Pilot Study of Saquinavir and Lopinavir/Ritonavir Twice Daily in Protease Inhibitor-Naive HIV-Positive Patients

Second line antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV in Asia

Limited access to virological monitoring has led to a high prevalence of resistance to nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) at the time of first line failure in most studies from low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). Nevertheless, the current standard of care is to include NRTIs in second line regimens. The activity of tenofovir/emtricitabine following failure of stavudine/lamivudine or zidovudine/lamivudine is dependent on the sensitivity of the monitoring strategy used during first line therapy and the threshold for switching, whereas these factors are less important if the opposite sequencing strategy is used. Boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) are the foundation of effective second-line therapy with demonstrated efficacy in early salvage regimens and high barrier to resistance. Lopinavir/ritonavir and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir have recently been described by the World Health Organization as preferred boosted PIs for use in LMIC. Alternative approaches currently under investigation include boosted PI monotherapy, dual boosted PIs, and the combination of raltegravir (an HIV integrase inhibitor) and a boosted PI.

Relationship between plasma protease inhibitor concentrations and lipid elevations in HIV patients on a double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen (saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir)

The relationship between plasma protease inhibitor (PI) trough concentrations and hyperlipidemic effects were evaluated retrospectively using data from 2 pilot clinical trials of a double-boosted PI regimen (saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir) in 25 HIV patients. The patients' median age was 39 years (range, 25-60). At baseline, PI-naive patients had a median viral load of 53 500 copies/mL and median CD4 of 296 cells/mm(3), while PI-experienced patients had 37 750 copies/mL and 214 cells/mm(3). Plasma PI trough concentrations of saquinavir, lopinavir, and ritonavir at week 12 were 520, 4482, and 153 ng/mL, respectively. At week 12, median fasting lipids increased significantly from baseline: total cholesterol increased from 165 to 189 mg/dL (P = .0005) and the triglyceride increased from 113 to 159 mg/dL (P = .001). There were no associations between PI trough concentrations at week 12 and the percent total cholesterol change at week 12. No associations were found between PI trough concentrations and lipid changes in HIV patients on a double-boosted PI regimen (saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir). Factors other than systemic exposure to PIs (such as host or genetic factors) may modulate the hyperlipidemic effect of PIs.

Double boosted protease inhibitors, saquinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir, in nucleoside pretreated children at 48 weeks

OBJECTIVES

To assess the 48-week efficacy, safety, pharmacokinetics, and resistance of double boosted protease inhibitors (PI), saquinavir (SQV), and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r), in children who have failed nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitors /non-nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitors-based regimens.

METHODS

Fifty children at 2 sites in Thailand were treated with standard dosing of SQV and LPV/r. CD4, HIV-RNA viral load (VL), plasma drug concentrations and safety laboratory evaluations were monitored. Virologic failure was defined as having 2 consecutive VL >400 copies/mL after week 12 of therapy. Intention to treat analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Baseline data were a median age of 9.3 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 7.1-11.2), Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) classification N:A:B:C 4%:14%:68%:14%, VL 4.8 log10 (IQR: 4.5-5.1), CD4 7% (IQR: 3-9.5). At 48 weeks, 3 had died of bacterial infection but no cases had progressed CDC classification. Median CD4% rise was 9 (IQR: 5-16) and median HIV RNA reduction was -2.8 log10 (IQR: -3.2 to -1.4), both P < 0.001. Thirty-nine (78%) and 32 (64%) children had VL <400 and <50 with significant differences between the 2 sites. Five children (10%) had VL failure as a result of poor adherence to the drug regimen but no one had major PI mutations. Median serum cholesterol and triglyceride increased significantly (+35 mg/dL, +37 mg/dL, respectively, both P < 0.001). Mean minimum plasma concentrations (Cmin) of LPV and SQV were 4.6 and 1.24 mg/L, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Double boosted SQV/LPV/r resulted in significant CD4 rise and VL decline at 48 weeks. Hyperlipidemia was common. Cmin of both PIs exceeded therapeutic concentrations. Poor adherence caused failure in 10%. No major PI mutations were found.

Predictive Factors for Response to a Boosted Dual HIV-Protease Inhibitor Therapy with Saquinavir and Lopinavir in Extensively Pre-Treated Patients

Objective

To evaluate predictive factors for therapy outcome of a boosted double-protease inhibitor (PI) regimen in 58 extensively pre-treated patients with HIV.

Methods

Patients received lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg and saquinavir 1,000 mg twice daily without reverse transcriptase inhibitors (RTI). The primary outcome parameter was HIV RNA <400 copies/ml at week 48, secondary parameters were HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ T-cell count changes from baseline to week 48. Pharmacokinetics, genotypic resistance and clinical and individual parameters were correlated with the clinical outcome in regression analyses. Covariates for the analyses were minimum plasma concentration (Cmin), maximum plasma concentration, area under the concentration versus time curve, half-life and clearance of lopinavir and saquinavir, the genotypic inhibitory quotients (GIQ) of archived (GIQarch) and baseline PI resistance mutations, previously taken antiretrovirals, archived and baseline viral resistance mutations, baseline HIV-1 RNA and CD4+ T-cell count.

Results

The analyses detected correlations between the primary outcome parameter and several factors: baseline CD4+ T-cell count ( P=0.001); absence of mutations at V82T/A/F/I/S plus I54M/V/L ( P=0.002) or K20M/R ( P=0.010); and lopinavir CminGIQarch ( P=0.046). This regression model had a predictability of 97.0% for response to therapy. Covariates for the decrease of HIV-1 RNA from baseline to week 48 were baseline HIV-1 RNA ( P<0.001), lopinavir CminGIQarch ( P=0.013), presence/absence of mutations at V82T/A/F/I/S or I84A/V plus L10I/R/V/F, I54M/V/L or L63P ( P=0.018), and previously taken antiretrovirals ( P=0.034).

Conclusions

Baseline HIV-1 RNA <5.0 log10 and CD4+ T-cell count >200 cells/μl, lopinavir CminGIQarch >2,000 ng/ml and the absence of viral resistance mutations at V82T/A/F/I/S and I54M/V/L are highly predictive for therapeutic success of a regimen of saquinavir/lopinavir/ ritonavir without RTI in a heterogenic cohort of patients with an extensive pre-treatment history and highly variable pharmacokinetics.

Synergistic Inhibition of Protease-Inhibitor-Resistant HIV type 1 by Saquinavir in Combination with Atazanavir or Lopinavir

Background

Double-boosted protease inhibitors (PIs) are under investigation for the treatment of patients who are unable to take nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors because of cross-resistance and/or intolerance. Evidence of synergistic inhibition of wild-type HIV has been reported for saquinavir with atazanavir or lopinavir.

Methods

We investigated the activity of these two combinations against a panel of six site-directed mutant HIV-1 strains and 14 clinically derived recombinant HIV-1 strains presenting a range of PI-resistance profiles.

Results

No evidence of synergy was observed against wild-type virus for either combination. The combination of saquinavir and lopinavir showed evidence of synergy against four viruses displaying high-level resistance to lopinavir and low-level resistance to saquinavir. Similarly, evidence of synergy between saquinavir and atazanavir was only observed in two viruses which were more susceptible to saquinavir than to atazanavir.

Conclusions

We hypothesize that differences between the PIs in intracellular protein-binding behaviour or inhibition of drug transporters (P glycoprotein, MDR1 and MDR2) could result in intracellular levels of saquinavir being increased by co-administration with lopinavir or atazanavir. The effect of this increase would be masked in cases involving viruses that were susceptible to atazanavir or lopinavir. In virus resistant to lopinavir or atazanavir but susceptible to saquinavir, the majority of the antiviral effect is due to saquinavir; thus even small increases in intracellular concentration could significantly increase virus inhibition. These results confirm that in vitro synergy can be observed between PIs and suggest that the degree of synergy observed might depend on the resistance profile of the virus.

Pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard-gel/ritonavir and atazanavir when combined once daily in HIV Type 1-infected individuals administered different atazanavir doses

The pharmacokinetics and short-term safety of atazanavir 150 and 200 mg, when coadministered with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily, were evaluated. On day 1, atazanavir 150 mg once daily, was added to saquinavir/ritonavir regimens and sampling was performed to evaluate saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetics (day 11). Atazanavir was increased to 200 mg and pharmacokinetic assessment repeated (day 30). Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetic parameters in the present study and for 14 of the subjects treated with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily without and with atazanavir 300 mg who participated in a previous trial. Geometric mean (GM) saquinavir AUC0-24, Ctrough, and Cmax were 30,589 and 32,312 ng . h/ml, 166 and 182 ng/ml, and 4267 and 4261 ng/ml when coadministered with atazanavir 150 and 200 mg (n = 18). On days 11 and 30, saquinavir and atazanavir Ctrough remained >100 ng/ml in 13/18, 14/18, 18/18, and 17/18 patients. Among the above mentioned 14 subjects, significant increases in saquinavir Ctrough (87%, 92%, 99%), Cmax (40%, 55%, 44%), and AUC0-24 (51%, 60%, 63%) were observed with atazanavir 300, 150, and 200 mg. Ritonavir AUC0-24 and Cmax were significantly increased with the addition of atazanavir 300 mg only. Atazanavir enhances saquinavir and ritonavir by a mechanism that requires elucidation. While saquinavir enhancement was apparently independent of atazanavir dose, atazanavir 300 mg produced an increase in ritonavir Cmax, which is not observed with lower atazanavir doses. Atazanavir-related hyperbilirubinemia was dose dependent. However, higher saquinavir and atazanavir exposure may be required to suppress HIV-resistant strain replication.