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 (Pls) 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.

Current status and future prospects of therapeutic drug monitoring and applied clinical pharmacology in antiretroviral therapy.

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 and protease inhibitors 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 in Rome, Italy. This followed an inaugural meeting in Perugia, Italy, in October 2000, which resulted in the article published in AIDS 2002, 16(Suppl 1):S5-S37. The objectives of this second meeting were to review the 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. This report, which has been updated to include material published or presented at international conferences up to the end of September 2004, reviews pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and reports the issues discussed by the panel, offering advice to clinical care providers who may be currently, or are considering incorporating TDM into the routine care of their patients. In addition, the panel formulated a series of position statements that are relevant to the interpretation of current data and can aid the design of future clinical trials.

Perception of antiretroviral generic medicines: one-day survey of HIV-infected patients and their physicians in France.

BACKGROUND: In the interest of cost effectiveness, switching antiretroviral brand name medications to generics is recommended in France since 2013. The study objective was to evaluate the perception of generics per se and antiretroviral generics in HIV-infected patients and their hospital physicians. METHODS AND FINDINGS: 556 out of 703 (79%) adult HIV+ outpatients and 116 physicians in 33 clinics were included in a multicentric cross-sectional survey performed in September 2013. Patients completed a self-questionnaire on their perception and acceptability of generics. Physicians completed a questionnaire on their acceptability of switching antiretroviral to generic. Socio-demographic data, medical history and HIV history were collected. Among the 556 patients with a median HIV duration of 13 years, 77% were France native, 59% in active employment, 100% covered by social insurance, 95% on antiretroviral therapy. Seventy-six percent of the patients accepted generics and 55% trusted them overall. Antiretroviral generics were accepted by 44% of them but only by 17% if the pill burden was going to increase. The factor significantly associated with acceptability of antiretroviral generics was acceptance of generics per se (p<0.001). Among the 116 physicians following a median of 100 HIV-patients/year, 75% would prescribe generics, dropping to 26% if the combo had to be broken. Factors significantly associated with willingness to prescribe antiretroviral generics were the absence of concern regarding the chemical entity (OR = 0.33), being aware that the patient would accept generics for other pathologies (OR = 2.04) and would accept antiretroviral generics (OR = 1.94). No factor related to sociodemographic conditions, HIV status or comorbidities was associated with the acceptability of antiretroviral generics. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptability of antiretroviral generics in this French population was mostly dictated by the patient's and physician's knowledge and use of generics overall. It should be improved with an efficient information of both patients and physicians.

Therapeutic drug monitoring in HIV infection: current status and future directions.

BACKGROUND: Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) can suppress viral replication and prolong patient life substantially. However, HAART can fail for a number of reasons, including incomplete adherence, pharmacokinetic factors and the emergence of resistance. Because the number of possible antiretroviral combinations is limited, the use of existing treatment options must be optimized. Whether the application of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in routine clinical practice may help with this purpose remains a subject of debate. However, TDM has been introduced in some centres despite the lack of guidelines for optimal use of this test. OBJECTIVE: In October 2000, a panel of experts met in Perugia, Italy, to discuss the key issues surrounding the introduction of TDM into routine clinical practice. The purpose of the meeting was to achieve a consensus among panel members on the following issues: (i) validity of data suggesting the utility of TDM in HAART; (ii) patient categories and clinical settings in which TDM may be of most benefit; (iii) target levels of antiretroviral agents; (iv) influence of covariables on target levels of drugs; (v) blood sampling and dosage adjustment strategies; and (vi) future research steps needed to elucidate issues regarding the applicability of TDM in clinical practice. OUTCOME: This report, which has been updated to include data published or presented at conferences up to the end of August 2001, summarizes the data presented and issues discussed at the meeting. This article will guide the reader through the data and discussions that have allowed the panel to formulate a series of position statements regarding the current status and future applications of TDM in antiretroviral therapy. These statements have been formulated to provide suggestions for the design of future TDM clinical trials, as well as to provide useful points of reflection for centres in which TDM is already in use.

Acceptability and confidence in antiretroviral generics of physicians and HIV-infected patients in France.

INTRODUCTION: Switching brand name medications to generics is recommended in France in the interest of cost effectiveness but patients and physicians are sometimes not convinced that switching is appropriate. Some antiretroviral (ARV) generics (ZDV, 3TC, NVP) have been marketed in France since 2013. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicentric cross-sectional survey was performed in September 2013 to evaluate the perception of generics overall and ARV generics in physicians and HIV-infected patients and factors associated to their acceptability. Adult HIV outpatients were asked to complete a self-questionnaire on their perception of generics. Physicians completed a questionnaire on the acceptability of generics and ARV generics. Socio-demographic data, medical history and HIV history were collected. RESULTS: 116 physicians in 33 clinics (68% in University Hospital) included 556 patients (France-native 77%, active employment 59%, covered by social Insurance 100%, homosexual/bisexual contamination 47%, median HIV duration 13 years, hepatitis coinfection 16%, on ARV therapy 95%). Overall, patients accepted and had confidence in generics in 76% and 55% of the cases, respectively. Switching ARVs for generics was accepted by 44% of the patients but only by 17% if the pill burden was going to increase. 75% of the physicians would prescribe generics, but this decreased to only 26% if the combo had to be broken. The main reasons for non-prescription of generics were previous brand name ARV-induced side effects (35%), refusal of generics overall (37%), lack of understanding of generics (26%), risk of non-observance of treatment (44%), anxiety (47%) and depressive symptoms (25%). In multivariate analysis, factors associated with the acceptability of ARV generics in patients were the use of generics overall (p<0.001) and in physicians, the absence of concern regarding the drug efficacy (p<0.001) and being aware that the patient would accept generics overall (p=0.03) and ARV generics (p=0.04). No factors related to sociodemographic conditions, HIV status or comorbidities had a constrictive influence on the use of ARV generics. CONCLUSION: Acceptability of ARV generics in this French population is mostly dictated by the patient's and physician's knowledge and use of generics overall. Switching ARV brand name to a generic would be better accepted if the pill burden remained unchanged.