Search

We quantified concomitant medicine use and occurrence of potential drug-drug interactions in people living with HIV in Australia who are treated with antiretroviral therapy (ART).In this cohort study using dispensing claims of a 10% random sample of Australians, we identified 2230 people dispensed ART between January 2018 and December 2019 (mean age 49.0 years, standard deviation 12.0 years, 88% male). We examined concomitant medicine use by identifying nontopical medicines dispensed within 90-days of any antiretroviral medicine dispensing during a 12-month follow-up period. For every antiretroviral and nonantiretroviral pair, we identified and classified possible drug-drug interactions using the University of Liverpool HIV drug interactions database.A total of 1728 (78%) people were dispensed at least 1 and 633 (28%) 5 or more unique medicines in addition to ART in a 12-month period; systemic anti-infectives and medicines acting on the nervous system were the most common (68% and 56%, respectively). Among comedicated people, 1637 (95%) had at least 1 medicine combination classified as weak interactions, 558 (32%) interactions requiring close monitoring/dose adjustment and 94 (5%) that should not be coadministered. Contraindication or interactions requiring close monitoring/dose adjustment were more common among people receiving protease inhibitors (50-73% across different antiretrovirals), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (35-64%), people using single-tablet combinations containing elvitegravir (30-46%) and those using tenofovir disoproxil (26-30%).Concomitant medicine use is widespread among people living with HIV in Australia. Despite a relatively low prevalence of contraindicated medicines, almost a third received medicines that require close monitoring or dose adjustment.

Item does not contain fulltext Nirmatrelvir–ritonavir (NMV/r) is now being used to treat high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. This article provides advice to clinicians regarding recognition of medications likely to interact with NMV/r and suggests approaches to managing such drug–drug interactions. An algorithm is provided to assist in decision making.

Nearly all HIV PIs and the integrase inhibitor elvitegravir require a pharmacokinetic enhancer in order to achieve therapeutic plasma concentrations at the desired dose and frequency. Whereas ritonavir has been the only available pharmacokinetic enhancer for more than a decade, cobicistat has recently emerged as an alternative boosting agent. Cobicistat and ritonavir are equally strong inhibitors of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and consequently were shown to be equivalent pharmacokinetic enhancers for elvitegravir and for the PIs atazanavir and darunavir. Since cobicistat is a more selective CYP inhibitor than ritonavir and is devoid of enzyme-inducing properties, differences are expected in their interaction profiles with some co-medications. Drugs whose exposure might be altered by ritonavir but unaltered by cobicistat are drugs primarily metabolized by CYP1A2, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 or drugs undergoing mainly glucuronidation. Thus, co-medications should be systematically reviewed when switching the pharmacokinetic enhancer to anticipate potential dosage adjustments.

Combined antiretroviral treatments have significantly improved the morbidity and mortality related to HIV infection, thus transforming HIV infection into a chronic disease; however, the efficacy of antiretroviral treatments is highly dependent on the ability of infected individuals to adhere to life-long drug combination therapies. A major milestone in HIV treatment is the marketing of the long-acting intramuscular antiretroviral drugs cabotegravir and rilpivirine, allowing for infrequent drug administration, with the potential to improve adherence to therapy and treatment satisfaction. Intramuscular administration of cabotegravir and rilpivirine leads to differences in pharmacokinetics and drug–drug interaction (DDI) profiles compared with oral administration. A notable difference is the long elimination half-life with intramuscular administration, which reaches 5.6–11.5 weeks for cabotegravir and 13–28 weeks for rilpivirine, compared with 41 and 45 h, respectively, with their oral administration. Cabotegravir and rilpivirine have a low potential to cause DDIs, however these drugs can be victims of DDIs. Cabotegravir is mainly metabolized by UGT1A1, and rilpivirine is mainly metabolized by CYP3A4, therefore these agents are susceptible to DDIs with inhibitors, and particularly inducers of drug-metabolizing enzymes. Intramuscular administration of cabotegravir and rilpivirine has the advantage of eliminating DDIs occurring at the gastrointestinal level, however interactions can still occur at the hepatic level. This review provides insight on the intramuscular administration of drugs and summarizes the pharmacology of long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine. Particular emphasis is placed on DDI profiles after oral and intramuscular administration of these antiretroviral drugs.

Contains fulltext : 232502.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: In December 2019, an outbreak of a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) began, resulting in a number of antivirals and immune modulators being repurposed to treat the associated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Many patients requiring treatment for COVID-19 may have either pre-existing renal or hepatic disease or experience acute renal/hepatic injury as a result of the acute infection. Altered renal or hepatic function can significantly affect drug concentrations of medications due to impaired drug metabolism and excretion, resulting in toxicity or reduced efficacy. The aim of this paper is to review the pharmacokinetics and available study data for the experimental COVID-19 therapies in patients with any degree of renal or hepatic impairment to make recommendations for dosing. METHODS: COVID-19 agents included in these recommendations were listed as primaries on the University of Liverpool COVID-19 drug interaction website ( www.covid19-druginteractions.org ), initially identified from Clinicialtrials.gov and ChicCTR.org.cn. A literature search was performed using PubMed and EMBASE as well as product licences and pharmacokinetic databases. FINDINGS: Remdesivir, dexamethasone, azithromycin, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, atazanavir, hydroxychloroquine, interferon beta, ribavirin, tocilizumab, anakinra and sarilumab were identified as experimental drugs being used in COVID-19 trials as of November 2020. Limited study data was found for these drugs in patients with renal or hepatic impairment for COVID-19 or other indications. Recommendations were made based on available data, consideration of pharmacokinetic properties (including variability), the dosing and anticipated treatment duration of each regimen in COVID-19 and known toxicities. CONCLUSION: Dosing of drugs used to treat COVID-19 in patients with renal or hepatic impairment is complex. These recommendations were produced to provide guidance to clinicians worldwide who are treating patients with COVID-19, many of whom will have some degree of acute or chronic renal or hepatic impairment.

In a recent issue of Br J Clin Pharmacol Smith et al1 published an outstanding commentary titled ‘Dosing will be a key success factor in repurposing antivirals for Covid-19’. They highlighted that the success in our repurposing efforts will be dependent on ‘getting the dose right’ for drugs which have been developed for different indications and stressed some of the unique challenges of treating this particular disease. They pointed the reader to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) as an example of a repurposed antiviral and the limited experience of this drug regimen (and other treatments) in the elderly population with comorbidities – ie those most at risk from Covid-19. It is on the issue of comorbidities, polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) that we wish to comment.

Background Prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions (PDDIs) between antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) and co-medications was high in 2008 in a Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) survey. We reassessed the prevalence of PDDIs in the era of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) integrase inhibitors (INIs), characterized by more favorable interaction profiles. Methods The prevalence of PDDIs in treated HIV-positive individuals was assessed for the period 01–12/2018 by linkage of the Liverpool HIV drug interactions and SHCS databases. PDDIs were categorized as harmful (red flagged), of potential clinical relevance (amber flagged), or of weak clinical significance (yellow flagged). Results In 9298 included individuals, median age was 51 years (IQR, 43–58), and 72% were males. Individuals received unboosted INIs (40%), boosted ARVs (30%), and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTIs) (32%)–based regimens. In the entire cohort, 68% received ≥1 co-medication, 14% had polypharmacy (≥5 co-medications) and 29% had ≥1 PDDI. Among individuals with co-medication, the prevalence of combined amber and yellow PDDIs was 43% (33% amber—mostly with cardiovascular drugs—and 20% yellow-flagged PDDIs) compared to 59% in 2008. Two percent had red-flagged PDDIs (mostly with corticosteroids), the same as in the 2008 survey. Compared with 2008, fewer individuals received boosted ARVs (−24%) and NNRTIs (−13%) but the use of co-medications was higher. Conclusions Prevalence of PDDIs was lower with more widespread use of INIs in 2018 than in 2008. Continued use of boosted regimens and increasing needs for co-medications in this aging population impeded lower rates of PDDIs.

Background Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) that involve antiretrovirals (ARVs) tend to cause harm if unrecognized, especially in the context of comorbidity and polypharmacy. Methods A linkage was established between the drug dispensing registry of Madrid and the Liverpool human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) DDI database (January 2017–June 2017). Polypharmacy was defined as the use of ≥5 non-HIV medications, and DDIs were classified by a traffic-light ranking for severity. Results A total of 22 945 people living with HIV (PLWH) and 6 613 506 individuals without HIV had received medications. ARV regimens were predominantly based on integrase inhibitors (51.96%). Polypharmacy was higher in PLWH (32.94%) than individuals without HIV (22.16%; P < .001); this difference was consistently observed across all age strata except for individuals ≥75 years. Polypharmacy was more common in women than men in both PLWH and individuals without HIV. The prevalence of contraindicated combinations involving ARVs was 3.18%. Comedications containing corticosteroids, quetiapine, or antithrombotic agents were associated with the highest risk for red-flag DDI, and the use of raltegravir- or dolutegravir-based antiretroviral therapy was associated with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, .60–.88; P = .001) for red-flag DDI. Conclusions Polypharmacy was more frequent among PLWH across all age groups except those aged ≥75 years and was more common in women. The detection of contraindicated medications in PLWH suggests a likely disconnect between hospital and community prescriptions. Switching to alternative unboosted integrase regimens should be considered for patients with risk of harm from DDIs.

In a recent issue of Br J Clin Pharmacol Smith et al1 published an outstanding commentary titled ‘Dosing will be a key success factor in repurposing antivirals for Covid-19’. They highlighted that the success in our repurposing efforts will be dependent on ‘getting the dose right’ for drugs which have been developed for different indications and stressed some of the unique challenges of treating this particular disease. They pointed the reader to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) as an example of a repurposed antiviral and the limited experience of this drug regimen (and other treatments) in the elderly population with comorbidities – ie those most at risk from Covid-19. It is on the issue of comorbidities, polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) that we wish to comment.

Contains fulltext : 229144.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) As global health services respond to the coronavirus pandemic, many prescribers are turning to experimental drugs. This review aims to assess the risk of drug-drug interactions in the severely ill COVID-19 patient. Experimental therapies were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for 'COVID-19', '2019-nCoV', '2019 novel coronavirus' and 'SARS-CoV-2'. The last search was performed on 30 June 2020. Herbal medicines, blood-derived products and in vitro studies were excluded. We identified comorbidities by searching PubMed for the MeSH terms 'COVID-19', 'Comorbidity' and 'Epidemiological Factors'. Potential drug-drug interactions were evaluated according to known pharmacokinetics, overlapping toxicities and QT risk. Drug-drug interactions were graded GREEN and YELLOW: no clinically significant interaction; AMBER: caution; RED: serious risk. A total of 2378 records were retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov, which yielded 249 drugs that met inclusion criteria. Thirteen primary compounds were screened against 512 comedications. A full database of these interactions is available at www.covid19-druginteractions.org. Experimental therapies for COVID-19 present a risk of drug-drug interactions, with lopinavir/ritonavir (10% RED, 41% AMBER; mainly a perpetrator of pharmacokinetic interactions but also risk of QT prolongation particularly when given with concomitant drugs that can prolong QT), chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (both 7% RED and 27% AMBER, victims of some interactions due to metabolic profile but also perpetrators of QT prolongation) posing the greatest risk. With management, these risks can be mitigated. We have published a drug-drug interaction resource to facilitate medication review for the critically ill patient.

Objectives The aim of the study was to determine total and unbound lopinavir (LPV) plasma concentrations in HIV-infected pregnant women receiving lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r tablet) undergoing therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) during pregnancy and postpartum. Methods Women were enrolled in the study who were receiving the LPV/r tablet as part of their routine prenatal care. Demographic and clinical data were collected and LPV plasma (total) and ultrafiltrate (unbound) concentrations were determined in the first, second and third trimesters using high-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS). Postpartum sampling was performed where applicable. Antepartum and postpartum trough concentrations (Ctrough) were compared independently [using analysis of variance (anova)] and on a longitudinal basis (using a paired t-test). Results Forty-six women were enrolled in the study (38 Black African). Forty women initiated LPV/r treatment in pregnancy. Median (range) gestation at initiation was 25 (15–36) weeks and median (range) baseline CD4 count and viral load were 346 (14–836) cells/μL and 8724 (

OBJECTIVE: OATP1B1 and OATP1B3 are major hepatic drug transporters whilst OATP1A2 is mainly located in the brain but is also located in liver and several other organs. These transporters affect the distribution and clearance of many endobiotics and xenobiotics and have been reported to have functional single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). We have assessed the substrate specificities of these transporters for a panel of antiretrovirals and investigated the effects of SNPs within these transporters on the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir. METHODS: SLCO1A2, SLCO1B1 and SLCO1B3 were cloned, verified and used to generate cRNA for use in the Xenopus laevis oocyte transport system. Using the oocyte system, antiretrovirals were tested for their substrate specificities. Plasma samples (n= 349) from the Liverpool therapeutic drug monitoring registry were genotyped for SNPs in SLCO1A2, SLCO1B1 and SLCO1B3 and associations between SNPs and lopinavir plasma concentrations were analysed. RESULT: Antiretroviral protease inhibitors, but not non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, are substrates for OATP1A2, OATP1B1 and OATP1B3. Furthermore, ritonavir was not an inhibitor of OATP1B1. The 521T >C polymorphism in SLCO1B1 was significantly associated with higher lopinavir plasma concentrations. No associations were observed with functional variants of SLCO1A2 and SLCO1B3. CONCLUSION: These data add to our understanding of the factors that contribute to variability in plasma concentrations of protease inhibitors. Further studies are now required to confirm the association of SLCO1B1 521T >C with lopinavir plasma concentrations and to assess the influence of other polymorphisms in the SLCO family.

There is an increasing uptake of TDM of antiretroviral drugs, particularly in Europe. There is consensus that current antiretroviral drugs meet most of the criteria of drugs that can be considered as candidates for a TDM strategy. This review examines the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic relationship for protease inibitors and non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, give an overview of the published randomised clinical trials and then summarises the scenarios for use of TDM. Finally the development of the inhibitory quotient (IQ) concept is discussed.

Treatment of HIV infection is a multi-drug issue. Not only are there drugs for the treatment of HIV but also concomitant drugs for opportunistic infections, complications arising from the anti-retroviral therapy and other conditions related to a chronic disease. To have any understanding of drug-drug interactions in HIV treatment we need to appreciate the importance of key pharmacological areas including: 1) how each drug in a regimen is eliminated; 2) the potential for a drug to either induce or inhibit metabolic enzymes and/or transporters; 3) the therapeutic index of each drug. It is impossible to memorise all the possible drug-drug interactions in HIV, therefore understanding how drugs are metabolised/eliminated and the potential for a particular drug to modify the pharmacokinetics of another has predictive value even when substantive data are unavailable. NNRTIs interact with cytochrome P450 (CYP450) enzymes both as substrates and inducers. Because of the inductive effects caution must be exercised when using with protease inhibitors (either boosted or un-boosted with ritonavir). In this situation therapeutic drug monitoring may play a role in optimising response. There needs to be care when using many drugs with NNRTIs e.g. methadone, oral contraceptives, rifampicin, and there are some definite contraindications. By understanding pharmacological principles, it is possible to optimise use of multi-drug regimens.

Variable drug penetration of antiretroviral drugs into the genital tract may contribute to the differential evolution of HIV and the emergence of drug resistance. This, in turn, may have an impact on the sexual transmission of resistant HIV in patients treated with antiretroviral drugs. We have measured concentrations of the HIV-1 protease inhibitors indinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir in the blood plasma (BP) and seminal plasma (SP) of 23 HIV-1-positive men. Forty-five time-matched blood and semen samples were obtained. SP concentrations of indinavir exceeded the EC 95 of indinavir, corrected for protein binding, of 42 nglmL at all time intervals. In contrast, the median ritonavir and saquinavir SP concentrations were below the relevant EC 95 at all times post drug ingestion. The median SP:BP concentration ratios for indinavir were 0.6, 0.8 and 1.4, respectively, at 0-2, 2-6 and 6-8 h post-drug ingestion. In contrast, the median SP:BP concentration ratios at 0-3, 3-9 and 9-12 h post-drug ingestion were

Looking back over the development of antiretroviral therapies (ART) for the treatment of HIV infection, probably the turning point in generating a belief that there were real grounds for optimism of ‘therapeutic success’ came with the introduction of protease inhibitors (PIs) in 1995. As a component of antiretroviral therapy, PIs produced a dramatic decrease in mortality and morbidity in HIV infection [1] most clearly demonstrated by the reduction of opportunistic infections and hospital admissions. Today, a triple drug combination regimen containing nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) plus PIs or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) constitutes the standard of care for patients commencing therapy (see Table 1). Table 1 Currently licensed antiretrovirals. Despite its success, combination ART still lacks sufficient potency and durability. Large prospective studies [2] suggest that up to 50% of HIV-positive patients will fail to achieve adequate suppression of plasma HIV RNA (i.e. < 50 copies/ml) with any of the current ART regimens. Even if this is achieved, viral rebound develops in a significant proportion of patients within 1 year of follow-up [3–5]. For example, in the Swiss cohort study [3], rebound HIV viraemia (from < 400 copies/ml to detectable) was approximately 10% per year in ART-naive patients commencing therapy and 20% in ART-experienced patients switching therapy. Although 80% of ART-naive patients achieved viral load below 400 copies/ml at 6 months, this was only sustained in 66% at 30 months and treatment changes were necessary in approximately half of patients by 24 months. In the Frankfurt cohort [4], over half of patients developed viral rebound within 12 months of achieving undetectable RNA. There are also a growing number of patients who fail treatment despite exposure to most antiretroviral agents and consequently receive salvage therapy, which may include ‘mega-ART’ regimens. Such regimens are associated with increased potential for toxicity and serious drug interactions. In this context, some of the most pressing clinical pharmacology questions are: Why do some patients fail treatment regardless of the regimen selected? How can existing therapies be improved or optimized? Will the new drugs in development show significant advantage? Treatment failure is clearly multifactorial, and may include the development of antiviral resistance, poor adherence to therapy and pharmacokinetic reasons. This review will focus on pharmacokinetic variability as an important consideration in treatment failure and current approaches to address the problem. Pharmacokinetic variability is particularly important in relation to PIs – a group of peptidomimetic drugs with considerable inter and intra-individual variability in plasma levels and marked potential for drug interactions leading to reduced or elevated PI plasma concentrations [6, 7]. Reduced concentrations will potentially compromise efficacy while elevated concentrations will predispose to adverse events. When considering the role of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in antiretroviral therapy, the primary focus is therefore on PIs. However before proceeding to develop the arguments for TDM of PIs it is important to highlight the main issues around plasma concentrations of the other two main classes of antiretrovirals. For NRTIs, establishing a relationship between plasma concentration and antiviral effect has been difficult simply because it is the intracellular triphosphate anabolite that is the active moiety (Figure 1). Plasma concentrations of parent nucleosides and intracellular concentrations of triphosphates show only a weak correlation. Figure 2 displays data from studies with zidovudine (ZDV) and lamivudine (3TC) [8, 9]. Therefore meaningful data would require cell separation (i.e. to generate peripheral blood mononuclear cells, PBMCs), a technique which is time consuming, followed by analysis of the active triphosphate, a procedure that is currently available only in a handful of laboratories. This effectively precludes the routine use of TDM for NRTIs in clinical practice until such time as a more rapid throughput analytical system is developed. Figure 1 Activation pathways of nucleoside analogues. Figure 2 The relationship between intracellular nucleoside triphosphate and plasma concentration of parent drug for (a) zidovudine (ZDV) and (b) lamivudine (3TC) (○ 150 mg. • 300 mg). Note the weak correlation between area under the curve in cells ... Data from pharmacokinetic studies of NNRTIs indicate that two of the drugs, efavirenz and nevirapine, have a prolonged half-life, normally achieve adequate steady-state plasma concentrations during a dosing interval and have pharmacokinetics which are less variable than those of PIs. Although we would not entirely rule out a role for TDM of NNRTIs in some circumstances (e.g. in relation to CNS side-effects of efavirenz), presently attention is focused on PIs.

Aims Methadone is predominantly metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 and the non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) efavirenz is a recognized inducer of this enzyme. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of methadone in the presence and absence of efavirenz when administered to HIV infected patients with a history of injection drug use (IDU). Methods Eleven patients on stable methadone maintenance therapy, due to commence antiretroviral therapy (ART), participated in this study. Steady state methadone kinetic profiles were obtained on two occasions 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 24 h post dosing. Following centrifugation, separated plasma was heated at 58 degrees C for 30 min to inactivate HIV and stored at -80 degrees C until methadone analysis by high performance liquid chromatography. Results When combined with efavirenz there was a marked decrease in the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of methadone from 689 (range 212-1568) to 358 (range 205-706) ng ml(-1), P = 0.007 : 95% confidence interval (CI) 112-549. The mean area under the methadone concentration curve 0-24 h (AUC(0,24 h)) was also significantly reduced from 12341 (range 3682-34147) to 5309 (range 2430-10349) ng ml(-1) h in the presence of efavirenz, P = 0.012 : 95% CI 1921-12143. Nine patients described symptoms of methadone withdrawal and received a dose increase. Although methadone AUC(0,24 h) was reduced by over 50% following efavirenz the mean increase in methadone dose required was 22% (range 15-30 mg). Conclusion The inclusion of the NNRTI efavirenz in once daily ART for HIV patients with a history of IDU receiving methadone maintenance results in a significant reduction in methadone plasma concentrations mediated by enzyme induction. It is important to distinguish efavirenz neurological effects which were observed between days 1-5 of therapy from symptoms of methadone withdrawal which occurred from day 8 onwards. The dose of methadone was adjusted by increments of 10 mg to counteract the efavirenz inducing effect.

We sought to determine whether the intracellular activation of zidovudine (ZDV) varied over time and with previous antiretroviral exposure in human immunodeficiency virus-infected individuals and to examine whether there is an association between virological responses and intracellular phosphorylation. A total of 23 patients (12 treatment naı̈ve, 11 previously treated with ZDV) who commenced ZDV as part of dual nucleoside therapy were prospectively monitored for 12 months or until withdrawal from the study. No association was observed between virological responses at 2 weeks and 3 months and ZDV phosphorylation. The mean intracellular concentrations of ZDV mono-, di-, and triphosphates did not change significantly over time or with previous ZDV exposure. The rate of formation of total ZDV phosphates was increased in patients with CD4 counts 3 . Previous reports from in vitro cell culture experiments or cross-sectional cohort studies suggesting alterations of ZDV phosphorylation over time are not confirmed by this longitudinal study.

The era of antiviral therapy directed against HIV-1 has now entered its second decade. In the twelve years since the FDA approved the first antiretroviral drug zidovudine there have been a number of seminal developments that have revolutionized the approach to therapy. These advances converged to change the treatment paradigm from one of therapeutic nihilism to that of cautious optimism. First, several trials demonstrated that combination therapy of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) is superior to monotherapy in extending survival and delaying disease progression. Second, the concept of virologic latency in asymptomatic HIV-infected patients was revised. Mathematic modelling demonstrated that there is an ongoing high level of virus production driving a rapid turnover of CD4 cells at all stages of infection. Hence it was concluded that the aim of antiretroviral therapy (ART) should be to "hit early and hit hard." Third, significant advances in molecular virology facilitated the development of quantitative methods to measure the circulating HIV plasma RNA. HIV viral load has been shown to be a sensitive predictor of disease progression and a valuable marker of response to therapy. However, none of these developments would have translated into improved patient care without the advent of two new classes of drugs-the protease inhibitors (PIs) and the nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs).

Since its introduction in 1987, zidovudine monotherapy has been the treatment of choice for patients with HIV infection. Unfortunately it has been established that the beneficial effects of zidovudine are not sustained due to the development of resistant viral strains. This has led to the strategy of combination therapy, and in 1995 treatment with zidovudine plus didanosine, or zidovudine plus zalcitabine, was demonstrated to be more effective than zidovudine monotherapy in preventing disease progression and reducing mortality in patients with HIV disease. Recent work demonstrates an even greater antiviral effect from triple therapy with 2 nucleosides, zidovudine plus zalcitabine with the addition of saquinavir, a new protease inhibitor drug. The HIV protease enzyme is responsible for the post-translational processing of gag and gag-pol polyprotein precursors, and its inhibition by drugs such as saquinavir, ritonavir, indinavir and VX-478 results in the production of non-infectious virions. As resistance may also develop to the protease inhibitors they may be used in combination, and future strategies may well include quadruple therapy with 2 nucleoside analogues plus 2 protease inhibitors. Administration of protease inhibitors alone or in combination with other drugs does raise a number of important pharmacokinetic issues for patients with HIV disease. Some protease inhibitors (e.g. saquinavir) have kinetic profiles characterised by reduced absorption and a high first pass effect, resulting in poor bioavailability which may be improved by administrating with food. Physiological factors including achlorhydria, malabsorption and hepatic dysfunction may influence the bioavailability of protease inhibitors in HIV disease. Protease inhibitors are very highly bound to plasma proteins (98%), predominantly to alpha 1-acid glycoprotein. This may influence their antiviral activity in vitro and may also predispose to plasma protein displacement interactions. Such interactions are usually only of clinical relevance if the metabolism of the displaced drug is also inhibited. This is precisely the situation likely to pertain to the protease inhibitors, as ritonavir may displace other protease inhibitor drugs, such as saquinavir, from plasma proteins and inhibit their metabolism. Protease inhibitors are extensively metabolised by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes present in the liver and small intestine. In vitro studies suggest that the most influential CYP isoenzyme involved in the metabolism of the protease inhibitors is CYP3A, with the isoforms CYP2C9 and CYP2D6 also contributing. Ritonavir has an elimination half-life (t1/2 beta) of 3 hours, indinavir 2 hours and saquinavir between 7 and 12 hours. Renal elimination is not significant, with less than 5% of ritonavir and saquinavir excreted in the unchanged form. As patients with HIV disease are likely to be taking multiple prolonged drug regimens this may lead to drug interactions as a result of enzyme induction or inhibition. Recognised enzyme inducers of CYP3A, which are likely to be prescribed for patients with HIV disease, include rifampicin (rifampin) [treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis], rifabutin (treatment and prophylaxis of Mycobacterium avium complex), phenobarbital (phenobarbitone), phenytoin and carbamazepine (treatment of seizures secondary to cerebral toxoplasmosis or cerebral lymphoma). These drugs may reduce the plasma concentrations of the protease inhibitors and reduce their antiviral efficacy. If coadministered drugs are substrates for a common CYP enzyme, the elimination of one or both drugs may be impaired. Drugs which are metabolised by CYP3A and are likely to be used in the treatment of patients with HIV disease include the azole antifungals, macrolide antibiotics and dapsone; therefore, protease inhibitors may interact with these drugs. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

OBJECTIVES The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic effects of antiretroviral therapy may differ in older compared with younger subjects with HIV infection. We aimed to assess factors associated with plasma antiretroviral drug exposure, including age, within a large HIV-infected cohort undergoing therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). METHODS Data from the Liverpool TDM Registry were linked with the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) Study. All TDM of protease inhibitors (PIs) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) was included and in order to account for different antiretroviral drugs the plasma concentrations were standardized by group measurements according to drug, dosing and timing of TDM. Regression modelling was used to evaluate associations of drug exposure with age and clinical parameters, including hepatic transaminase results and time to antiretroviral treatment modification. RESULTS Data from 3589 TDM samples were available from 2447 subjects. The greatest numbers of plasma concentrations were assessed for lopinavir (22.4%), efavirenz (18.5%), atazanavir (17.0%) and saquinavir (11.6%). As age increased, median standardized NNRTI concentrations remained constant, whereas PI concentrations increased (correlation coefficient 0.04, P = 0.033). In a regression analysis stratified by antiretroviral drug class, standardized plasma concentrations were significantly associated with age for PIs (0.05 increase in standard deviation of drug concentration with each 10 year increase in age, P = 0.044), but not for NNRTIs or other clinical parameters, including hepatic transaminase results or time to antiretroviral treatment modification. CONCLUSIONS With increasing age, statistically significant rises in plasma PI exposure, but not NNRTI exposure, were observed. The clinical relevance of this observation merits further investigation.

The pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral drugs in pregnancy is poorly understood. We reviewed the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in clinical settings to document plasma concentrations of lopinavir during pregnancy and investigated how clinicians acted upon TDM results. A retrospective review was carried out of all HIV-infected pregnant women taking boosted lopinavir-based highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) at five National Health Service (NHS) centres in the UK between May 2004 and March 2007. Seventy-three women in receipt of lopinavir were identified, of whom 89% had plasma lopinavir concentrations above the suggested minimum recommended for wild-type HIV. Initial TDM results prompted dosage change in 10% and assessment of adherence and/or pharmacist review in 11%. TDM was repeated in 29%. TDM can play an important role in the clinical management of HIV-positive pregnant women, allowing informed dose modification and an alternative measure of adherence.

We assessed the risk of clinically significant drug interactions in patients receiving antiretrovirals, and their recognition by physicians. Clinically significant drug interactions were recorded in 27% of 159 patients, with 15% of interactions potentially lowering antiretroviral concentrations. Risk of clinically significant drug interactions was significantly related to receipt of protease inhibitors. Only 36% of clinically significant drug interactions were correctly identified by physicians.

Background Potential drug–drug interactions (PDDIs) might expand with new combination antiretroviral therapies (ART) and polypharmacy related to increasing age and comorbidities. We investigated the prevalence of comedications and PDDIs within a large HIV cohort, and their effect on ART efficacy and tolerability. Methods All medications were prospectively recorded in 1,497 ART-treated patients and screened for PDDIs using a customized version of the Liverpool drug interactions database. Results Overall, 68% (1,013/1,497) of patients had a comedication and 40% (599/1,497) had ≥1 PDDI. Among patients with comedication, 2% (21/1,013) had red-fag interactions (contraindicated) and 59% (597/1,013) had orange-fag interactions (potential dose adjustment and/ or close monitoring required). The latter involved mainly central nervous system drugs (49%), cardiovascular drugs (34%) and methadone (19%). In the multivariate analysis, factors associated with having a comedication were advanced age, female gender, obesity and HCV infection. Independent risk factors for PDDIs were regimens combining protease inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (odds ratio [OR] 3.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.44–6.48), ≥2 comedications (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.32–2.70), current illicit drug use (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.29–3.10) and patients with HCV infection (OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.19–2.56). Viral response was similar in patients with and without PDDIs (84.5% versus 86.4%; P=0.386). During follow-up, ART was modified in 134 patients with comedication regardless of the presence of PDDIs ( P=0.524). Conclusions PDDIs increase with complex ART and comorbidities. No adverse effect was noted on ART efficacy or tolerability; however, most PDDIs affected comedication but were manageable through dose adjustment or monitoring.

BACKGROUND The protease inhibitors lopinavir and atazanavir are both recommended for treatment of HIV-infected patients. Considerable inter-individual variability in plasma concentration has been observed for both drugs. The aim of this study was to evaluate which demographic factors and concomitant drugs are associated with lopinavir and atazanavir plasma concentration. METHODS Data from the Liverpool TDM (therapeutic drug monitoring) Registry were linked with the UK Collaborative HIV Cohort (CHIC) study. For each patient, the first measurement of lopinavir (twice daily) or atazanavir [once daily, ritonavir boosted (/r) or unboosted] plasma concentration was included. Linear regression was used to evaluate the association of dose, gender, age, weight, ethnicity and concomitant antiretroviral drugs or rifabutin with log-transformed drug concentration, adjusted for time since last intake. RESULTS Data from 439 patients on lopinavir (69% 400 mg/r, 31% 533 mg/r; 3% concomitant rifabutin) and 313 on atazanavir (60% 300 mg/r, 32% 400 mg/r, 8% 400 mg) were included. Multivariable models revealed the following predictors for lopinavir concentration: weight (11% decrease per additional 10 kg; P = 0.001); dose (25% increase for 533 mg/r; P = 0.024); and rifabutin (116% increase; P < 0.001). For atazanavir the predictors were dose (compared with 300 mg/r: 40% increase for 400 mg/r, 67% decrease for 400 mg; overall P < 0.001) and efavirenz (32% decrease; P = 0.016) but not tenofovir (P = 0.54). CONCLUSIONS This analysis confirms that efavirenz decreases atazanavir concentrations, and there was a negative association of weight and lopinavir concentrations. The strong impact of rifabutin on lopinavir concentration should be studied further.

This study investigated pregnane X receptor polymorphisms in relation to unboosted atazanavir plasma concentrations in 2 cohorts of patients. The polymorphism 63396T--C predicted concentrations below the minimum effective concentration (150 ng/mL) with odds ratios of 18 (P = .008) and 5.13 (P = .02). Prospective studies determining potential clinical usefulness are now warranted.

We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and adherence support (collectively, AT) vs standard of care (SOC) in patients receiving HIV protease inhibitors (PIs) and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) within a nurse-led clinic. Primary end points were failure to achieve viral load of

The aim of this project was to determine whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and subsequent dose modification is effective in the management of protease inhibitor (PI)-associated toxicity. A retrospective case-notes review of patients who had had TDM for suspected antiretroviral drug toxicity from November 2000 to March 2002 was carried out. This identified six symptomatic patients in whom high plasma drug levels of a PI had been found and subsequent dose modification was associated with improvement/resolution of symptoms. In 5/6 patients viral loads were below the level of detection prior to TDM and remained so after dose reduction of PI. TDM-directed dose modification of PI enables patients to continue effective regimens of highly active antiretroviral therapy, thus avoiding the need to switch the regimen.

Despite its success antiretroviral therapy (ART) is still associated with a significant risk of toxicity and subsequent virological failure. Pending the introduction of drugs with greater potency and durability one of the most pressing priorities in HIV treatment is to identify ways in which to maximize the efficacy of existing therapeutic options while minimizing its toxicity. Resistance testing has been shown to be one such strategy. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for HIV drugs has been widely proposed as another tool by which treatment may be optimized. There are some parallels with resistance testing not least the potential difficulties or pitfalls in interpreting test results and the understandable pressure for provision of this service in the face of increasingly limited treatment options notwithstanding the current lack of data from controlled clinical studies. In this reviews we shall discuss the value of TDM in the context of a ‘monitoring service (in other words drug concentrations are provided in conjunction with interpretation and advice) rather than a facility for ‘measuring drug concentrations. This distinction is important since the interpretation of drug concentrations is fraught with complexity. (excerpt)

Administration of nevirapine to HIV-infected injection drug users who also receive methadone results in a significant reduction in methadone exposure after 7-10 days of therapy. Many patients require an increase in methadone dose to counteract this effect.

Enoximone and enoximone sulphoxide concentrations were measured in plasma of 20 infants, median age 6.0 (range 0.6-49.7) weeks, during and after prolonged continuous infusions. Patients were given enoximone 1 mg kg-1 and an infusion at 10 micrograms kg-1 min-1 just before being weaned from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The infusion was stopped when clinically indicated, after a median 97 (range 24-572) h. Arterial blood samples were taken 30 min and 12 h after CPB, every 24 h during the infusion, and then 2, 4, 8, 12 and 24 h after the infusion was stopped. Pharmacokinetic non-compartmental analysis was performed using TOPFIT software. Fourteen patients who retained normal hepatic function had a median (95% confidence intervals) clearance of 9.7 (6.3-14.1) ml min-1 kg-1, elimination half-life of 5.2 (2.4-6.8) h and a volume of distribution of 3.6 (2.0-5.7) litre kg-1. The six patients with significant hepatic dysfunction had a lower clearance, 5.7 (2.4-14.5) ml min-1 kg-1, and significantly longer elimination half-life, 7.6 (6.5-10.9) h (P = 0.02). Enoximone sulphoxide elimination half-life was significantly prolonged in three patients with renal dysfunction, 16.2 (10.5-17.7) h versus 6.9 (6.1-9.4) h (P = 0.03). These results confirm that enoximone pharmacokinetics in infants is similar to that found in adults. The infusion rate of enoximone should be reduced if hepatic or renal dysfunction supervenes.

We assessed the pharmacokinetics of zidovudine (ZDV) in plasma and intracellular ZDV phosphate anabolites in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in Thai human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1-infected patients and healthy volunteers. The plasma ZDV area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 6 h (AUC 0–6 ) was similar in patients and healthy volunteers (32.77 and 22.77 μmol/liter · h, respectively; confidence interval, −3.37 to 19.92). Although the concentration of ZDV triphosphate (ZDVTP) was similar in the two groups, the ZDV monophosphate (ZDVMP) AUC 0–6 was significantly greater in HIV patients (1.12 pmol/10 6 cells) than in healthy volunteers (0.15 pmol/10 6 cells). In agreement with previously published data obtained with Caucasians, the significant difference in intracellular phosphorylation in Thai volunteers and HIV patients is primarily due to ZDVMP. Comparing the data from this study with the data obtained with Caucasians suggests no marked ethnic differences in ZDV phosphorylation.

There are 3 groups of drugs available for the treatment of patients with HIV disease. These are the nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors ('nucleoside analogues') [zidovudine, didanosine, zalcitabine, lamivudine and abacavir]; the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (nevirapine, delavirdine and efavirenz); and the protease inhibitors (saquinavir, ritonavir, indinavir, nelfinavir and amprenavir). The preferred initial regimen should reduce and maintain plasma HIV RNA below the level of detection. Presently, the regimen of choice consists of 2 nucleoside analogues plus a protease inhibitor with high in vivo efficacy. An alternative combination consists of 2 nucleoside analogues plus a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. Drug interactions are one of the major problems associated with these multidrug regimens. Changes in plasma concentrations of the nucleoside analogues are unlikely to be of clinical relevance as drug effect is mainly dependent on the rate and extent of intracellular phosphorylation. Combinations of zidovudine plus stavudine, and probably zalcitabine plus lamivudine, should be avoided as competition for phosphorylating enzymes may occur. The antiviral efficacy of some nucleoside analogues, e.g. stavudine, may be compromised by prior treatment with other nucleosides (e.g. zidovudine). However, these data need to be clarified in further studies. It is unlikely that administration of other antiretrovirals will influence the activity of nucleoside analogues. Protease inhibitors are metabolised by hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4. Combination protease inhibitor therapy can result in drug interactions mediated by enzyme inhibition. Ritonavir is the most potent inhibitor, saquinavir the least. The protease inhibitors also interact with the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Nevirapine and efavirenz induce drug metabolising enzymes and may reduce plasma concentrations of protease inhibitors. A study in healthy volunteers showed that nelfinavir concentrations are increased by combination with efavirenz. Delavirdine inhibits drug metabolising enzymes and increases the plasma concentration of coadministered protease inhibitors. The nucleoside analogues would not be expected to interact with the protease inhibitors. Apart from the ability of didanosine to reduce the area under the concentration-time curve of delavirdine, there are no reports of clinically significant interactions of other antiretrovirals with the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Triple therapy is the current standard of care for patients with HIV disease. However, studies of quadruple therapy are already under way. Drug interactions are likely to remain one of the major considerations when selecting a therapeutic regimen for patients with HIV.

The editorial in a recent issue of the Journal [1] commented on the comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia [2] and was a timely reminder that (i) drug interactions are an essential aspect of clinical pharmacology and (ii) providing prescribers with clear and simple information is an imperative. One therapeutic area that has emerged as a real challenge for understanding drug interactions is antiretrovirals. With over 20 licensed drugs in four classes [nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors (PIs) and entry inhibitors] and HIV+ patients receiving at least triple combination therapy, there is the potential for drug interactions within an antiretroviral regimen. However, often of greater significance is the patient receiving multiple other therapies with consequent interactions between the antiretroviral and one or more drugs in the regimen. Although HIV physicians and other HIV healthcare professionals are generally used to hearing about CYP450 induction and inhibition (PIs, an integral part of most regimens, are metabolized by and are inducers/inhibitors of CYP450 and other enzymes; NNRTIs are potent inducers) and even speak with some degree of understanding about transporters, there is still the challenge of having the relevant information to hand when it is needed – which is usually when the patient is sitting in front of you in the clinic! Some years ago we attempted to meet what we considered to be a deficiency in accessible data by building a website (http://www.hiv-druginteractions.org) [3]. This is based on a traffic light system (road not rail) and is easy to access either from a computer with internet connection or from a downloadable version for hand-held devices [personal digital assistants (PDAs)]. The structure is illustrated in Figure 1, which displays the interactions of antiretroviral drugs and anticonvulsants. The antiretroviral drug is shown as the column and the anticonvulsant as the row. Clicking on the symbol (red/circle: these drugs should not be coadministered; orange/square: potential drug interaction that may require close monitoring or dosage change; green/triangle: no clinically significant interaction expected) gives further information (where available) on all the published studies or case reports and a brief summary of the data. There is also the facility to download the charts to make posters for the clinic wall, which is particularly useful in developing world where the burden of HIV is so great. Figure 1 Composite screen shot showing the structure of the web-based interaction resource This is by no means the only web-based resource for keeping abreast of drug interactions in HIV. Indeed, there has been a published evaluation of nine such sites [4], with three sites –http://www.hiv-druginteractions.org, http://www.tthhivclinic.com and http://hivinsite.ucsf.edu– rated of high quality. Clearly having up-to-date drug interaction data available online or via PDA has to be the way forward in this and other therapy areas, but who is going to foot the bill in the long term to maintain such a resource? To maintain the Liverpool site requires a full-time research assistant with considerable experience of the underlying pharmacology, the ability to extract key data from published papers and abstracts, and to check Summaries of Product Characteristics and Prescribing Information for updates and differences between Europe and the USA. Currently, colleagues in the pharmaceutical industry support the site with unrestricted educational grants and, importantly, no editorial input. However, in the longer term this is shaky ground and there needs to be greater stability to enable planning and development. Of 1198 patients starting highly active antiretroviral therapy in the EUROSIDA study [5], only 70% remained on the original therapy at the end of 1 year, 24% had changed and 6% were off treatment. The most frequent reason for discontinuation was toxicities, and we know that it is often interactions that are responsible for adverse drug reactions [6]. Avoidance or at least effective management of drug interactions remains a priority, but we must have the tools and resources to meet this challenge.

Background: Clinically significant drug-drug interactions (CSDIs) involving antiretrovirals are frequent and under-recognizedin developed countries, but data are lacking for developing countries. Methodology and Principal Findings: To investigate the prevalence of CSDIs between antiretrovirals and coadministered drugs, we surveyed prescriptions dispensed in a large HIV clinic in Kenya. Of 1040 consecutive patients screened, 996 were eligible for inclusion. CSDIs were defined as ‘major’ (capable of causing severe or permanent damage, contraindicated, avoid or not recommended by the manufacturer, or requiring dose modification) ‘moderate’ (manufacturers advise caution, or close monitoring, or capable of causing clinical deterioration). A total of 334 patients (33.5%) were at risk for a CSDI, potentially lowering antiretroviral drug concentrations in 120 (12%) patients. Major interactions most frequently involved rifampicin (12.4%, mostly with efavirenz) and azoles (2.7%) whereas moderate interactions were frequently azoles (13%), steroids (11%), and antimalarials (3%). Multivariable analyses suggested that patients at risk for CSDIs had lower CD4 counts (P = 0.006) and baseline weight (P = 0.023) and WHO Stage 3 or 4 disease (P#0.007). Risk for CSDIs was not associated with particular regimens, although only 116 (11.6%) patients were receiving WHO second line regimens. Conclusions: One in three patients receiving antiretrovirals in our programme were at risk of CSDIs. Strategies need to be urgently developed to avoid important drug interactions, to identify early markers of toxicity and to manage unavoidable interactions safely in order to reduce risk of harm, and to maximize the effectiveness of mass antiretroviral deployment in Africa.

Purpose of the study: Darunavir (DRV) is a second generation protease inhibitor (PI), first licensed for use in 2006. It is indicated for use in a treatment experienced population and is effective in vitro against both wild type and PI-resistant HIV. As a relatively new drug there is little published information on the pharmacokinetics of darunavir in pregnancy. Here we examine the pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir [DRV/r 800/100mg once daily (OD)] in two women, over the course of pregnancy and postpartum. Supplement: Abstracts of the Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1758-2652-13-S4-info.pdf Conference: Tenth International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection 7-11 November 2010 Glasgow, UK (Published: 8 November 2010) doi:10.1186/1758-2652-13-S4-P189 Cite this article as: Lambert et al.: The use of a darunavir/ritonavir oncedaily regimen in two pregnant women. Journal of the International AIDS Society 2010 13(Suppl 4):P189. Full text: PubMed Central: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3112970/