Pharmacokinetics and safety of GW433908 and ritonavir, with and without efavirenz, in healthy volunteers

Fosamprenavir: Drug Development for Adherence

Objective:

To review the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, virology, safety, efficacy, and clinical use of fosamprenavir.

Data Sources:

A MEDLINE (1966–July 2005) search was conducted using fosamprenavir, Lexiva, amprenavir, and GW433908 as key words. Abstracts from infectious diseases and HIV scientific meetings were identified. Bibliographies of cited articles were reviewed.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

All publications, meeting abstracts, and unpublished information were reviewed and relevant items included. Information from in vitro, preclinical, and Phase II and III clinical trials was included.

Data Synthesis:

Fosamprenavir is a protease inhibitor (PI) prodrug used for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. The active moiety, amprenavir, is extensively metabolized by CYP3A4. In clinical trials, fosamprenavir was at least as effective as amprenavir, with a reduced pill burden. Fosamprenavir was developed with the intention of reducing the pill burden associated with amprenavir. It has demonstrated comparable safety and efficacy with comparator Pls and is associated with limited cross-resistance to other Pls.

Conclusions:

Fosamprenavir is a promising antiretroviral agent with favorable efficacy and tolerability. At this time, data indicate the utility of fosamprenavir in treatment-naïve and PI-experienced HIV-infected patients.

Steady-state amprenavir and tenofovir pharmacokinetics after coadministration of unboosted or ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in healthy volunteers

Objective An open-label, three-period pharmacokinetic study was conducted to investigate the drug interaction potential between fosamprenavir (FPV) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Methods Thirty-six healthy subjects received TDF 300 mg once daily (qd) for 7 days (period 1), and then were randomized to 14 days of either FPV 1400 mg twice daily (bid) or FPV/ritonavir (RTV) 700/100 mg bid alone or with TDF (period 2). Subjects continued their randomized dose of FPV for 14 more days, adding or removing TDF based upon its receipt in period 2 (period 3). Twenty-four-hour pharmacokinetic sampling was carried out on day 7 of period 1 and on day 14 of periods 2 and 3. Steady-state plasma amprenavir (APV) and tenofovir (TFV) pharmacokinetics were assessed by noncompartmental analysis and parameter values observed with each regimen were compared using geometric mean ratios with 90% confidence intervals. Results After TDF coadministration, APV geometric mean minimum concentration (C(min)), maximum concentration (C(max)), and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) increased by 31, 3 and 7% above values observed with unboosted FPV alone; they also increased by 31, 4 and 16% above values observed with FPV/RTV alone. TFV C(min), C(max) and AUC decreased by 12, 25 and 15% after FPV coadministration and by 9, 18 and 7% after FPV/RTV coadministration. No significant changes in RTV pharmacokinetics were observed. No differences were noted in adverse events among dosing periods. Conclusions In this evaluation of the interaction between FPV and TDF, increases in APV exposures and modest decreases in TFV exposures were observed. These were unlikely to be clinically significant.

Lack of effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of tipranavir-ritonavir in healthy volunteers

Previously it has been shown that tipranavir-ritonavir (TPV/r) does not affect efavirenz (EFV) plasma concentrations. This study investigates the effect of steady-state EFV on steady-state TPV/r pharmacokinetics. This was a single-center, open-label, multiple-dose study of healthy adult female and male volunteers. TPV/r 500/200 mg twice a day (BID) was given with food for 24 days. After dosing with TPV/r for 10 days, EFV 600 mg once a day was added to the regimen. Intensive pharmacokinetic (PK) sampling was done on days 10 and 24. Validated bioanalytical high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods were used to determine plasma tipranavir (TPV), ritonavir (RTV), and EFV concentrations. Thirty-four subjects were entered into the study, and 16 subjects completed it. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for TPV and RTV area under the curves, C(max)s, and C(min)s comparing TPV/r alone and in combination with EFV were 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09), 0.92 (0.81 to 1.03), and 1.19 (0.93 to 1.54) for TPV and 1.03 (0.78 to 1.38), 0.92 (0.65 to 1.30), and 1.04 (0.72 to 1.48) for RTV. Frequently observed adverse events were diarrhea, headache, dizziness, abnormal dreams, and rash. EFV had no effect on the steady-state PK of TPV or RTV, with the exception of a 19% increase in the TPV C(min), which is not clinically relevant. TPV/r can be safely coadministered with EFV and without the need for a dose adjustment.

Modeling, prediction, and in vitro in vivo correlation of CYP3A4 induction

CYP3A4 induction is not generally considered to be a concern for safety; however, serious therapeutic failures can occur with drugs whose exposure is lower as a result of more rapid metabolic clearance due to induction. Despite the potential therapeutic consequences of induction, little progress has been made in quantitative predictions of CYP3A4 induction-mediated drug-drug interactions (DDIs) from in vitro data. In the present study, predictive models have been developed to facilitate extrapolation of CYP3A4 induction measured in vitro to human clinical DDIs. The following parameters were incorporated into the DDI predictions: 1) EC(50) and E(max) of CYP3A4 induction in primary hepatocytes; 2) fractions unbound of the inducers in human plasma (f(u, p)) and hepatocytes (f(u, hept)); 3) relevant clinical in vivo concentrations of the inducers ([Ind](max, ss)); and 4) fractions of the victim drugs cleared by CYP3A4 (f(m, CYP3A4)). The values for [Ind](max, ss) and f(m, CYP3A4) were obtained from clinical reports of CYP3A4 induction and inhibition, respectively. Exposure differences of the affected drugs in the presence and absence of the six individual inducers (bosentan, carbamazepine, dexamethasone, efavirenz, phenobarbital, and rifampicin) were predicted from the in vitro data and then correlated with those reported clinically (n = 103). The best correlation was observed (R(2) = 0.624 and 0.578 from two hepatocyte donors) when f(u, p) and f(u, hept) were included in the predictions. Factors that could cause over- or underpredictions (potential outliers) of the DDIs were also analyzed. Collectively, these predictive models could add value to the assessment of risks associated with CYP3A4 induction-based DDIs by enabling their determination in the early stages of drug development.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between efavirenz and dual protease inhibitors in healthy volunteers

The combination of efavirenz with HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PI) results in complex interactions secondary to mixed induction and inhibition of oxidative metabolism. ACTG A5043 was a prospective, open-label, controlled, two-period, multiple-dose study with 55 healthy volunteers. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between efavirenz and dual PIs. The subjects received a daily dose of 600 mg efavirenz for 10 days with amprenavir 600 mg twice daily added at day 11 and were randomized to receive nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, saquinavir, or no second PI on days 15-21. Intensive pharmacokinetic studies were conducted on day 14 and 21. Efavirenz plasma concentrations were fit to candidate models using weighted non-linear regression. The disposition of efavirenz was described by a linear two-compartment model with first order absorption following a fitted lag time. Apparent clearance (CLt/F), volume of distribution at steady state (Vss/F), inter-compartmental clearance, and the central and peripheral volume of distribution were estimated. The mean CLt/F and Vss/F of efavirenz were 0.126 l/h/kg and 4.412 l/kg, respectively. Both AUC and CLt/F of efavirenz remained unchanged after 7 days of dual PI dosing. The mean Vss/F of efavirenz increased an average of 89% across arms, ranging from 52% (nelfinavir) to 115% (indinavir) relative to efavirenz with amprenavir alone. Increases were also observed in Vp/F after the addition of nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir by 85%, 170%, 162% and 111%, respectively. In conclusion, concomitant administration of dual PIs is unlikely to have any clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of CYP2B6 substrates in general or oral efavirenz specifically.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between fosamprenavir-ritonavir and rifabutin in healthy subjects

Rifabutin (RFB) is administered for treatment of tuberculosis and Mycobacterium avium complex infection, including use for patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Increased systemic exposure to RFB and its equipotent active metabolite, 25-O-desacetyl-RFB (dAc-RFB), has been reported during concomitant administration of CYP3A4 inhibitors, including ritonavir (RTV), lopinavir, and amprenavir (APV); therefore, a reduction in the RFB dosage is recommended when it is coadministered with these protease inhibitors. Fosamprenavir (FPV), the phosphate ester prodrug of the HIV type 1 protease inhibitor APV, is administered either with or without RTV. A randomized, open-label, two-period, two-sequence, balanced, crossover drug interaction study was conducted with 22 healthy adult subjects to compare steady-state plasma RFB pharmacokinetic parameters during concomitant administration of FPV-RTV (700/100 mg twice a day [BID]) with a 75%-reduced RFB dose (150 mg every other day [QOD]) to the standard RFB regimen (300 mg once per day [QD]) by geometric least-squares mean ratios. Relative to results with RFB (300 mg QD), coadministration of dose-adjusted RFB with FPV-RTV resulted in an unchanged RFB area under the concentration-time curve for 0 to 48 h (AUC(0-48)) and a 14% decrease in the maximum concentration of drug in plasma (C(max)), whereas the AUC(0-48) and C(max) of dAc-RFB were increased by 11- and 6-fold, respectively, resulting in a 64% increase in the total antimycobacterial AUC(0-48). Relative to historical controls, the plasma APV AUC from 0 h to the end of the dosing interval (AUC(0-tau)) and C(max) were increased approximately 35%, and the concentration at the end of the dosing interval at steady state was unchanged following coadministration of RFB with FPV-RTV. The safety profile of the combination of RFB and FPV-RTV was consistent with previously described events with RFB or FPV-RTV alone. Based on the results of this study, a reduction in the RFB dose by > or =75% (to 150 mg QOD or three times per week) is recommended when it is coadministered with FPV-RTV (700/100 mg BID).

Interaction study of the combined use of paroxetine and fosamprenavir-ritonavir in healthy subjects

Human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients have an increased risk for depression. Despite the high potential for drug-drug interactions, limited data on the combined use of antidepressants and antiretrovirals are available. Theoretically, ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors may inhibit CYP2D6-mediated metabolism of paroxetine. We wanted to determine the effect of fosamprenavir-ritonavir on paroxetine pharmacokinetics and vice versa and to evaluate the safety of the combination. Group A started with 20 mg paroxetine every day for 10 days; after a wash-out period of 16 days, subjects received paroxetine (20 mg every day) plus fosamprenavir-ritonavir (700/100 mg twice a day) from days 28 to 37. Group B received the regimens in reverse order. On days 10 and 37, pharmacokinetic curves were recorded. Twenty-six healthy subjects (18 females, 8 males) were included. Median (range) age and weight were 44.4 (18.2 to 64.3) years and 68.8 (51.0 to 89.4) kg. Three subjects were excluded (two because of adverse events; one for nonadherence). Addition of fosamprenavir-ritonavir to paroxetine resulted in a significant decrease in paroxetine exposure: the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) of paroxetine plus fosamprenavir-ritonavir to paroxetine alone were 0.45 (0.41 to 0.49) for the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)), 0.49 (0.45 to 0.53) for the maximum concentration of the drug in plasma (C(max)), and 0.75 (0.71 to 0.80) for the apparent elimination half-life (t(1/2)). The free fraction of paroxetine showed a median (interquartile range) increase of 30% (18 to 42%) after the addition of fosamprenavir-ritonavir. The AUC(0-12), C(max), C(min), and t(1/2) of amprenavir and ritonavir were similar to those of historical controls. No serious adverse events occurred. Fosamprenavir-ritonavir reduced total paroxetine exposure by 55%. This is partly explained by protein displacement of paroxetine. We think that this interaction is clinically relevant and that titration to a higher dose of paroxetine may be necessary to accomplish the needed antidepressant effect.

Pharmacokinetics of once-daily tenofovir, emtricitabine, ritonavir and fosamprenavir in HIV-infected subjects

HAART has decreased the incidence of AIDS and death among HIV-infected individuals dramatically. This approach often becomes cumbersome to patients, involving multiple drugs administered on varying schedules. We investigated the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and tolerability of a once-daily regimen of fosamprenavir, tenofovir, emtricitabine and ritonavir in HIV-infected treatment-naive subjects. No clinically significant interaction between the drugs was noted, and the regimen showed good efficacy and tolerability over the course of 48 weeks.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between TMC114/r and efavirenz in healthy volunteers

Background

This open-label, crossover study investigated the pharmacokinetic interaction between TMC114 (darunavir [Prezista™]), administered with low-dose ritonavir (TMC114/r) and efavirenz (EFV) in HIV-negative, healthy volunteers.

Methods

Volunteers received TMC114/r 300/100 mg twice daily for 6 days, and once daily on day 7 (session 1). After a 7-day washout period volunteers received EFV 600 mg once daily for 18 days (session 2), with coadministration of TMC114/r 300/100 mg twice daily from day 11–day 16 and TMC114/r once daily on day 17.

Results

When coadministered with TMC114/r, plasma concentrations of EFV were slightly increased. In the presence of TMC114/r, EFV minimum (Cmin) and maximum (Cmax) plasma concentrations increased by 15–17%, and by 21% for EFV area under the curve (AUC24h). TMC114/r and EFV coadministration resulted in TMC114 Cmin, Cmax and AUC12h decreases of 31%, 15% and 13%, respectively. No serious adverse events (AEs) or AEs leading to withdrawal were reported in this trial. Overall, TMC114/r and EFV coadministration was well tolerated.

Conclusions

The clinical significance of the changes in AUC and Cmin seen with TMC114/r and EFV coadministration has not been established; this combination should be used with caution. Similar findings are expected with the approved TMC114/r 600/100 mg twice daily dose.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of brecanavir, a novel human immunodeficiency virus type 1 protease inhibitor, following repeat administration with and without ritonavir in healthy adult subjects

Brecanavir (BCV) is a novel, potent protease inhibitor in development for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection with low nM in vitro 50% inhibitory concentrations (IC50s) against many multiprotease inhibitor resistant viruses. This study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled repeat-dose escalation to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of BCV, with or without ritonavir (RTV), in 68 healthy subjects. Seven sequential cohorts (n=10) received BCV (50 to 600 mg) in combination with 100 mg RTV (every 12 h [q12h] or q24h) or alone at 800 mg q12h for 15 days. BCV alone or in combination with RTV was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events reported. The most common drug-related adverse event was headache. BCV was readily absorbed with median time to maximum concentration of drug in serum values ranging from 2.5 to 5.0 h postdose following single- and repeat-dose administration of BCV alone and BCV with RTV 100 mg. Geometric mean BCV accumulation ratios ranged from 1.4 to 1.56 following BCV-RTV q24h regimens and from 1.84 to 4.93 following BCV q12h regimens. BCV steady state was generally achieved by day 13 in all groups. All day 15 BCV-RTV trough concentration values in q12h regimens reached or surpassed the estimated protein-binding corrected in vitro IC50 target BCV concentration of 28 ng/ml for highly resistant isolates. The pharmacokinetic and safety profile of BCV-RTV supports continued investigation in HIV-1-infected subjects.

Interaction between fosamprenavir, with and without ritonavir, and nevirapine in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects

Fosamprenavir (FPV) with and without ritonavir (RTV) was added to the antiretroviral regimens of human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects receiving nevirapine (NVP) to evaluate this drug interaction. Significant reductions in plasma amprenavir exposure (25 to 35%) were observed following coadministration of 1,400 mg of FPV twice a day (BID) and 200 mg of NVP BID. A regimen of 700 mg of FPV BID plus 100 mg of RTV BID may be coadministered with NVP without dose adjustment.

Plasma amprenavir pharmacokinetics and tolerability following administration of 1,400 milligrams of fosamprenavir once daily in combination with either 100 or 200 milligrams of ritonavir in healthy volunteers

Once-daily (QD) fosamprenavir (FPV) at 1,400 mg boosted with low-dose ritonavir (RTV) at 200 mg is effective when it is used in combination regimens for the initial treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Whether a lower RTV boosting dose (i.e., 100 mg QD) could ensure sufficient amprenavir (APV) concentrations with improved safety/tolerability is unknown. This randomized, two 14-day-period, crossover pharmacokinetic study compared the steady-state plasma APV concentrations, safety, and tolerability of FPV at 1,400 mg QD boosted with either 100 mg or 200 mg of RTV QD in 36 healthy volunteers. Geometric least-square (GLS) mean ratios and the associated 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for plasma APV maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing period (AUC0-tau), and trough concentrations (Ctau) during each dosing period. Equivalence between regimens (90% CIs of GLS mean ratios, 0.80 to 1.25) was observed for the plasma APV AUC0-tau (GLS mean ratio, 0.90 [90% CI, 0.84 to 0.96]) and Cmax (0.97 [90% CI, 0.91 to 1.04]). The APV Ctau was 38% lower with RTV at 100 mg QD than with RTV at 200 mg QD (GLS mean ratio, 0.62 [90% CI, 0.55 to 0.69]) but remained sixfold higher than the protein-corrected 50% inhibitory concentration for wild-type virus, with the lowest APV Ctau observed during the 100-mg QD period being nearly threefold higher. The GLS mean APV Ctau was 2.5 times higher than the historical Ctau for unboosted FPV at 1,400 mg twice daily. Fewer clinical adverse drug events and smaller increases in triglyceride levels were observed with the RTV 100-mg QD regimen. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of FPV at 1,400 mg QD boosted by RTV at 100 mg QD are now under way with antiretroviral therapy-naïve patients.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors

Non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) are a diverse group of compounds that inhibit HIV Type 1 reverse transcriptase. Although possessing a common mechanism of action, the approved NNRTIs, delavirdine, efavirenz and nevirapine, differ in structural and pharmacokinetic characteristics. Each of the NNRTIs undergoes biotransformation by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme system, thus making them prone to clinically significant drug interactions when combined with other antiretrovirals. In addition, they interact with other concurrent medications and complementary/alternative medicines, acting as either inducers or inhibitors of drug-metabolising CYP enzymes. These drug interactions become an important consideration in the clinical use of these agents when designing combination regimens, as recommended by current guidelines. This review provides an updated summary of pharmacokinetic interactions with NNRTIs.

Coadministration of esomeprazole with fosamprenavir has no impact on steady-state plasma amprenavir pharmacokinetics

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the drug interaction between fosamprenavir (FPV) and esomeprazole (ESO) after repeated doses in healthy adults.

METHODS

Subjects received ESO 20 mg once daily (qd) for 7 days followed by either ESO 20 mg qd + FPV 1400 mg twice daily (bid) or ESO 20 mg qd + FPV 700 mg bid + ritonavir (RTV) 100 mg bid for 14 days in arms 1 and 2, respectively. After a 21- to 28-day washout, subjects received either FPV 1400 mg bid for 14 days (arm 1) or FPV 700 mg bid + RTV 100 mg bid for 14 days (arm 2). Pharmacokinetic sampling was conducted on the last day of each treatment.

RESULTS

Simultaneous coadministration of ESO 20 mg qd with either FPV 1400 mg bid or FPV 700 mg bid + RTV 100 mg bid had no effect on steady-state amprenavir pharmacokinetics. The only effect on plasma ESO exposure was a 55% increase in area under the plasma concentration-time curve during a dosing interval, tau[AUC0-tau], after coadministration of ESO 20 mg qd with FPV 1400 mg bid.

CONCLUSIONS

FPV 1400 mg bid or FPV 700 mg bid + RTV 100 mg bid may be coadministered simultaneously with ESO without dose adjustment. However, the impact of staggered administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) on plasma amprenavir exposure is unknown at present.

Ritonavir increases plasma amprenavir (APV) exposure to a similar extent when coadministered with either fosamprenavir or APV

To compare the effect of ritonavir on plasma amprenavir pharmacokinetics, healthy adults received either fosamprenavir (700 mg twice a day [BID]) or amprenavir (600 mg BID) alone and in combination with ritonavir (100 mg BID). Ritonavir increased plasma amprenavir pharmacokinetic parameters to a similar extent when coadministered with either fosamprenavir or amprenavir.

Pharmacokinetic and safety evaluation of high-dose combinations of fosamprenavir and ritonavir

High-dose combinations of fosamprenavir (FPV) and ritonavir (RTV) were evaluated in healthy adult subjects in order to select doses for further study in multiple protease inhibitor (PI)-experienced patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Two high-dose regimens, FPV 1,400 mg twice a day (BID) plus RTV 100 mg BID and FPV 1,400 mg BID plus RTV 200 mg BID, were planned to be compared to the approved regimen, FPV 700 mg BID plus RTV 100 mg BID, in a randomized three-period crossover study. Forty-two healthy adult subjects were enrolled, and 39 subjects completed period 1. Due to marked hepatic transaminase elevations, predominantly with FPV 1,400 mg BID plus RTV 200 mg BID, the study was terminated prematurely. For FPV 1,400 mg BID plus RTV 100 mg BID, the values for plasma amprenavir (APV) area under the concentration-time profile over the dosing interval (tau) at steady state [AUC(0-tau)], maximum concentration of drug in plasma (C(max)), and plasma concentration at the end of tau at steady state (C(tau)) were 54, 81, and 26% higher, respectively, and the values for plasma RTV AUC(0-tau), C(max), and C(tau) were 49% higher, 71% higher, and 11% lower, respectively, than those for FPV 700 mg BID plus RTV 100 mg BID. For FPV 1,400 mg BID plus RTV 200 mg BID, the values for plasma APV AUC(0-tau), C(max), and C(tau) were 26, 48, and 32% higher, respectively, and the values for plasma RTV AUC(0-tau), C(max), and C(tau) increased 4.15-fold, 4.17-fold, and 3.99-fold, respectively, compared to those for FPV 700 mg BID plus RTV 100 mg BID. FPV 1,400 mg BID plus RTV 200 mg BID is not recommended due to an increased rate of marked hepatic transaminase elevations and lack of pharmacokinetic advantage. FPV 1,400 mg BID plus RTV 100 mg BID is currently under clinical evaluation in multiple PI-experienced patients.

Effects of Esomeprazole on the Pharmacokinetics of Atazanavir and Fosamprenavir in a Patient with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection

The effects of proton pump inhibitors on the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir and amprenavir (administered as fosamprenavir) were rigorously evaluated in healthy volunteers in two studies, but formal studies in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) are lacking. We describe a 65-year-old man with HIV who underwent a 12-hour intensive pharmacokinetic study while receiving esomeprazole with atazanavir-ritonavir and subsequently, an 8-hour study while receiving esomeprazole with fosamprenavir-ritonavir. Consistent with the data in healthy volunteers, a major interaction between esomeprazole and atazanavir-ritonavir was observed in this patient-marked reductions in atazanavir trough plasma concentration and in the area under the concentration-time curve from 0-24 hours-whereas an interaction between esomeprazole and fosamprenavir-ritonavir was not apparent in this patient.

Fosamprenavir

Fosamprenavir is one of the most recently approved HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs) and offers reductions in pill number and pill size, and omits the need for food and fluid requirements associated with the earlier-approved HIV-1 PIs. Three fosamprenavir dosage regimens are approved by the US FDA for the treatment of HIV-1 PI-naive patients, including fosamprenavir 1,400 mg twice daily, fosamprenavir 1,400 mg once daily plus ritonavir 200mg once daily, and fosamprenavir 700 mg twice daily plus ritonavir 100mg twice daily. Coadministration of fosamprenavir with ritonavir significantly increases plasma amprenavir exposure. The fosamprenavir 700 mg twice daily plus ritonavir 100mg twice daily regimen maintains the highest plasma amprenavir concentrations throughout the dosing interval; this is the only approved regimen for the treatment of HIV-1 PI-experienced patients and is the only regimen approved in the European Union. Fosamprenavir is the phosphate ester prodrug of the HIV-1 PI amprenavir, and is rapidly and extensively converted to amprenavir after oral administration. Plasma amprenavir concentrations are quantifiable within 15 minutes of dosing and peak at 1.5-2 hours after fosamprenavir dosing. Food does not affect the absorption of amprenavir following administration of the fosamprenavir tablet formulation; therefore, fosamprenavir tablets may be administered without regard to food intake. Amprenavir has a large volume of distribution, is 90% bound to plasma proteins and is a substrate of P-glycoprotein. With <1% of a dose excreted in urine, the renal route is not an important elimination pathway, while the principal route of amprenavir elimination is hepatic metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4. Amprenavir is also an inhibitor and inducer of CYP3A4. Furthermore, fosamprenavir is commonly administered in combination with low-dose ritonavir, which is also extensively metabolised by CYP3A4, and is a more potent CYP3A4 inhibitor than amprenavir. This potent CYP3A4 inhibition contraindicates the coadministration of certain CYP3A4 substrates and requires others to be co-administered with caution. However, fosamprenavir can be co-administered with many other antiretroviral agents, including drugs of the nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and HIV entry inhibitor classes. Coadministration with other HIV-1 PIs continues to be studied.The extensive fosamprenavir and amprenavir clinical drug interaction information provides guidance on how to co-administer fosamprenavir and fosamprenavir plus ritonavir with many other commonly co-prescribed medications, such as gastric acid suppressants, HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, antibacterials and antifungal agents.

Amprenavir and efavirenz pharmacokinetics before and after the addition of nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, or saquinavir in seronegative individuals

Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5043 examined pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between amprenavir (APV) and efavirenz (EFV) both by themselves and when nelfinavir (NFV), indinavir (IDV), ritonavir (RTV), or saquinavir (SQV) is added. A PK study was conducted after the administration of single doses of APV (day 0). Subjects (n = 56) received 600 mg of EFV every 24 h (q24h) for 10 days and restarted APV with EFV for days 11 to 13 with a PK study on day 14. A second protease inhibitor (PI) (NFV, 1,250 mg, q12h; IDV, 1,200 mg, q12h; RTV, 100 mg, q12h; or SQV, 1,600 mg, q12h) was added to APV and EFV on day 15, and a PK study was conducted on day 21. Controls continued APV and EFV without a second PI. Among subjects, the APV areas under the curve (AUCs) on days 0, 14, and 21 were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the geometric mean ratios (GMR) were calculated. APV AUCs were 46% to 61% lower (median percentage of AUC) with EFV (day 14 versus day 0; P values of <0.05). In the NFV, IDV, and RTV groups, day 21 APV AUCs with EFV were higher than AUCs for EFV alone. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the GMR were 3.5 to 5.3 for NFV (P < 0.001), 2.8 to 4.5 for IDV (P < 0.001), and 7.8 to 11.5 for RTV (P = 0.004). Saquinavir modestly increased the APV AUCs (GMR, 1.0 to 1.4; P = 0.106). Control group AUCs were lower on day 21 compared to those on day 14 (GMR, 0.7 to 1.0; P = 0.042). African-American non-Hispanics had higher day 14 efavirenz AUCs than white non-Hispanics. We conclude that EFV lowered APV AUCs, but nelfinavir, indinavir, or ritonavir compensated for EFV induction.

Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Drug–Drug Interactions Involving Antiretroviral Drugs

The consensus of current international guidelines for the treatment of HIV infection is that data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and protease inhibitors (PIs) provide a framework for the implementation of TDM in certain defined scenarios in clinical practice. However, the utility of TDM is considered to be on an individual basis until more data are obtained from large clinical trials showing the benefit of TDM.

In April 2004, a panel of experts met for the second time in Rome, Italy. This was following the inaugural meeting in Perugia, Italy, in October 2000, which resulted in the manuscript published in AIDS 2002, 16(Suppl 1):S5–S37. The objectives of this second meeting were to review and update the numerous questions surrounding TDM of antiretroviral drugs and discuss the clinical utility, current concerns and future prospects of drug concentration monitoring in the care of HIV-1-infected individuals. A major focus of the meeting was to discuss and critically analyse recent and precedent clinical drug–drug interaction data to provide a clear framework of the pharmacological basis of how one drug may impact the disposition of another.

This report, which has been updated to include material published or presented at international conferences up to the end of December 2004, reviews recent pivotal pharmacokinetic interaction data and provides advice to clinical care providers on how some drug–drug interactions may be prevented, avoided or managed, and, when data are available, on what dose adjustments and interventions should be performed.

Efavirenz for HIV-1 infection in adults: an overview

Efavirenz (Sustiva), Bristol-Myers Squibb) is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor that has been used successfully since the late 1990s to treat HIV-1 infection, and has since become a cornerstone of antiretroviral therapy. The efficacy and potency of efavirenz has been established in many clinical trials and cohort studies, where it has been compared with unboosted or ritonavir (Norvir, Abbott Laboratories Ltd)-boosted protease inhibitors, nevirapine (Viramune, Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd); and three nucleoside analog-based regimens. Pharmacokinetics allowing for a convenient once-daily administration make efavirenz one of the first agents to be included in once-daily regimens. Tolerability of efavirenz is satisfactory, although CNS-related toxicity can occur, and is still poorly understood. New insights into the pharmacokinetics of efavirenz could help to manage this unwanted toxicity. This drug profile will examine the principal data concerning the efficacy, pharmacokinetics and safety that have made efavirenz a standard of care in HIV-1 therapy, and will comment on new data that could change the way efavirenz is used in the near future.

Antiretroviral Drugs with Adverse Effects on Adipocyte Lipid Metabolism and Survival Alter the Expression and Secretion of Proinflammatory Cytokines and Adiponectin In Vitro

Objective

The lipodystrophy syndrome is a major adverse effect of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART), associated with altered circulating levels and adipose tissue mRNA expression of proinflammatory cytokines interleukin-6 (IL-6) and tumour necrosis factor (TNF)α, and adiponectin. Proinflammatory cytokines and adiponectin, which are secreted by adipose tissue, regulate fat metabolism, insulin sensitivity and adipose cell apoptosis. We examined the direct effects of individual antiretrovirals on lipid metabolism and cytokine and adiponectin production by cultured adipocytes.

Methods

Differentiating 3T3-F442A cells and differentiated 3T3-L1 adipocytes were treated for 12 or 4 days, respectively, with protease inhibitors (PIs) indinavir, nelfinavir, amprenavir, lopinavir and ritonavir, or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) stavudine and zidovudine, at near-Cmax concentrations. Lipid metabolism was estimated by Oil Red O staining of intracellular lipids, mRNA expression of fatty acid synthase and adipocyte lipid binding protein 2, and insulin activation of lipogenesis. Apoptosis was estimated by flow cytometry. The expression and secretion of proinflammatory cytokines (IL-6, TNFα and IL-1β) and adiponectin were evaluated by real-time reverse transcription PCR and ELISA.

Results

Chronic treatment of 3T3-F442A differentiating adipocytes and differentiated 3T3-L1 adipocytes with PIs and NRTIs reduced lipid accumulation, mRNA expression of lipid markers and insulin-induced lipogenesis. IL-6, TNFα, IL-1β and adiponectin expression and secretion were markedly altered in differentiating 3T3-F442A adipocytes. PIs had either no effect on differentiated 3T3-L1 adipocytes (TNFα expression and secretion) or their effect was less marked than in 3T3-F442A cells. Indinavir and amprenavir did not alter cytokine secretion and expression by mature adipocytes. The effects of stavudine and zidovudine on differentiating and mature adipocytes were similar, despite the difference in treatment procedure. The drugs with the strongest effect on TNFα expression also increased adipocyte apoptosis, in contrast to the drugs that only moderately increased TNFα expression.

Conclusions

These results suggest that increased cytokine and decreased adiponectin secretion and expression induced by some PIs and NRTIs may contribute to the adipose tissue loss (via apoptosis and lipid leakage) and insulin resistance associated with the lipodystrophy syndrome.

Fosamprenavir

Fosamprenavir (GW433908, Lexiva, Telzir) is an oral prodrug of the protease inhibitor (PI) amprenavir, with a reduced daily pill burden. Fosamprenavir, in combination with other antiretroviral agents, is indicated for the treatment of patients with HIV infection, particularly those who have not previously received antiretroviral therapy. Viral load reductions were at least as great with fosamprenavir-based regimens as those achieved with nelfinavir-based regimens in two large, 48-week, randomised, multicentre trials in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients with HIV infection. In the NEAT study, more patients receiving twice-daily fosamprenavir in combination with abacavir and lamivudine achieved HIV RNA levels <400 copies/mL than those receiving a similar nelfinavir-based regimen. Results of the SOLO study showed similar reductions in viral load among patients who received once-daily ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir and those treated with twice-daily nelfinavir, both in combination with twice-daily abacavir and lamivudine. In both trials, virological failure rates were at least twice as high with the nelfinavir-based regimen as they were with the fosamprenavir-based regimen. Fosamprenavir was generally well tolerated in clinical trials. The most common adverse events among patients treated with fosamprenavir, with or without ritonavir, plus abacavir and lamivudine were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, drug hypersensitivity and skin rash. The incidence of diarrhoea was significantly lower with fosamprenavir-based therapy than with nelfinavir-based therapy in the NEAT and SOLO trials. The resistance profile of fosamprenavir is consistent with that of amprenavir. Amprenavir-resistant viral isolates from patients experiencing treatment failure with fosamprenavir-based therapy in the NEAT study showed little or no cross-resistance to several other PIs, and protease mutations commonly selected for by various other PIs were not observed. In the SOLO study, protease resistance mutations were not observed in viral isolates from patients experiencing treatment failure with ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir-based therapy. In conclusion, fosamprenavir-based regimens have shown good antiviral efficacy and are generally well tolerated in antiretroviral therapy-naive patients with HIV infection. Available data on the resistance profile of the drug suggest that it may be used early in the course of therapy without compromising a range of future treatment options. The relatively low pill burden and lack of food restrictions with fosamprenavir may improve adherence to therapy. Further studies are needed to compare fosamprenavir with other PIs and to establish the long-term efficacy of fosamprenavir-based regimens. In conclusion, fosamprenavir appears to be a promising agent for the treatment of antiretroviral therapy-naive patients with HIV infection.