Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor etravirine in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients.

The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the antiretroviral agent etravirine were evaluated in two phase III clinical trials. Pharmacokinetic data were available in 577 patients randomized to receive etravirine. The mean (SD) population-pharmacokinetics-derived area under the concentration-time curve at 12 h (AUC(12 h)) and concentration at 0 h (C(0 h)) were 5,501 (4,544) ng·h/ml and 393 (378) ng/ml, respectively. Hepatitis C coinfection raised etravarine exposure, and concomitant use of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate lowered etravirine exposure, but these changes were not considered clinically relevant. Etravirine apparent oral clearance was not affected by age, weight, sex, race, hepatitis B coinfection status, creatinine clearance, or concomitant use of enfuvirtide. Virologic response (<50 copies/ml) at week 24 was 59% in patients randomized to etravirine vs. 41% in those receiving placebo (P < 0.0001). There was no apparent relationship between etravirine pharmacokinetics and either efficacy or safety. Factors other than the pharmacokinetics of etravirine such as the characteristics of the patients and the disease, as well as characteristics of the treatment regimen, predict virologic response.

Assessment of the steady-state pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine administered as two different formulations and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Two open-label, randomized, cross-over trials in healthy volunteers were conducted to investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: Etravirine was administered as either 800 mg twice a day (bid) (phase II formulation in Study 1) or 200 mg bid (phase III formulation in Study 2) for 8 days followed by a 12 h pharmacokinetic evaluation. After a minimum of 14 days washout, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg once a day was administered for 16 days. Volunteers were randomized to receive co-administration of etravirine with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate on either days 1-8 or days 9-16 followed by a 12 h pharmacokinetic evaluation for etravirine on day 8 or 16, respectively. Plasma and urine tenofovir concentrations were determined on days 8 and 16 over 24 h. RESULTS: The least square mean (LSM) ratio [90% confidence interval (CI)] for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(12 h)) for etravirine co-administered with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate vs. etravirine alone was 0.69 (0.61-0.79) and 0.81 (0.75-0.88) in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. The LSM ratio (90% CI) for the effect of etravirine on tenofovir AUC(24 h) was 1.16 (1.09-1.23) in Study 1 and 1.15 (1.09-1.21) in Study 2. CONCLUSIONS: These alterations are not considered clinically relevant for either drug and no dose adjustment is necessary when etravirine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate are co-administered.