Possible clinically significant interaction of itraconazole plus rifampin

Rifabutin: where do we stand in 2016?

Rifabutin is a spiro-piperidyl-rifamycin structurally closely related to rifampicin that shares many of its properties. We attempted to address the reasons why this drug, which was recently recognized as a WHO Essential Medicine, still had a far narrower range of indications than rifampicin, 24 years after its launch. In this comprehensive review of the classic and more recent rifabutin experimental and clinical studies, the current state of knowledge about rifabutin is depicted, relying on specific pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antimicrobial properties, resistance data and side effects compared with rifampicin. There are consistent in vitro data and clinical studies showing that rifabutin has at least equivalent activity/efficacy and acceptable tolerance compared with rifampicin in TB and non-tuberculous mycobacterial diseases. Clinical studies have emphasized the clinical benefits of low rifabutin liver induction in patients with AIDS under PIs, in solid organ transplant patients under immunosuppressive drugs or in patients presenting intolerable side effects related to rifampicin. The contribution of rifabutin for rifampicin-resistant, but rifabutin-susceptible, Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates according to the present breakpoints has been challenged and is now controversial. Compared with rifampicin, rifabutin's lower AUC is balanced by higher intracellular penetration and lower MIC for most pathogens. Clinical studies are lacking in non-mycobacterial infections.

Lack of Enzyme-Inducing Effect of Rifampicin on the Pharmacokinetics of Enfuvirtide

The primary objective was to determine whether rifampicin influences the pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide in HIV-1-infected patients. In a single-center, open-label, one-sequence crossover, clinical pharmacology study, 12 HIV-1-infected adults received enfuvirtide (90 mg, twice daily) on days 1 to 3 and days 11 to 13 (morning dose only on days 3 and 13) and rifampicin (600 mg, once daily) from days 4 to 13. Plasma concentrations were measured for enfuvirtide and its metabolite (days 3 and 13) and rifampicin (day 13 only). The ratios of least squares means (LSM) and 90% confidence intervals for enfuvirtide and enfuvirtide metabolite pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC12h, Cmax, Ctrough) were estimated in the presence and absence of rifampicin. Treatments were compared using an analysis of variance for natural log-transformed variables, with factors patient and treatment. Efficacy and safety were also monitored. Steady-state rifampicin had no appreciable effect on any of the pharmacokinetic parameters assessed for either enfuvirtide or its metabolite. The ratio of LSM for AUC12h, Cmax, and Ctrough for enfuvirtide was 97.5%, 103%, and 84.9%, respectively, and 108%, 112%, and 92.9%, for the enfuvirtide metabolite. Rifampicin did not affect the t1/2 of enfuvirtide or its metabolite. There were no unexpected effects of rifampicin on the short-term antiviral effect or safety of the administered antiretroviral treatment. The pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide are not induced by a 10-day pretreatment with rifampicin.

Update on rifampin and rifabutin drug interactions

Rifampin is a potent inducer of cytochrome P-450 oxidative enzymes as well as the P-glycoprotein transport system. Several examples of well-documented clinically significant interactions include warfarin, oral contraceptives, cyclosporine, itraconazole, digoxin, verapamil, nifedipine, simvastatin, midazolam, and human immunodeficiency virus-related protease inhibitors. Rifabutin reduces serum concentrations of antiretroviral agents, but less so than rifampin. Examples of clinically relevant interactions demonstrated by recent reports include everolimus, atorvastatin, rosiglitazone/pioglitazone, celecoxib, clarithromycin, caspofungin, and lorazepam. To avoid a decreased therapeutic response, therapeutic failure, or toxic reactions when rifampin is added to or discontinued from medication regimens, clinicians need to be cognizant of these interactions. Studies and cases of rifampin drug interactions continue to increase rapidly. This review is a timely reminder to clinicians to be vigilant.

Frequency of potential azole drug-drug interactions and consequences of potential fluconazole drug interactions

PURPOSE

To assess the frequency of potential azole-drug interactions and consequences of interactions between fluconazole and other drugs in routine inpatient care.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients treated for systemic fungal infections with an oral or intravenous azole medication between July 1997 and June 2001 in a tertiary care hospital. We recorded the concomitant use of medications known to interact with azole antifungals and measured the frequency of potential azole drug interactions, which we considered to be present when both drugs were given together. We then performed a chart review on a random sample of admissions in which patients were exposed to a potential moderate or major drug interaction with fluconazole. The list of azole-interacting medications and the severity of interaction were derived from the DRUGDEX System and Drug Interaction Facts.

RESULTS

Among the 4,185 admissions in which azole agents (fluconazole, itraconazole or ketoconazole) were given, 2,941 (70.3%) admissions experienced potential azole-drug interactions, which included 2,716 (92.3%) admissions experiencing potential fluconazole interactions. The most frequent interactions with potential moderate to major severity were co-administration of fluconazole with prednisone (25.3%), midazolam (17.5%), warfarin (14.7%), methylprednisolone (14.1%), cyclosporine (10.7%) and nifedipine (10.1%). Charts were reviewed for 199 admissions in which patients were exposed to potential fluconazole drug interactions. While four adverse drug events (ADEs) caused by fluconazole were found, none was felt to be caused by a drug-drug interaction (DDI), although in one instance fluconazole may have contributed.

CONCLUSIONS

Potential fluconazole drug interactions were very frequent among hospitalized patients on systemic azole antifungal therapy, but they had few apparent clinical consequences.

Combinations of antifungal agents in therapy--what value are they?

Concurrent or sequential antifungal treatment for invasive mycoses has been typically considered as an option to improve results of monotherapy. However, data on the efficacy of combination therapy are sparse and consist largely of results from studies in vitro and experimental animal models. These studies have yielded controversial results depending on the criteria used to evaluate the antifungal interaction. Several combinations that showed synergy in vitro failed to do so in animal models. Overall, apart from cryptococcal infections, combined antifungal therapy is not significantly better than monotherapy in terms of clinical efficacy. It is questionable whether combination therapy should be used in most cases as there is a lack of evidence from well-designed clinical trials. However, combination therapy could be an alternative to monotherapy for patients with invasive infections that are difficult to treat, such as those due to multi-resistant species and for those who fail to respond to standard treatment.