Fosamprenavir/ritonavir plus tenofovir does not affect amprenavir pharmacokinetics: no effect of tenofovir.

The effect of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in combination with two boosted fosamprenavir regimens on amprenavir pharmacokinetic parameters was assessed in this prospective phase I crossover study with 30 healthy volunteers. The co-administration of TDF 300 mg once a day with fosamprenavir/ritonavir 1400/200 mg or 1400/100 mg once a day has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of amprenavir and results in non-significant increases of ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameters, suggesting that no dose modification is necessary when combining fosamprenavir/ritonavir with TDF.

Saquinavir, nelfinavir and M8 pharmacokinetics following combined saquinavir, ritonavir and nelfinavir administration.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the steady-state pharmacokinetic interaction between ritonavir-boosted saquinavir and nelfinavir. METHODS: Open label, multiple-dose, two parallel-groups, single crossover study conducted in 24 HIV-infected patients (12 in each group). Patients in the nelfinavir group added saquinavir/ritonavir, 1000/100 mg twice daily to their ongoing stable treatment regimen consisting of nelfinavir, 1250 mg twice daily and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). Patients in the saquinavir group added nelfinavir, 1250 mg twice daily to their ongoing stable treatment regimen consisting of saquinavir/ritonavir, 1000/100 mg twice daily and two NRTIs. Pharmacokinetic assessments were performed before and 7 days after the start of combined treatment with nelfinavir/saquinavir/ritonavir. Blood samples were collected before and 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h after dosing for measurement of nelfinavir, the nelfinavir metabolite M8 and saquinavir using liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). RESULTS: The addition of saquinavir/ritonavir to the nelfinavir-containing regimen resulted in significant increases in the M8 pharmacokinetic parameters AUC(0-12), Cmax and C12; geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) of 2.25 ng.h/mL (1.47-3.44), 1.74 ng/mL (1.25-2.40) and 4.21 ng/mL (2.10-8.47), respectively. The intra-individual changes in nelfinavir and saquinavir concentrations were highly variable. Statistical analysis could not discard a relevant interaction but includes the possibility that some parameters may be halved, others more than doubled. At the same time the analysis failed to show any directed change. CONCLUSIONS: The co-administration of nelfinavir and saquinavir/ritonavir leads to unpredictable changes in concentrations of both drugs. It is unclear whether the increased concentrations of M8 are associated with a clinical benefit.

Pharmacokinetics of enfuvirtide in patients treated in typical routine clinical settings.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is gaining importance for improving the success of antiretroviral treatment in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. However, enfuvirtide (ENF) concentrations are not regularly determined. The objective of this work was to study the pharmacokinetics (PK) of ENF in patients treated in routine clinical settings, to develop a population PK model describing the concentration-time profile, and to establish PK reference values. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method was developed and applied to serum samples submitted for TDM. A two-compartment model with linear absorption and elimination was fitted to 329 concentrations from 131 patients. The PK model was used for simulations resulting in percentile curves for ENF levels for the full dosing interval. The model predicted that a median concentration of 1,968 ng/ml would be reached 12 h after administration of 90 mg of ENF, and 23% and 58% of patients are expected to have concentrations below 1,000 ng/ml and 2,200 ng/ml, respectively. Both values have been proposed as cutoffs for virological efficacy. The median maximum concentration of drug in serum (Cmax) of 3,943 ng/ml, predicted for 3 h after drug administration, is lower than the Cmax reported previously. We found an enormous interpatient variability at every time point, with concentration spectrums covering >1 log and 52% and 123% interindividual variabilities in the typical clearance and volume of distribution, respectively, in contrast to preexisting PK data. In summary, ENF levels are lower and more variable than expected. Many patients may achieve insufficient concentrations. Further covariate analysis in the population PK model might help to identify factors influencing the variability in ENF concentrations.

The steady-state pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir in combination with tenofovir in HIV-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: The nucleotide analogue, tenofovir, has been shown to lower plasma atazanavir levels in pharmacokinetic trials, an interaction that may be partly reversed by the addition of ritonavir, whereas plasma tenofovir levels are themselves raised when the drug is combined with lopinavir/ritonavir. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of tenofovir coadministration on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir in HIV-infected patients. METHODS: Eighteen patients received nelfinavir 1250 mg twice daily plus prescribed nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for at least 14 days, with pharmacokinetic measurements performed on day 15. Treatment with nelfinavir was continued for another 7 days with the addition of 300 mg tenofovir once daily. Pharmacokinetic measurements were repeated on day 22. Plasma samples were analysed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for nelfinavir, its primary metabolite, M8, and tenofovir. The parameters AUC0-12, C0, Cmax and Tmax were compared for nelfinavir with and without tenofovir by calculating geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of the pharmacokinetic parameters with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: The addition of tenofovir to the nelfinavir-based regimen had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir. The GMR of the nelfinavir AUC0-12 values was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.80-1.17). There was a slight decrease in M8 metabolite (AUC0-12 ratio, 0.87; 95% CI: 0.68-1.11) but this was not significant. No serious adverse events occurred through the study period. CONCLUSION: Nelfinavir does not require dose adjustment when coadministered with tenofovir and appears to be well-tolerated by HIV-infected patients.

Nevirapine significantly reduces the levels of racemic methadone and (R)-methadone in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients.

Methadone is metabolized by various isoforms of the cytochrome P450 family, which can be induced by many drugs, including nevirapine. The objective of the present study was to determine the effects of coadministration of nevirapine and methadone on the dose-adjusted areas under the concentration-time curves (AUCs) of racemic and (R)-methadone. Twenty-five human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects taking stable single daily doses of racemic methadone or (R)-methadone were included in this prospective, single-crossover trial. At the baseline, nevirapine was either started as part of a new regimen containing two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) or added to an ongoing NRTI regimen. Patients could increase their methadone doses if withdrawal symptoms developed. Twelve-hour pharmacokinetic profiles were obtained before and 28 days after the start of nevirapine treatment. The total concentrations of methadone and its inactive metabolite, 2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (EDDP), in serum were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Among the 20 evaluable patients, coadministration of nevirapine significantly decreased the mean dose-adjusted AUC of methadone by 41%. AUC reductions were similar for patients taking racemic methadone (37%; n = 11) and (R)-methadone (44%; n = 9). AUC changes ranged from mild increases in three patients to decreases of up to 70%. Fourteen of 20 patients required additional methadone due to withdrawal symptoms. However, the median dose increase was only 15%, which was less than that which would have been expected from the pharmacokinetic data. The AUC of EDDP increased significantly, by 35%. Methadone dose adjustments are justified when methadone is coadministered with nevirapine. Due to extensive variability, the adjustments must be tailored to the individual patient's needs.

Atazanavir enhances saquinavir hard-gel concentrations in a ritonavir-boosted once-daily regimen.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard-gel capsules/ritonavir/atazanavir co-administered once daily at 1600/100/300 mg in HIV-infected individuals. METHODS: Eighteen patients receiving saquinavir/ritonavir switched to 1600/100 mg once daily a minimum of 3 days before the study. On study day 1, levels of saquinavir and ritonavir were determined over 24 h. Atazanavir (300 mg once daily) was then added to the regimen. On day 11, a pharmacokinetic analysis was performed. Atazanavir was discontinued on day 32. Drug concentrations were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare saquinavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameters, with and without atazanavir. A safety analysis was performed at screening, days 1, 11, 32 and follow-up. RESULTS: After the addition of atazanavir, statistically significant increases in saquinavir trough plasma concentration (Ctrough GMR, 95% CI 2.12, 1.72-3.50), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax 1.42, 1.24-1.94), area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0-24 h (AUC0-24 1.60, 1.35-2.43) and ritonavir Cmax (1.58, 1.32-2.08), AUC0-24 (1.41, 1.22-1.74) were observed. The pharmacokinetics of atazanavir compared with those obtained in patients receiving atazanavir/ritonavir without saquinavir. Four patients developed scleral icterus and two jaundice. Total and unconjugated bilirubin increased approximately fivefold during atazanavir therapy. CONCLUSION: The addition of atazanavir to saquinavir/ritonavir increased saquinavir Ctrough, Cmax and AUC0-24 by 112, 42 and 60%. Ritonavir Cmax and AUCo-24 increased by 34 and 41%. The regimen was well tolerated, with no significant change in laboratory parameters, except for the occurrence of hyperbilirubinemia.

Ertapenem pharmacokinetics and impact on intestinal microflora, in comparison to those of ceftriaxone, after multiple dosing in male and female volunteers.

The pharmacokinetics of ertapenem and ceftriaxone were investigated in an open, randomized, two-period crossover study after single- and multiple-dose administration in 10 healthy volunteers (five women and five men). Both antibiotics were administered intravenously once daily for 7 days at dosages of 1 g (ertapenem) and 2 g (ceftriaxone). The concentrations of the antibiotics in serum and urine were quantified by the agar well diffusion method bioassay and, in addition, for ertapenem only, by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). For ertapenem the maximum concentration of the drug in plasma (C(max)) was 256 mg/liter, the half-life was 20.7 h, and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) was 830 mg. h/liter. The concentrations in fecal samples were (mean value) 37.2 and 32.7 mg/kg on day 4 and day 8, respectively. Ceftriaxone exhibited a mean C(max) of 315 mg/liter, a half-life of 7.6 h, and an AUC of 1,556 mg. h/liter. The mean concentrations in fecal samples were 153 and 258 mg/kg on day 4 and day 8, respectively. No accumulation of ertapenem or ceftriaxone was detected at steady state. A slightly but significantly decreased AUC for ertapenem was detected for the female volunteers. No serious adverse event was observed. Both antibiotics induced a marked decrease in the anaerobic microflora (4-log-unit decreases in lactobacilli, bifidobacteria, clostridia, and bacteroides) and Escherichia coli, whereas the number of enterococci increased (4 log units). A slight overgrowth of yeasts was observed with both regimens. In all cases the microflora returned to normal levels on days 21 to 35.