Barcellos T, Natavio M, Stanczyk FZ, Luo D, Jusko WJ, Bender NM. Effects of ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors on combined oral contraceptive pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in HIV-positive women.
Contraception 2019;
100:283-287. [PMID:
31194965 PMCID:
PMC6778019 DOI:
10.1016/j.contraception.2019.06.002]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2019] [Revised: 05/31/2019] [Accepted: 06/02/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE
To assess the pharmacokinetics of combined oral contraceptive (COC) components and prevalence of ovulation in HIV-positive women using ritonavir-containing antiretroviral regimens compared to those using regimens previously found not to interact with COCs or not using any antiretrovirals.
STUDY DESIGN
We conducted a prospective cohort pharmacokinetic pilot study comparing the pharmacokinetics of levonorgestrel (LNG) and ethinyl estradiol (EE) in HIV-positive women taking ritonavir-containing antiretroviral regimens to those in women using non-ritonavir-containing regimens or no antiretrovirals. Participants received COCs containing LNG/EE 150/30 mcg for 21 days. Beginning day 21, we collected serial blood samples over 72 h. The primary outcome was area under the curve (AUC) of LNG, with secondary outcomes including other LNG pharmacokinetic measures, EE pharmacokinetics and ovulation as measured by serum progesterone.
RESULTS
Pharmacokinetic parameters of LNG showed a trend toward increased exposure in women on ritonavir. LNG AUClast increased by 32.6% (312±60.9 vs. 243±82.6 ng/mL*h, p=.033, n=5) in women taking ritonavir compared to the control group (n=10). The Cmax (9.68±1.81 vs. 7.62±2.29 ng/mL) and Cmin (4.97±1.15 vs. 3.70±1.29 ng/mL) were also higher in the ritonavir arm. After excluding the inconsistent users (n=2), CL of LNG was reduced in the ritonavir arm (p=.032). EE pharmacokinetic profiles were not different between groups. The progesterone concentrations were similar in women of both groups, and none were consistent with ovulation during the treatment cycle.
CONCLUSION
Women on ritonavir showed an approximately 30% increase in LNG exposure but no difference in EE exposure.
IMPLICATIONS
The current data suggest that ritonavir does not have a clinically significant impact on oral contraceptive pharmacokinetics.
Collapse