Raltegravir in HIV-1-Infected Pregnant Women: Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The use of raltegravir in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected pregnant women is important in the prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission, especially in circumstances when a rapid decline of HIV RNA load is warranted or when preferred antiretroviral agents cannot be used. Physiological changes during pregnancy can reduce antiretroviral drug exposure. We studied the effect of pregnancy on the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir and its safety and efficacy in HIV-infected pregnant women. METHODS: An open-label, multicenter, phase 4 study in HIV-infected pregnant women receiving raltegravir 400 mg twice daily was performed (Pharmacokinetics of Newly Developed Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-Infected Pregnant Women Network). Steady-state pharmacokinetic profiles were obtained in the third trimester and postpartum along with cord and maternal delivery concentrations. Safety and virologic efficacy were evaluated. RESULTS: Twenty-two patients were included, of which 68% started raltegravir during pregnancy. Approaching delivery, 86% of the patients had an undetectable viral load (<50 copies/mL). None of the children were HIV-infected. Exposure to raltegravir was highly variable. Overall area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and plasma concentration at 12 hours after intake (C12h) plasma concentrations in the third trimester were on average 29% and 36% lower, respectively, compared with postpartum: Geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) were 0.71 (.53-.96) for AUC0-12h and 0.64 (.34-1.22) for C12h. The median ratio of raltegravir cord to maternal blood was 1.21 (interquartile range, 1.02-2.17; n = 9). CONCLUSIONS: Raltegravir was well tolerated during pregnancy. The pharmacokinetics of raltegravir showed extensive variability. The observed mean decrease in exposure to raltegravir during third trimester compared to postpartum is not considered to be of clinical importance. Raltegravir can be used in standard dosages in HIV-infected pregnant women. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT00825929.

The Effect of Tamoxifen Dose Increment in Patients With Impaired CYP2D6 Activity.

BACKGROUND: The effect of tamoxifen dose elevation on endoxifen serum concentration was investigated in patients with reduced CYP2D6 activity resulting from genetic variation and/or CYP2D6 inhibitor use. Additionally, baseline differences in endoxifen concentrations between the different CYP2D6 phenotypes were studied. METHODS: Patients, treated with tamoxifen 20 mg once daily (QD) for at least 4 weeks, were classified as phenotypic extensive (EM), intermediate (IM), or poor (PM) metabolizer based on their genotype and comedication. In patients with an IM or PM phenotype, the tamoxifen dose was increased to 40 mg QD for 4 weeks. Tamoxifen, 4-OH-tamoxifen, N-desmethyltamoxifen, and endoxifen serum concentrations were measured at baseline and 4 weeks after the dose increment. Side effects of tamoxifen were assessed using the validated Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Endocrine Symptom subscale (FACT-ESS-19). RESULTS: The median baseline endoxifen concentration differed between EMs (11.4 mcg/L: n = 19), IMs (8.3 mcg/L: n = 16), and PMs (4.0 mcg/L: n = 7), P = 0.040. Tamoxifen dose elevation significantly increased the median endoxifen concentrations in 12 IMs from 9.5 to 17.4 mcg/L (P < 0.001) and in 4 PMs from 3.8 to 7.8 mcg/L (P = 0.001), without influencing median FACT-ESS-19 scores. CONCLUSIONS: Raising the tamoxifen dose to 40 mg QD significantly increased endoxifen concentrations in IMs and PMs without increasing side effects. The tamoxifen dose increment in PMs was insufficient to reach endoxifen concentrations equal to those observed in EMs. Future studies will clarify the direct effect of endoxifen exposure on tamoxifen efficacy and may reveal a threshold endoxifen concentration that is critical for its efficacy.

Lack of a clinically significant drug-drug interaction in healthy volunteers between the hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor boceprevir and the HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir.

BACKGROUND: Patients coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) are likely to use both HIV and HCV treatment. Drug-drug interactions have been demonstrated between boceprevir, an HCV protease inhibitor, and frequently prescribed antiretroviral drugs, such as efavirenz and boosted HIV protease inhibitors. Concomitant administration of boceprevir with these drugs should be avoided. This study was designed to investigate the absence of a drug-drug interaction between boceprevir and raltegravir, an HIV integrase inhibitor. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, 2-period, crossover phase 1 trial in 24 healthy volunteers. All subjects were randomly assigned to receive boceprevir 800 mg every 8 hours for 9 days plus a single dose of raltegravir 400 mg on day 10 followed by a washout period and a single dose of raltegravir 400 mg on day 38, or the same medication in reverse order. Blood samples for pharmacokinetics were collected and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated. RESULTS: The geometric mean (GM) of raltegravir area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-12h) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) for raltegravir + boceprevir vs raltegravir alone were 4.27 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.22-5.66) vs 4.04 (95% CI, 3.09-5.28) mg * hour/L and 1.06 (95% CI, .76-1.49) vs 0.93 (95% CI, .70-1.23) mg/L, respectively. GM ratio estimates of raltegravir AUC(0-12h) and C(max) for raltegravir + boceprevir vs raltegravir alone were 1.04 (90% CI, .88-1.22) and 1.11 (90% CI, .91-1.36), respectively. The GM of boceprevir AUC(0-8h), C(max), and C(8h) were 5.45 (95% CI, 5.11-5.81) mg * hour/L, 1.88 (95% CI, 1.72-2.06) mg/L, and 0.09 (95% CI, .07-.11) mg/L, respectively. These data are comparable to those from historical controls. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the absence of a clinically significant drug interaction, raltegravir can be recommended for combined HIV/HCV treatment including boceprevir. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT01288417.

Lack of a clinically significant drug-drug interaction in healthy volunteers between the HCV protease inhibitor boceprevir and the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole.

OBJECTIVES: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can limit the solubility of concomitant drugs, which can lead to decreased absorption and exposure. Reduced efficacy can be a consequence and in the case of an antimicrobial agent this may contribute to development of resistance. Patients chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus can be treated with a boceprevir-containing regimen and it is relevant to know if interactions between PPIs and boceprevir exist. This study was designed to investigate the influence of a frequently used PPI, omeprazole, on the pharmacokinetics of boceprevir and vice versa. METHODS: In this open-label, three-period, randomized, cross-over, Phase I study, healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 40 mg of omeprazole once daily for 5 days, 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days and 40 mg of omeprazole once daily + 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days, or the same treatment in a different order. Every treatment was followed by a wash-out period. At day 5 of every treatment pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed for 8 h after medication intake. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01470690. RESULTS: All 24 subjects (15 males) completed the study and no serious adverse events were reported. Geometric mean ratios (90% CI) of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 8 h (AUC0-8) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of boceprevir with omeprazole versus boceprevir alone were 0.92 (0.87-0.97) and 0.94 (0.86-1.02), respectively. For omeprazole these values were 1.06 (0.90-1.25) for AUC0-8 and 1.03 (0.85-1.26) for Cmax for the combination versus omeprazole alone. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole did not have a clinically significant effect on boceprevir exposure, and boceprevir did not affect omeprazole exposure.

Pharmacokinetics, Short-term Safety and Efficacy of the Approved Once-daily Darunavir/Ritonavir Dosing Regimen in HIV-infected Children.

In this multicenter pharmacokinetic study in HIV-infected children (6-12 years of age), we validated the approved once-daily darunavir/ritonavir dosing recommendations. The geometric mean darunavir area under the plasma concentration-time curve was 63.1 h·mg/L, substantially lower than the mean value observed in adults. However, all trough levels were adequate, and short-term virologic outcome was good. These data support the use of the darunavir/ritonavir once-daily dosing recommendations.

The ARRIBA concept: adequate resorption of ribavirin.

BACKGROUND: Adequate ribavirin exposure is essential for optimal sustained virological response (SVR) rates in chronic HCV treatment. It has been proposed that the area under the concentration-time curve up to 4 h after intake of ribavirin (AUC0-4 h) of the first weight-based ribavirin dose should be ≥1.755 mg•h/l to guarantee the highest chance of SVR. Our ARRIBA concept comprises a test dose of ribavirin to select the optimal starting dose to achieve adequate exposure. This study aims to evaluate whether adequate exposure can be achieved after dose advice based on the AUC0-4 h of a single weight-based ribavirin test dose. METHODS: (Formerly) HCV-infected subjects received a single weight-based ribavirin test dose (<75 kg: 400 mg; ≥75 kg: 600 mg) and the AUC0-4 h was calculated. If ribavirin AUC0-4 h was ≥1.755 mg•h/l, subjects received the same dose 4 weeks later; if the AUC0-4 h was <1.755 mg•h/l, an adjusted dose was administered. The ribavirin AUC0-4 h was recorded again. The primary outcome was the proportion of subjects with an AUC0-4 h ≥1.755 mg•h/l after the second dose. RESULTS: A total of 26 subjects were included. The geometric mean (95% CI) ribavirin AUC0-4 h was 1.67 (1.44-1.92) mg•h/l with 9 subjects (35%) reaching the target AUC on day 1. Thus, on day 29, 17 subjects (65%) received an adjusted dose. The geometric mean (95% CI) AUC0-4 h increased to 1.90 (1.62-2.21) mg•h/l and then 16 subjects (62%) had an AUC0-4 h ≥1.755 mg•h/l, which is significantly higher than day 1 (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our ARRIBA concept of a ribavirin test dose, with dose adjustment if necessary, leads to an increased proportion of patients with an AUC≥1.755 mg•h/l compared to traditional weight-based ribavirin dosing.

Effect of fosamprenavir/ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of single-dose olanzapine in healthy volunteers.

Psychosis and other mental illnesses are common in HIV-infected patients. Olanzapine is one of the preferred antipsychotic agents for the treatment of schizophrenia. Olanzapine is primarily metabolised by CYP1A2 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT). High-dose ritonavir has been shown to increase olanzapine elimination through induction of CYP1A2 and/or UGT, but the effect of low-dose ritonavir on olanzapine pharmacokinetics is unknown. Fosamprenavir is an HIV protease inhibitor that is boosted by low-dose ritonavir. To compensate for the induction of olanzapine metabolism by fosamprenavir/ritonavir, we hypothesised that a dose increase of olanzapine to 15 mg with fosamprenavir/ritonavir would lead to a similar area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) compared with olanzapine 10 mg alone. An open-label, randomised, two-period, cross-over, single-centre trial was conducted in 24 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomised to one of the following treatments: (A) fosamprenavir/ritonavir 700/100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) for 16 days with a single dose of olanzapine 15 mg on Day 13, a wash-out period of 31 days and a single dose of olanzapine 10 mg on Day 48; or (B) the same medication in reverse order. Twenty subjects completed the trial. The geometric mean ratios (90% CI) of olanzapine AUClast, maximum drug concentration (C(max)) and apparent elimination half-life (t(1/2)) when taken with fosamprenavir/ritonavir versus olanzapine alone were 1.00 (0.93-1.08), 1.32 (1.18-1.47) and 0.68 (0.63-0.74), respectively. Fosamprenavir/ritonavir 700/100 mg b.i.d. appeared to induce olanzapine metabolism. We therefore propose a 50% dosage increase of olanzapine when combining with a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor.

Pharmacokinetics of pediatric lopinavir/ritonavir tablets in children when administered twice daily according to FDA weight bands.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) pediatric tablets (100/25 mg) are approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) as part of combination antiretroviral therapy. Dosing is based on body weight bands or body surface area under FDA approval and only body surface area by the EMA. This can lead to a different recommended dose. In addition, weight band-based dosing has not been formally studied in the target population. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK) of LPV/r in children, administered twice daily according to the FDA weight bands, using pediatric tablets. METHODS: Fifty-three HIV-infected children were included in the PK substudy of the Paediatric European Network for the Treatment of AIDS 18 trial (KONCERT). In this study, children were randomized to receive LPV/r twice or once daily, according to FDA weight bands. A PK assessment was performed in 17, 16 and 20 children in the 15-25 kg, ≥ 25-35 kg and >35 kg weight band, respectively, while children took the tablets twice daily. Rich sampling was performed, and PK parameters were calculated by noncompartmental analysis. Given the high percentage of Asian children, it was also tested whether there was a difference in PK parameters between Asian and non-Asian children. RESULTS: For the total group, LPV geometric mean AUC0-12, Cmax and C12 were 106.9 h × mg/L, 12.0 mg/L and 4.9 mg/L, respectively. There were no significant differences in LPV PK parameters between the weight bands. In addition, weight was not found to be associated with variability in Cmax, C12 or AUC0-12 for the LPV PK parameters. CONCLUSIONS: FDA weight band-based dosing recommendations provide adequate exposure to LPV when using LPV/r pediatric tablets.

The pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of tenofovir and emtricitabine in HIV-1-infected pregnant women.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the pharmacokinetics of tenofovir and emtricitabine in the third trimester of pregnant HIV-infected women and at postpartum. DESIGN: A nonrandomized, open-label, multicentre phase IV study in HIV-infected pregnant women recruited from HIV treatment centres in Europe. METHODS: HIV-infected pregnant women treated with the nucleotide/nucleoside analogue reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF 300 mg; equivalent to 245 mg tenofovir disoproxil) and/or emtricitabine (FTC 200 mg) were included in the study. Twenty-four-hour pharmacokinetic curves were recorded in the third trimester (preferably week 33) and postpartum (preferably week 4-6). Collection of a cord blood sample and maternal sample at delivery was optional. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using WinNonlin software version 5.3. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 16.0. RESULTS: Thirty-four women were included in the analysis. Geometric mean ratios of third trimester vs. postpartum [90% confidence interval (CI)] were 0.77 (0.71-0.83) for TDF area under the curve (AUC0-24 h); 0.81 (0.68-0.96) for TDF Cmax and 0.79 (0.70-0.90) for TDF C24 h and 0.75 (0.68-0.82) for FTC AUC0-24 h; and 0.87 (0.77-0.99) for FTC Cmax and 0.77 (0.52-1.12) for FTC C24 h. The viral load close to delivery was less than 200  copies/ml in all but one patient, the average gestational age at delivery was 38 weeks. All children were tested HIV-negative and no congenital abnormalities were reported. CONCLUSION: Although pharmacokinetic exposure of the NRTIs TDF and FTC during pregnancy is approximately 25% lower, this was not associated with virological failure in this study and did not result in mother-to-child transmission.