The inhibitory and inducing effects of ritonavir on hepatic and intestinal CYP3A and other drug-handling proteins.

Ritonavir, originally developed as HIV protease inhibitor, is widely used as a booster in several HIV pharmacotherapy regimens and more recently in Covid-19 treatment (e.g., Paxlovid). Its boosting capacity is due to the highly potent irreversible inhibition of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3 A enzyme, thereby enhancing the plasma exposure to coadministered drugs metabolized by CYP3A. Typically used booster doses of ritonavir are 100-200 mg once or twice daily. This review aims to address several aspects of this booster drug, including the possibility to use lower ritonavir doses, 20 mg for instance, resulting in partial CYP3A inactivation in patients. If complete CYP3A inhibition is not needed, lower ritonavir doses could be used, thereby reducing unwanted side effects. In this context, there are contradictory reports on the actual recovery time of CYP3A activity after ritonavir discontinuation, but probably this will take at least one day. In addition to ritonavir's CYP3A inhibitory effect, it can also induce and/or inhibit other CYP enzymes and drug transporters, albeit to a lesser extent. Although ritonavir thus exhibits gene induction capacities, with respect to CYP3A activity the inhibition capacity clearly predominates. Another potent CYP3A inhibitor, the ritonavir analog cobicistat, has been reported to lack the ability to induce enzyme and transporter genes. This might result in a more favorable drug-drug interaction profile compared to ritonavir, although the actual benefit appears to be limited. Indeed, ritonavir is still the clinically most used pharmacokinetic enhancer, indicating that its side effects are well manageable, even in chronic administration regimens.

A commentary on the use of pharmacoenhancers in the pharmaceutical industry and the implication for DMPK drug discovery strategies.

Paxlovid, a drug combining nirmatrelvir and ritonavir, was designed for the treatment of COVID-19 and its rapid development has led to emergency use approval by the FDA to reduce the impact of COVID-19 infection on patients.In order to overcome potentially suboptimal therapeutic exposures, nirmatrelvir is dosed in combination with ritonavir to boost the pharmacokinetics of the active product.Here we consider examples of drugs co-administered with pharmacoenhancers.Pharmacoenhancers have been adopted for multiple purposes such as ensuring therapeutic exposure of the active product, reducing formation of toxic metabolites, changing the route of administration, and increasing the cost-effectiveness of a therapy.We weigh the benefits and risks of this approach, examining the impact of technology developments on drug design and how enhanced integration between cross-discipline teams can improve the outcome of drug discovery.

Is the antiparasitic drug ivermectin a suitable candidate for the treatment of epilepsy?

There are only a few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of "wonder drug," and ivermectin, the world's first endectocide and forerunner of a completely new class of antiparasitic agents, is among them. Ivermectin, a mixture of two macrolytic lactone derivatives (avermectin B1a and B1b in a ratio of 80:20), exerts its highly potent antiparasitic effect by activating the glutamate-gated chloride channel, which is absent in vertebrate species. However, in mammals, ivermectin activates several other Cys-loop receptors, including the inhibitory γ-aminobutyric acid type A and glycine receptors and the excitatory nicotinic acetylcholine receptor of brain neurons. Based on these effects on vertebrate receptors, ivermectin has recently been proposed to constitute a multifaceted wonder drug for various novel neurological indications, including alcohol use disorders, motor neuron diseases, and epilepsy. This review critically discusses the preclinical and clinical evidence of antiseizure effects of ivermectin and provides several arguments supporting that ivermectin is not a suitable candidate drug for the treatment of epilepsy. First, ivermectin penetrates the mammalian brain poorly, so it does not exert any pharmacological effects via mammalian ligand-gated ion channels in the brain unless it is used at high, potentially toxic doses or the blood-brain barrier is functionally impaired. Second, ivermectin is not selective but activates numerous inhibitory and excitatory receptors. Third, the preclinical evidence for antiseizure effects of ivermectin is equivocal, and at least in part, median effective doses in seizure models are in the range of the median lethal dose. Fourth, the only robust clinical evidence of antiseizure effects stems from the treatment of patients with onchocerciasis, in which the reduction of seizures is due to a reduction in microfilaria densities but not a direct antiseizure effect of ivermectin. We hope that this critical analysis of available data will avert the unjustified hype associated with the recent use of ivermectin to control COVID-19 from recurring in neurological diseases such as epilepsy.

Ivermectin: a mini-review.

Introduction: Avermectins are common antiparasitic drugs, derived from Streptomyces bacteria that exhibit activity against arthropods and nematodes. Ivermectin, an avermectin derivative, is used as a treatment for parasitic infections in humans and domesticated animals.Discussion: Ivermectin's mechanism of action involves binding to ligand-gated ion channel receptors including glutamate, GABA, and glycine, resulting in parasitic paralysis and death. Due to varying expression of these ion channel receptors in vertebrate species, ivermectin toxicity is rarely reported in mammals. Ivermectin is also a substrate for P-glycoprotein, which limits its neurological toxicity in humans. Genetic polymorphisms in P-glycoprotein or coadministration of P-glycoprotein inhibitors may increase the neurotoxicity of ivermectin. Other toxic effects of ivermectin after therapeutic oral use include edema, rash, headache, and ocular complaints. Most of these effects are mild and short in duration. Ivermectin exhibits antiviral effects in-vitro at very high concentrations. This has led to suggestions of ivermectin as a potential treatment for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection, although the drug's pharmacokinetic parameters reduce the likelihood that high concentrations of the drug can be achieved in-vivo.Conclusion: Due to concern for adverse events, specifically neurotoxicity, as well as a paucity of supporting evidence, the use of ivermectin as a routine treatment or preventive measure for COVID-19 infection is not recommended at this time.

Opioid and neuroHIV Comorbidity - Current and Future Perspectives.

With the current national opioid crisis, it is critical to examine the mechanisms underlying pathophysiologic interactions between human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and opioids in the central nervous system (CNS). Recent advances in experimental models, methodology, and our understanding of disease processes at the molecular and cellular levels reveal opioid-HIV interactions with increasing clarity. However, despite the substantial new insight, the unique impact of opioids on the severity, progression, and prognosis of neuroHIV and HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) are not fully understood. In this review, we explore, in detail, what is currently known about mechanisms underlying opioid interactions with HIV, with emphasis on individual HIV-1-expressed gene products at the molecular, cellular and systems levels. Furthermore, we review preclinical and clinical studies with a focus on key considerations when addressing questions of whether opioid-HIV interactive pathogenesis results in unique structural or functional deficits not seen with either disease alone. These considerations include, understanding the combined consequences of HIV-1 genetic variants, host variants, and µ-opioid receptor (MOR) and HIV chemokine co-receptor interactions on the comorbidity. Lastly, we present topics that need to be considered in the future to better understand the unique contributions of opioids to the pathophysiology of neuroHIV. Graphical Abstract Blood-brain barrier and the neurovascular unit. With HIV and opiate co-exposure (represented below the dotted line), there is breakdown of tight junction proteins and increased leakage of paracellular compounds into the brain. Despite this, opiate exposure selectively increases the expression of some efflux transporters, thereby restricting brain penetration of specific drugs.

Predictive association of ABCB1 C3435T genetic polymorphism with the efficacy or safety of lopinavir and ritonavir in COVID-19 patients.

Lopinavir and ritonavir are substrates of permeability glycoprotein encoded by ABCB1. The efficacy and safety of these drugs is unknown in COVID-19 patients affected by ABCB1 genetic variability. Patients carrying one or two copies of the ABCB1 C3435T were predictively considered as risk phenotypes. It was predicted that risk phenotypes due to carrying either one or two copies of ABCB1 C3435T were highly prevalent in Europe (76.8%; 95% CI: 75-78), followed by America (67%; 95% CI: 65-69), Asia (63.5%; 95% CI: 62-65) and Africa (41.4%; 95% CI: 37-46), respectively. It is hypothesized that a considerable proportion of COVID-19 patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir inheriting ABCB1 C3435T genetic polymorphism may be predisposed to either therapeutic failure or toxicity.

Interaction of Hydroxychloroquine with Pharmacokinetically Important Drug Transporters.

(1) Background: Hydroxychloroquine is used to treat malaria and autoimmune diseases, and its potential use against COVID-19 is currently under investigation. Thus far, information on interactions of hydroxychloroquine with drug transporters mediating drug-drug interactions is limited. We assessed the inhibition of important efflux (P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP)) and uptake transporters (organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP)-1B1, OATP1B3, OATP2B1) by hydroxychloroquine, tested its P-gp and BCRP substrate characteristics, and evaluated the induction of pharmacokinetically relevant genes regulated by the nuclear pregnane X (PXR) (CYP3A4, ABCB1) and aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) (CYP1A1, CYP1A2). (2) Methods: Transporter inhibition was evaluated in transporter over-expressing cell lines using fluorescent probe substrates. P-gp and BCRP substrate characteristics were assessed by comparing growth inhibition of over-expressing and parental cell lines. Possible mRNA induction was analysed in LS180 cells by quantitative real-time PCR. (3) Results: Hydroxychloroquine did not inhibit BCRP or the OATPs tested but inhibited P-gp at concentrations exceeding 10 µM. P-gp overexpressing cells were 5.2-fold more resistant to hydroxychloroquine than control cells stressing its substrate characteristics. Hydroxychloroquine did not induce genes regulated by PXR or AhR. (4) Conclusions: This is the first evidence that hydroxychloroquine's interaction potential with drug transporters is low, albeit bioavailability of simultaneously orally administered P-gp substrates might be increased by hydroxychloroquine.