Switch from a ritonavir to a cobicistat containing antiretroviral regimen and impact on tacrolimus levels in a kidney transplant recipient.

BACKGROUND: Solid-organ transplantation due to end-stage organ disease is increasingly performed in people living with HIV. Despite improved transplant outcomes, management of these patients remains challenging due to higher risk for allograft rejection, infection and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Complex regimens for multi-drug resistant HIV-viruses may cause DDIs particularly if the regimen contains drugs such as ritonavir or cobicistat. CASE PRESENTATION: Here we report on a case of an HIV-infected renal transplant recipient on long-term immunosuppressive therapy with mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus dosed at 0.5 mg every 11 days due to the co-administration of a darunavir/ritonavir containing antiretroviral regimen. In the presented case the pharmacokinetic booster was switched from ritonavir to cobicistat for treatment simplification. A close monitoring of tacrolimus drug levels was performed in order to prevent possible sub- or supratherapeutic tacrolimus trough levels. A progressive decrease in tacrolimus concentrations was observed after switch requiring shortening of tacrolimus dosing interval. This observation was unexpected considering that cobicistat is devoid of inducing properties. CONCLUSIONS: This case highlights the fact that the pharmacokinetic boosters ritonavir and cobicistat are not fully interchangeable. Therapeutic drug monitoring of tacrolimus is warranted to maintain levels within the therapeutic range.

Cumulative tenofovir diphosphate exposure in persons with HIV taking single- vs. multiple-tablet regimens.

BACKGROUND: We assessed cumulative antiretroviral exposure-using tenofovir diphosphate (TFV-DP) in dried blood spots (DBS)-in persons with HIV (PWH) receiving tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF)-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) as single-tablet regimens (STR) or multiple-tablet regimens (MTR). METHODS: Blood for DBS was prospectively collected in PWH on TDF during 1144 person visits (n = 523). Linear mixed-effects models, adjusted for baseline characteristics, were used to compare TFV-DP in STR versus MTR. Models adjusted for ART regimen using either anchor drug class, pharmacokinetic booster status (unboosted [u/] or boosted [b/]), or a combined STR/MTR and booster categorical variable. RESULTS: In the anchor class-adjusted model, STR had 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3%-37%; p = 0.02) higher TFV-DP concentrations than MTR. However, in the booster-adjusted model, STR was not significantly higher than MTR (estimate 5%, 95% CI: -9% to 21%; p = 0.48), although PWH on b/ART had 35% (95% CI: 16%-58%; p = 0.0001) higher TFV-DP than u/ART. In the STR/MTR-boosted variable model, when compared to u/MTR, b/STR, b/MTR, and u/STR had 25% (95% CI: 7%-47%; p = 0.005), 37% (95% CI: 17%-59%; p < 0.0001), and 7% (95% CI: -7% to 24%; p = 0.34) higher TFV-DP, respectively. Compared with b/MTR, b/STR had 9% (95% CI: -31% to 10%; p = 0.37) lower TFV-DP. In a sensitivity analysis of PWH with HIV viral load <20 copies/ml at all visits, b/STR and b/MTR had 34% (95% CI: 16%-55%; p < 0.0001) and 12% (95% CI: -2% to 27%; p = 0.09) higher TFV-DP, respectively, compared with u/MTR, while u/STR had 4% (95% CI: -15% to 8%; p = 0.50) lower TFV-DP. Compared with b/MTR, b/STR had 17% (95% CI: 2%-30%; p = 0.03) higher TFV-DP. CONCLUSIONS: Persons with HIV on b/TDF-based ART had higher TFV-DP than u/ART, regardless of STR or MTR use. No significant differences in TFV-DP between regimens of the same boosting status (i.e., b/STR vs. b/MTR; u/STR vs. u/MTR) were observed in the full cohort. Future research should examine the clinical utility of these findings in patient-tailored ART selection.