Brief Report: Significant Decreases in Both Total and Unbound Lopinavir and Amprenavir Exposures During Coadministration: ACTG Protocol A5143/A5147s Results

This secondary analysis explored changes in protein-unbound concentrations of lopinavir and amprenavir when coadministered in HIV-infected subjects. Total and unbound pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated and compared between subjects receiving each agent alone and coadministration. When coadministered, unbound and total concentrations decrease. Coadministration significantly increased lopinavir unbound clearance, while significant changes in fraction unbound (fu) were not detected. For amprenavir, significant increases in fu and unbound clearance occurred with coadministration. This demonstrates the complex nature of drug-drug interactions between highly protein-bound, CYP-metabolized drugs, and the need to measure unbound concentrations in disease states such as hepatitis C, where such agents are coadministered.

Amprenavir and Lopinavir Pharmacokinetics following Coadministration of Amprenavir or Fosamprenavir with Lopinavir/Ritonavir, with or without Efavirenz

Background

Amprenavir (APV), fosamprenavir (FPV), lopinavir (LPV), ritonavir (RTV) and efavirenz (EFV) are to varying degrees substrates, inducers and inhibitors of CYP3A4. Coadministration of these drugs might result in complex pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions.

Methods

Two prospective, open-label, non-randomized studies evaluated APV and LPV steady-state pharmacokinetics in HIV-infected patients on APV 750 mg twice daily + LPV/RTV 533/133 mg twice daily with EFV ( n=7) or without EFV ( n=12) + background nucleosides (Study 1) and after switching FPV 1,400 mg twice daily for APV ( n=10) (Study 2).

Results

In Study 1 EFV and non-EFV groups did not differ in APV minimum plasma concentration (Cmin; 1.10 versus 1.06μg/ml, P=0.89), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC; 17.46 versus 24.34μg•h/ml, P=0.22) or maximum concentration (Cmax; 2.61 versus 4.33 μg/ml, P=0.08); for LPV there was no difference in Cmin (median: 3.66 versus 6.18μg/ml, P=0.20), AUC (81.84 versus 93.75 μg•h/ml, P=0.37) or Cmax (10.36 versus 10.93 μg/ml, P=0.61). In Study 2, after switching from APV to FPV, APV Cmin increased by 58% (0.83 versus 1.30 μg/ml, P=0.0001), AUC by 76% (19.41 versus 34.24 μg•h/ml, P=0.0001), and Cmax by 75% (3.50 versus 6.14, P=0.001). Compared with historical controls, LPV and RTV pharmacokinetics were not changed. All treatment regimens were well tolerated. Seven of eight completers (88%) maintained HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/ml 12 weeks after the switch (1 lost to follow up).

Conclusions

EFV did not appear to significantly alter APV and LPV pharmacokinetic parameters in HIV-infected patients taking APV 750 mg twice daily + LPV 533/133 mg twice daily. Switching FPV 1,400 mg twice daily for APV 750 mg twice daily resulted in an increase in APV Cmin, AUC, and Cmax without changing LPV or RTV pharmacokinetics or overall tolerability.