Oral versus Intravenous Antibiotics for Bone and Joint Infection.

BACKGROUND: The management of complex orthopedic infections usually includes a prolonged course of intravenous antibiotic agents. We investigated whether oral antibiotic therapy is noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy for this indication. METHODS: We enrolled adults who were being treated for bone or joint infection at 26 U.K. centers. Within 7 days after surgery (or, if the infection was being managed without surgery, within 7 days after the start of antibiotic treatment), participants were randomly assigned to receive either intravenous or oral antibiotics to complete the first 6 weeks of therapy. Follow-on oral antibiotics were permitted in both groups. The primary end point was definitive treatment failure within 1 year after randomization. In the analysis of the risk of the primary end point, the noninferiority margin was 7.5 percentage points. RESULTS: Among the 1054 participants (527 in each group), end-point data were available for 1015 (96.3%). Treatment failure occurred in 74 of 506 participants (14.6%) in the intravenous group and 67 of 509 participants (13.2%) in the oral group. Missing end-point data (39 participants, 3.7%) were imputed. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a difference in the risk of definitive treatment failure (oral group vs. intravenous group) of -1.4 percentage points (90% confidence interval [CI], -4.9 to 2.2; 95% CI, -5.6 to 2.9), indicating noninferiority. Complete-case, per-protocol, and sensitivity analyses supported this result. The between-group difference in the incidence of serious adverse events was not significant (146 of 527 participants [27.7%] in the intravenous group and 138 of 527 [26.2%] in the oral group; P=0.58). Catheter complications, analyzed as a secondary end point, were more common in the intravenous group (9.4% vs. 1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first 6 weeks for complex orthopedic infection, as assessed by treatment failure at 1 year. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; OVIVA Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN91566927 .).

Effect of intermittent rifampicin on the pharmacokinetics and safety of raltegravir.

OBJECTIVES: Previous studies of raltegravir and rifampicin have not studied the interaction when rifampicin is dosed intermittently. This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetics of twice daily raltegravir and intermittently dosed rifampicin. METHODS: This was a prospective, open, single-arm, three-part, controlled study in healthy volunteers. Over a period of 38 days subjects received 5 days of standard-dose raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) followed by 28 days of standard-dose raltegravir plus rifampicin three times a week followed by 5 days of high-dose (800 mg twice daily) raltegravir plus rifampicin three times a week. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed on days 5, 33 and 38. Raltegravir pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by non-compartmental analysis and reported as geometric means and 90% CIs. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01424826. RESULTS: Sixteen subjects (12 females) completed the study. Raltegravir trough plasma concentration (C12) was significantly lower in the presence of rifampicin when dosed at 400 mg twice daily (40%), which was not observed with 800 mg twice daily dosing. Raltegravir Cmax and AUC0-12 were both significantly higher in the presence of rifampicin when dosed at 800 mg twice daily (76% and 84%, respectively), but this dose was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that rifampicin induction of raltegravir is comparable between daily and intermittent rifampicin. In the absence of definitive clinical efficacy data to suggest otherwise, doses of 800 mg of raltegravir twice daily with rifampicin thrice weekly are well tolerated and yield higher AUCs and comparable C12 when compared with raltegravir alone.

The relationship between nevirapine plasma concentrations and abnormal liver function tests.

Abnormal liver function tests are frequently observed in HIV-infected individuals receiving nevirapine (NVP). Here we investigate the relationship between total and unbound plasma concentrations of NVP and the liver enzymes alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and gamma-glutamyl transferase (gammaGT). HIV-infected individuals [n = 85, 22 female, 34 hepatitis C or B virus (HCV or HBV(+))] receiving NVP (200 mg bd; median duration 66 weeks, range 3-189) and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) were enrolled into this study. Blood samples were taken at C(trough) (12 hr postdose) for measurement of NVP and liver function tests (ALT and gammaGT). Plasma protein bound and unbound drug was separated using ultrafiltration and NVP concentrations quantified using HPLC-MS/MS. A linear relationship was observed between total and unbound NVP C(trough) (r(2) = 0.77, p < 0.0001). Patients with elevated ALT (>37 IU/liter; n = 31) had higher NVP unbound C(trough) than those with ALT within the normal range (median 2268 vs. 1694 ng/ml, p = 0.04) but there was no difference in total C(trough). Logistic regression revealed no association between higher NVP C(trough) and ALT elevations. Significantly higher NVP total and unbound C(trough) were observed in patients with increased gammaGT (>40 IU/liter; n = 63; total 6747 vs. 4530 ng/ml, p = 0.001; unbound 2113 vs. 1557 ng/ml, p = 0.03). Significantly higher unbound NVP C(trough) was observed in HCV/HBV(+) (median 2275 vs. 1726 ng/ml, p = 0.02) and on bivariate analysis, higher NVP C(trough) was associated with HCV/HBV coinfection (chi(2) = 4.228; p = 0.04). Overall we found no strong association between NVP concentrations and hepatotoxicity. Although in this study NVP was well tolerated in HCV/HBV coinfected patients, higher plasma concentrations were observed.

Pharmacokinetics of saquinavir co-administered with cimetidine.

The present study evaluated the effect of cimetidine, a histamine H(2) receptor antagonist able to inhibit cytochrome P450 metabolism, on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir soft gel. Twelve healthy volunteers (eight males and four females) participated in an open-label, double-phase pharmacokinetic study. Volunteers took saquinavir soft gel 1200 mg three times a day for 13 days and then saquinavir soft gel 1200 mg twice a day with cimetidine 400 mg twice a day from day 14 to 26. The pharmacokinetics of saquinavir on days 13 and 26 were compared. All 12 volunteers completed the study. The association of cimetidine with saquinavir soft gel 1200 mg twice a day resulted in a significant increase in saquinavir AUC(0-24) (120%; P = 0.023) and C(max) (179%; P = 0.019), whereas C(trough) did not differ significantly (32% increase; P = 0.272). Increased exposure to saquinavir was observed in healthy volunteers after co-administration with cimetidine. The most significant increase involved C(max). Further pharmacokinetic studies in HIV-infected subjects are warranted to confirm the boosting effect of cimetidine and to investigate any impact that the increase in saquinavir C(max) may have on intracellular accumulation of the drug.

Clinical use of lopinavir/ritonavir in a salvage therapy setting: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Lopinavir/ritonavir was administered to 35 HIV-infected patients after therapeutic failure with other protease inhibitors. The pharmacokinetics (trough concentrations) and baseline viral genotype were determined, together with the immunovirological outcome. The 22 responders had significantly higher mean lopinavir concentrations and lower baseline numbers of mutations. On multivariate analysis, a lopinavir concentration of 5.7 microg/ml or greater was an independent predictor of viral suppression over a 9-month follow-up period.

The unbound percentage of saquinavir and indinavir remains constant throughout the dosing interval in HIV positive subjects.

AIMS: To measure the unbound plasma concentrations of saquinavir (SQV) and indinavir (IDV) and to relate them to the total plasma concentrations in order to establish the unbound percentage of protease inhibitors in vivo during a full dosage interval profile. METHODS: HIV-infected subjects (n = 35; median CD4 cell count = 340 x 10(6) cells l-1, range: 120-825; viral load < 50 copies ml-1 in 22/35) treated with SQV or IDV containing regimens were studied. Plasma drug samples were collected at 0, 2, 4, 8 and 12 h postdose for the twice daily regimens and 0, 1, 2, 4 and 8 h for the three times daily regimens. Ultra-filtration was used to separate unbound IDV and SQV in plasma and their respective concentrations were measured by a fully validated method using high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectometry (h.p.l.c.-MS/MS). RESULTS: Based on the ratio AUCunbound/AUCtotal, the median unbound percentage (95% CI for differences) of SQV and IDV from all the samples studied was 1.19% (0.99, 1.58%) and 36.3% (35.1, 44.2%), respectively. No significant difference was seen in the percentage binding of SQV between patients receiving SQV alone (median = 1.49%) or with ritonavir (median = 1.09%; P = 0.141; 95% CI for difference between medians = -0.145, 0.937) over the pharmacokinetic profile. Similarly, no significant difference was seen in the percentage binding of IDV in patients receiving IDV alone (median 35.2%) or with ritonavir (median = 41.3%; P = 0.069; 95% CI for difference between medians = -0.09, 15.4). The unbound concentrations of SQV (P < 0.0001; 95% CI for r(2) = 0.634, 0.815) and IDV (P < 0.0001; 95% CI for r(2) = 0.830, 0.925) remained constant as a proportion of total concentration over the full dosing profile. CONCLUSIONS: These in vivo data confirm previously published in vitro measurements of SQV and IDV protein binding. The unbound percentage of both protease inhibitors remained constant over the dosing interval.

Simultaneous determination of rifampicin and efavirenz in plasma.

Complex drug interactions involving antiretroviral agents and drugs for the management of opportunistic infections demand the monitoring of plasma drug concentrations to prevent treatment failure. The high occurrence of tuberculosis in HIV-infected subjects makes the management of HIV treatment complex. Rifampicin, a potent inducer of the cytochrome P 450 metabolic pathway, is a very active antituberculosis drug that accelerates the metabolism of protease inhibitors. Regimens containing efavirenz, a non-nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor, could be an alternative, but efavirenz plasma concentrations may be altered after the coadministration of rifampicin. Efavirenz is also a cytochrome P 450 inducer and may alter rifampicin plasma levels. Due to the increasing need to monitor plasma concentrations in HIV patients with tuberculosis, a high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method has been developed to measure rifampicin and efavirenz at the same time in a small amount of sample. This HPLC method is highly sensitive and precise, suitable for pharmacokinetic studies or routine clinical monitoring of rifampicin and efavirenz simultaneously in HIV patients with tuberculosis.