Pharmacokinetic interaction between nelfinavir and pravastatin in HIV-seronegative volunteers: ACTG Study A5108.

BACKGROUND: Nelfinavir, an HIV protease inhibitor with numerous drug-drug interactions, is associated with dyslipidemia. Pravastatin is the preferred statin prescribed for HIV-associated dyslipidemia. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of nelfinavir on pravastatin pharmacokinetics. DESIGN: Open-label study in healthy HIV-seronegative adults conducted at the AIDS Clinical Trials Group sites in the United States. METHODS: Subjects received pravastatin 40 mg daily and underwent intensive sampling for pharmacokinetics on day 3. Subjects took only nelfinavir 1250 mg twice daily on days 4-12. On days 13-15, subjects continued nelfinavir and reinitiated pravastatin. Plasma samples were collected over 24 h for the calculation of pravastatin area under the concentration-time curve for 0-24 h on days 3 and 16. RESULTS: Data from 14 subjects with complete pharmacokinetic samples were available for analysis. The median within-subject percentage change in pravastatin AUC was a decrease of 46.5%. Pravastatin maximum plasma concentrations were also lower when pravastatin was administered with nelfinavir. Median values for the maximum plasma concentrations were 27.9 and 12.4 ng/ml for days 3 and 16, respectively, and the median within-subject decrease was 40.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of pravastatin and nelfinavir led to a substantial reduction in pravastatin plasma concentrations. Higher doses of pravastatin may need to be prescribed in order to achieve optimal lipid-lowering activity.

The impact of sex and contraceptive therapy on the plasma and intracellular pharmacokinetics of zidovudine.

OBJECTIVES: Zidovudine remains part of combination antiretroviral therapy. Pharmacological studies rely on quantitation of active triphosphates in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. This study evaluated the impact of female sex and contraceptive therapy on zidovudine plasma and intracellular pharmacokinetics and the impact of contraceptive therapy on HIV viral load. METHODS: Serial plasma and intracellular zidovudine pharmacokinetics following oral and intravenous dosing were determined in 18 men and 20 women treated with zidovudine. Women could repeat pharmacokinetics assessment following 2 months oral or injectable contraceptive therapy. Zidovudine plasma and intracellular mono-, di- and triphosphate concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. Plasma and cervical viral loads were determined preceding and following 2 months of contraceptive therapy in women. RESULTS: Men exhibited higher area under the concentration versus time curve for intracellular zidovudine and zidovudine-monophosphate following oral and intravenous dosing and higher zidovudine triphosphate following oral dosing. There was no difference between men and women in plasma zidovudine parameters. Furthermore, contraceptive therapy had no effect on zidovudine plasma or intracellular pharmacokinetics or on plasma or cervical HIV-1 RNA levels. CONCLUSIONS: Using an optimized pharmacokinetic design, this study indicated men exhibit significantly higher zidovudine-monophosphate and zidovudine-triphosphate exposure following zidovudine oral administration, having implications for drug toxicity and overall tolerance of zidovudine therapy. The lack of an effect of contraceptive therapy on zidovudine pharmacokinetics is surprising in light of previous pharmacokinetic studies for drugs eliminated primarily through glucuronidation. Contraceptive therapy had no effect on plasma or cervical viral load, results consistent with previous findings.

The clinical pharmacokinetics of rifampin and ethambutol in HIV-infected persons with tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacokinetics of rifampin and ethambutol in HIV-infected patients with tuberculosis (TB) are incompletely characterized. We examined the pharmacokinetics of rifampin and ethambutol in a cohort of patients with HIV-related TB who were treated in the United States. METHODS: Serum drug concentrations were determined 2, 6, and 10 h after dosing in 36 HIV-infected patients with TB who were taking rifampin and in 49 who were taking ethambutol. Observed serum concentrations were compared with published normal ranges and published data. RESULTS: With daily dosing of rifampin (600 mg), 26 (77%) of 34 patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 59%-89%]) had a low maximum concentration of rifampin (<8 microg/mL), and 12 (35%; 95% CI, 20%-54%) had a very low maximum concentration (<4 microg/mL). With intermittent rifampin dosing (600 mg), 13 (68%) of 19 patients (95% CI, 44%-85%) had a low maximum concentration of rifampin, and 5 (26%; 95% CI, 11%-50%) had a very low maximum concentration. With daily ethambutol dosing (20 mg/kg), 33 (69%) of 48 patients (95% CI, 55%-81%) had a low maximum concentration of ethambutol (<2 microg/mL), and 18 (38%; 95% CI, 24%-53%) had a very low maximum concentration (<1 microg/mL). With intermittent ethambutol dosing (50 mg/kg twice weekly or 30 mg/kg thrice weekly), 13 (72%) of 18 patients (95% CI, 47%-88%) had a low maximum concentration of ethambutol (<4 microg/mL), and 5 (28%; 95% CI, 12%-54%]) had a very low maximum concentration (<2 microg/mL). CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-infected patients with TB who are receiving rifampin and ethambutol, low maximum concentrations of rifampin and ethambutol were common. For patients with HIV-related TB, therapeutic monitoring of rifampin and ethambutol levels may help clinicians achieve target serum concentrations.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between protease inhibitors and statins in HIV seronegative volunteers: ACTG Study A5047.

OBJECTIVE: Lipid lowering therapy is used increasingly in persons with HIV infection in the absence of safety data or information on drug interactions with antiretroviral agents. The primary objectives of this study were to examine the effects of ritonavir (RTV) plus saquinavir soft-gel (SQVsgc) capsules on the pharmacokinetics of pravastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin, and the effect of pravastatin on the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir (NFV) in order to determine clinically important drug-drug interactions. DESIGN: Randomized, open-label study in healthy, HIV seronegative adults at AIDS Clinical Trials Units across the USA. METHODS: Three groups of subjects (arms 1, 2, and 3) received pravastatin, simvastatin or atorvastatin (40 mg daily each) from days 1-4 and 15-18. In these groups, RTV 400 mg and SQVsgc 400 mg twice daily were given from days 4-18. A fourth group (arm 4) received NFV 1250 mg twice daily from days 1-14 with pravastatin 40 mg daily added from days 15-18. Statin and NFV levels were measured by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Fifty-six subjects completed both pharmacokinetic study days. In arms 1-3, the median estimated area under the curves (AUC)(0-24) for the statins were: pravastatin (arm 1, n = 13), 151 and 75 ng.h/ml on days 4 and 18 (decline of 50% in presence of RTV/SQVsgc), respectively (P = 0.005); simvastatin (arm 2, n = 14), 17 and 548 ng.h/ml on days 4 and 18 (increase of 3059% in the presence of RTV/SQVsgc), respectively (P < 0.001); and total active atorvastatin (arm 3, n = 14), 167 and 289 ng.h/ml on days 4 and 18 (increase of 79% in the presence of RTV/SQVsgc), respectively (P < 0.001). In arm 4, the median estimated AUC(0-8) for NFV (24 319 versus 26 760 ng.h/ml; P = 0.58) and its active M8 metabolite (15 565 versus 14 571 ng.h/m; P = 0.63) were not statistically different from day 14 to day 18 (without or with pravastatin). CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin should be avoided and atorvastatin may be used with caution in persons taking RTV and SQVsgc. Dose adjustment of pravastatin may be necessary with concomitant use of RTV and SQVsgc. Pravastatin does not alter the NFV pharmacokinetics, and thus appears to be safe for concomitant use.

The clinical pharmacokinetics of pyrazinamide in HIV-infected persons with tuberculosis.

The pharmacokinetics of pyrazinamide (PZA) in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-related tuberculosis are incompletely characterized. Serum PZA concentrations were determined at 2, 6, and 10 h after dosing in 48 subjects with HIV-related tuberculosis. Estimates of drug exposure using 2-h concentrations and 2- and 3-time point estimates of area under time-concentration curves (AUCs) were compared. For daily dosing, 2-h concentrations less than low and very low literature-defined cut points (i.e., 20 and 10 mg/L) were noted for 2 subjects (4%) and 1 subject (2%), respectively. For intermittent PZA dosing, 1 subject (4%) had a 2-h concentration that was less than the low cut point (25 mg/L). Correlations between 2-h concentration and AUC estimates based on 2- or 3-time point concentration determinations were strong. In HIV-infected persons receiving antituberculosis regimens containing PZA, lower-than-expected 2-h concentrations are uncommon. For therapeutic monitoring of PZA drug exposure, determination of a 2-h postdose concentration appears as reliable as 2- or 3-time point estimates of the AUC for PZA.

Effect of simultaneous versus staggered dosing on pharmacokinetic interactions of protease inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether pharmacokinetic interactions between the protease inhibitors saquinavir soft gel, nelfinavir, and ritonavir are affected by the timing of administration. STUDY DESIGN: We used an open-label, 6-period, incomplete Latin square crossover study in 18 human immunodeficiency virus-negative subjects. Each received single oral doses of 2 of the 3 protease inhibitors during each of 6 periods. Single doses were given either simultaneously or separated by 4 hours. The order of the periods was balanced, and periods were separated by 2 days. We measured protease inhibitor concentrations over a 24-hour period by HPLC and estimated pharmacokinetic parameters by noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: Median saquinavir area under the curve (AUC) increased by 62-fold when ritonavir was coadministered, by 50-fold when ritonavir was given 4 hours earlier, and by 16-fold when saquinavir preceded ritonavir by 4 hours. Saquinavir AUC increased by 7-fold when nelfinavir was coadministered. Nelfinavir AUC increased by 2.5-fold with coadministration of ritonavir and by 1.8- and 2.1-fold when ritonavir was administered before nelfinavir and after nelfinavir, respectively. Ritonavir AUCs were unaffected by coadministration of the other drugs. The effect of ritonavir on the kinetics of saquinavir persisted for at least 48 hours after a single dose of ritonavir, suggesting the possibility of metabolic intermediates that form inhibitory complexes. CONCLUSION: Except for saquinavir followed by ritonavir, there is little difference in protease inhibitor exposure for simultaneous or staggered doses. The persistent effect of ritonavir suggests the possibility that lower doses and longer dosing intervals might be effective when ritonavir is used to boost concentrations of other protease inhibitors.

Activity, safety, and immunological effects of hydroxyurea added to didanosine in antiretroviral-naive and experienced HIV type 1-infected subjects: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, ACTG 307.

We performed a 24-week, placebo-controlled, comparative trial of hydroxyurea (HU) monotherapy, didanosine(ddI) monotherapy, and the combination of ddI plus HU administered as 1000 mg qd or 1500 mg qd in antiretroviral-naive and experienced subjects with CD4+ lymphocyte counts of 200-700 cells/mm3. Enrollment included 134 subjects. HU enhanced the antiviral activity of ddI by 1.0 log10 copies/ml after 8 weeks of therapy, with sustained responses over 24 weeks. HU alone over 4 weeks had no effect. Lamivudine resistance had little impact on antiretroviral activity when examined across treatment arms. Increases in absolute CD4+ T cell counts, but not CD4+ T cell percentages, were less in subjects who received HU compared to ddI monotherapy, and lymphoproliferative responses to antigenic and mitogenic stimuli were not altered. Subjects who received HU 1500 mg were more likely to experience dose-limiting hematological toxicities compared to those who received 1000 mg, without any additional antiviral benefit. HU may continue to have a role as a component of HIV therapy.

Effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin, atorvastatin, and pravastatin: results of AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5108 Study.

Efavirenz (EFV) is associated with hyperlipidemia when used in combination with other antiretroviral drugs. EFV is a mixed inducer/inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 isozyme and may interact with hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors that are primarily metabolized via CYP3A4. To assess the drug-drug interaction of EFV used in combination with simvastatin (SIM), atorvastatin (ATR), or pravastatin (PRA), an open-label trial was conducted in 52 healthy adult HIV-seronegative subjects across AIDS Clinical Trials Group sites in the United States. Subjects received 40 mg of SIM, 10 mg of ATR, or 40 mg of PRA daily on days 0 through 3 and days 15 through 18. EFV was administered daily at a dose of 600 mg on days 4 through 18. SIM, ATR, and PRA concentrations were determined before and after EFV, and EFV concentrations were determined before and after statins. EFV reduced SIM acid exposure (area under the curve at 0 to 24 hours [AUC0-24 h]) by 58% (Wilcoxon signed rank test, P=0.003) and active HMG-CoA reductase inhibitory activity by 60% (P<0.001). EFV reduced ATR exposure by 43% (P<0.001) and the total active ATR exposure by 34% (P=0.005). EFV administration resulted in a 40% decrease in PRA exposure (P=0.005). SIM, ATR, and PRA had no effect on non-steady-state EFV concentrations. In conclusion, EFV, when administered with SIM, ATR, or PRA, can result in significant induction of statin metabolism. The reduced inhibition of HMG-CoA reductase activity during coadministration of EFV may result in diminished antilipid efficacy at usual doses of SIM, ATR, and PRA.

Amprenavir and efavirenz pharmacokinetics before and after the addition of nelfinavir, indinavir, ritonavir, or saquinavir in seronegative individuals.

Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group 5043 examined pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between amprenavir (APV) and efavirenz (EFV) both by themselves and when nelfinavir (NFV), indinavir (IDV), ritonavir (RTV), or saquinavir (SQV) is added. A PK study was conducted after the administration of single doses of APV (day 0). Subjects (n = 56) received 600 mg of EFV every 24 h (q24h) for 10 days and restarted APV with EFV for days 11 to 13 with a PK study on day 14. A second protease inhibitor (PI) (NFV, 1,250 mg, q12h; IDV, 1,200 mg, q12h; RTV, 100 mg, q12h; or SQV, 1,600 mg, q12h) was added to APV and EFV on day 15, and a PK study was conducted on day 21. Controls continued APV and EFV without a second PI. Among subjects, the APV areas under the curve (AUCs) on days 0, 14, and 21 were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the geometric mean ratios (GMR) were calculated. APV AUCs were 46% to 61% lower (median percentage of AUC) with EFV (day 14 versus day 0; P values of <0.05). In the NFV, IDV, and RTV groups, day 21 APV AUCs with EFV were higher than AUCs for EFV alone. Ninety-percent confidence intervals around the GMR were 3.5 to 5.3 for NFV (P < 0.001), 2.8 to 4.5 for IDV (P < 0.001), and 7.8 to 11.5 for RTV (P = 0.004). Saquinavir modestly increased the APV AUCs (GMR, 1.0 to 1.4; P = 0.106). Control group AUCs were lower on day 21 compared to those on day 14 (GMR, 0.7 to 1.0; P = 0.042). African-American non-Hispanics had higher day 14 efavirenz AUCs than white non-Hispanics. We conclude that EFV lowered APV AUCs, but nelfinavir, indinavir, or ritonavir compensated for EFV induction.