Factors influencing lopinavir and atazanavir plasma concentration

Herb-Drug Interaction Between Xiyanping Injection and Lopinavir/Ritonavir, Two Agents Used in COVID-19 Pharmacotherapy

The global epidemic outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which exhibits high infectivity, resulted in thousands of deaths due to the lack of specific drugs. Certain traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs), such as Xiyanping injection (XYPI), have exhibited remarkable benefits against COVID-19. Although TCM combined with Western medicine is considered an effective approach for the treatment of COVID-19, the combination may result in potential herb-drug interactions in the clinical setting. The present study aims to verify the effect of XYPI on the oral pharmacokinetics of lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) using an in vivo rat model and in vitro incubation model of human liver microsomes. After being pretreated with an intravenous dose of XYPI (52.5 mg/kg) for one day and for seven consecutive days, the rats received an oral dose of LPV/RTV (42:10.5 mg/kg). Except for the t_1/2 of LPV is significantly prolonged from 4.66 to 7.18 h (p < 0.05) after seven consecutive days pretreatment, the pretreatment resulted in only a slight change in the other pharmacokinetic parameters of LPV. However, the pharmacokinetic parameters of RTV were significantly changed after pretreatment with XYPI, particularly in treatment for seven consecutive days, the AUC_0-∞ of RTV was significantly shifted from 0.69 to 2.72 h μg/mL (p < 0.05) and the CL exhibited a tendency to decrease from 2.71 L/h to 0.94 L/h (p < 0.05), and the t_1/2 of RTV prolonged from 3.70 to 5.51 h (p < 0.05), in comparison with the corresponding parameters in untreated rats. After administration of XYPI, the expression of Cyp3a1 protein was no significant changed in rats. The in vitro incubation study showed XYPI noncompetitively inhibited human CYP3A4 with an apparent Ki value of 0.54 mg/ml in a time-dependent manner. Our study demonstrated that XYPI affects the pharmacokinetics of LPV/RTV by inhibiting CYP3A4 activity. On the basis of this data, patients and clinicians can take precautions to avoid potential drug-interaction risks in COVID-19 treatment.

Pharmacogenetics-based population pharmacokinetic analysis for dose optimization of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in Thai adult HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

This population pharmacokinetic-pharmacogenetic study aimed to investigate the optimal dose of RTV-boosted ATV (ATV/RTV) for Thai adult HIV-infected patients.

METHODS

A total of 1460 concentrations of ATV and RTV from 544 patients receiving an ATV/RTV-based regimen were analyzed. The CYP3A5 6986 A > G, ABCB1 3435 C > T, ABCB1 2677 G > T, SLCO1B1 521 T > C, and NR1I2 63396 C > T were genotyped. A population pharmacokinetic model was performed using a nonlinear mixed-effect model (NONMEM®). Monte Carlo simulations were conducted to compare the percentages of patients achieving the therapeutic range of ATV through concentrations (C_trough).

RESULTS

The apparent oral clearance of ATV (CL/F_ATV) without RTV was 7.69 L/h with interindividual variability (IIV) of 28.7%. Patients with CYP3A5 6986 GG had a 7.1% lower CL/F_ATV than those with AA or AG genotype. The CL/F_ATV decreased by 10.8% for females compared with males. Simulation results showed higher percentages (~70%) of patient receiving doses of 200/100 or 200/50 mg achieved the target ATV C_trough, while more patients (~40%) receiving a standard dose (300/100 mg) had ATV C_trough above this target.

CONCLUSIONS

Both CYP3A5 6986 A > G and female decreased CL/F_ATV in Thai HIV-infected patients. Simulations supported that the reduced dose of ATV/RTV was sufficient to achieve the target concentration for Thai population.

Population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir in Covid-19 patients

OBJECTIVE

To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for lopinavir boosted by ritonavir in coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) patients.

METHODS

Concentrations of lopinavir/ritonavir were assayed by an accredited LC-MS/MS method. The population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir was described using non-linear mixed-effects modeling (NONMEM version 7.4). After determination of the base model that better described the data set, the influence of covariates (age, body weight, height, body mass index (BMI), gender, creatinine, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), C reactive protein (CRP), and trough ritonavir concentrations) was tested on the model.

RESULTS

From 13 hospitalized patients (4 females, 9 males, age = 64 ± 16 years), 70 lopinavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations were available for analysis. The data were best described by a one-compartment model with a first-order input (KA). Among the covariates tested on the PK parameters, only the ritonavir trough concentrations had a significant effect on CL/F and improved the fit. Model-based simulations with the final parameter estimates under a regimen lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg b.i.d. showed a high variability with median concentration between 20 and 30 mg/L (Cmin/Cmax) and the 90% prediction intervals within the range 1-100 mg/L.

CONCLUSION

According to the estimated 50% effective concentration of lopinavir against SARS-CoV-2 virus in Vero E6 cells (16.7 mg/L), our model showed that at steady state, a dose of 400 mg b.i.d. led to 40% of patients below the minimum effective concentration while a dose of 1200 mg b.i.d. will reduce this proportion to 22%.

Abnormal laboratory findings and plasma concentration monitoring of lopinavir and ritonavir in COVID-19

It is not known whether the adverse events (AEs) associated with the administration of lopinavir and ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of COVID-19 are concentration-dependent. In a retrospective study of 65 patients treated with LPV/r and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for severe forms of COVID-19 (median age: 67; males: 41 [63.1%]), 33 (50.8%) displayed a grade ≥2 increase in plasma levels of hepatobiliary markers, lipase and/or triglycerides. A causal relationship between LPV/r and the AE was suspected in 9 of the 65 patients (13.8%). At 400 mg b.i.d., the plasma trough concentrations of LPV/r were high and showed marked interindividual variability (median [interquartile range]: 16,600 [11,430-20,842] ng/ml for lopinavir and 501 [247-891] ng/ml for ritonavir). The trough lopinavir concentration was negatively correlated with body mass index, while the trough ritonavir concentration was positively correlated with age and negatively correlated with prothrombin activity. However, the occurrence of abnormal laboratory values was not associated with higher trough plasma concentrations of LPV/r. Further studies will be needed to determine the value of TDM in LPV/r-treated patients with COVID-19.

Influence of CYP3A5 and SLCO1B1 polymorphisms on atazanavir/r concentrations in Thai HIV-infected patients

Aim: To evaluate the influence of genetic polymorphisms on plasma trough concentrations of atazanavir (ATV) and ritonavir (RTV). Patients & methods: The concentration-to-dose ratios were compared between different genotype groups of CYP3A5, ABCB1, SLCO1B1 and NR1I2 in 490 patients. Multiple regression analysis was used to examine the association between genetic and clinical factors and log-transformed concentration-to-dose ratio of ATV and RTV. Results: Higher concentrations of ATV and RTV were significantly associated with CYP3A5 6986 GG and SLCO1B1 521 TC or CC. Female patients had significantly higher ATV plasma concentration than male patients. Conclusion: Genetic polymorphisms and gender are factors affecting the variability of ATV and RTV concentrations in the Thai population. Thus, genetic testing is worth considering when atazanavir + low dose ritonavir is prescribed.

Critical Review: What Dose of Rifabutin Is Recommended With Antiretroviral Therapy?

Since the advent of combination antiretroviral therapy to successfully treat HIV infection, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) have become a significant problem as many antiretrovirals (ARVs) are metabolized in the liver. Antituberculous therapy traditionally includes rifamycins, particularly rifampicin. Rifabutin (RBT) has shown similar efficacy as rifampicin but induces CYP3A4 to a lesser degree and is less likely to have DDIs with ARVs. We identified 14 DDI pharmacokinetic studies on HIV monoinfected and HIV-tuberculosis coinfected individuals, and the remaining studies were healthy volunteer studies. Although RBT may be coadministered with most nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, identifying the optimal dose with ritonavir-boosted or cobicistat-boosted protease inhibitors is challenging because of concern about adverse effects with increased RBT exposure. Limited healthy volunteer studies on other ARV drug classes and RBT suggest that dose modification may be unnecessary. The paucity of data assessing clinical tuberculosis endpoints concurrently with RBT and ARV pharmacokinetics limits evidence-based recommendations on the optimal dose of RBT within available ARV drug classes.

Prediction of area under the concentration-time curve for lopinavir from peak or trough lopinavir concentrations in patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir therapy

PURPOSE

A "single time point" strategy for predicting the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) for lopinavir in patients receiving ritonavir-boosted lopinavir therapy was investigated.

METHODS

Linear regression equations describing the relationships of lopinavir peak and trough concentrations to lopinavir AUC values were established using pharmacokinetic data from published studies of patients or healthy subjects receiving lopinavir and ritonavir at standard dosages. The resulting "trough-AUC model" and "peak-AUC model" were used to predict lopinavir AUC values in the evaluated study populations (total n = 479); those values were then compared with reported AUC values.

RESULTS

Lopinavir peak or trough concentrations were strongly correlated with lopinavir AUC values (r = 0.9947 and r = 0.9541, respectively). For about 94% of calculations using the peak-AUC model and 87% of calculations using the trough-AUC model, differences between predicted and observed AUC values were in the range of 0.76-1.5 fold; the associated r values were 0.9514 (p < 0.001) and 0.9345 (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean absolute predictive error was less than 6% with the use of either the peak-AUC model or the trough-AUC model, with corresponding values for root-mean-square error of 17.6% and 23.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Equations incorporating lopinavir peak and trough concentrations were found to satisfactorily predict lopinavir AUC values in data sets describing patients receiving lopinavir with ritonavir boosting. Variability in predictions was higher with use of the trough-AUC model.

Randomized clinical trial comparing the pharmacokinetics of standard- and increased-dosage lopinavir-ritonavir coformulation tablets in HIV-positive pregnant women

A lopinavir-ritonavir (LPV/r)-based regimen is recommended during pregnancy to reduce the risk of HIV mother-to-child transmission, but the appropriate dose is controversial. We compared the pharmacokinetics of standard and increased LPV/r doses during pregnancy. This randomized, open-label prospective study enrolled 60 pregnant women between gestational weeks 14 and 30. The participants received either the standard dose (400/100 mg twice a day [BID]) or increased dose (600/150 mg BID) of LPV/r tablets during pregnancy and the standard dose for 6 weeks after childbirth. Pharmacokinetics analysis was performed using a high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Adherent participants who received the standard dose presented minimum LPV concentrations of 4.4, 4.3, and 6.1 μg/ml in the second and third trimesters and postpartum, respectively. The increased-dose group exhibited values of 7.9, 6.9, and 9.2 μg/ml at the same three time points. Although LPV exposure was significantly higher in the increased-dose group, the standard dose produced therapeutic levels of LPV against wild-type virus in all adherent participants, except one patient in the third trimester; 50%, 37.5%, and 25%, and 0%, 15%, and 0% of the participants in the standard- and increased-dose groups failed to achieve therapeutic levels against resistant viruses during the second and third trimesters and after childbirth, respectively. After 12 weeks of treatment and after childbirth, all adherent participants achieved undetectable HIV viral loads, and their babies (49/54) were uninfected. No serious drug-related adverse events were observed. We conclude that the standard dose is appropriate for use during pregnancy and that an increased dose may be necessary for women harboring resistant HIV. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00605098.).

Clinical pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral drugs in older persons

INTRODUCTION

Combination antiretroviral therapy has enabled HIV-infected persons to reach older ages in high numbers. Hepatic and renal changes that normally occur with advancing age occur earlier and with higher incidence in HIV-infected individuals. A limited number of prospective controlled studies have demonstrated small reductions (17 to 41%) in lopinavir, atazanavir and lamivudine clearance in older versus younger adults. A much larger number of retrospective studies in adults (age range ∼ 20 to 60 years), including all antiretroviral drugs, have evaluated age as a covariate for pharmacokinetics. Most studies did not detect substantial associations between drug exposures and age.

AREAS COVERED

This review summarizes antiretroviral drug pharmacokinetics in older persons. The authors review articles from PubMed (search terms: elderly, antiretroviral, pharmacokinetics) in addition to the bibliographies of those selected.

EXPERT OPINION

The evidence to date does not support major pharmacokinetic changes in adults between ∼ 20 and 60 years of age. However, additional prospective, well-controlled studies are needed in more persons > 60 years, including those with frailty and comorbidities, with assessment of unbound drug clearance, and incorporation of adherence, pharmacogenetics and concomitant medications. Until then, guidelines for drug-drug interactions and dosing in renal and hepatic impairment should be followed in older HIV-infected individuals.

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.

Population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra) in HIV-infected patients

BACKGROUND

A relationship between plasma concentrations and viral suppression in patients receiving lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) has been observed. Therefore, it is important to increase our knowledge about factors that determine interpatient variability in LPV pharmacokinetics (PK).

METHODS

The study, designed to develop and validate population PK models for LPV and RTV, involved 263 ambulatory patients treated with 400/100 mg of LPV/RTV twice daily. A database of 1110 concentrations of LPV and RTV (647 from a single time-point and 463 from 73 full PK profiles) was available. Concentrations were determined at steady state using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. PK analysis was performed with NONMEM software. Age, gender, height, total body weight, body mass index, RTV trough concentration (RTC), hepatitis C virus coinfection, total bilirubin, hospital of origin, formulation and concomitant administration of efavirenz (EFV), saquinavir (SQV), atazanavir (ATV), and tenofovir were analyzed as possible covariates influencing LPV/RTV kinetic behavior.

RESULTS

Population models were developed with 954 drug plasma concentrations from 201 patients, and the validation was conducted in the remaining 62 patients (156 concentrations). A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption (including lag-time) and elimination best described the PK. Proportional error models for interindividual and residual variability were used. The final models for the drugs oral clearance (CL/F) were as follows: CL/F(LPV)(L/h)=0.216·BMI·0.81(RTC)·1.25(EFV)·0.84(ATV); CL/F(RTV)(L/h) = 8.00·1.34(SQV)·1.77(EFV)·1.35(ATV). The predictive performance of the final population PK models was tested using standardized mean prediction errors, showing values of 0.03 ± 0.74 and 0.05 ± 0.91 for LPV and RTV, and normalized prediction distribution error, confirming the suitability of both models.

CONCLUSIONS

These validated models could be implemented in clinical PK software and applied to dose individualization using a Bayesian approach for both drugs.

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.

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.

Population pharmacokinetic modeling of the association between 63396C->T pregnane X receptor polymorphism and unboosted atazanavir clearance

Atazanavir (ATV) plasma concentrations are influenced by CYP3A4 and ABCB1, which are regulated by the pregnane X receptor (PXR; NR1I2). PXR expression is correlated with CYP3A4 in liver in the absence of enzyme inducers. The PXR single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) 63396C→T (rs2472677) alters PXR expression and CYP3A4 activity in vitro, and we previously showed an association of this polymorphism with unboosted ATV plasma concentrations. The aim of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic analysis to quantify the impact of 63396C→T and diurnal variation on ATV clearance. A population analysis was performed with 323 plasma samples from 182 randomly selected patients receiving unboosted ATV. Two hundred fifty-nine of the blood samples were collected at random time points, and 11 patients had a full concentration-time profile at steady state. Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was applied to explore the effects of PXR 63396C→T, patient demographics, and diurnal variation. A one-compartment model with first-order absorption and lag time best described the data. Population clearance was 19.7 liters/h with interpatient variability or coefficient of variation (CV) of 21.5%. Homozygosity for the T allele for PXR 63396 was associated with a 17.0% higher clearance that was statistically significant. Evening dosing was associated with 34% higher bioavailability than morning dosing. Patient demographic factors had no effect on ATV clearance. These data show an association of PXR 63396C→T and diurnal variation on unboosted ATV clearance. The association is likely to be mediated through an effect on hepatic PXR expression and therefore expression of its target genes (e.g., CYP3A4, SLCO1B1, and ABCB1), which are known to be involved in ATV clearance.