Daclatasvir 30 mg/day is the correct dose for patients taking atazanavir/cobicistat.

BACKGROUND: Atazanavir is boosted with the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor ritonavir. When combined with the CYP3A4 substrate daclatasvir, the daclatasvir dosage should be reduced from 60 to 30 mg once daily. Recently, cobicistat was licensed as a CYP3A booster and used with atazanavir. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the fixed-dose combination of atazanavir/cobicistat has an influence on daclatasvir pharmacokinetics comparable to that of the separate agents atazanavir and ritonavir. METHODS: A prospective, open-label, two-period, randomized, cross-over trial was performed in 16 healthy subjects (NCT02565888). Treatment consisted of 300/100 mg of atazanavir/ritonavir plus 30 mg of daclatasvir once daily (reference) and a second period of 300/150 mg of atazanavir/cobicistat plus 30 mg of daclatasvir once daily (test). A 24 h pharmacokinetic, steady-state curve was recorded for all drugs. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) with 90% CI were calculated for daclatasvir and atazanavir AUCτ and Cmax to compare the effect of both treatments (test versus reference). Laboratory safety and adverse events were evaluated throughout the trial. RESULTS: All 16 healthy subjects completed the study. Median (range) age and BMI were 48.5 (21-55) years and 24.5 (19.0-29.2) kg/m2, respectively. Pharmacokinetic parameters of ritonavir and cobicistat were comparable to those in the literature. The GMRs (90% CI) of daclatasvir AUCτ and Cmax (test versus reference) were 101% (92%-111%) and 97% (89%-106%), respectively. Atazanavir GMRs (90% CI) of AUCτ and Cmax were 82% (75%-79%) and 74% (68%-81%), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Atazanavir/cobicistat and atazanavir/ritonavir had a similar influence on daclatasvir pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. Daclatasvir at 30 mg once daily is the correct dose when combined with atazanavir/cobicistat.

Pharmacokinetics of the combination raltegravir/atazanavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of raltegravir with unboosted atazanavir in combination with one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NRTI) (lamivudine or emtricitabine) as a potentially well-tolerated once-daily (qd) maintenance regimen. METHODS: We compared the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir 400 mg twice daily (bid) with raltegravir 800 mg qd in HIV-infected patients (n=17) on unboosted atazanavir (600 mg qd) in combination with lamivudine or emtricitabine. RESULTS: The area under the plasma concentration vs. time curve for a dose interval t (AUC0 -t ) of 800 mg qd divided by 2 was not significantly different from the AUC0 -t of 400 mg bid (P=0.664) but the minimum concentration (C min ) was 72% lower with the qd regimen (P=0.002). The regimen was well tolerated and the viral load remained undetectable in all patients during the 6 weeks of the study follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: A qd regimen of raltegravir 800 mg, atazanavir 600 mg and lamivudine or emtricitabine resulted in favourable pharmacokinetic profiles and good short-term safety and efficacy data. Larger phase IIb studies are needed to explore this novel regimen.

Pharmacokinetics of two generic co-formulations of lopinavir/ritonavir for HIV-infected children: a pilot study of paediatric Lopimune versus the branded product in healthy adult volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the pharmacokinetic profiles of lopinavir and ritonavir in two newly developed generic co-formulations for HIV-infected children (Lopimune paediatric tablets and granules, 100/25 mg of lopinavir/ritonavir, Cipla Pharmaceuticals), and to compare these with the branded product (Kaletra). METHODS: This Phase I, comparative, open-label, three-period, single-dose, crossover study was designed as a pilot study to exclude large (>40%) differences in the exposure to lopinavir. Single doses of medication, normalized to 400 mg of lopinavir, were administered on an empty stomach, 1 week apart. A 32 h pharmacokinetic curve was recorded. In an additional part of the study, in five of the same volunteers, a pharmacokinetic curve was recorded after administration of the Lopimune granules and Kaletra oral solution, both with food. RESULTS: Twelve healthy subjects were enrolled (four females). The median (range) age, height and body weight were 24 (21-55) years, 1.79 (1.63-1.95) m and 72 (51-87) kg, respectively. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] AUC(0-t) of lopinavir was 71.8 (48.8-93.5), 38.7 (28.7-52.2) and 58.7 (42.5-79.4) mg.h/L with Kaletra tablets, Lopimune granules and Lopimune paediatric tablets, all taken on an empty stomach, respectively. The respective C(max) values were 7.2 (5.8-8.3), 4.6 (4.1-5.2) and 6.5 (5.0-7.1) mg/L after intake of the different formulations. When comparing the Lopimune formulations with the reference product Kaletra, for all parameters the differences were statistically significant (P

Effect of efavirenz treatment on the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir boosted by ritonavir in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: A once-daily (q.d.) nucleoside-sparing regimen can prevent mitochondrial toxicity, overcome viral resistance and improve compliance. In the present study the effect of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of once-daily nelfinavir/ritonavir was evaluated in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was a multiple-dose, open-label, single-group, two-period study in 24 healthy subjects. Each received from days 1-10 (period 1): 1875 mg nelfinavir plus 200 mg ritonavir q.d. with a 300-kcal snack. During days 11-20 (period 2) efavirenz 600 mg q.d. was added to the regimen. Blood samples were collected up to 24 h after dosing on days 10 (period 1) and 20 (period 2). High-performance liquid chromatography methods were used for the determination of the concentrations of all compounds. The main pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study. After the first period mean nelfinavir AUC(0-24 h), C(max) and C(24) were 49.6 mg h(-1) l(-1), 5.0 mg l(-1) and 0.37 mg l(-1), and the sum of nelfinavir plus its active metabolite M8 C(24) was 0.83 mg l(-1). The relative bioavailability, expressed as a geometric mean ratio (90% confidence interval) for nelfinavir AUC(0-24 h), C(max) and C(24) of period 2 compared with period 1 was: 1.30 (1.21, 1.40), 1.29 (1.19, 1.40) and 1.48 (1.32, 1.66). The sum of nelfinavir and M8 C(24) in period 2 was 0.99 mg l(-1), an increase of 19%. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The studied regimens were well tolerated. Nelfinavir/ritonavir given together with efavirenz resulted in a 48% higher mean C(24) concentration for nelfinavir, and the sum of nelfinavir and M8 C(24) concentrations was 0.99 mg l(-1). Efavirenz exposure in this study was similar to that reported previously, and therefore can be used effectively in combination with ritonavir and nelfinavir.

Pharmacokinetics of adjusted-dose lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin in healthy volunteers.

Coadministration of lopinavir-ritonavir, an antiretroviral protease inhibitor, at the standard dose (400/100 mg twice a day [BID]) with the antituberculous agent rifampin is contraindicated because of a significant pharmacokinetic interaction due to induction of cytochrome P450 3A by rifampin. In the present study, two adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir were tested in combination with rifampin. Thirty-two healthy subjects participated in a randomized, two-arm, open-label, multiple-dose, within-subject controlled study. All subjects were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/100 mg BID from days 1 to 15. From days 16 to 24, the subjects in arm 1 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 800/200 mg BID in a dose titration, and the subjects in arm 2 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/400 mg BID in a dose titration. Rifampin was given at 600 mg once daily to all subjects from days 11 to 24. The multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of lopinavir, ritonavir, and rifampin were assessed. Twelve of 32 subjects withdrew from the study. For nine subjects lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin resulted in liver enzyme level elevations. Pharmacokinetic data for 19 subjects were evaluable. Geometric mean ratios for the lopinavir minimum concentration in serum and the maximum concentration in serum (C(max)) on day 24 versus that on day 10 were 0.43 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.96) and 1.02 (90% CI, 0.85 to 1.23), respectively, for arm 1 (n = 10) and 1.03 (90% CI, 0.68 to 1.56) and 0.93 (90% CI, 0.81 to 1.07), respectively, for arm 2 (n = 9). Ritonavir exposure increased from days 10 to 24 in both arms. The geometric mean C(max) of rifampin was 13.5 mg/liter (day 24) and was similar between the two arms. Adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with therapeutic drug monitoring and monitoring of liver function may allow concomitant use of rifampin.

Concomitant use of mirtazapine and phenytoin: a drug-drug interaction study in healthy male subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to assess the effect of mirtazapine on steady-state pharmacokinetics of phenytoin and vice versa and to assess tolerability and safety of the combined use of mirtazapine and phenytoin. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomised, parallel-groups, single-centre, multiple-dose pharmacokinetic study. Seventeen healthy, male subjects completed either treatment A [nine subjects: daily 200 mg phenytoin for 17 days plus mirtazapine (15 mg for 2 days continuing with 30 mg for 5 days) from day 11 to day 17] or treatment B [eight subjects: mirtazapine, daily 15 mg for 2 days continuing with 30 mg for 15 days plus phenytoin 200 mg from day 8 to day 17]. Serial blood samples were taken for kinetic profiling on the 10th and 17th days of treatment A and on the 7th and 17th days of treatment B. Induction of CYP 3A by phenytoin was evaluated by measuring the ratio of 6 beta-hydroxycortisol over cortisol on the 1st, 7th and 17th days of treatment B. RESULTS: Co-administration of mirtazapine had no effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of phenytoin, i.e. the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-24) and peak plasma concentration (C(max)) remained unchanged. The addition of phenytoin to an existing daily administration of mirtazapine resulted in a mean (+/-SD) decrease of the AUC(0-24) from 576+/-104 ng h/ml to 305+/-81.6 ng h/ml and a mean decrease of C(max) from 69.7+/-17.5 ng/ml to 46.9+/-10.9 ng/ml. Induction of CYP 3A by phenytoin is confirmed by the significantly ( P=0.001) increased 6beta-hydroxycortisol/cortisol ratio from 1.74+/-1.00 to 2.74+/-1.64. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of mirtazapine did not alter the steady-state pharmacokinetics of phenytoin. The addition of phenytoin to an existing daily administration of mirtazapine results in a decrease of the plasma concentrations of mirtazapine by 46% on average, most likely due to induction of CYP 3A3/4.