Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor etravirine in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the antiretroviral agent etravirine were evaluated in two phase III clinical trials. Pharmacokinetic data were available in 577 patients randomized to receive etravirine. The mean (SD) population-pharmacokinetics-derived area under the concentration-time curve at 12 h (AUC(12 h)) and concentration at 0 h (C(0 h)) were 5,501 (4,544) ng·h/ml and 393 (378) ng/ml, respectively. Hepatitis C coinfection raised etravarine exposure, and concomitant use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate lowered etravirine exposure, but these changes were not considered clinically relevant. Etravirine apparent oral clearance was not affected by age, weight, sex, race, hepatitis B coinfection status, creatinine clearance, or concomitant use of enfuvirtide. Virologic response (<50 copies/ml) at week 24 was 59% in patients randomized to etravirine vs. 41% in those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001). There was no apparent relationship between etravirine pharmacokinetics and either efficacy or safety. Factors other than the pharmacokinetics of etravirine such as the characteristics of the patients and the disease, as well as characteristics of the treatment regimen, predict virologic response.

Assessment of the steady-state pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine administered as two different formulations and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Two open-label, randomized, cross-over trials in healthy volunteers were conducted to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: Etravirine was administered as either 800 mg twice a day (bid) (phase II formulation in Study 1) or 200 mg bid (phase III formulation in Study 2) for 8 days followed by a 12 h pharmacokinetic evaluation. After a minimum of 14 days washout, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg once a day was administered for 16 days. Volunteers were randomized to receive co-administration of etravirine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on either days 1-8 or days 9-16 followed by a 12 h pharmacokinetic evaluation for etravirine on day 8 or 16, respectively. Plasma and urine tenofovir concentrations were determined on days 8 and 16 over 24 h. RESULTS: The least square mean (LSM) ratio [90% confidence interval (CI)] for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(12 h)) for etravirine co-administered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs. etravirine alone was 0.69 (0.61-0.79) and 0.81 (0.75-0.88) in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The LSM ratio (90% CI) for the effect of etravirine on tenofovir AUC(24 h) was 1.16 (1.09-1.23) in Study 1 and 1.15 (1.09-1.21) in Study 2. CONCLUSIONS: These alterations are not considered clinically relevant for either drug and no dose adjustment is necessary when etravirine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate are co-administered.

Impact of reverse transcriptase resistance on the efficacy of TMC125 (etravirine) with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in protease inhibitor-naïve, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-experienced patients: study TMC125-C227.

OBJECTIVES: TMC125-C227, an exploratory phase II, randomized, controlled, open-label trial, compared the efficacy and safety of TMC125 (etravirine) with an investigator-selected protease inhibitor (PI) in nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI)-resistant, protease inhibitor-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized to TMC125 800 mg twice a day (bid) (phase II formulation; n=59) or the control PI (n=57), plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs). RESULTS: In an unplanned interim analysis, patients receiving TMC125 demonstrated suboptimal virological responses relative to the control PI. Therefore, trial enrolment was stopped prematurely and TMC125 treatment discontinued after a median of 14.3 weeks. In this first-line NNRTI-failure population, baseline NRTI and NNRTI resistance was high and reduced virological responses were observed relative to the control PI. No statistically significant relationship was observed between TMC125 exposure and virological response at week 12. TMC125 was better tolerated than a boosted PI for gastrointestinal-, lipid- and liver-related events. CONCLUSIONS: In a PI-naïve population, with baseline NRTI and NNRTI resistance and NRTI recycling, TMC125 was not as effective as first use of a PI. Therefore the use of TMC125 plus NRTIs alone may not be optimal in PI-naïve patients with first-line virological failure on an NNRTI-based regimen. Baseline two-class resistance, rather than pharmacokinetics or other factors, was the most likely reason for suboptimal responses.