Open-label study of a twice-daily indinavir 800-mg/ritonavir 200-mg regimen in HIV-infected adults failing a protease inhibitor regimen

Lopinavir: the old champion

Lopinavir/ritonavir approval for use in antiretroviral treatment 10 years ago was very important for the recognition of boosted protease inhibitor (PI)-based therapy as an attractive option for first-line therapy. Being coformulated with ritonavir and having less toxicity than former PIs it allowed for effective and durable virologic suppression with less impact on quality of life. It soon became the standard of care for salvage therapy in its class. Since then, however, its central role has been challenged by new PIs with a more favorable impact on lipid profile, better gastrointestinal tolerability or that are more active in the setting of multidrug resistance. This article summarizes the main clinical studies with lopinavir and discusses its particular characteristics as well as its possible current role in antiretroviral therapy.

Indinavir/ritonavir remains an important component of HAART for the treatment of HIV/AIDS, particularly in resource-limited settings

For over a decade, indinavir has been approved for the treatment of HIV/AIDS; however, following the introduction of new protease inhibitors (PIs) with improved safety and pharmacologic profiles, its use in developed countries has become almost obsolete. In contrast, in resource-limited settings where the majority of people living with HIV/AIDS reside, indinavir is part of the most affordable PI-based highly active antiretroviral treatment regimen. A major drawback of indinavir use is renal toxicity, but low-dose indinavir plus ritonavir (400/100 mg) twice daily is both efficacious and tolerable. Similar low dosing levels in children have also proven successful, but data in pregnant women remains limited. Due to its low cost and proven efficacy indinavir remains a key component of HIV/AIDS treatment in resource-limited settings.

Approach to salvage antiretroviral therapy in heavily antiretroviral-experienced HIV-positive adults

Despite dramatic declines in HIV-associated morbidity and mortality as a result of highly active antiretroviral therapy, management of heavily treatment-experienced patients remains complex and challenging. Treatment response rates with subsequent antiretroviral regimens are lower than with initial antiretroviral therapy. Additionally, increased mortality has been associated with multidrug-resistant HIV. We review data relevant to management of such patients and offer a systematic approach to constructing a salvage antiretroviral regimen.

Antiretroviral therapy 2006: Pharmacology, applications, and special situations

As we approach the completion of the first 25 years of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic, there have been dramatic improvements in the care of patients with HIV infection. These have prolonged life and decreased morbidity. There are twenty currently available antiretrovirals approved in the United States for the treatment of this infection. The medications, including their pharmacokinetic properties, side effects, and dosing are reviewed. In addition, the current approach to the use of these medicines is discussed. We have included a section addressing common comorbid conditions including hepatitis B and C along with tuberculosis.

Comparison of atazanavir with lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with prior protease inhibitor failure: a randomized multinational trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare change from baseline in HIV RNA and fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels in protease inhibitor (PI)-experienced patients receiving unboosted atazanavir 400 mg once daily versus lopinavir 400 mg boosted with ritonavir 100 mg twice daily, with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). Secondary objectives included virologic response, CD4 cell count changes, other lipid changes, safety, and tolerability.

METHODS

Randomized, open-label, multinational, 48-week study in patients with one PI-regimen failure, HIV RNA > or = 1000 copies/mL, and CD4 count > or = 50 cells/mm3.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were randomized; 290 treated (144 atazanavir, 146 lopinavir/ritonavir). Lopinavir/ritonavir resulted in a significantly greater reduction in HIV RNA than unboosted atazanavir (-2.02 vs -1.59 log10 copies/mL, p < 0.001) at week 48. Secondary efficacy endpoints also favored lopinavir/ritonavir; the differences in efficacy between regimens were also observed in secondary analyses comparing those subjects who were susceptible and those subjects who were resistant to their respective PIs at baseline. However, both regimens were equally effective in subjects who had no baseline NRTI mutations. From baseline to week 48, atazanavir resulted in either no change or decreases in fasting LDL cholesterol, total cholesterol, and fasting triglycerides (-6%, -2%, and +1%), whereas lopinavir/ritonavir resulted in increases (+3%, +12%, and +53%) (p < 0.05, all between-treatment comparisons). Fewer patients were administered lipid-lowering therapy in the atazanavir arm (6% vs 20% for lopinavir/ritonavir). Both regimens were safe and well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

While both treatments demonstrated good antiviral efficacy, relatively greater antiviral suppression was observed with lopinavir/ritonavir. In those patients with no NRTI mutations at baseline, both regimens demonstrated comparable virologic suppression. Atazanavir-treated patients demonstrated a superior lipid profile and required less frequent lipid-lowering treatment.

Effectiveness of Antiretroviral Therapy after Protease Inhibitor Failure: An Analytic Overview

To examine effectiveness of subsequent antiretroviral therapy (ART), studies published during the period of 1 January 1997 through 31 May 2003 involving patients who had failed a protease inhibitor (PI)-containing regimen and were switched to another regimen were reviewed. Twelve studies describing 1197 patients were analyzed. A total of 38% of patients had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) RNA levels of <500 copies/mL at 24 weeks. After adjustment for baseline HIV RNA level, the rate of virologic suppression ranged from 16% for patients switching drugs within previously failed classes to 54% for nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-naive patients switched to boosted PI- and NNRTI-containing regimens. ART regimens in patients who failed a PI-containing regimen provided virologic suppression only in a few patients. The best response was seen in NNRTI-naive patients receiving NNRTI- and boosted PI-containing regimens. New approaches are needed to achieve better suppression in pretreated HIV-infected patients.

The Influence of Protease Inhibitor Resistance Profiles on Selection of HIV Therapy in Treatment-Naive Patients

Although protease inhibitors (PIs) have dramatically improved outcomes in HIV-infected patients, half still fail treatment with PI-based combination therapy. Genetic pressure from incomplete viral suppression rapidly selects for HIV variants with protease gene mutations that confer reduced susceptibility to PI drugs. A number of specific amino acid substitutions have been associated with PI resistance. However, high-level resistance to individual PIs requires the accumulation of several primary and secondary mutations, developing along drug-specific, step-wise pathways. HIV variants resistant to saquinavir and ritonavir usually contain L90M and V82A substitutions, respectively. Indinavir resistance may be linked to substitutions at positions 46 or 82. Resistance to nelfinavir is primarily associated with D30N but may alternatively be found with L90M. Resistance during exposure to amprenavir can follow development of I50V, which also may confer resistance to lopinavir. Failure during treatment with atazanavir is closely linked to I50L. The overlapping of these pathways can lead to multiple-PI resistance, limiting therapeutic options in antiretroviral-experienced patients. Reduced susceptibility to more than one PI is most likely to be associated with amino acid substitutions at six positions: 10, 46, 54, 82, 84 and 90. Other mutations (D30N, G48V, I50V or I50L) are relatively specific for particular PIs and are less likely to produce cross resistance. Certain resistance mutations selected by exposure to one PI may actually increase susceptibility to others. Patients newly diagnosed with HIV infection are increasingly found to harbour virus that is resistant to the more commonly used drugs. Newer PIs may select for mutations that result in less cross resistance with older agents.