Point-of-Care Detection of Nonadherence to Antiretroviral Treatment for HIV-1 in Resource-Limited Settings Using Drug Level Testing for Efavirenz, Lopinavir, and Dolutegravir: A Validation and Pharmacokinetic Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Virological failure during antiretroviral treatment (ART) may indicate the presence of drug resistance, but may also originate from nonadherence. Qualitative detection of ART components using drug level testing may be used to differentiate between these scenarios. We aimed to validate and implement qualitative point-of-care drug level tests for efavirenz (EFV), lopinavir (LPV), and dolutegravir (DTG) in rural South Africa. METHODS: Qualitative performance of immunoassays for EFV, LPV, and DTG was assessed by calculating limit of detection (LoD), region of uncertainty, and qualitative agreement with a reference test. Minimum duration of nonadherence resulting in a negative drug level test was assessed by simulation of treatment cessation using validated population pharmacokinetic models. RESULTS: LoD was 0.05 mg/L for EFV, 0.06 mg/L for LPV, and 0.02 mg/L for DTG. Region of uncertainty was 0.01-0.06 mg/L for EFV, 0.01-0.07 mg/L for LPV, and 0.01-0.02 mg/L for DTG. Qualitative agreement with reference testing at the LoD in patient samples was 95.2% (79/83) for EFV, 99.3% (140/141) for LPV, and 100% (118/118) for DTG. After simulated treatment cessation, median time to undetectability below LoD was 7 days [interquartile range (IQR) 4-13] for EFV, 30 hours (IQR 24-36) for LPV, and 6 days (IQR 4-7) for DTG. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate that qualitative ART drug level testing using immunoassays is feasible in a rural resource-limited setting. Implementation of this technology enables reliable detection of recent nonadherence and may allow for rapid and cost-effective differentiation between patients in need for adherence counseling and patients who require drug resistance testing or alternative treatment.

Early experimental COVID-19 therapies: associations with length of hospital stay, mortality and related costs.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir have been used as experimental therapies to treat COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic. Randomised controlled trials have recently shown that there are no meaningful benefits of these two therapies in hospitalised patients. Uncertainty remains regarding the potential harmful impact of these therapies as very early treatments and their burden to the health care system. The present study investigated the length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality, and costs of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir or their combination in comparison with standard of care among patients hospitalised for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: This retrospective observational cohort study took place in the Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland (n = 840) between 26 February and 31 May 2020. Demographics, treatment regimens, comorbidities, the modified National Early Warning Score (mNEWS) on admission, and contraindications to COVID-19 treatment options were assessed. Outcomes included LOS, in-hospital mortality, and drug and LOS costs. RESULTS: After successful propensity score matching, patients treated with (1) hydroxychloroquine, (2) lopinavir/ritonavir or (3) their combination had on average 3.75 additional hospitalisation days (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37–6.12, p = 0.002), 1.23 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI −1.24 – 3.51, p = 0.319), and 4.19 additional hospitalisation days (95% CI 1.52–5.31, p <0.001), respectively, compared with patients treated with the standard of care. Neither experimental therapy was significantly associated with mortality. These additional hospital days amounted to 1010.77 additional days for hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine combined with lopinavir/ritonavir, resulting in an additional cost of US$ 2,492,214 (95%CI US$ 916,839–3,450,619). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing experimental therapies for COVID-19 was not associated with a reduced LOS and might have increased the pressure put on healthcare systems.

Safety assessment of drug combinations used in COVID-19 treatment: in silico toxicogenomic data-mining approach.

Improvement of COVID-19 clinical condition was seen in studies where combination of antiretroviral drugs, lopinavir and ritonavir, as well as immunomodulant antimalaric, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine together with the macrolide-type antibiotic, azithromycin, was used for patient's treatment. Although these drugs are "old", their pharmacological and toxicological profile in SARS-CoV-2 - infected patients are still unknown. Thus, by using in silico toxicogenomic data-mining approach, we aimed to assess both risks and benefits of the COVID-19 treatment with the most promising candidate drugs combinations: lopinavir/ritonavir and chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin. The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD; http://CTD.mdibl.org), Cytoscape software (https://cytoscape.org) and ToppGene Suite portal (https://toppgene.cchmc.org) served as a foundation in our research. Our results have demonstrated that lopinavir/ritonavir increased the expression of the genes involved in immune response and lipid metabolism (IL6, ICAM1, CCL2, TNF, APOA1, etc.). Chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin interacted with 6 genes (CCL2, CTSB, CXCL8, IL1B, IL6 and TNF), whereas chloroquine and azithromycin affected two additional genes (BCL2L1 and CYP3A4), which might be a reason behind a greater number of consequential diseases. In contrast to lopinavir/ritonavir, chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin downregulated the expression of TNF and IL6. As expected, inflammation, cardiotoxicity, and dyslipidaemias were revealed as the main risks of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment, while chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin therapy was additionally linked to gastrointestinal and skin diseases. According to our results, these drug combinations should be administrated with caution to patients suffering from cardiovascular problems, autoimmune diseases, or acquired and hereditary lipid disorders.

Pursuing use of optimal formulations for paediatric HIV epidemic control - a look at the use of LPV/r oral pellets and oral granules.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a significant reduction in mother-to-child transmission of HIV, an estimated 180,000 children were infected with HIV in 2017, and only 52% of children under 15 years of age living with HIV (CLHIV) are on life-saving antiretroviral therapy (ART). Without effective treatment, half of CLHIV die before the age of two years and only one in five survives to five years of age. DISCUSSION: Over the past four years, the United States Food and Drug Administration tentatively approved new formulations of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the form of oral pellets and oral granules. However, the slow uptake of the aforementioned formulations in the low- and middle-income countries with the highest paediatric HIV burden is largely due to three challenges: limited manufacturing capacity; current unit cost of the pellets and granules; and slow uptake of these new formulations by policy makers and health care workers. CONCLUSIONS: Solutions to overcome these barriers include ensuring availability of an adequate supply of LPV/r oral pellets and oral granules, considering all programmatic and clinical factors when selecting paediatric ART formulations, and leveraging current resources to decrease paediatric HIV morbidity and mortality.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Lopinavir/Ritonavir: Changes Across Formulations and Human Development From Infancy Through Adulthood.

Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) is recommended by the World Health Organization as first-line treatment for HIV-infected infants and young children. We performed a composite population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis on LPV plasma concentration data from 6 pediatric and adult studies to determine maturation and formulation effects from infancy to adulthood. Intensive PK data were available for infants, children, adolescents, and adults (297 intensive profiles/1662 LPV concentrations). LPV PK data included 1 adult, 1 combined pediatric-adult, and 4 pediatric studies (age 6 weeks to 63 years) with 3 formulations (gel-capsule, liquid, melt-extrusion tablets). LPV concentrations were modeled using nonlinear mixed effects modeling (NONMEM v. 7.3; GloboMax, Hanover, Maryland) with a one compartment semiphysiologic model. LPV clearance was described by hepatic plasma flow (QHP ) times hepatic extraction (EH ), with EH estimated from the PK data. Volume was scaled by linear weight (WT/70)1.0 . Bioavailability was assessed separately as a function of hepatic extraction and the fraction absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. The absorption component of bioavailability increased with age and tablet formulation. Monte Carlo simulations of the final model using current World Health Organization weight-band dosing recommendations demonstrated that participants younger than 6 months of age had a lower area under the drug concentration-time curve (94.8 vs >107.4 µg hr/mL) and minimum observed concentration of drug in blood plasma (5.0 vs > 7.1 µg/mL) values compared to older children and adults. Although World Health Organization dosing recommendations include a larger dosage (mg/m2 ) in infants to account for higher apparent clearance, they still result in low LPV concentrations in many infants younger than 6 months of age receiving the liquid formulation.

Understanding the acceptability and adherence to paediatric antiretroviral treatment in the new formulation of pellets (LPV/r): the protocol of a realist evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Improving access to paediatric HIV treatment requires both large-scale treatment programmes and medication that is adapted to infants and children's needs. The WHO recommends lopinavir/ritonavir as first-line antiretroviral therapy for all HIV-infected children younger than 3 years. There is currently little evidence on the acceptability of, and adherence to, a formulation of this combination treatment if given in the form of pellets. This protocol presents how we will carry a realist evaluation to assess the factors that contribute to the acceptability and adherence to the new pellets formulation in 3 hospitals in Kenya. METHODS: We structured the protocol along the realist evaluation cycle following 4 steps: (1) the initial programme theory, (2) the study design, (3) the data collection methods and (4) the data analysis plan. Theories of behavioural sciences were reviewed for frames that could provide insights into how using such new formulations may contribute to better acceptability and adherence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Tropical Medicine, the Ethical Committee of the University Hospital Antwerp and the Kenyatta National Hospital/University of Nairobi Ethics and Research Committee. We aim to disseminate the findings through international conferences and peer-reviewed journals and to share them with Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative's (DNDi) programme managers and with the Kenyan healthcare providers. DISCUSSION: In developing this study, we encountered some challenges. First, methods to measure the acceptability of any formulation and adherence to it are not standardised. The second challenge is common in realist evaluation and relates to how to choose from different potentially interesting theoretical frameworks. We identified relevant and empirically tested theories from behavioural science that may be helpful in our study. We will test them in 3 settings by exploring the multilevel factors that influence acceptability and adherence of this new paediatric Antiretroviral (ARV) formulation.

Raltegravir in second-line antiretroviral therapy in resource-limited settings (SELECT): a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: For second-line antiretroviral therapy, WHO recommends a boosted protease inhibitor plus nucleoside or nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). However, concerns about toxicity and cross-resistance motivated a search for regimens that do not contain NRTIs. We aimed to assess whether boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir would be non-inferior to boosted lopinavir plus NRTIs for virological suppression in resource-limited settings. METHODS: A5273 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study at 15 AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) research sites in nine resource-limited countries (three sites each in India and South Africa, two each in Malawi and Peru, and one each in Brazil, Kenya, Tanzania, Thailand, and Zimbabwe). Adults with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL after at least 24 weeks on a regimen based on a non-NRTI inhibitor were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (100 mg ritonavir, 400 mg lopinavir) plus 400 mg raltegravir twice a day (raltegravir group) or to ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus two or three NRTIs selected from an algorithm (eg, zidovudine after failure with tenofovir and vice versa; NRTI group). Randomised group assignment was done with a computer algorithm concealed to site personnel, and stratified by HIV-1 RNA viral load, CD4 cell count, and intention to use zidovudine, with the groups balanced by each site. The primary endpoint was time to confirmed virological failure (two measurements of HIV-1 RNA viral load >400 copies per mL) at or after week 24 in the intention-to-treat population. Non-inferiority (10% margin) was assessed by comparing the cumulative probability of virological failure by 48 weeks. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01352715. FINDINGS: Between March 13, 2012, and Oct 2, 2013, we randomly assigned 515 participants: 260 to the raltegravir group and 255 to the NRTI group; two participants in the raltegravir group and one in the NRTI group were excluded from analyses because of ineligibility. By the end of follow-up (October, 2014), 96 participants had virological failure (46 in the raltegravir group and 50 in the NRTI group). By 48 weeks, the cumulative probability of virological failure was 10·3% (95% CI 6·5-14·0) in the raltegravir group and 12·4% (8·3-16·5) in the NRTI group, with a weighted difference of -3·4% (-8·4 to 1·5), indicating that raltegravir was non-inferior, but not superior, to NRTIs. 62 (24%) participants in the raltegravir group and 81 (32%) in the NRTI group had grade 3 or higher adverse events; 19 (7%) and 29 (11%), respectively, had serious adverse events. Three participants in each group died, all from HIV-related causes. INTERPRETATION: In settings with extensive NRTI resistance but no available resistance testing, our data support WHO's recommendation for ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus NRTI for second-line antiretroviral therapy. Ritonavir-boosted lopinavir plus raltegravir is an appropriate alternative, especially if NRTI use is limited by toxicity. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Nuke-Sparing Regimens for the Long-Term Care of HIV Infection.

With the efficacy of antiretroviral therapy already guaranteed for all practical purposes, the main objective in the management of HIV-positive patients has moved to reduce and prevent potential long-term toxicities. Nucleos(t)ide-sparing regimens could enable the best to address this issue, with a wide range of current options that may allow adaptation to distinct patient populations. Monotherapy with boosted darunavir and lopinavir has been safely prescribed as maintenance therapy to stable patients on stable antiretroviral therapy without nadir CD4 count < 200/mm³, low-level baseline viremia, prolonged viral suppression, and without prior virologic failure. In the presence of all these requirements, dual therapy with lamivudine plus boosted lopinavir or atazanavir has been shown to be equivalent to standard triple therapy. Other nucleoside-sparing dual therapies, especially using raltegravir combined with boosted darunavir or lopinavir and etravirine or rilpivirine in combination with boosted darunavir, have performed well as simplification strategies or rescue interventions in a wide spectrum of patients as long as drug resistance was absent. With current economical constrains, nuke-sparing regimens have attained a degree of maturity that makes it possible to anticipate that they will play an important role in the optimization of antiretroviral therapy in the near future.

Impact of body weight and missed doses on lopinavir concentrations with standard and increased lopinavir/ritonavir doses during late pregnancy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of body weight and missed doses on lopinavir pharmacokinetics with standard and increased doses of lopinavir/ritonavir melt extrusion tablets during late pregnancy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Lopinavir concentration data during the third trimester of pregnancy were pooled from clinical trials in Thailand (NCT00409591) and the USA (NCT00042289). A total of 154 HIV-infected pregnant women receiving either 400/100 mg (standard) or 600/150 mg (increased) twice daily had lopinavir plasma concentration data available. Population parameters were estimated using non-linear mixed-effects regression models. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to estimate the probability of achieving target lopinavir trough concentrations (>1.0 mg/L) with standard and increased doses of lopinavir/ritonavir during pregnancy. RESULTS: The median (range) age, weight and gestational age were 28 years (18-43), 62 kg (45-123) and 33 weeks (29-38), respectively. Body weight influenced lopinavir oral clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (V/F). Population estimates of lopinavir CL/F and V/F were 6.21 L/h/70 kg and 52.6 L/70 kg, respectively. Based on simulations, the highest risk of subtherapeutic trough concentrations was for women weighing >100 kg using the standard dose (∼ 7%), while the risk was <2% with the 600/150 mg dose for women weighing 40-130 kg. After a missed dose, 61% of women have lopinavir concentrations below target prior to the next dose with the standard dose compared with 42% with the increased dose. CONCLUSIONS: Standard dosing provides adequate lopinavir trough concentrations for the majority of pregnant women but increased doses may be preferable for women weighing >100 kg and with a history of lopinavir/ritonavir use and/or adherence issues.

Lopinavir/ritonavir versus darunavir plus ritonavir for HIV infection: a cost-effectiveness analysis for the United States.

BACKGROUND: The ARTEMIS trial compared first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) with lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) to darunavir plus ritonavir (DRV + RTV) for HIV-1-infected subjects. In order to fully assess the implications of this study, economic modelling extrapolating over a longer term is required. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to simulate the course of HIV and its management, including the multiple factors known to be of importance in ART. METHODS: A comprehensive discrete event simulation was created to represent, as realistically as possible, ART management and HIV outcomes. The model was focused on patients for whom clinicians believed that LPV/r or DRV + RTV were good options as a first regimen. Prognosis was determined by the impact of initial treatment on baseline CD4+ T-cell count and viral load, adherence, virological suppression/failure/rebound, acquired resistance mutations, and ensuing treatment changes. Inputs were taken from trial data (ARTEMIS), literature and, where necessary, stated assumptions. Clinical measures included AIDS events, side effects, time on sequential therapies, cardiovascular events, and expected life-years lost as a result of HIV infection. The model underwent face, technical and partial predictive validation. Treatment-naive individuals similar to those in the ARTEMIS trial were modelled over a lifetime, and outcomes with first-line DRV + RTV were compared with those with LPV/r, both paired with tenofovir and emtricitabine. Up to three regimen changes were permitted. Drug prices were based on wholesale acquisition cost. Outcomes were lifetime healthcare costs (in 2011 US dollars) from the US healthcare system perspective and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (discounted at 3 % per annum). RESULTS: Choice of LPV/r over DRV + RTV as initial ART resulted in nearly identical clinical outcomes, but distinctly different economic consequences. Starting with an LPV/r regimen potentially results in approximately US$25,000 discounted lifetime savings. Accumulated QALYs for LPV/r and DRV + RTV were 12.130 and 12.083, respectively (a 19-day difference). In sensitivity analyses, net monetary benefit ranged from US$12,000 to US$31,000, favouring LPV/r (base case US$27,762). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive simulation of lifetime course of HIV in the USA indicated that using LPV/r as first-line therapy compared with DRV + RTV may result in cost savings, with similar clinical outcomes.

Cost-utility analysis of lopinavir/ritonavir versus atazanavir + ritonavir administered as first-line therapy for the treatment of HIV infection in Italy: from randomised trial to real world.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the lifetime cost utility of two antiretroviral regimens (once-daily atazanavir plus ritonavir [ATV+r] versus twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir [LPV/r]) in Italian human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients naïve to treatment. DESIGN: With this observational retrospective study we collected the clinical data of a cohort of HIV-infected patients receiving first-line treatment with LPV/r or ATV+r. METHODOLOGY: A Markov microsimulation model including direct costs and health outcomes of first- and second-line highly active retroviral therapy was developed from a third-party (Italian National Healthcare Service) payer's perspective. Health and monetary outcomes associated with the long-term use of ATV+r and LPV/r regimens were evaluated on the basis of eight health states, incidence of diarrhoea and hyperbilirubinemia, AIDS events, opportunistic infections, coronary heart disease events and, for the first time in an economic evaluation, chronic kidney disease (CKD) events. In order to account for possible deviations between real-life data and randomised controlled trial results, a second control arm (ATV+r 2) was created with differential transition probabilities taken from the literature. RESULTS: The average survival was 24.061 years for patients receiving LPV/r, 24.081 and 24.084 for those receiving ATV+r 1 and 2 respectively. The mean quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were higher for the patients receiving LPV/r than those receiving ATV+r (13.322 vs. 13.060 and 13.261 for ATV+r 1 and 2). The cost-utility values were 15,310.56 for LPV/r, 15,902.99 and 15,524.85 for ATV+r 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: Using real-life data, the model produced significantly different results compared with other studies. With the innovative addition of an evaluation of CKD events, the model showed a cost-utility value advantage for twice-daily LPV/r over once-daily ATV+r, thus providing evidence for its continued use in the treatment of HIV.

Assessment of lopinavir pharmacokinetics with respect to developmental changes in infants and the impact on weight band-based dosing.

Improved antiretroviral therapies are needed for the treatment of HIV-infected infants, given the rapid progression of the disease and drug resistance resulting from perinatal exposure to antiretrovirals. We examined longitudinal pharmacokinetics (PK) data from a clinical trial of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in HIV-infected infants in whom therapy was initiated at less than 6 months of age. A population PK analysis was performed using NONMEM to characterize changes in lopinavir (LPV) PK relating to maturational changes in infants, and to assess dosing requirements in this population. We also investigated the relationship between LPV PK and viral dynamic response. Age and ritonavir concentrations were the only covariates found to be significant. Population PK of LPV was characterized by high apparent clearance (CL/F) in young infants, which decreased with increasing age. Although younger infants had lower LPV concentrations, the viral dynamics did not correlate with initial LPV exposure. Monte Carlo simulations demonstrated that WHO weight band-based dosing recommendations predicted therapeutic LPV concentrations and provided drug exposure levels comparable to those resulting from US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-suggested dosing regimens.