A randomized trial of double vs single-dose etonogestrel implant to overcome the interaction with efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant use of efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy and a standard-dose etonogestrel contraceptive implant led to 82% lower etonogestrel exposure when compared with women who do not receive antiretroviral therapy. The clinical impact of this reduced exposure is supported by retrospective cohort evaluations that demonstrated higher rates of unintended pregnancies when contraceptive implants were combined with efavirenz. We hypothesized that placement of 2 etonogestrel implants in those taking efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy could increase etonogestrel exposure and improve measures of contraceptive efficacy. OBJECTIVE: This study compared the rate of ovulation and etonogestrel pharmacokinetics among women on efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy who received 2 etonogestrel implants (136 mg; double implant group) in comparison with those who received 1 etonogestrel implant (68 mg; control group). STUDY DESIGN: This randomized, open-label study enrolled Ugandan women with regular menstrual periods who were receiving efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy for the treatment of HIV. Participants were randomized 1:1 to the double implant or control group, and the etonogestrel implant(s) were placed in the same arm at enrollment. All participants used a copper intrauterine device to prevent pregnancy. Ovulation was evaluated by weekly serum progesterone concentrations measured over 4 consecutive weeks at months 3 (weeks 9-12), 6 (weeks 21-24), and 12 (weeks 45-48). Progesterone concentrations >3 ng/mL were interpreted as ovulation. The ovulation rate in each group was compared using Fisher's exact tests for each month and generalized estimating equations over 48 weeks. Plasma was collected at day 3 and weeks 1, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48 after implant placement and analyzed using a validated liquid chromatography-triple quadrupole mass spectrometry method for etonogestrel. Etonogestrel concentrations were summarized as median (interquartile range) and compared between groups by geometric mean ratio with 90% confidence intervals. RESULTS: All participants (n=72) were cisgender Ugandan women with a median age of 31 years (interquartile range, 29-36), and 36 participants were enrolled in each study group. Two participants in the control group discontinued the trial; 1 at week 1 because of undetected pregnancy at entry and another at week 45 because of clinically significant depression. There were 47 ovulations over 104 person-months (45%) in 25 of 34 participants in the control group, and 2 ovulations over 108 person-months (2%) in 2 of 36 participants in the double implant group (month 3: 11 [31%] vs 0 [0%]; month 6: 17 [49%] vs 0 [0%]; month 12: 19 [56%] vs 2 [6%], respectively; all P<.001). The odds of ovulation were reduced by 97.7% (95% confidence interval, 90.1-99.5) in the double implant group over 48 weeks. At each time point, etonogestrel concentration was more than 2-fold higher in the double implant group than in the controls (geometric mean ratio, 2.30-2.83) with a geometric mean ratio of 2.83 (90% confidence interval, 1.89-3.35) at week 48. There were no differences in the adverse events between groups and no participant discontinued because of adverse events. CONCLUSION: Over 48 weeks of combined use, placing 2 etonogestrel implants suppressed ovulation and increased plasma etonogestrel exposure when compared with 1 etonogestrel implant among women on efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy. Doubling the dose of etonogestrel during efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy could improve contraceptive effectiveness.

Effect of double-dose levonorgestrel subdermal implant in women taking efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy: The DoubLNG pharmacokinetic study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of double-dose levonorgestrel (LNG) implants to overcome the drug-drug interaction with efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy (ART). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a nonrandomized, open-label, parallel-group, longitudinal pharmacokinetic study among Ugandan women ages 18-45 years. Participants with HIV on ART containing efavirenz 600 mg received 300 mg of LNG implants (Jadelle®, Bayer, New Zealand): 300LNG+ART group. We compared our outcomes with women without HIV using standard dose, 150 mg of LNG implants: 150LNG group. The implant was placed on day zero in both groups, and we quantified plasma LNG concentrations over 48 weeks post implant insertion. LNG pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using noncompartmental techniques. Our primary outcome was the geometric mean ratio with 90% confidence intervals of LNG area under the concentration-time curve over 24 weeks (AUC0-24w) between groups. Demographic data were described as median (interquartile range). A secondary outcome compared between-group percent of LNG concentrations ≥300 pg/mL, a minimum threshold selected a priori based on observed pregnancies in Ugandan women on standard-dose LNG implants plus efavirenz. RESULTS: We enrolled 27 women in the 300LNG+ART group (34 [28.0 to 40.5] years and 61.0 [49.8-66.0] kg) and 19 women in the 150LNG group (33 [30.0 to 34.5] years and 64.9 [59.0 to 74.5] kg). LNG AUC0-24w was 34% lower for 300LNG+ART versus 150LNG (geometric mean 9998 vs. 15,231 pg*week/mL, respectively [geometric mean ratio 0.66 (90% confidence intervals, 0.54 to 0.80)]). The percentage of participants with LNG concentrations ≥300 pg/mL was not statistically different between groups at week 24 (300LNG+ART: 74.1%; 150LNG: 89.5%; p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: Double-dose LNG implant did not completely overcome the drug-drug interaction with efavirenz. IMPLICATION: In women using ART containing efavirenz, placing two implant systems (300 mg) did not normalize LNG pharmacokinetics compared with the standard-dose implant (150 mg), and some women had evidence of ovulatory activity. Alternative ART without drug-drug interactions, such as dolutegravir, is recommended with contraceptive implants.

Population Pharmacokinetic Modeling and Simulation of Rifapentine Supports Concomitant Antiretroviral Therapy with Efavirenz and Non-Weight Based Dosing.

The Brief Rifapentine-Isoniazid Efficacy for TB Prevention/A5279 trial demonstrated a 1-month daily regimen of rifapentine and isoniazid was noninferior to 9 months of isoniazid alone for preventing TB in persons living with HIV (PLWH). Our objective was to evaluate rifapentine pharmacokinetics in trial participants receiving antiretroviral therapy (ART) and perform simulations to compare weight-based rifapentine dosing with a standard, fixed dose. Nonlinear mixed effect modeling was used to estimate rifapentine and 25-desacetyl rifapentine population pharmacokinetic characteristics. The pharmacokinetic model was validated using a nonparametric bootstrap and visual predictive checks. Monte Carlo simulations were performed to compare weight-based and fixed dose regimens. Rifapentine and 25-desacetyl rifapentine concentrations (347 of each; 185 participants) were each described with a one-compartment model with one-way conversion between rifapentine and 25-desacetyl rifapentine. The absorption rate was nearly doubled in fed versus fasting states. Rifapentine clearance was increased 31% in those receiving efavirenz (EFV)-based versus nevirapine-based ART. Metabolite clearance was allometrically scaled with fat-free mass. Simulations showed lower rifapentine exposures with weight-based compared with fixed dosing. With 10 mg/kg weight-based regimens, 26% and 62% of simulated exposures in <35 kg and 35-45 kg weight classes were above target (AUC0 to 24 h of 257 mg*hr/L); 85% of simulated exposures across all weight classes with fixed dosing were above target. These data support fixed dosing with rifapentine 600 mg daily for TB prevention regardless of weight for PLWH 13 years or older receiving the 4-week regimen and no need for dose adjustment when given with EFV-based ART. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT01404312.

Comparative Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 Integrase Strand Transfer Inhibitors: An Updated Review.

Bictegravir, cabotegravir, dolutegravir, elvitegravir, and raltegravir are members of the latest class of antiretrovirals available to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the integrase strand transfer inhibitors. Integrase strand transfer inhibitors are potent inhibitors of the HIV integrase enzyme with IC90/95 values in the low nanogram per milliliter range and they retain antiviral activity against strains of HIV with acquired resistance to other classes of antiretrovirals. Each of the integrase strand transfer inhibitors have unique pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic properties, influencing their role in clinical use in specific subsets of patients. Cabotegravir, approved for use in Canada but not yet by the US Food and Drug Administration, is formulated in both oral and intramuscular formulations; the latter of which has shown efficacy as a long-acting extended-release formulation. Cabotegravir, raltegravir, and dolutegravir have minimal drug-drug interaction profiles, as their metabolism has minimal cytochrome P450 involvement. Conversely, elvitegravir metabolism occurs primarily via cytochrome P450 3A4 and requires pharmacokinetic boosting to achieve systemic exposures amenable to once-daily dosing. Bictegravir metabolism has similar contributions from both cytochrome P450 3A4 and uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1. Bictegravir, dolutegravir, and raltegravir are recommended components of initial regimens for most people with HIV in the US adult and adolescent HIV treatment guidelines. This review summarizes and compares the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the integrase strand transfer inhibitor agents, and describes specific pharmacokinetic considerations for persons with hepatic impairment, renal dysfunction, pregnancy, and co-infections.