Abstract
Purpose
The relation between treatment outcome and trough plasma concentrations of efavirenz (EFV), atazanavir (ATV) and lopinavir (LPV) was studied in a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic substudy of the NORTHIV trial—a randomised phase IV efficacy trial comparing antiretroviral-naïve human immunodeficiency virus-1-infected patients treated with (1) EFV + 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (2NRTI) once daily, (2) ritonavir-boosted ATV + 2NRTI once daily or (3) ritonavir-boosted LPV + 2NRTI twice daily. The findings were related to the generally cited minimum effective concentration levels for the respective drugs (EFV 1,000 ng/ml, ATV 150 ng/ml, LPV 1,000 ng/ml). The relation between atazanavir-induced hyperbilirubinemia and virological efficacy was also studied.
Methods
Drug concentrations were sampled at weeks 4 and 48 and optionally at week 12 and analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography with UV detector. When necessary, trough values were imputed by assuming the reported average half-lives for the respective drugs. Outcomes up to week 48 are reported.
Results
No relation between plasma concentrations of EFV, ATV or LPV and virological failure, treatment withdrawal due to adverse effects or antiviral potency (viral load decline from baseline to week 4) was demonstrated. Very few samples were below the suggested minimum efficacy cut-offs, and their predictive value for treatment failure could not be validated. There was a trend toward an increased risk of virological failure in patients on ATV who had an average increase of serum bilirubin from baseline of <25 μmol/l.
Conclusions
The great majority of treatment-naïve and adherent patients on standard doses of EFV, ritonavir-boosted ATV and ritonavir-boosted LPV have drug concentrations above that considered to deliver the maximum effect for the respective drug. The results do not support the use of routine therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for efficacy optimisation in treatment-naïve patients on these drugs, although TDM may still be of value in some cases of altered pharmacokinetics, adverse events or drug interactions. Serum bilirubin may be a useful marker of adherence to ATV therapy.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Nettles RE et al (2006) Marked intraindividual variability in antiretroviral concentrations may limit the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring. Clin Infect Dis 42(8):1189–1196
la Porte CJL et al (2006) Updated guidelines to perform therapeutic drug monitoring for antiretroviral agents. Rev Antiviral Therapy 3:4–14
Hammer SM et al (2008) Antiretroviral treatment of adult HIV infection: 2008 recommendations of the International AIDS Society–USA panel. JAMA 300(5):555–570
Karlstrom O, Josephson F, Sonnerborg A (2007) Early virologic rebound in a pilot trial of ritonavir-boosted atazanavir as maintenance monotherapy. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 44(4):417–422
Petersen K et al (2005) Use of bilirubin as a marker of adherence to atazanavir-based antiretroviral therapy. AIDS 19(15):1700–1702
Abbott Laboratories (2008) European SPC Kaletra. Available at: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/kaletra/H-368-PI-en.pdf
Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma (2009) European SPC Sustiva. Available at: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/Sustiva/H-249-PI-en.pdf
Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharma (2009) European SPC Reyataz. Available at: http://www.emea.europa.eu/humandocs/PDFs/EPAR/reyataz/H-494-PI-en.pdf
Chesney MA et al (2000) Self-reported adherence to antiretroviral medications among participants in HIV clinical trials: the AACTG adherence instruments. Patient Care Committee & Adherence Working Group of the Outcomes Committee of the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group (AACTG). AIDS Care 12(3):255–266
Reynolds NR et al (2007) Optimizing measurement of self-reported adherence with the ACTG Adherence Questionnaire: a cross-protocol analysis. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 46(4):402–409
Haas D et al (1998) A phase II, double-blind. placebo-controlled, dose ranging study to assess the antiretroviral activity and safety of efavirenz in combination with open label zidovudine with lamivudine at 36 weeks (DMP 266–055). In: 12th Int Conf AIDS. Abstract no. 22334. Geneva, Switzerland
Mayers D et al (1998) A double-blind, placebo-controlled studyt o assess the safety, tolerability and antiretroviral activity of efavirenz in combination with open-label zidovudine and lamivudine in HIV-1 infected patients. The Efavi Renz Clinical Team. In: 12th Int Conf AIDS. Abstract no. 22340. Geneva, Switzerland
Joshi AS et al (1999) Population pharmacokinetics of efavirenz in phase II studies and relationship with efficacy. In: 39th Intersci Conf Antimicrobial Agents Chemother. Abstract no. 1201. San Francisco
Leth FV et al (2006) Pharmacokinetic parameters of nevirapine and efavirenz in relation to antiretroviral efficacy. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 22(3):232–239
Marzolini C et al (2001) Efavirenz plasma levels can predict treatment failure and central nervous system side effects in HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS 15(1):71–75
Stahle L et al (2004) Efavirenz plasma concentrations in HIV-infected patients: inter- and intraindividual variability and clinical effects. Ther Drug Monit 26(3):267–270
Gallego L et al (2004) Analyzing sleep abnormalities in HIV-infected patients treated with Efavirenz. Clin Infect Dis 38(3):430–432
Gutierrez F et al (2005) Prediction of neuropsychiatric adverse events associated with long-term efavirenz therapy, using plasma drug level monitoring. Clin Infect Dis 41(11):1648–1653
Kappelhoff BS et al (2005) Are adverse events of nevirapine and efavirenz related to plasma concentrations? Antivir Ther 10(4):489–498
Takahashi M et al (2007) No observable correlation between central nervous system side effects and EFV plasma concentrations in Japanese HIV type 1-infected patients treated with EFV containing HAART. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 23(8):983–987
Haas DW et al (2004) Pharmacogenetics of efavirenz and central nervous system side effects: an Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group study. AIDS 18(18):2391–2400
Molto J et al (2007) Monitoring atazanavir concentrations with boosted or unboosted regimens in HIV-infected patients in routine clinical practice. Ther Drug Monit 29(5):648–651
Smith DE, Jeganathan S, Ray J (2006) Atazanavir plasma concentrations vary significantly between patients and correlate with increased serum bilirubin concentrations. HIV Clin Trials 7(1):34–38
Cleijsen RM et al (2007) Therapeutic drug monitoring of the HIV protease inhibitor atazanavir in clinical practice. J Antimicrob Chemother 60(4):897–900
Bertz R et al (2007) Assessment of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships through 48 weeks from a a study in HIV+, ART-naive subjects receiving antiretroviral regimens containing atazanavir 400 mg or atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily. In: 14th Conf Retroviruses Opportunistic Infect. Abstract no. 565. Los Angeles
Gonzalez de Requena D et al (2005) Atazanavir Ctrough is associated with efficacy and safety at 24 weeks: definition of therapeutic range. In: 6th Int Workshop Clin Pharmacol HIV Therapy 2005. Abstract no. 60. Quebec City
Sanne I et al (2003) Results of a phase 2 clinical trial at 48 weeks (AI424-007): a dose-ranging, safety, and efficacy comparative trial of atazanavir at three doses in combination with didanosine and stavudine in antiretroviral-naive subjects. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 32(1):18–29
Malan DR et al (2008) Efficacy and safety of atazanavir, with or without ritonavir, as part of once-daily highly active antiretroviral therapy regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 47(2):161–167
Rotger M et al (2005) Gilbert syndrome and the development of antiretroviral therapy-associated hyperbilirubinemia. J Infect Dis 192(8):1381–1386
Lankisch TO et al (2006) Gilbert’s disease and atazanavir: from phenotype to UDP-glucuronosyltransferase haplotype. Hepatology 44(5):1324–1332
Rodriguez-Novoa S et al (2007) Genetic factors influencing atazanavir plasma concentrations and the risk of severe hyperbilirubinemia. AIDS 21(1):41–46
Johnson MA et al (2006) A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen provides noninferior antiviral activity compared with a twice-daily regimen. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 43(2):153–160
Gathe J et al (2009) A once-daily lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen is noninferior to twice-daily dosing and results in similar safety and tolerability in antiretroviral-naive subjects through 48 weeks. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 50:474–481
Clumeck N et al (2007) ARTEMIS—efficacy and safety of lopinavir (BID vs QD) and darunavir (QD) in antiretroviral-naive patients. In: 11th Eur AIDS Conf. Abstract no. LPBS7/5. Madrid, Spain
Chiu YL et al (2007) Trough lopinavir concentrations do not predict response to lopinavir/ritonavir-based three-drug regimens in antiretroviral-naive patients. In: 8th Int Workshop Clinical Pharmacol HIV Therapy. Abstract no. 38. Budapest
Ananworanich J et al (2005) Pharmacokinetics and 24-week efficacy/safety of dual boosted saquinavir/lopinavir/ritonavir in nucleoside-pretreated children. Pediatr Infect Dis J 24(10):874–879
Justesen US et al (2007) Pharmacokinetics of two randomized trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of indinavir, saquinavir and lopinavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir: the MaxCmin1 and 2 trials. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 101(5):339–344
Stek AM et al (2006) Reduced lopinavir exposure during pregnancy. AIDS 20(15):1931–1939
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by grants from the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg (ALFGBG-11067), the Research Foundation of Swedish Physicians Against AIDS, The Health & Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland (VGFOUREG 25921), the Swedish Research Council (2007–7092), and the Stockholm County Council ALF-grant (581513).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Josephson, F., Andersson, M.C.H., Flamholc, L. et al. The relation between treatment outcome and efavirenz, atazanavir or lopinavir exposure in the NORTHIV trial of treatment-naïve HIV-1 infected patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 66, 349–357 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-009-0763-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-009-0763-z