Protease inhibitors to treat hepatitis C in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study: high efficacy but low treatment uptake.

OBJECTIVES: Direct-acting antiviral agents (DAAs) have become the standard of care for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We aimed to assess treatment uptake and efficacy in routine clinical settings among HIV/HCV coinfected patients after the introduction of the first generation DAAs. METHODS: Data on all Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) participants starting HCV protease inhibitor (PI) treatment between September 2011 and August 2013 were collected prospectively. The uptake and efficacy of HCV therapy were compared with those in the time period before the availability of PIs. RESULTS: Upon approval of PI treatment in Switzerland in September 2011, 516 SHCS participants had chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Of these, 57 (11%) started HCV treatment during the following 2 years with either telaprevir, faldaprevir or boceprevir. Twenty-seven (47%) patients were treatment-naïve, nine (16%) were patients with relapse and 21 (37%) were partial or null responders. Twenty-nine (57%) had advanced fibrosis and 15 (29%) had cirrhosis. End-of-treatment virological response was 84% in treatment-naïve patients, 88% in patients with relapse and 62% in previous nonresponders. Sustained virological response was 78%, 86% and 40% in treatment-naïve patients, patients with relapse and nonresponders, respectively. Treatment uptake was similar before (3.8 per 100 patient-years) and after (6.1 per 100 patient-years) the introduction of PIs, while treatment efficacy increased considerably after the introduction of PIs. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of PI-based HCV treatment in HIV/HCV-coinfected patients improved virological response rates, while treatment uptake remained low. Therefore, the introduction of PIs into the clinical routine was beneficial at the individual level, but had only a modest effect on the burden of HCV infection at the population level.

Population pharmacokinetic modelling and evaluation of different dosage regimens for darunavir and ritonavir in HIV-infected individuals.

OBJECTIVES: Darunavir is a protease inhibitor that is administered with low-dose ritonavir to enhance its bioavailability. It is prescribed at standard dosage regimens of 600/100 mg twice daily in treatment-experienced patients and 800/100 mg once daily in naive patients. A population pharmacokinetic approach was used to characterize the pharmacokinetics of both drugs and their interaction in a cohort of unselected patients and to compare darunavir exposure expected under alternative dosage regimens. METHODS: The study population included 105 HIV-infected individuals who provided darunavir and ritonavir plasma concentrations. Firstly, a population pharmacokinetic analysis for darunavir and ritonavir was conducted, with inclusion of patients' demographic, clinical and genetic characteristics as potential covariates (NONMEM(®)). Then, the interaction between darunavir and ritonavir was studied while incorporating levels of both drugs into different inhibitory models. Finally, model-based simulations were performed to compare trough concentrations (Cmin) between the recommended dosage regimen and alternative combinations of darunavir and ritonavir. RESULTS: A one-compartment model with first-order absorption adequately characterized darunavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics. The between-subject variability in both compounds was important [coefficient of variation (CV%) 34% and 47% for darunavir and ritonavir clearance, respectively]. Lopinavir and ritonavir exposure (AUC) affected darunavir clearance, while body weight and darunavir AUC influenced ritonavir elimination. None of the tested genetic variants showed any influence on darunavir or ritonavir pharmacokinetics. The simulations predicted darunavir Cmin much higher than the IC50 thresholds for wild-type and protease inhibitor-resistant HIV-1 strains (55 and 550 ng/mL, respectively) under standard dosing in >98% of experienced and naive patients. Alternative regimens of darunavir/ritonavir 1200/100 or 1200/200 mg once daily also had predicted adequate Cmin (>550 ng/mL) in 84% and 93% of patients, respectively. Reduction of darunavir/ritonavir dosage to 600/50 mg twice daily led to a 23% reduction in average Cmin, still with only 3.8% of patients having concentrations below the IC50 for resistant strains. CONCLUSIONS: The important variability in darunavir and ritonavir pharmacokinetics is poorly explained by clinical covariates and genetic influences. In experienced patients, treatment simplification strategies guided by drug level measurements and adherence monitoring could be proposed.