Economic evaluation of dabigatran etexilate for the primary prevention of venous tromboembolic events following major orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Dabigatran etexilate is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor for prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients who have elective surgery for total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). Among the advantages of dabigatran etexilate over subcutaneous prophylaxis with Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) are reduced resource uses for (i) teaching patients to self-inject; (ii) home-care visits for subcutaneous administration; and (iii) absence of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT). Based on the demonstrated non-inferiority, the aim of this study was to conduct a cost-minimization analysis of oral dabigatran etexilate vs subcutaneous low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and fondaparinux from the Dutch healthcare perspective. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to measure resource use associated with subcutaneous prophylaxis. Results of this study were used in the model to elucidate specific advantages of dabigatran etexilate, next to reduced needs for self-inject teaching and lack of Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia. Drug and other resource utilization data were combined with local unit costs. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to account for uncertainty around relevant parameters included. RESULTS: Home-care visits for subcutaneous administration problems were needed in 9.9% (95% CI=6.4-13.4) and 9.6% (95% CI=5.8-13.4) of THR and TKR patients, respectively. Based on costs for 1000 patients treated with dabigatran etexilate vs LMWHs, per patient cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate were estimated at €30.68 (95% CI=2.01-65.52) and €23.19 (95% CI=0.69-48.48) for THR and TKR, respectively. The probability that dabigatran etexilate would be cost-saving was estimated at 98.3% and 97.9% for THR and TKR, respectively. These cost-savings were even higher when including fondaparinux in the analysis, with per patient cost-savings of €69.87 (43.42-106.10) and €18.33 (1.63-41.26) for THR and TKR, respectively. Separate calculations for dabigatran etexilate vs nadroparin and dalteparin in THR resulted in probabilities of achieving cost-savings with dabigatran etexilate of 36.2% and 100%, respectively. For TKR these probabilities were estimated at 54.3% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Thromboprophylaxis with dabigatran etexilate is cost-saving in patients undergoing THR and TKR from the Dutch healthcare perspective, compared to subcutaneous LMWHs.

Cost-effectiveness of tipranavir versus comparator protease inhibitor regimens in HIV infected patients previously exposed to antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the costs and effects of a regimen with ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) to a physician-selected genotypically-defined standard-of-care comparator protease inhibitor regimen boosted with ritonavir (CPI/r) in HIV infected patients that were previously exposed to antiretroviral therapy in the Netherlands. METHODS: We compared the projected lifetime costs and effects of two theoretical groups of 1000 patients, one receiving a standard of care regimen with TPV/r as a component and the other receiving a standard of care regimen with CPI/r. A 3-stage Markov model was formulated to represent three different consecutive HAART regimens. The model uses 12 health states based on viral load and CD4+ count to simulate disease progression. The transition probabilities for the Markov model were derived from a United States cohort of treatment experienced HIV patients. Furthermore, the study design was based on 48-week data from the RESIST-2 clinical trial and local Dutch costing data. Cost and health effects were discounted at 4% and 1.5% respectively according to the Dutch guideline. The analysis was conducted from the Dutch healthcare perspective using 2006 unit cost prices. RESULTS: Our model projects an accumulated discounted cost to the Dutch healthcare system per patient receiving the TPV/r regimen of euro167,200 compared to euro145,400 for the CPI/r regimen. This results in an incremental cost of euro21,800 per patient. The accumulated discounted effect is 7.43 life years or 6.31 quality adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient receiving TPV/r, compared to 6.91 life years or 5.80 QALYs per patient receiving CPI/r. This translates into an incremental effect of TPV/r over CPI/r of 0.52 life years gained (LYG) or 0.51 QALYs gained. The corresponding incremental cost effectiveness ratios (iCERs) are euro41,600 per LYG and euro42,500 per QALY. CONCLUSION: We estimated the iCER for TPV/r compared to CPI/r at approximately euro40,000 in treatment experienced HIV-1 infected patients in the Netherlands. This ratio may well be in range of what is acceptable and warrants reimbursement for new drug treatments in the Netherlands, in particular in therapeutic areas as end-stage oncology and HIV and other last-resort health-care interventions.

Pharmacokinetics of nevirapine: once-daily versus twice-daily dosing in the 2NN study.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the large international, randomized 2NN trial, the pharmacokinetics of nevirapine in once-daily 400 mg and twice-daily 200 mg dosing regimens were investigated. METHOD: Treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients were randomized to receive nevirapine 400 mg once daily or 200 mg twice daily, in combination with lamivudine and stavudine. Blood samples were collected at several time-points (day 3, weeks 1, 2, 4, 24, and 48). Differences in pharmacokinetics between once- versus twice-daily dosing were investigated with nonlinear mixed effects modelling (NONMEM). RESULTS: In total, 2,899 nevirapine plasma concentrations were available from 578 patients. Dosage and dosing frequency did not influence clearance or volume of distribution of nevirapine, indicating linear pharmacokinetic behavior of nevirapine whether given as a single daily dose or as divided doses over 24 hours. During steady state, the Cmin was lower (3.26 mg/L vs. 4.44 mg/L; p < .001) and the Cmax was higher (7.88 mg/L vs. 6.55 mg/L; p < .001) in the once-daily arm. However, compared to total variability in nevirapine levels for both treatments, these differences were minor. During steady state, total exposure, measured as AUC24h, was comparable for both regimens (133 mg/L*h vs. 133 mg/L*h; p = .084). CONCLUSION: The daily exposure to nevirapine (AUC24h) was similar for the 400 mg once-daily and the 200 mg twice-daily dosing regimens. The Cmin of nevirapine is lower and the Cmax of nevirapine is higher for the once-daily regimen as compared to the twice-daily regimen. As a result, 200 mg nevirapine dosed twice daily may be preferred over 400 mg nevirapine dosed once daily.

Population pharmacokinetics of indinavir alone and in combination with ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to characterize the population pharmacokinetics of indinavir, define the relationship between the pharmacokinetics of indinavir and ritonavir, and to identify the factors influencing the pharmacokinetics of indinavir alone or when given with ritonavir. METHODS: HIV-1-infected patients being treated with an indinavir-containing regimen were included. During regular visits, 102 blood samples were collected for the determination of plasma indinavir and ritonavir concentrations. Full pharmacokinetic curves were available from 45 patients. Concentrations of indinavir and ritonavir were determined by liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed effect modelling (NONMEM). RESULTS: The disposition of indinavir was best described by a single compartment model with first order absorption and elimination. Values for the clearance, volume of distribution and the absorption rate constant were 46.8 l h(-1) (24.2% IIV), 82.3 l (24.6% IIV) and 02.62 h(-1), respectively. An absorption lag-time of 0.485 h was detected in patients also taking ritonavir. Furthermore this drug, independent of dose (100-400 mg) or plasma concentration, decreased the clearance of indinavir by 64.6%. In contrast, co-administration of efavirenz or nevirapine increased the clearance of indinavir by 41%, irrespective of the presence or absence of ritonavir. Female patients had a 48% higher apparent bioavailability of indinavir than males. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic parameters of indinavir were adequately described by our population model. Female gender and concomitant use of ritonavir and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors strongly influenced the pharmacokinetics of this drug. The results support the concept of ritonavir boosting, maximum inhibition of indinavir metabolized being observed at 100 mg.

Population pharmacokinetics of efavirenz in an unselected cohort of HIV-1-infected individuals.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to characterise the population pharmacokinetics of efavirenz in a representative patient population and to identify patient characteristics influencing the pharmacokinetics of efavirenz, with the ultimate goal of further developing techniques that can be applied to optimise therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral agents. METHODS: Ambulatory HIV-1-infected patients using an efavirenz-containing regimen were included. During regular visits, blood samples were collected for efavirenz plasma concentrations and clinical chemistry parameters. Concentrations of efavirenz were quantitatively assessed by a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic with ultraviolet detection method. Using nonlinear mixed-effect modelling (NONMEM), the pharmacokinetics of efavirenz were described. Disposition of efavirenz was described by a two-compartment model and absorption was modelled using a chain of three transition compartments. Apparent clearance (CL/F), volume of distribution after oral administration (V(d)/F), intercompartmental clearance, the peripheral volume of distribution and the intercompartmental transition rate constant (k(tr)) were estimated. Furthermore, interindividual, interoccasion and residual variability were estimated. The influence of patient characteristics on the pharmacokinetic parameters of efavirenz was explored. RESULTS: From 172 patients, 40 full pharmacokinetic curves and 315 efavirenz plasma concentrations at a single timepoint were available, resulting in a database of 1009 efavirenz plasma concentrations. CL/F, V(d)/F, and k(tr) were 11.7 L/h (4.3% relative standard error [RSE]), 189L (14.6% RSE) and 3.07 h(-1) (11.2% RSE), respectively. Residual variability in the model was composed of 0.14 mg/L additive error and 8.85% proportional error. Asian race and baseline total bilirubin (TBR) increased the relative bioavailability of efavirenz by 56% and 57%, respectively. No significant covariates were found for CL/F or V(d)/F. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic parameters of efavirenz were adequately described with the developed population pharmacokinetic model. Asian race and baseline TBR were found to be significantly correlated with the bioavailability of efavirenz. The described model will be an essential tool in further optimisation of efavirenz-containing antiretroviral therapy, e.g. by the use of Bayesian estimation of individual pharmacokinetic parameters.

Are adverse events of nevirapine and efavirenz related to plasma concentrations?

OBJECTIVE: The relationships between adverse events (AEs) and plasma concentrations of nevirapine (NVP) and efavirenz (EFV) were investigated as part of the large, international, randomized 2NN study. METHODS: Treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients received NVP (once or twice daily), EFV or their combination, each in combination with lamivudine and stavudine. Blood samples were collected on day 3 and weeks 1, 2, 4, 24 and 48. Concentrations of NVP and EFV were quantitatively assessed by a validated HPLC assay. Individual Bayesian estimates of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve over 24 h (AUC24h), and minimum and maximum plasma concentrations (Cmin and Cmax) as measures for drug exposure of NVP and EFV, were generated using a previously developed population pharmacokinetic model. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared for patients with and without central nervous system (CNS) and psychiatric AEs, hepatic events, liver enzyme elevations (LEEs) and rash. Furthermore, it was investigated whether a clear cut-off for a pharmacokinetic parameter could be identified above which the incidence of AEs was clearly increased. AEs were also related to demographic parameters and baseline characteristics. RESULTS: In total, from 1077 patients, NVP (3024 samples) and EFV (1694 samples) plasma concentrations and AE data (825 observations) were available. For all patients Cmin, Cmax and AUC24h were determined. When corrected for known covariates of gender, CD4 cell count at baseline, region, hepatitis coinfection and possible interactions between these factors, no significant associations between AEs and any tested exposure parameter of NVP was observed. Also, no target Cmin value, above which patients were at increased risk for AEs, could be established. On the other hand, geographical region, hepatitis coinfection, CD4 cell count and gender were found to be significantly related with the incidence of CNS and psychiatric AEs, hepatic events, LEEs and rash during the treatment with NVP. The occurrence of elevated liver enzymes during the first 6 weeks in the EFV-containing arm was significantly (P = 0.036) correlated to the exposure of EFV (Cmin). Only hepatitis coinfection impacted on LEEs during the first 6 weeks of treatment. With an EFV Cmin above 2.18 mg/l during the induction phase, patients were 4.4 (range 1.3-15.5) times more at risk for elevated liver enzymes. No other correlations between AEs and EFV pharmacokinetics or patient characteristics could be identified. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacokinetic parameters of NVP did not have a relationship to AEs in the 2NN trial when corrected for known covariates. The value of periodical drug monitoring of NVP as a way to prevent toxicity is therefore limited. Treating physicians should instead focus on factors that are more predictive of AEs (gender, CD4 count and hepatitis coinfection). High EFV Cmin levels resulted in elevated liver enzyme values during the first 6 weeks of treatment. Regular measurement of EFV levels and liver enzymes at the start of therapy may therefore be advised.

No pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between nevirapine and paclitaxel.

We have investigated the pharmacokinetics of nevirapine and paclitaxel in a patient who used both drugs concomitantly, as there are strong theoretical indications for a potential pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. Plasma concentrations of nevirapine (dose: 200 mg twice daily orally) and paclitaxel (dose: 100 mg/m(2) 3-h i.v. infusion) were determined in a HIV-1-infected patient with Kaposi's sarcoma. Since both drugs are metabolized via the same cytochrome P450 isoenzymes, investigation of a drug-drug interaction was considered important. We found that the plasma concentrations of nevirapine given together with paclitaxel were similar to those given without paclitaxel. The exposures to paclitaxel (AUC(0-infinity) = 3787 h.ng/ml) and its hydroxy metabolites when co-administered with nevirapine were comparable to the mean exposure to paclitaxel and its metabolites from eight historical controls (AUC(0-infinity) = 3614 h.ng/ml) treated with the same dose. No pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between nevirapine and paclitaxel could be demonstrated in our HIV-1-infected patient.

Should non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors be combined?

In the treatment of HIV-infected patients, an urgent need exists for more conveniently dosed and better tolerated regimens with improved virological and immunological efficacy. Based on preclinical studies, the combination of two non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) was considered to fulfill this. Several clinical studies, however, have shown different results with regard to mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, efficacy and toxicity of dual NNRTI regimens. Combinations of two NNRTIs have shown additive or synergistic inhibitory effects on the HIV-1 reverse transcriptase activity and the viral replication of HIV-1 in vitro, although antagonistic effects have also been described. When nevirapine and efavirenz were administered in combination, the exposure to efavirenz was decreased due to induction of metabolism by nevirapine. When compared with single NNRTI regimens, dual NNRTI regimens showed similar but not superior results with regard to virological and immunological success in treatment-naive and pretreated HIV-1-infected patients. However, NNRTI-associated adverse events, such as clinical hepatitis, elevated liver enzymes, rash, central nervous system toxicity and psychiatric disorders, occurred more frequently when two NNRTIs were administered concomitantly. In conclusion, regimens with both nevirapine and efavirenz seem to result in similar antiviral and immunological efficacy with an increased incidence of adverse events compared with single NNRTI regimens. The combination of two NNRTIs is therefore less desirable than other available and effective treatment options.

Nevirapine and efavirenz pharmacokinetics and covariate analysis in the 2NN study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this 2NN pharmacokinetic substudy was to investigate the population pharmacokinetics of nevirapine and efavirenz. METHODS: Treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients received nevirapine (once or twice daily), efavirenz or a combination with lamivudine and stavudine. Blood samples were collected on day 3 and weeks 1, 2, 4, 24 and 48. Using non-linear mixed effects modelling, pharmacokinetics of nevirapine and efavirenz and factors involved in the inter-individual variability were investigated. RESULTS: Clearance of nevirapine in the induction phase (<14 days) and at steady state (>28 days) were 2.02 I/h and 2.81 I/h, respectively. Volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 77.0 l and 1.66 h(-1), respectively. Clearance of nevirapine was lower in females (13.8%) and in patients with hepatitis B (19.5%). Patients from South America and Western countries had higher clearance of nevirapine compared with Thai and South African patients. The clearances of efavirenz in the induction phase and at steady state were 7.95 l/h and 8.82 l/h, respectively. The volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 4181 and 0.287 h(-1), respectively. Concomitant use of nevirapine increased clearance of efavirenz (43%). Patients from Thailand had lower clearance than the rest of the population. CONCLUSIONS: The population pharmacokinetics of nevirapine and efavirenz were assessed in the 2NN trial. For both drugs, an induction phase was distinguished from the steady-state phase. Gender, hepatitis B and geographical region were involved in the variability of the pharmacokinetics of nevirapine. Region and concomitantly used nevirapine were determinants of the pharmacokinetics of efavirenz.

Development and validation of a population pharmacokinetic model for ritonavir used as a booster or as an antiviral agent in HIV-1-infected patients.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a population pharmacokinetic model of ritonavir, used as an antiviral agent or as a booster, in a large patient population and to identify factors influencing its pharmacokinetics. METHODS: Ambulatory HIV-1-infected patients from the outpatient clinic of the Slotervaart Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, who were being treated with a ritonavir-containing regimen were included. During regular visits, blood samples were collected for the determination of ritonavir plasma concentrations and several clinical chemistry parameters. Furthermore, complete pharmacokinetic curves were available in some patients. Single and multiple compartment models with zero-order and first-order absorption, with and without absorption lag-time, with linear and nonlinear elimination were tested, using nonlinear mixed effect modelling (NONMEM). Pharmacokinetic parameters and interindividual, interoccasion and residual variability were estimated. In addition, the influence of several factors (e.g. patient characteristics, comedication) on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir was explored. RESULTS: From 186 patients 505 ritonavir plasma concentrations at a single time-point and 55 full pharmacokinetic profiles were available, resulting in a database of 1228 plasma ritonavir concentrations. In total 62% of the patients used ritonavir as a booster of their protease inhibitor containing antiretroviral regimen. First order absorption in combination with one-compartment disposition best described the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir. Clearance, volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 10.5 l h(-1) (95% prediction interval (95% PI) 9.38-11.7), 96.6 l (95% PI 67.2-121) and 0.871 h(-1) (95% PI 0.429-1.47), respectively, with 38.3%, 80.0% and 169% interindividual variability, respectively. The interoccasion variability in the apparent bioavailability was 59.1%. The concomitant use of lopinavir resulted in a 2.7-fold increase in the clearance of ritonavir (P value < 0.001). No patients characteristics influenced the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic parameters of ritonavir were adequately described by our population pharmacokinetic model. Concomitant use of the protease inhibitor lopinavir strongly influenced the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir. The model has been validated and can be used for further investigation of the interaction between ritonavir and other protease inhibitors.

Practical guidelines to interpret plasma concentrations of antiretroviral drugs.

Several relationships have been reported between antiretroviral drug concentrations and the efficacy of treatment, and toxicity. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may be a valuable tool in improving the treatment of HIV-1-infected patients in daily practice. In this regard, several measures of exposure have been studied, e.g. trough and maximum concentrations, concentration ratios and the inhibitory quotient. However, it has not been unambiguously established which pharmacokinetic parameter should be monitored to maintain optimal viral suppression. Each pharmacokinetic parameter has its pros and cons. Many factors can affect the pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral agents, resulting in variability in plasma concentrations between and within patients. Therefore, plasma concentrations should be considered on several occasions. In addition, the interpretation of the drug concentration of a patient should be performed on an individual basis, taking into account the clinical condition of the patient. Important factors herewith are viral load, immunology, occurrence of adverse events, resistance pattern and comedication. In spite of the described constraints, the aim of this review is to provide a practical guide for TDM of antiretroviral agents. This article outlines pharmacokinetic target values for the HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, atazanavir, indinavir, lopinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir, and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors efavirenz and nevirapine. Detailed advice is provided on how to interpret the results of TDM of these drugs.

Simple and rapid method for the simultaneous determination of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors efavirenz and nevirapine in human plasma using liquid chromatography.

Efavirenz and nevirapine are non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors for the treatment of HIV-1-infected individuals. A simple and rapid high-performance liquid chromatographic method for the simultaneous quantification of efavirenz and nevirapine in human plasma suitable for therapeutic drug monitoring is described. Sample pre-treatment consisted of protein precipitation with acetonitrile and subsequently dilution with distilled water. The drugs were separated from endogenous compounds by isocratic reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection at 275 nm. The method was validated over the therapeutically relevant concentration range of 0.05-15.0 mg l(-1) and 0.25-15.0 mg l(-1) for efavirenz and nevirapine, respectively, using a volume of 100 microl of plasma. The calibration curves were linear over this concentration range. Carbamazepine was used as internal standard. The assay proved to be accurate (accuracies varied between -12.7 and 8.5%) and precise (intra- and inter-assay precisions were less then 5.9%). The tested batches of control human plasma and frequently co-administered drugs did not interfere with the described methodology. Efavirenz and nevirapine were stable under various relevant storage conditions. This validated assay is suited for use in pharmacokinetic studies with efavirenz and nevirapine and can readily be implemented in the setting of a hospital laboratory for the monitoring of efavirenz and nevirapine concentrations.