Effect of low-dose omeprazole (20 mg daily) on the pharmacokinetics of multiple-dose atazanavir with ritonavir in healthy subjects.

Atazanavir, a potent protease inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), exhibits pH-dependent solubility. Previous studies have indicated that coadministration with omeprazole 40 mg once daily significantly decreased atazanavir exposure by approximately 75%. Concomitant use of omeprazole and atazanavir is currently not recommended. This study investigated a clinically effective, low dose of omeprazole (20 mg daily) on atazanavir pharmacokinetics in 56 healthy volunteers given atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 and 400/100 mg once daily. All atazanavir/ritonavir plus omeprazole combinations resulted in atazanavir area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and trough concentrations (C(min)) comparable to or exceeding those observed with atazanavir 400 mg without omeprazole. Compared with atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg without omeprazole, atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg plus omeprazole reduced atazanavir AUC and C(min) by 42% and 46%, respectively. Increasing the atazanavir/ritonavir dose to 400/100 mg attenuated the effect of omeprazole, resulting in approximately 30% lower atazanavir C(min), with all individual C(min) values exceeded by greater than 10-fold the population mean protein binding-adjusted EC(90) against wild-type HIV. The effect of omeprazole on atazanavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg was similar whether given 1 hour prior to atazanavir/ritonavir or separated by 12 hours. No unexpected adverse events were noted. This study found that omeprazole 20 mg once daily has significantly less profound effects on atazanavir pharmacokinetics than previously observed with omeprazole 40 mg.

Effect of concomitantly administered rifampin on the pharmacokinetics and safety of atazanavir administered twice daily.

The potent induction of hepatic cytochrome P450 3A isoforms by rifampin complicates therapy for coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and Mycobacterium tuberculosis. We performed an open-label, single-arm study to assess the safety and pharmacokinetic interactions of the HIV protease inhibitor atazanavir coadministered with rifampin. Ten healthy HIV-negative subjects completed pharmacokinetic sampling at steady state while receiving 300 mg atazanavir every 12 h without rifampin (period 1), 300 mg atazanavir every 12 h with 600 mg rifampin every 24 h (period 2), and 400 mg atazanavir every 12 h with 600 mg rifampin every 24 h (period 3). During period 1, the mean concentration of drug in serum at 12 h (C(12 h)) was 811 ng/ml (range, 363 to 2,484 ng/ml) for atazanavir, similar to historic seronegative data for once-daily treatment with 300 mg atazanavir boosted with 100 mg ritonavir. During periods 2 and 3, the mean C(12 h) values for atazanavir were 44 ng/ml (range, <25 to 187 ng/ml) and 113 ng/ml (range, 39 to 260 ng/ml), respectively, well below historic seronegative data for once-daily treatment with 400 mg atazanavir without ritonavir. Although safe and generally well tolerated, 300 mg or 400 mg atazanavir administered every 12 h did not maintain adequate plasma exposure when coadministered with rifampin.

Beneficial pharmacokinetic interaction between atazanavir and lopinavir/ritonavir.

BACKGROUND: The combination of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) and atazanavir (ATV) with nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors has been used as a salvage regimen in HIV-infected patients. Because these agents, to various degrees, are substrates, inducers, and inhibitors of CYP450 3A4, there is concern for alterations in the pharmacokinetics (PK) of these combined agents. OBJECTIVE: To determine the steady-state PK interactions between ATV, ritonavir (RTV), and LPV when coadministered at various doses. METHODS: HIV-negative subjects (n = 15) received a combination of ATV, RTV, and LPV in the following sequence: period I (days 1-10), ATV/r at a dose of 300/100 mg once daily; period II (days 11-24), ATV at a dose of 300 mg once daily plus LPV/r at a dose of 400/100 mg twice daily; and period III (days 25-34), ATV/r at a dose of 300/100 mg once daily plus LPV/r at a dose of 400/100 mg twice daily. Intensive PK analysis was performed on days 10, 24, and 34. A paired t test was used for pairwise comparison of log-transformed PK parameters of ATV and LPV. RESULTS: In period II, the ATV minimum concentration (Cmin) geometric mean (GM) was higher compared with period I (GM: 0.75 vs. 0.51 microg/mL, geometric mean ratio (GMR) = 1.45, 90% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19 to 1.77; P = 0.006). The ATV area under the concentration-time curve from dosing to 24 hours after the dose (AUC0-24; GM: 36.40 vs. 39.62 microg.h/mL, GMR = 0.92, 90% CI: 0.80 to 1.05; P = 0.28) did not differ, however. The addition of 100 mg of RTV in period III did not significantly increase the ATV Cmin (GM: 0.84 vs. 0.75 microg/mL, GMR = 1.13, 90% CI: 0.91 to 1.40; P = 0.34) or ATV AUC0-24 (GM: 39.59 vs. 36.40 microg.h/mL, GMR = 1.09, 90% CI: 0.99 to 1.20; P = 0.14) compared with period II. The additional RTV in period III resulted in a higher LPV Cmin (GM: 5.12 vs. 3.99 microg/mL, GMR = 1.28, 90% CI: 1.15 to 1.43; P = 0.001), but the LPV areas under the concentration-time curve from dosing to 12 hours after the dose and maximum concentration were not significantly different. LPV PK parameters in period II were comparable to those of historical control subjects receiving LPV/r at a dose of 400/100 mg twice daily. All studied regimens were well tolerated. Indirect hyperbilirubinemia was the only grade 3 and 4 abnormality reported, which was expected given that ATV competitively inhibits UGTIA1 and has not been shown to result in other hepatic abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of ATV at a dose of 300 mg once daily plus LPV/r at a dose of 400/100 mg twice daily resulted in an appropriate PK profile for ATV and LPV and could be further evaluated in treatment-experienced patients requiring a dual-boosted protease inhibitor-containing regimen.

Lack of an effect of atazanavir on steady-state pharmacokinetics of methadone in patients chronically treated for opiate addiction.

BACKGROUND: Effective antiretroviral treatment of opiate-addicted drug users with HIV infection often requires concomitant substance abuse treatment, commonly with methadone. Pharmacological interactions between antiretroviral drugs and methadone may result in opiate withdrawal or increased side effects. OBJECTIVES: To determine if atazanavir, a once-daily protease inhibitor and moderate inhibitor of P450 CYP3A4, exhibited pharmacokinetic interactions with (R)-methadone. METHODS: Methadone pharmacokinetic parameters were measured in 16 patients on chronic methadone therapy prior to and after 14 days of daily administration of atazanavir. Steady-state pharmacokinetic values for total, (R)- (active) and (S)- (inactive) isomers of methadone were derived from plasma concentrations versus time data. Symptoms of opiate withdrawal and excess were monitored. RESULTS: For the active isomer (R)-methadone, the ratio of geometric means for coadministration with atazanavir relative to methadone alone were 1.03 [90% confidence interval (CI), 0.95-1.10] for the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), 0.91 (90% CI, 0.84-1.00) for plasma maximal concentration and 1.11 (90% CI, 1.02-1.20) for plasma trough concentration. Confidence intervals for all three were within the no-effect or bioequivalence range of 0.80-1.25 for (R)-methadone. Inactive (S)-methadone was modestly reduced during atazanavir coadministration. Clinically relevant symptoms of opiate withdrawal or excess were not detected. Exposures to atazanavir were within range of previously reported values. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interactions were found between atazanavir and methadone. Dosage adjustment need not be recommended for either methadone or atazanavir when co-administered to patients treated for opiate abuse and HIV disease.

Evaluation of renal function in transplant patients on tacrolimus therapy.

Glomerular filtration rate (GFR), as measured by 24-hour creatinine clearance and clearance of iothalamate, and effective renal plasma flow (ERPF), as measured by the clearance of para-aminohippuric acid (PAH), were evaluated at 2 weeks, 1 month, and 3 months after transplantation in 8 renal transplant patients and at 1 month and 1 year after transplantation in 9 liver transplant patients receiving tacrolimus (Prograf) therapy. In renal transplant patients, there was a significant increase in GFR after transplantation. There was no change in GFR at 1 and 3 months as compared to 2 weeks after transplantation, while ERPF (ml/min/1.73 m2) was lower (p < 0.05) at 3 months (212+/-42) compared to 1 month (306+/-118) after transplantation. In liver transplant patients, GFR and ERPF were below normal despite normal serum creatinine concentrations, but there was no difference in GFR or ERPF at 1 month and 1 year after transplantation. Although below normal, renal function was well preserved in transplant patients while receiving chronic tacrolimus therapy over the study period. Dosage alterations ofrenally eliminated drugs may be required for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index.

Pharmacokinetics of cefoperazone and sulbactam in liver transplant patients.

The authors evaluated the pharmacokinetics of cefoperazone and sulbactam in 9 liver transplant patients. Cefoperazone and sulbactam were administered as an intravenous infusion over 30 minutes every 12 hours for six doses, and multiple blood samples were collected immediately after the first dose (administered during the surgery) and after the last dose. The concentrations of cefoperazone and sulbactam in serum and, when possible, in urine and bile collected over one dosing interval were measured by high-pressure liquid chromatography. The concentration of cefaperazone ranged from 436 to 4118 microg/ml, and sulbactam ranged from 3.3 to 8.7 microg/ml in the bile samples. The intraoperative clearance of cefoperazone (0.53+/-0.18 ml/min/kg) was significantly higher than the postoperative clearance (0.21+/-0.23 ml/min/kg). The half-life of cefaperazone, although not statistically significantly different, was prolonged in all patients during the postoperative period. The clearance of sulbactam (1.51+/-0.51 ml/min/kg) was lower than what is reported in patients with normal renal function but was comparable to what has been reported in patients with renal impairment and in critically ill patients. There were no significant differences in any of the pharmacokinetic parameters of sulbactam during and after surgery. The pharmacokinetic parameters of cefoperazone and sulbactam were significantly altered in liver transplant patients compared to what has been reported in normal subjects but were similar to what has been reported in patients with liver and renal impairment. There was a significant impairment in the biliary excretion of cefoperazone during the postoperative period in liver transplant patients. Although the percentage of the dose of cefoperazone excreted in the bile was drastically reduced, the biliary concentrations were generally high and above the MIC for most organisms. Given that both renal and hepatic elimination of cefoperazone is decreased, leading to a lower clearance and longer half-life in liver transplant patients, lower doses (1-2 g per day) of cefoperazone may be sufficient in liver transplant patients during the immediate postoperative period.