation (GPDH activity reduced 29%, lipid accumulation reduced by 19%, P < 0.01). This effect was slightly greater when a boosting amount of RTV was added (ATV + FTC + TDF + RTV, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Although combination antiretroviral therapy is clinically more efficacious than single drug regimens, it also has a much greater inhibitory effect on preadipocyte proliferation and differentiation.

Effect of drug interactions involving antiretroviral drugs on viral load in HIV population

Background

Most studies focus on potential drug interactions, without considering the effect of these on the response to antiretroviral (ARV) therapy. We assess the effect of potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) that could have lowered the ARV concentration (pDDI-lowerARV) on HIV viral load.

Methods

Retrospective observational cohort study was conducted on all HIV-infected outpatients attending the Pharmacy Service of a regional reference hospital in Murcia (south-eastern Spain). The complete treatment was subsequently screened for pDDIs using the database 'InteraccionesHIV.com'. The study focused on interactions involving at least one ARV drug and, especially, any pDDI-lowerARV.

Results

Two hundred and twenty-nine patients were included in the study. A total of 168 pDDIs were identified, of which 62 (36.9%) had the potential to lower ARV concentrations. In 77% of cases, the drug involved in the reduction of plasma concentrations was a protease inhibitor (PI), and in the rest of the drug interactions the ARV drug affected was a non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor. Baseline viral suppression was noted in 57.1% of patients with pDDI-lowerARV compared with 61.5% of patients without pDDI-lowerARV (p=0.605), and in 85.7% versus 79.7%, respectively, after a 24-week follow-up period (p=0.516).

Conclusions

This study shows that prevalence of pDDI-lowerARV was high; however, no association was found between the presence of these interactions and virological failure. These results confirm the need for further studies to understand the consequences of interactions in real-life clinical practice, since most pharmacokinetic studies tend to evaluate the ability of interaction between two drugs under controlled conditions.

Identification of potential clinically significant drug interactions in HIV-infected patients: a comprehensive therapeutic approach

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of potential clinically significant drug interactions (CSDIs) in HIV-positive individuals and to identify associated risk factors.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted including all HIV-infected out-patients attending the Pharmacy Service of a regional reference hospital in Murcia, south-eastern Spain. The complete treatment was screened for possible CSDIs using the Spanish College of Pharmacists' online software resource, bot. Additionally, the severity level of the CSDIs involving antiretroviral (ARV) drugs was compared with that established in the specific antiretroviral database InteraccionesHIV.com. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify associated risk factors.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixty-eight patients were included in the study. A total of 292 potential drug interactions were identified, of which 102 (34.9%) were CSDIs, of which 52.9% involved ARV drugs. Seven therapeutic drug classes were involved in 75% of CSDIs (protease inhibitors, benzodiazepines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, corticosteroids, antithrombotics and proton pump inhibitors). Factors independently associated with CSDIs were treatment with more than five drugs [odds ratio (OR) 15.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.3-36.2], and treatment with a protease inhibitor (OR 5.3; 95% CI 2.4-11.74).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that the prevalence of clinically relevant drug-drug interactions is high in HIV-infected patients, and could represent a major health problem. Awareness, recognition and management of drug interactions are important in optimizing the pharmaceutical care of HIV-infected patients and helping to prevent adverse events and/or loss of efficacy of the drugs administered.

Pharmacokinetics of atazanavir/ritonavir among HIV-infected Thai children concomitantly taking tenofovir disoproxil fumarate

BACKGROUND

Atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) is a recommended once-daily protease inhibitor. Tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) can reduce ATV exposure. The authors studied ATV pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters among children who received atazanavir/ritonavir co-administered with TDF.

METHODS

HIV-infected children aged 6-18 years with a body weight of 25-50 kg were eligible. Branded ATV 200 mg/capsule was taken with generic ritonavir 100 mg/tablet once daily plus TDF and lamivudine. A 24-hour PK study was performed at week 4 at t = 0 (pre-dose), 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 24 hours. PK parameters were calculated using non-compartmental methods with WinNonlin software. Targeted ATV AUC 0-24 was 15 mg h/L and C trough was 0.15 mg/L. Comparisons of geometric means of ATV PK parameters between different weight bands were made using regression models.

RESULTS

Eighteen HIV-infected children with a median (IQR) age of 13 (11-14) years were enrolled. Median (range) body weight and body surface area were 35 (25-42) kg and 1.21 (0.96-1.35) m2, respectively. Median (IQR) CD4 cell count was 735 (540-1233) cells/mm3. Median (range) of ATV was 164 (145-209) mg/m2. Geometric mean (SD) ATV AUC 0-24 was 35.05 (1.06) mg h/L, and ATV C trough was 0.31 (1.13) mg/L. No child had ATV AUC 0-24 or C trough below target levels. There were no significant differences in PK parameters among weight bands.

CONCLUSION

Atazanavir/ritonavir 200/100 mg dosing provided adequate ATV AUC 0-24 when used with TDF in HIV-infected Thai children weighing between 25 and 50 kg.

Atazanavir exposure is effective during pregnancy regardless of tenofovir use

BACKGROUND

We studied the effect of pregnancy on atazanavir pharmacokinetics in the presence and absence of tenofovir.

METHODS

This was a non-randomized, open-label, multicentre Phase IV study in HIV-infected pregnant women recruited from European HIV treatment centres. HIV-infected pregnant women treated with boosted atazanavir (300/100 mg or 400/100 mg atazanavir/ritonavir) as part of their combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) were included in the study. 24 h pharmacokinetic curves were recorded in the third trimester and postpartum. Collection of a cord blood and maternal sample at delivery was optional.

RESULTS

31 patients were included in the analysis, 21/31 patients used tenofovir as part of cART. Median (range) gestational age at delivery was 39 weeks (36-42). Approaching delivery 81% (25 patients) had an HIV viral load <50 copies/ml, all <1,000 copies/ml. Least squares means ratios (90% CI) of atazanavir pharmacokinetic parameters third trimester/postpartum were: 0.66 (0.57, 0.75) for AUC0-24h, 0.70 (0.61, 0.80) for Cmax and 0.59 (0.48, 0.72) for C24h. No statistical difference in pharmacokinetic parameters was found between patients using tenofovir versus no tenofovir. None of the patients showed atazanavir concentrations <0.15 mg/l (target for treatment-naive patients). One baby had a congenital abnormality, which was not likely to be related to atazanavir/ritonavir use. None of the children were HIV-infected.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite 34% lower atazanavir exposure during pregnancy, atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily generates effective concentrations for protease inhibitor (PI)-naive patients, even if co-administered with tenofovir. For treatment-experienced patients (with relevant PI resistance mutations) therapeutic drug monitoring of atazanavir should be considered to adapt the atazanavir/ritonavir dose on an individual basis.
 ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00825929.

Therapeutic drug monitoring of atazanavir/ritonavir in pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

Pregnant women experience physiological changes during pregnancy that can have a significant impact on antiretroviral pharmacokinetics. Ensuring optimal plasma concentrations of antiretrovirals is essential for maternal health and to minimize the risk of vertical transmission. Here we describe atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) plasma concentrations in a cohort of pregnant women undergoing routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM).

METHODS

Pregnant HIV-positive women received ATV/r as part of their routine pre-natal care. Demographic and clinical data were collected. ATV plasma concentrations ([ATV]) were determined in the first (T1), second (T2) and third (T3) trimesters and at postpartum (PP) using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS).

RESULTS

From January 2007, 44 women (37 black African) were enrolled in the study. All received ATV/r at a dose of 300/100 mg once a day. Twenty-four had received antiretroviral therapy (ART) prior to pregnancy, and 20 initiated ATV/r in pregnancy. At the time nearest to delivery, 36 patients had undetectable plasma viral loads. [ATV] values were determined in 11 (T1), 25 (T2), 34 (T3) and 28 (PP) patients. [ATV] at 24 hours post-dose (C24) values significantly lower at T2/T3 relative to PP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was carried out in one of the larger cohorts of women undergoing TDM for ATV in pregnancy. Lower [ATV] values were seen in T2/T3 compared with T1/PP. However, [ATV] were not associated with a lack of virologic suppression at delivery. Nonetheless, careful monitoring of women in pregnancy is required, and dose adjustment of ATV to 400 mg may be an option.

Pharmacokinetics of an increased atazanavir dose with and without tenofovir during the third trimester of pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Reduced atazanavir exposure has been demonstrated during pregnancy with standard atazanavir/ritonavir dosing. We studied an increased dose during the third trimester of pregnancy.

METHODS

International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Group 1026s is a prospective, nonblinded, pharmacokinetic study of HIV-infected pregnant women taking antiretrovirals for clinical indications, including 2 cohorts (with or without tenofovir) receiving atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily during the second trimester, 400/100 mg during the third trimester, and 300/100 mg postpartum (PP). Intensive steady-state 24-hour pharmacokinetic profiles were performed. Atazanavir concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Pharmacokinetic targets were the 10th percentile atazanavir area under the concentration versus time curve (AUC) (29.4 μg·hr·mL·) in nonpregnant adults on standard dose and 0.15 μg/mL, minimum trough concentration.

RESULTS

Atazanavir pharmacokinetic data were available for 37 women without tenofovir, 35 with tenofovir; median (range) pharmacokinetic parameters are presented for second trimester, third trimester, and PP and number who met target/total. ATAZANAVIR WITHOUT TENOFOVIR: AUC 30.5 (9.19-93.8), 45.7 (11-88.3), and 48.8 (9.9-112.2) μg·hr·mL, and 8/14, 29/37, and 27/34 met target. C24 h was 0.49 (0.09-4.09), 0.71 (0.14-2.09), and 0.90 (0.05-2.73) μg/mL; 13/14, 36/37, and 29/34 met target. ATAZANAVIR WITH TENOFOVIR: AUC 26.2 (6.8-60.9) (P < 0.05 compared with PP), 37.7 (0.72-88.2) (P < 0.05 compared with PP), and 58.6 (6-149) μg·hr·mL, and 7/17, 23/32, and 27/29 met target. C24 h was 0.44 (0.12-1.06) (P < 0.05 compared with PP), 0.57 (0.02-2.06) (P < 0.05 compared with PP), and 1.26 (0.09-5.43) μg/mL; 7/17, 23/32, and 27/29 met target. Atazanavir/ritonavir was well tolerated with no unanticipated adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Atazanavir/ritonavir increased to 400/100 mg provides adequate atazanavir exposure during the third trimester and should be considered during the second trimester.

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of 150 mg of maraviroc dosed with 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir all once daily, with and without nucleoside analogues, in HIV-infected subjects

BACKGROUND

Once-daily nucleoside-sparing combination antiretroviral therapy regimens are attractive options for the treatment of HIV infection. However, the pharmacokinetic profiles of such regimens are often not established.

METHODS

HIV-infected subjects receiving 245/200 mg of tenofovir/emtricitabine plus 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir once daily with plasma HIV RNA <50 copies/mL were eligible. On day 1 (period 1), 150 mg of maraviroc daily was added and on day 11 (period 2), tenofovir/emtricitabine discontinued. At steady-state (days 10 and 20), intensive pharmacokinetic sampling was undertaken. We assessed (i) the number of subjects with trough (C(trough)) and average (C(avg)) maraviroc concentrations <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively; (ii) geometric mean (GM) ratios for pharmacokinetic parameters for period 2 versus period 1; and (iii) factors associated with total maraviroc exposure.

RESULTS

Eleven subjects completed the study procedures (mean age 49 years; range 35-59 years). In three subjects, maraviroc C(trough) and C(avg) were <25 and <75 ng/mL, respectively (C(avg), 68 ng/mL and C(trough), 14 and 21 ng/mL). Although not statistically significant, a trend was observed towards lower maraviroc, darunavir and ritonavir concentrations in period 2 versus period 1; total maraviroc exposure was 3579 ng· h/mL (95% CI: 2983-4294) and 2996 ng· h/mL (95% CI: 2374-3782) in periods 1 and 2, respectively, and the GM ratio was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67-1.05). Only total ritonavir exposure was significantly associated with total maraviroc exposure (P=0.049; 95% CI: 0.01-0.91). No clinical safety concerns were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Within this novel nucleoside-sparing regimen, maraviroc exposure is dependent on ritonavir exposure, which was slightly reduced in the absence of tenofovir/emtricitabine.

Atazanavir pharmacokinetics, efficacy and safety in pregnancy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

For some antiretroviral therapies, drug concentrations are reduced during pregnancy, potentially compromising effective virological suppression.

METHODS

Data on atazanavir boosted with ritonavir in pregnancy are reviewed.

RESULTS

With standard atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once-daily dosing: atazanavir area-under-the-concentration-time curves were reduced during pregnancy in most studies, but overall interpretation differed according to the data used for comparison; atazanavir concentration 24 h post-dose was maintained >150 ng/ml in 97.6% of women; no instance of mother-to-child transmission occurred in treatment-adherent mothers; and infant hyperbilirubinaemia was not elevated beyond levels expected in the neonatal period.

CONCLUSIONS

With concurrent medications that reduce atazanavir drug concentrations, optimal therapy during pregnancy may require once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg; however, using this dose during the third trimester doubled maternal grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinaemia rates.

Unboosted atazanavir for treatment of HIV infection: rationale and recommendations for use

Atazanavir (Reyataz®) is a protease inhibitor (PI) for the treatment of HIV infection. Several trials have demonstrated the good efficacy and toxicity profile of atazanavir boosted by ritonavir (atazanavir/r). However, several toxicity events and pharmacokinetic issues due to drug-to-drug interactions (partly related to ritonavir) may complicate atazanavir/r therapy. This is why regimens with unboosted atazanavir have been experimented with and are used in clinical practice. The aim of this article is to identify the clinical settings in which unboosted atazanavir may be a safe and effective option for the long-term control of HIV replication. Despite the fact that a favourable lipid profile and good gastrointestinal tolerability have been reported in comparative trials, unboosted atazanavir should not be considered an optimal choice for treatment-naive patients. In fact, boosting with ritonavir produces higher atazanavir plasma levels, which are beneficial in terms of efficacy, especially in untreated patients with high plasma HIV RNA. Clinical data indicate that, in patients with sustained undetectable HIV RNA and without previous virological failure or HIV drug resistance-associated mutations, a switch to unboosted atazanavir-based regimens is a feasible option to control and prevent toxicity events, especially in patients who cannot tolerate ritonavir and in those with severe hyperbilirubinaemia on atazanavir/r. Moreover, while unboosted atazanavir must not be used in pregnant women, it is a recommended option in special populations, such as patients with moderate liver insufficiency. Lastly, unboosted atazanavir in combination with raltegravir may allow the construction of a well tolerated and effective regimen without nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in patients for whom these drugs are contraindicated. In conclusion, there is a good rationale, significant clinical interest and accumulating clinical experience with unboosted atazanavir-based regimens, although this formulation should be used only in specific situations and as a maintenance strategy. Moreover, therapeutic drug monitoring could be useful in specific circumstances (such as in patients with liver impairment or in case of potential drug-drug interactions).

Switching to unboosted atazanavir reduces bilirubin and triglycerides without compromising treatment efficacy in UGT1A1*28 polymorphism carriers

OBJECTIVES

Hyperbilirubinaemia is a frequent complication of atazanavir-containing antiretroviral therapy and its severity is related to UDP-glucuronosyl transferase (UGT) 1A1*28 polymorphism. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcome of unboosted atazanavir-containing regimens based on the genetic constitution.

METHODS

Fifty-one HIV-1-infected patients on boosted atazanavir were prospectively enrolled in the study. Twenty-five patients with a UGT1A1*28 allele switched to 400 mg of unboosted atazanavir.

RESULTS

At baseline, UGT1A1 heterozygous and homozygous patients had significantly higher bilirubin levels than wild-type (P = 0.012 and P < 0.001, respectively). After ritonavir removal, a reduction was observed in total bilirubin (from 4.09 to 1.82 mg/dL; P < 0.001), γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (P = 0.015), triglycerides (P = 0.03) and total cholesterol (P = 0.05). No significant changes in CD4 T cell count and no increases in viral load were observed 12 months after unboosting. Plasma drug monitoring after ritonavir removal revealed the presence of therapeutic atazanavir concentrations in all patients except one with poor therapy adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

UGT1A1*28 is significantly related to hyperbilirubinaemia in HIV-1 patients receiving atazanavir. Genotyping before the initiation of antiretroviral therapy can reduce the emergence of severe hyperbilirubinaemia. Unboosted atazanavir-containing therapy is safe and efficacious in patients with an undetectable viral load with a UGT1A1*28 polymorphism, allowing the use of atazanavir in patients otherwise likely unable to receive it.

Therapeutic monitoring and variability of atazanavir in HIV-infected patients, with and without HCV coinfection, receiving boosted or unboosted regimens

BACKGROUND

Adequate plasma trough concentrations (Ctrough) of protease inhibitors are required to maintain antiviral activity throughout the dosing interval. Therapeutic drug monitoring is used in clinical practice to optimize dosage and avoid toxic or subtherapeutic drug exposure. The pharmacokinetic variability of Atazanavir (ATV) can be relatively large, as a result of several factors. One of the affecting factors may be hepatic impairment due to hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection.

METHODS

We collected trough plasma samples from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1-infected outpatients, with and without HCV coinfection and/or cirrhosis, receiving stable highly active antiretroviral therapy containing ATV. In the total population, we mainly compared the 2 regimens: 300ATV + 100RTV OD [ritonavir (RTV), once daily (OD)] versus 400ATV OD. We used a threshold value of 0.15 μg/mL, based on the proposed therapeutic range (0.15-0.85 μg/mL). Plasma concentrations of ATV were determined by a validated assay using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. A total of 214 HIV-infected outpatients were included. For each regimen, we compared 3 groups of subjects: HIV+/HCV-, HIV+/HCV+, and HIV+/HCV+ with cirrhosis.

RESULTS

In the whole study population, we observed a large variability and found suboptimal Ctrough levels (<0.15 μg/mL) in 23 subjects (2 belonging to the 300/100 OD group and 21 to the 400 OD group). For the standard dosage regimen of 300ATV + 100RTV OD, we did not find a statistical difference between HIV-infected patients without HCV coinfection versus HIV-infected patients with HCV coinfection: median 0.85 (interquartile range 0.53-1.34) and 0.95 (0.70-1.36) μg/mL, respectively. In HIV+/HCV+-infected patients with cirrhosis, we found a median Ctrough of 0.70 (0.43-1.0) μg/mL, with no statistical difference when compared with HIV+/HCV- infected patients. For the 400ATV OD (n=90) dosage regimen, the total median ATV Ctrough was 0.40 (0.23-1.0) μg/mL. In this group, we found a statistically significant difference between HIV+/HCV- and HIV+/HCV+-infected patients: median Ctrough was 0.23 (0.11-0.42) and 0.52 (0.20-1.0) μg/mL, respectively. In HIV+/HCV+ subjects with cirrhosis, the Ctrough median value was 0.42 (0.13-0.75) μg/mL, and there was a significant difference when compared with HIV patients without coinfection.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic drug monitoring of ATV in patients receiving unboosted regimen may be useful to identify those HIV-infected subjects, with or without HCV coinfection, who may benefit from adding low RTV doses, or the subset of patients in whom removal of RTV could be attempted without the risk of suboptimal plasma ATV exposure.

Ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors in HIV therapy

The advent of combination antiretroviral therapy has led to significant improvement in the care of HIV-infected patients. Originally designed as a protease inhibitor (PI), ritonavir is currently exclusively used as a pharmacokinetic enhancer of other protease inhibitors, predominantly due to ritonavir's potent inhibition of the cytochrome P450 3A4 isoenzyme. Ritonavir-boosting of PIs decrease pill burden and frequency of dosing. Boosted PIs are recommended for first-line therapy in treatment and play a key role in the management of treatment-experienced patients. Potential problems associated with PIs include metabolic abnormalities (e.g. dyslipidemia), increased cardiovascular risk, and drug interactions.

Atazanavir/ritonavir-based combination antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV-1 infection in adults

In the past 15 years, improvements in the management of HIV infection have dramatically reduced morbidity and mortality. Similarly, rapid advances in antiretroviral medications have resulted in the possibility of life-long therapy with simple and tolerable regimens. Protease inhibitors have been important medications in regimens of combination antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV. One of the recommended and commonly used therapies in this class is once-daily-administered atazanavir, pharmacologically boosted with ritonavir (atazanavir/r). Clinical studies and practice have shown these drugs, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, to be potent, safe and easy to use in a variety of settings. Atazanavir/r has minimal short-term toxicity, including benign bilirubin elevation, and has less potential for long-term complications of hyperlipidemia and insulin resistance compared with other protease inhibitors. A high genetic barrier to resistance and a favorable resistance profile make it an excellent option for initial HIV treatment or as the first drug utilized in the protease inhibitors class. Atazanavir/r is also currently being studied in novel treatment strategies, including combinations with new classes of antiretrovirals to assess nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-sparing regimens. In this article we review atazanavir/r as a treatment for HIV infection and discuss the latest information on its pharmacology, efficacy and toxicity.

Factors influencing lopinavir and atazanavir plasma concentration

BACKGROUND

The protease inhibitors lopinavir and atazanavir are both recommended for treatment of HIV-infected patients. Considerable inter-individual variability in plasma concentration has been observed for both drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate which demographic factors and concomitant drugs are associated with lopinavir and atazanavir plasma concentration.

METHODS

Data from the Liverpool TDM (therapeutic drug monitoring) Registry were linked with the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) study. For each patient, the first measurement of lopinavir (twice daily) or atazanavir [once daily, ritonavir boosted (/r) or unboosted] plasma concentration was included. Linear regression was used to evaluate the association of dose, gender, age, weight, ethnicity and concomitant antiretroviral drugs or rifabutin with log-transformed drug concentration, adjusted for time since last intake.

RESULTS

Data from 439 patients on lopinavir (69% 400 mg/r, 31% 533 mg/r; 3% concomitant rifabutin) and 313 on atazanavir (60% 300 mg/r, 32% 400 mg/r, 8% 400 mg) were included. Multivariable models revealed the following predictors for lopinavir concentration: weight (11% decrease per additional 10 kg; P = 0.001); dose (25% increase for 533 mg/r; P = 0.024); and rifabutin (116% increase; P < 0.001). For atazanavir the predictors were dose (compared with 300 mg/r: 40% increase for 400 mg/r, 67% decrease for 400 mg; overall P < 0.001) and efavirenz (32% decrease; P = 0.016) but not tenofovir (P = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis confirms that efavirenz decreases atazanavir concentrations, and there was a negative association of weight and lopinavir concentrations. The strong impact of rifabutin on lopinavir concentration should be studied further.

Atazanavir: a review of its use in the management of HIV-1 infection

Atazanavir (Reyataz), a protease inhibitor (PI), is approved in many countries for use as a component of antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimens for the treatment of adult, and in some countries in paediatric, patients with HIV-1 infection. ART regimens containing ritonavir-boosted atazanavir improved virological and immunological markers in adult patients with HIV-1 infection, and had similar efficacy to regimens containing lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. In addition, unboosted atazanavir was noninferior to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in treatment-naive patients. Atazanavir is administered once daily and has a low capsule burden. Atazanavir, whether unboosted or boosted, was generally well tolerated and appeared to be associated with less marked metabolic effects, including less alteration of lipid levels, than other PIs. These properties mean that boosted atazanavir, and unboosted atazanavir in patients unable to tolerate ritonavir, continues to have a role as a component of ART regimens in patients with HIV-1 infection.

[Tenofovir: pharmacology and interactions]

Tenofovir is a nucleotide analogue and consequently its mechanism of action differs from that of nucleoside analogues. This drug is administered orally in the form of disoproxil ester, which is deesterified to achieve a bioavailability of more than 20%. This bioavailability slightly increases if tenofovir is taken with a fat-rich meal. This drug has broad tissue distribution, aided by its small molecular size and very low protein binding, and is eliminated as unchanged drug in the urine through glomerular filtration and active tubular secretion. Because of this latter characteristic, dosage adjustments are required in patients with renal insufficiency. The intracellular half-life of tenofovir is more than 10 times greater than the plasma half-life. Because of the pharmacokinetic profile of tenofovir, interactions with other drugs are scarce. Within the class of antiretroviral agents, an increase in the bioavailability of didanosine has been described, leading to the recommendation that the dose of didanosine be reduced when used in combination with tenofovir. Tenofovir can be used without adjustments with other nucleoside and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Equally, tenofovir seems to have no effect on the pharmacokinetics of protease inhibitors although these latter agents may produce a slight increase in the bioavailability of tenofovir, which seems to be of little clinical relevance. The absence of interactions with other non-antiretroviral agents has been reported.

Population pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in HIV-infected patients and healthy volunteers

Objectives

The aim of this study was to develop and validate a population pharmacokinetic model to: (i) describe ritonavir-boosted atazanavir concentrations (300/100 mg once daily) and identify important covariates; and (ii) evaluate the predictive performance of the model for lower, unlicensed atazanavir doses (150 and 200 mg once daily) boosted with ritonavir (100 mg once daily).

Methods

Non-linear mixed effects modelling was applied to determine atazanavir pharmacokinetic parameters, inter-individual variability (IIV) and residual error. Covariates potentially related to atazanavir pharmacokinetics were explored. The final model was assessed by means of a visual predictive check for 300/100, 200/100 and 150/100 mg once daily.

Results

Forty-six individuals were included (30 HIV-infected). A one-compartment model with first-order absorption and lag-time best described the data. Final estimates of apparent oral clearance (CL/F), volume of distribution (V/F) and absorption rate constant [relative standard error (%) and IIV (%)] were 7.7 L/h (5, 29), 103 L (13, 48) and 3.4 h⁻¹ (34, 154); a lag-time of 0.96 h (1) was determined. Ritonavir area under the curve (AUC_0–24) was the only significant covariate. Overall, 94%–97% of observed concentrations were within the 95% prediction intervals for all three regimens.

Conclusions

A population pharmacokinetic model for ritonavir-boosted atazanavir has been developed and validated. Ritonavir AUC_0–24 was significantly associated with atazanavir CL/F. The model was used to investigate other, particularly lower, ritonavir-boosted atazanavir dosing strategies.

Atazanavir: its role in HIV treatment

Azatanavir is a protease inhibitor (PI) approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. Atazanavir is a substrate and inhibitor of cytochrome P450 isozyme 3A and an inhibitor and inducer of P-glycoprotein. It has similar virologic efficacy as efavirenz and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in antiretroviral-naive individuals. Its impact on lipids is less than other PIs and it is suitable for those in whom hyperlipidemia is undesirable. Ritonavir boosting of atazanavir enhances the bioavailability of atazanavir but may result in some elevation of lipids and is recommended for treatment-experienced patients and those receiving efavirenz or tenofovir. Ritonavir-boosted atazanavir has similar antiviral activity as ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in both antiretroviral therapy-naive and -experienced patients. Atazanavir causes unconjugated bilirubinemia in over 40% of patients but results in less than 2% discontinuations. Atazanavir is licensed for once-daily use and atazanavir/ritonavir competes with lopinavir/ritonavir as the most commonly prescribed PI.

[Pharmacology, pharmacokinetic features and interactions of atazanavir]

Atazanavir (ATV) is an HIV protease inhibitor (IP) with a high in vitro activity against HIV-1, that demonstrates a high additive activity in the presence of other antiretrovirals and a synergic activity with other PI. Oral absorption is greater than 68%, maximum concentration (C(max)) being reached approximately 2 to 3 h after its administration. Its absorption is dependent on gastric pH, its administration being recommended after meals. The pharmacokinetics (PK) of ATV are non-linear; that is to say, its plasma concentrations (C(p)) do not increase in proportion to the dose. ATV is approximately 86% bound to plasma proteins. Its entry into the cerebrospinal fluid, semen or genital secretions varies but is generally less than 10-20%. Its passage across the placenta, measured as the mean of the ratios between the C(p) in umbilical cord and maternal blood, is 0.13. ATV is metabolised by oxidation by cytochrome P450 enzymes, subsequently being eliminated by the bile duct in the free or glucuronide form (80%) and by the urine. ATV is a weak competitive inhibitor of CYP3A4 and a strong inhibitor of uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1, which is the cause of the frequent high plasma bilirubin after its administration and of its pharmacological interactions.

Switch from ritonavir-boosted to unboosted atazanavir guided by therapeutic drug monitoring

Plasma concentration of atazanavir (ATV) may be reduced when coadministered with tenofovir (TDF) or proton pump inhibitors. Boosting ATV exposure with ritonavir (r) may make it possible to overcome these drug interactions. However, jaundice and loss of the metabolic advantages of ATV are more frequent using ATV/r than ATV alone. Herein, we assessed whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) could make it possible to identify the subset of patients in whom removal of ritonavir could be attempted without risk of suboptimal plasma ATV exposure and subsequent virological failure. A total of 56 patients with undetectable plasma HIV-RNA under a stable triple regimen containing ATV 300/100 mg qd were switched to ATV 400 mg qd. Plasma ATV concentrations were measured using a reliable high-performance liquid chromatography method. Median plasma ATV C(min) fell from 880 to 283 ng/ml (p = 0.03) after removal of ritonavir. While all patients on ATV/r showed ATV plasma concentrations within therapeutic values (IC(min) above 150 ng/ml) before switching, four patients (7%) fell below this threshold after switching to ATV 400 mg qd. However, only one of this group experienced virological failure at week 24 of follow-up. TDF was part of the antiretroviral regimen in all four cases. From a total of 29 (52%) patients on ATV/r showing grade 3-4 hyperbilirubinemia, only 7 (12%) remained on it upon switching to ATV 400 mg qd (p < 0.001). Patients with complete viral suppression under ATV/r 300/100 mg qd may benefit from switching to ATV 400 mg qd guided by TDM, which may make it possible to minimize adverse events without compromising antiviral efficacy in most cases.

Decrease of atazanavir and lopinavir plasma concentrations in a boosted double human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor salvage regimen

The human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor combination of atazanavir (ATV)-lopinavir-ritonavir was reported to exhibit a mutual pharmacoenhancement of plasma lopinavir and ATV concentrations which may be beneficial for salvage patients. We identified 17 patients in our pharmacokinetic database taking this combination and found conflicting results. Plasma concentrations of both ATV and lopinavir were modestly, although not significantly, decreased when the drugs were coadministered. Therefore, patients should be selected carefully for this regimen and frequent clinical and therapeutic drug monitoring is strongly advised.