Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 8, 2002 - Volume 16 - Issue 4 > Concentration-controlled compared with conventional antiretr...
AIDS:
Clinical

Concentration-controlled compared with conventional antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection

Fletcher, Courtney V.a; Anderson, Peter L.a; Kakuda, Thomas N.a; Schacker, Timothy W.b; Henry, Keithc; Gross, Cynthia R.a; Brundage, Richard C.a

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

From the Departments of aExperimental and Clinical Pharmacology, and bInfectious Diseases, University of Minnesota Academic Health Sciences Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA; and c HIV Program, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA.

Correspondence and reprint requests to: Courtney V. Fletcher, PharmD, University of Colorado Health Science Center, School of Pharmacy, C-238, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80262, USA. Tel: +1 303 315 5229; fax: +1 303 315 4630; e-mail: courtney.fletcher@uchsc.edu

Received: 17 August 2001;

revised: 16 October 2001; accepted: 24 October 2001.

Sponsorship: This work was supported by grant nos. RO1 AI33835-08 (to C.V.F.) from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and MO1 RR00400 from the National Institutes of Health, Center for Research Resources General Clinical Research Centers Program.

Collapse Box

Abstract

Objectives: To demonstrate the feasibility of a concentration-controlled approach to combination antiretroviral therapy, and to compare the virological responses and safety of this strategy versus conventional fixed-dose therapy.

Design: A prospective, randomized, 52 week, open-label trial of concentration-controlled compared with conventional dose zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir therapy conduced in a university-based general clinical research center in the United States.

Patients: Forty antiretroviral-naive individuals with plasma HIV-RNA levels > 5000 copies/ml.

Interventions: Zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir plasma concentrations were measured in all participants. Doses were adjusted in those assigned to concentration-controlled therapy to achieve levels equal to or greater than target values.

Main outcome measures: The proportion of patients who achieved the desired drug concentrations, the proportion of patients with HIV-RNA levels < 50 copies/ml at week 52, and safety and tolerance in the concentration-controlled versus conventional therapy arms.

Results: Significantly more concentration-controlled recipients achieved the desired concentration targets for all three drugs: 15 of 16 concentration-controlled recipients compared with nine of 17 conventional recipients (P = 0.017) had HIV-RNA levels < 50 copies/ml at week 52. No difference was observed in the occurrence of drug-related clinical events or laboratory abnormalities between the two treatment arms.

Conclusion: Concentration-controlled therapy implemented simultaneously for three antiretroviral agents was feasible, as well tolerated as conventional therapy, and resulted in a greater proportion of recipients with HIV-RNA levels < 50 copies/ml after 52 weeks. These findings provide a scientific basis to challenge the accepted practice of administering the same dose of antiretroviral agents to all adults, ignoring the concentrations actually achieved.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Introduction

A profound reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with HIV-1 infection has been achieved through the use of highly potent combination antiretroviral regimens [1]. Unfortunately, the optimism surrounding these benefits is tempered by rates of virological failure that have ranged from 20 to 67% in clinical trials and in general medical practice among therapy-naive individuals [2–6]. The response to therapy varies greatly because of differences among patients in virological, immunological, behavioral, and pharmacological factors that ultimately determine therapeutic success [7–10]. No direct interventions can be made to change the inherent immunological and virological characteristics of a patient; for example, the baseline susceptibility of a patient's viral strain to an antiretroviral drug cannot be enhanced. In contrast, behavioral and pharmacological characteristics can be directly manipulated in an individual. Medication counselling can be used in an effort to improve a patient's adherence, and the dose of a drug can be increased to correct for a low plasma concentration that might arise from reduced bioavailability or a faster than average elimination half-life.

The current practice of administering standard fixed doses of antiretroviral drugs results in quite different systemic, unbound, and intracellular concentrations among patients [11–15]. Drug–drug and drug–food interactions, transporter proteins, and concomitant disease states further accentuate pharmacokinetic variability [16–18]. Numerous investigations have described relationships between systemic or intracellular drug concentrations and an anti-HIV effect [19–23]. The clinical outcome has been improved when pharmacological considerations were applied to drug dosing in other disease states in which these scenarios exist. For example, adjusting the dose of methotrexate to achieve a target concentration improved the 5 year rate of continuous complete remission in children with B-lineage acute lymphoblastic leukemia [24]. Our objectives were to demonstrate the feasibility of a concentration-controlled approach to combination antiretroviral therapy, and to compare the virological responses and safety of this strategy versus conventional fixed-dose therapy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods

Study design

This study was conducted in the General Clinical Research Center Outpatient Clinic and was approved by the Human Subjects Committee at the University of Minnesota. All subjects were informed about the study and gave written consent before participation. The eligibility criteria included being aged between 18 and 60 years, a plasma HIV-RNA level of greater than 5000 copies/ml, and no previous antiretroviral therapy. Exclusion criteria were an active opportunistic infection requiring the interruption of antiretroviral therapy or a documented history of non-adherence with medications or scheduled clinic visits.

This was a prospective, randomized, 52 week, open-label trial. The drugs and conventional doses were zidovudine 300 mg twice a day; lamivudine 150 mg twice a day; and indinavir 800 mg every 8 h. Medication counselling and information was provided to all subjects, which included instructions to take indinavir on an empty stomach or with a light meal, and to drink at least 48 ounces of water per day to maintain adequate hydration. After 2 weeks of conventional therapy (except zidovudine, which was started at 100 mg twice a day for the first week, then 200 mg twice a day for the second, to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects [14]) participants were randomly assigned to the conventional therapy arm or the concentration-controlled arm.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Pharmacokinetic and adherence evaluations

All participants underwent 8 h pharmacokinetic evaluations at weeks 2 and 28. Observed doses of zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir were administered simultaneously, and blood samples were obtained pre-dose and 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 h post dose. Patients were not allowed to eat 1 h before or 2 h after the ingestion of their medications. The 8 h sampling scheme for zidovudine and lamivudine encompassed over 85% of the total concentration area from a 12 h dosing interval. Zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir plasma concentrations were quantitated in each of these samples by high-performance liquid chromatography [25]. Pharmacokinetic parameters for each drug were calculated and used to change doses only in the concentration-controlled participants if necessary to achieve the desired target concentrations [25]. The targets were: zidovudine and lamivudine, average steady-state concentrations of 0.17 mg/l or greater and 0.40 mg/l or greater, respectively; and indinavir, 8 h post-dose (trough) concentration of 0.13 mg/l or greater. No upper limits were defined. Dose changes, based upon week 2 pharmacokinetic data, were implemented at week 4. Doses were calculated as previously described; dosing intervals were constrained to no more frequent than every 6 h, and the final interval was selected on the basis of the calculated interval and investigator's judgment [25]. A single blood sample, obtained 2–5 h post dose, was obtained at each visit. This time-frame was chosen to obtain post-absorption concentrations within an optimal window, as assessed by D-optimality criteria [25,26]. Drug concentrations in these samples were used in a Bayesian estimation feedback approach to reassess whether the desired concentrations had been achieved and to make any further dose adjustments [14,25].

Medications were provided in quantities sufficient until the next visit (i.e. 30 day supply). Participants were requested to return their unused medications at each visit. Adherence was calculated as the ratio between the number of dosage units taken, as determined by medication count, to the number expected.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Laboratory evaluations

Clinical assessments were performed at entry and weeks 2, 4, and every 4 weeks thereafter to week 52 (15 visits in total). A complete blood count with differential, blood chemistries, and lymphocyte subpopulations were determined at each visit, except after week 28, when lymphocyte subpopulations were determined every 8 weeks. Urinalysis was performed and cholesterol and triglycerides were measured every 3 months. Blood samples for the quantitation of HIV RNA (Roche Amplicor HIV-1 Ultrasensitive Assay; Roche Diagnostic Systems, Branchburg, NJ, USA) were obtained at each visit. Adverse reactions were managed using the approach of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group [27].

Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical analysis

The sample size was selected on the basis of three considerations: first, the ability to detect a greater than 40% difference in the variance of zidovudine steady-state concentrations and a greater than 0.09 mg/l difference in indinavir trough concentrations; second, the ability to detect a 0.8 g/dl difference in hemoglobin (anemia is a primary dose-limiting toxicity of zidovudine); and third, the ability to detect a greater than 30% difference in the proportions of patients with undetectable HIV RNA between the conventional and concentration-controlled arms. For all considerations, a sample size of 40 patients was sufficient at an alpha of 0.05 and 80% power.

Study participants were randomly assigned to either the conventional or concentration-controlled arm after the first 2 weeks of therapy and completion of the week 2 intensive pharmacokinetic evaluations. Random selection was performed using a permuted block approach with assignments contained in sealed, opaque envelopes sequentially numbered. The randomization cards were prepared by the protocol statistician (C.R.G.), and only provided to the clinical investigators on a case-by-case basis. After week 4, both study investigators and participants were blinded to the HIV-RNA results for the first 6 months of therapy. Those individuals with plasma HIV-RNA levels greater than 200 copies/ml at the completion of the first 6 months of therapy, or anytime thereafter, were discontinued from the study but included in the assessment of study endpoints.

The three primary endpoints of this study were: (i) the proportion of patients who achieved the desired concentration for each drug following observed doses at the week 28 intensive pharmacokinetic evaluation; (ii) the proportion with HIV-RNA levels below 50 copies/ml at week 52; and (iii) the safety and tolerance of conventional compared with concentration-controlled therapy. The endpoints of the proportions of participants achieving the desired concentrations, and the proportions with HIV-RNA levels below 50 copies/ml at week 52 were compared with Fisher's exact tests using a modified intention-to-treat approach, whereby individuals who discontinued participation before week 8 were excluded because there had not been sufficient time to establish and verify the intended experimental condition in the concentration-controlled patients. Patients who discontinued the study after week 8 were included in all response analyses using the last observation carried forward method. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the impact of treatment on undetectable HIV-RNA status at week 52. The events of the times to undetectable HIV-RNA levels in plasma, and to virological rebound were analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method, log rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards regression models [28,29]. The time to undetectable HIV-RNA levels was defined as the number of days from the start of therapy to reach the first of two consecutive plasma HIV-RNA levels of less than 50 copies/ml. This event did not require the subsequent maintenance of HIV RNA suppression. The time to virological rebound was taken as the number of days to reach the first of two consecutive HIV-RNA levels greater than 50 copies/ml after reaching a nadir or an undetectable HIV-RNA level as defined above. Adverse events were compared between the arms in a standard intention-to-treat approach using Fisher's exact tests. All statistical tests were two-sided and were performed at a 5% level of significance.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Baseline characteristics

Forty individuals were enrolled in this study between June 1997 and September 1999; the last subject completed the study in September 2000. No imbalances, including entry virological, immunological, and pharmacokinetic characteristics, were noted between individuals randomly assigned to receive concentration-controlled versus conventional therapy (Table 1; all P > 0.05). Seven of the 40 subjects had early (before week 8) treatment discontinuations and were not included in the analysis of pharmacokinetic or virological outcomes. One patient moved out of state after week 4, two were lost to follow-up at weeks 4 and 8, one was dropped from the study at week 8 for an unwillingness to comply with protocol requirements, and three withdrew for adverse events (described below).

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Pharmacokinetic evaluations

Based on the week 28 pharmacokinetic assessment (Fig. 1), the proportions of concentration-controlled (n = 16) versus conventional (n = 17) therapy recipients achieving the desired targets were: zidovudine 100 versus 53% (P = 0.003); lamivudine 100 versus 65% (P = 0.018); and indinavir 88 versus 18% (P < 0.001). Doses of zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir were changed in 44, 31, and 81%, of concentration-controlled therapy recipients, respectively. The modified dosing regimens (and number of subjects) were as follows: zidovudine 700 mg/day (four), 800 mg/day (two), 900 mg/day (one); lamivudine 450 mg/day (five); and indinavir 600 mg every 6 h (three), 800 mg every 6 h (four), 1000 mg every 8 h (six). The monthly single concentrations and the week 28 intensive evaluation provided a total of 12 opportunities per patient for dose adjustments after the initial adjustment (if necessary) at week 4. Dose adjustments after week 4, however, were rare. Two participants required an increase in their zidovudine dose from 600 to 700 mg/day (week 36) and 800 mg/day (week 32); one patient needed an increase in their lamivudine dose from 300 to 450 mg/day (week 48); and one subject's indinavir dose was increased from 800 to 1000 mg every 8 h (week 40). All conventional therapy subjects were receiving the standard doses of all three drugs at the completion of therapy. Average adherence rates for both the concentration-controlled and conventional therapy recipients to zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir exceeded 90% and were not significantly different between the two groups for each drug.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Virological responses

Thirty-three participants were eligible to be included in the analyses of virological responses. Five subjects (one in the concentration-controlled arm and four in conventional therapy) had HIV-RNA levels greater than 200 copies/ml at the completion of the first 6 months of therapy. Four additional conventional therapy recipients subsequently developed HIV-RNA endpoints. Fig. 2 shows the percentage of individuals by treatment arm who achieved the endpoint of HIV-RNA levels below 50 copies/ml. At week 52 the rates were 15 out of 16 in the concentration-controlled group compared with nine out of 17 in the conventional therapy group [mean difference in proportions, 40.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 10.3–71.1%;P = 0.017]. In a univariate logistic regression model, assignment to treatment strategy, age, and the time to reach undetectable plasma HIV-RNA levels were identified as potentially important (P < 0.1) factors associated with the likelihood of having undetectable HIV-RNA levels at week 52. Factors considered, but not associated, included baseline HIV RNA (P = 0.54) and CD4 lymphocyte count (P = 0.45). In the logistic regression model with the predictor variables included, assignment to concentration-controlled therapy remained significantly (P = 0.03) associated with undetectability at week 52, when the effects of age (P = 0.02) and the time to reach undetectable HIV-RNA levels (P = 0.07) were controlled.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Image Tools

Secondary analyses were conducted in which patients were grouped according to whether they achieved the target concentrations for zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir at week 28, independent of random assignment to concentration-controlled or conventional therapy. Fifteen patients achieved the target values for all three drugs, whereas 18 patients did not. Of the 15 who achieved all three target concentrations, 14 had less than 50 copies/ml of HIV RNA at week 52. This is in contrast with the group of 18 individuals who did not achieve all target concentrations, in which only 10 had undetectable HIV-RNA levels (P = 0.02). In a logistic regression model, the presence of target concentration conditions for all three antiretroviral drugs was associated (P = 0.05) with undetectable HIV-RNA levels at week 52, when the effects of age (P = 0.02) and the time to reach undetectable HIV-RNA levels (P = 0.03) were controlled.

The recipients of concentration-controlled therapy reached undetectable levels of HIV RNA in a shorter period of time than those who received conventional therapy (log rank test, P = 0.01). The median number of days was 108 for concentration-controlled compared with 225 days for conventional therapy (Fig. 3). This finding remained significant after controlling for baseline viral load (relative risk 3.53; 95% CI 1.43–8.7;P = 0.006). Other covariates including age, sex, and baseline CD4 cell count were not significantly related to the time to reach undetectable HIV-RNA levels. The recipients of concentration-controlled therapy also had a longer time to virological rebound (Fig. 4, log rank test, P = 0.013). Assignment to concentration-controlled therapy remained a significant factor in reducing the hazard of virological rebound (relative risk 0.09; 95% CI 0.01–0.88;P = 0.039) after adjustment for age and the time to reach undetectable HIV-RNA levels.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Image Tools
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Immunological responses

No significant differences were found in the change in CD4 lymphocytes at week 52 between the concentration-controlled and conventional therapy recipients. The mean change in CD4 cell counts from baseline was 214 cells/μl for the concentration-controlled arm, and 167 cells/μl for the conventional arm (P = 0.26). The number of days after the initiation of therapy to reach a CD4 cell count increase of 100 cells/μl was marginally significantly different between the two treatment strategies, with a median of 56 days for the concentration-controlled group compared with 86 days for the conventional dose group (log rank test, P = 0.06).

Back to Top | Article Outline
Adverse events

No significant differences were observed between the concentration-controlled (n = 21) and the conventional therapy groups (n = 19) in the occurrence of drug-related clinical events or laboratory abnormalities. In total, six participants (three in each arm) chose to withdraw for adverse events. Three patients withdrew at week 4, two (one in each arm) for gastrointestinal intolerance, and one (conventional therapy arm) for peripheral neuropathy. At week 12, one conventional therapy recipient withdrew for headache and grade II anemia (week 12 HIV-RNA level of 504 copies/ml); a subsequent magnetic resonance imaging scan was normal and there were no central nervous system complaints on follow-up examinations. Nephrolithiasis occurred in one conventional compared with three concentration-controlled therapy recipients (P > 0.5). The conventional therapy recipient had an indinavir trough concentration of 0.33 mg/l; the three concentration-controlled subjects were receiving indinavir doses (and had trough concentrations) of 800 mg every 8 h (0.27 mg/l), 1000 mg every 8 h (0.14 mg/l), and 800 mg every 6 h (0.14 mg/l). Two of these concentration-controlled recipients elected to withdraw from the study at week 28; both had HIV-RNA levels below 50 copies/ml. No difference was found in the rates of nephrolithiasis between study patients who achieved the target trough concentration for indinavir compared with those who did not. No participant had greater than grade I elevations in glucose (> 161 mg/dl) or triglyceride concentrations (> 400 mg/dl); no patient had excessive weight gain/loss or reported fat redistribution. The rates of clinically important laboratory abnormalities (grade III or greater unless noted) in concentration-controlled versus conventional therapy recipients were: hemoglobin less than 8 g/dl (grade II or greater), none versus one; absolute neutrophil count less than 750/mm3, none versus one; platelet count less than 50 000/mm3, none; total serum bilirubin equal to or greater than 2.5 times normal, three versus one; and hepatic transaminases greater than five times normal, one versus none.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

We have shown that concentration-controlled therapy implemented simultaneously for three antiretroviral agents was feasible, was tolerated as well as conventional therapy, and resulted in a greater proportion of recipients having undetectable HIV-RNA levels after 52 weeks of therapy. Our approach to concentration-controlled therapy was designed to achieve selected average steady-state concentrations of zidovudine and lamivudine, and a trough concentration for indinavir. The study was conducted using commercially available drug formulations in ambulatory, antiretroviral-naive patients attending an outpatient clinic. Significantly more subjects randomly assigned to concentration-controlled versus conventional dose therapy achieved the desired target concentrations, indicating that the desired experimental conditions were achieved.

There are currently no accepted therapeutic ranges of plasma concentrations for zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir. The value selected for zidovudine was based upon previous work that demonstrated that a concentration-controlled zidovudine monotherapy regimen targeting the same steady-state plasma concentration used in this study resulted in a significantly improved anti-HIV response when compared with conventional dose therapy [14]. The target concentration for lamivudine was the level that individuals would reach if they were perfectly adherent to the standard dose regimen and had average values for bioavailability and total body clearance (i.e. the hypothetical average individual) according to the manufacturer's package insert. This was the same conceptual approach initially used to select the zidovudine target concentration for the monotherapy study [14]. The pharmacological active moiety for zidovudine and lamivudine is not the parent compound in plasma but the triphosphate anabolite formed intracellularly. The relationships between plasma concentrations and intracellular triphosphate concentrations of these nucleoside agents are complex and multifactorial. Nevertheless, data support proportionality between the dose of zidovudine and lamivudine and the corresponding increase in intracellular triphosphate concentrations, and provide a basis to target plasma concentrations [14,30]. However, it is likely that improved precision in optimizing the anti-HIV response could be achieved by using the intracellular triphosphate as a target concentration, and future work should examine this possibility. The trough concentration selected for indinavir was based upon a pilot clinical study that found that the average value for virological responders was 0.15 mg/l [11].

In order to implement concentration-controlled therapy, zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir dose increases were necessary for 44, 31, and 81%, of the individuals assigned to this strategy, respectively. These rates are consistent with our past experience with zidovudine and with expectations for lamivudine and indinavir. In a previous study with concentration-controlled zidovudine monotherapy, 50% of participants required a dose increase to achieve the same target value used in this study. The participants in this study had oral clearance values for zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir in agreement with previously published values [11,14,31]. It was expected that less than 50% of concentration-controlled recipients would require an increased dose of lamivudine, because the target concentration was based upon average values for bioavailability and total body clearance. Previously published data for indinavir found the median 8 h post-dose concentration was 0.07 mg/l [11]. Given that that target selected for this study was 0.13 mg/l or greater, we expected that more than 50% of patients would require a dose increase. Importantly, no statistically significant differences were seen between the concentration-controlled arm compared with the conventional dose arm in the frequency of the common drug-limiting adverse events of anemia (0 versus 5%), neutropenia (0 versus 5%), and nephrolithiasis (14 versus 5%). As this study was not designed to find a difference in the rates of nephrolithiasis, it is appropriate to exercise some caution around the confidence in this finding. In general, these data replicate previous work with zidovudine, and support the hypothesis that in individuals who have lower than average systemic concentrations, dose increases to achieve average systemic concentration values should not increase rates of toxicity [14]. Finally, we found no evidence that concentration-controlled therapy, despite the need for an increased medication burden and frequency, affected medication adherence adversely. Admittedly, medication counts are a crude measure and tend to overestimate adherence; any bias in the estimation of medication adherence, however, should be equally distributed between the two treatment arms [32].

The virological response to the conventional dose regimen of zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir has been well characterized in antiretroviral-naive individuals and in patients who have been treated previously with zidovudine [33,34]. A trial in antiretroviral-naive individuals found that 46% of subjects who received this regimen had HIV-RNA levels less than 20 copies/ml after 52 weeks of therapy [33]. A recent meta-analysis of 3275 patients enrolled in 23 clinical trials found that 46% (95% CI 41–52%) of patients receiving a dual nucleoside plus protease inhibitor (PI) regimen had HIV-RNA levels of less than 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks [35]. This demonstrates excellent comparability between our control group and other studies that used the same regimen and standard doses. An analysis of baseline reverse transcriptase and protease viral DNA sequences in 26 of the participants from this study found patterns expected in individuals never exposed to antiretroviral drugs (data not shown). Therefore, drug-resistant mutations at the start of therapy do not provide an explanation for differences observed in virological response between the concentration- controlled and conventional therapy arms. A greater proportion of subjects who received concentration-controlled therapy achieved undetectable HIV-RNA levels, and concentration-controlled recipients took a shorter time to reach an undetectable level. Others have shown that a longer time to reach viral suppression is an independent predictor of the loss of viral suppression [36–39]. We found that assignment to concentration-controlled therapy significantly reduced the risk of virological rebound independent of the impact of age and the time to reach undetectable HIV-RNA levels.

In HIV therapeutics, it is common to administer dual PI in which one agent is given primarily to inhibit the metabolism of the other (e.g. indinavir, lopinavir, or saquinavir in combination with ritonavir). The potential advantages of this approach are a decrease in the frequency of drug administration and an increase in antiviral potency [40]. Disadvantages include the additional side-effects associated with ritonavir and, as demonstrated in the ATHENA study, a need to lower the indinavir dose in certain patients in order to improve tolerance [41]. It is likely that had this study been designed after the advent of the dual PI regimen of indinavir and ritonavir, the frequency of low indinavir concentrations found, and the necessity to use dosing intervals of every 6 h in some concentration-controlled recipients to achieve the desired concentrations would have been reduced. However, it cannot be confidently concluded that an indinavir plus ritonavir strategy would have ameliorated the contribution of pharmacokinetic variability to variability in virological response and maximized antiretroviral potency. Indeed, the sparse comparative data available do not support a dramatic improvement in potency with dual PI regimens. A randomized trial of lopinavir/ritonavir compared with nelfinavir in antiretroviral-naive individuals also receiving stavudine and lamivudine found that the proportion of subjects with HIV-RNA levels less than 50 copies/ml (intention to treat approach) was 64% for the lopinavir arm versus 52% for the nelfinavir arm at week 60 [42]. Virological responses were not different in a trial in 318 individuals randomly assigned to receive indinavir, ritonavir, or saquinavir plus ritonavir, all with double nucleoside therapy; 52, 41, and 58% of patients assigned to these three regimens, respectively, had less than 20 copies/ml of HIV RNA at week 72 [43]. A pharmacokinetic evaluation of the saquinavir plus ritonavir regimen (400 mg of each twice a day) showed that saquinavir trough concentrations varied at least sevenfold among patients [44]. These pharmacokinetic findings are not unique to the saquinavir plus ritonavir dual PI combination, and illustrate considerable interindividual pharmacokinetic variability, even in the presence of ritonavir-associated metabolic inhibition [45]. Collectively, these data indicate that the dual PI strategy is not maximally potent, and does not eradicate the significant differences observed in concentrations among patients. Furthermore, pharmacokinetic variability also arises from other components of an antiretroviral regimen, such as nucleoside or non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Therefore, even in the setting of dual PI regimens, efforts to mitigate the contribution of pharmacokinetic variability to variability in virological response are relevant. The results of the present study support the hypothesis that pharmacological variability affects the anti-HIV response, and that strategies to accommodate interpatient variability can improve response. These findings provide a scientific basis to challenge the accepted practice of administering the same doses of antiretroviral drugs to all adults, thereby ignoring the concentrations actually achieved.

Antiretroviral therapy is a complex, costly, long-term undertaking associated with serious potential complications. Nevertheless, the major goal of therapy when initiated is the suppression of HIV RNA to undetectable levels, as this offers the most enduring response and lessens the emergence of resistant strains of HIV. Clearly, new drug development initiatives are needed to improve both the response and tolerance to therapy. However, the lessons from the therapy of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia also appear instructive. Overall survival improved from 21% in 1966 to 86% in 1997 through efforts that included combination chemotherapy and pharmacological approaches that optimized systemic exposure to already existing agents such as methotrexate [46]. On the basis of the results of this trial of concentration-controlled combination antiretroviral therapy compared with conventional fixed-dose therapy, we believe that efforts to improve the response to antiretroviral agents must include strategies to optimize the pharmacological determinants of response. Several issues and questions remain to be addressed. Some of these include: the widespread availability of analytical and pharmacokinetic methods to accomplish dose adjustment; the determination of maximally tolerated concentrations; the identification of concentration targets for naive and treatment-experienced individuals; improved methods to quantitate medication adherence; and a scientific framework to integrate pharmacological considerations with measures of virus susceptibility to antiretroviral drugs.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Drs Linda M. Page, Edward P. Acosta, Frank S. Rhame, Alejo Erice and Henry H. Balfour Jr., for their contributions to the design and implementation of this study and the referral of study participants; to Lane Bushman, Dennis Weller, Sagar Kawle, and Shao Mei Han for performing the pharmacological assays; to the laboratory of J. Brooks Jackson at Johns Hopkins University Medical School for the measurement of HIV-RNA levels in plasma; to Glaxo-Smith Kline for their donation of zidovudine and lamivudine and Merck and Co. for their donation of indinavir; to the staff of the General Clinical Research Center for their outstanding patient care; and to the individuals who agreed to participate in this study.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Palella Jr FJ, Delaney KM, Moorman AC. et al. Declining morbidity and mortality among patients with advanced human immunodeficiency virus infection. N Engl J Med 1998, 238: 853–860.

2. Deeks SG, Hecht FM, Swanson M. et al. HIV RNA and CD4 cell count response to protease inhibitor therapy in an urban AIDS clinic: response to both initial and salvage therapy. AIDS 1999, 13: F35–F43.

3. Hammer SM, Squires KE, Hughes MD. et al. A controlled trial of two nucleoside analogues plus indinavir in persons with human immunodeficiency virus infection and CD4 counts of 200 per cubic millimeter or less. N Engl J Med 1997, 337: 725–733.

4. Ledergerber B, Egger M, Opravil M. et al. Clinical progression and virological failure of highly active antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 patients: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 1999, 353: 863–868.

5. Lucas GM, Chaisson RE, Moore RD. Highly active antiretroviral therapy in a large urban clinic: risk factors for virologic failure and adverse drug reactions. Ann Intern Med 1999, 131: 81–87.

6. Staszewski S, Miller V, Sabin C. et al. Virological response to protease inhibitor therapy in an HIV clinic cohort. AIDS 1999, 13: 367–373.

7. Carpenter CCJ, Cooper DA, Fischl MA. et al. Antiretroviral therapy in adults. Updated recommendations of the International AIDS Society – USA Panel. JAMA 2000, 283: 381–390.

8. Fletcher CV. Pharmacologic considerations for therapeutic success with antiretroviral agents. Ann Pharmacother 1999, 33: 989–995.

9. Hirsch MS, Conway B, D'Aquila RT. et al. Antiretroviral drug resistance testing in adults with HIV infection, implications for clinical management. JAMA 1998, 279: 1984–1991.

10. Paterson DL, Swindells S, Mohr J. et al. Adherence to protease inhibitor therapy and outcomes in patients with HIV infection. Ann Intern Med 2000, 133: 21–30.

11. Acosta EP, Henry K, Baken L, Page LM, Fletcher CV. Indinavir concentrations and antiviral effect. Pharmacotherapy 1999, 19: 708–712.

12. Anderson PL, Brundage RC, Bushman L, Kakuda TN, Remmel RP, Fletcher CV. Indinavir plasma protein binding in HIV-1-infected adults. AIDS 2000, 14: 2293–2297.

13. Burger DM, Hoetelmans RM, Hugen PW. et al. Low plasma concentrations of indinavir are related to virological treatment failure in HIV-1 infected patients on indinavir-containing triple therapy. Antiviral Ther 1998, 3: 215–220.

14. Fletcher CV, Acosta EP, Henry K. et al. Concentration-controlled zidovudine therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998, 64: 331–338.

15. Rodman JH, Flynn PM, Robbins B. et al. Systemic pharmacokinetics and cellular pharmacology of zidovudine in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected women and newborn infants. J Infect Dis 1999, 180: 1844–1850.

16. Fletcher CV, Acosta EP, Cheng H. et al. Competing drug–drug interactions among multidrug antiretroviral regimens used in the treatment of HIV-infected subjects: ACTG 884. AIDS 2000, 14: 2495–2501.

17. Kim RB, Fromm MF, Wandel C. et al. The drug transporter P-glycoprotein limits oral absorption and brain entry of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. J Clin Invest 1998, 101: 289–294.

18. Schuetz JD, Connelly MC, Sun D. et al. MRP4: a previously unidentified factor in resistance to nucleoside-based antiviral drugs. Nat Med 1999, 5: 1048–1051.

19. Acosta EP, Brundage RC, Kakuda TN, Anderson PL, Fletcher CV. Pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 protease inhibitors. Clin Infect Dis 2000, 30 (Suppl. 2) : S151–S159.

20. Durant J, Clevenbergh P, Garraffo R. et al. Importance of protease inhibitor plasma levels in HIV-infected patients treated with genotypic-guided therapy: pharmacological data from the Viradapt Study. AIDS 2000, 14: 3333–3339.

21. Fletcher CV, Kawle SP, Kakuda TN. et al. Zidovudine triphosphate and lamivudine triphosphate concentration-response relationships in HIV-infected persons. AIDS 2000, 14: 2137–2144.

22. Hoetelmans RMW, Reijer MHE, Weverling GJ, Kate RWT, Wit FWNM, Mulder JW. The effect of plasma drug concentrations on HIV-1 clearance rate during quadruple drug therapy. AIDS 1998, 12: F111–F115.

23. Murphy RL, Sommadossi JP, Lamson M, Hall DB, Myers M, Dusek A. Antiviral effect and pharmacokinetic interactions between nevirapine and indinavir in persons infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1. J Infect Dis 1999, 179: 1116–1123.

24. Evans WE, Relling MV, Rodman JH, Crom WR, Boyett JM, Pui CH. Conventional compared with individualized chemotherapy for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 1998, 338: 499–505.

25. Kakuda TN, Page LM, Anderson PL. et al. Pharmacologic basis for concentration-controlled therapy with zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 2001, 45: 236–242.

26. d'Argenio D, Schumitzky A, Wolf W. Simulation of linear compartment models with application to nuclear medicine kinetics. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 1988, 27: 47–54.

27. Division of AIDS. Division of AIDS table for grading severity of adult adverse experiences. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Disease; 1996.

28. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958, 53: 457–481.

29. Cox D. Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc [B] 1972, 34: 187–220.

30. Moore K, Barrett J, Shaw S. et al. The pharmacokinetics of lamivudine phosphorylation in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients infected with HIV-1. AIDS 1999, 13: 2239–2250.

31. Johnson MA, Moore KHP, Yuen GJ, Bye A, Pakes GE. Clinical pharmacokinetics of lamivudine. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999, 36: 41–66.

32. Urquhart J. Role of patient compliance in clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 1994, 27: 202–215.

33. Avanti Study Group. AVANTI 2. Randomized, double-blind trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of zidovudine plus lamivudine versus zidovudine plus lamivudine plus indinavir in HIV-infected antiretroviral-naive patients. AIDS 2000, 14: 367–374.

34. Gulick RM, Mellors JW, Havlir D. et al. Simultaneous vs sequential initiation of therapy with indinavir, zidovudine, and lamivudine for HIV-1 infection. JAMA 1998, 280: 35–41.

35. Bartlett JA, DeMasi R, Quinn J, Moxham C, Rousseau F. Overview of the effectiveness of triple combination therapy in antiretroviral-naive HIV-1 infected adults. AIDS 2001, 15: 1369–1377.

36. Havlir DV, Marschner IC, Hirsch MS. et al. Maintenance antiretroviral therapies in HIV-infected subjects with undetectable plasma HIV RNA after triple-drug therapy. N Engl J Med 1998, 339: 1261–1268.

37. Kempf DJ, Rode RA, Xu Y. et al. The duration of viral suppression during protease inhibitor therapy for HIV-1 infection is predicted by plasma HIV-1 RNA at the nadir. AIDS 1998, 12: F9–F14.

38. Raboud JM, Montaner JSG, Conway B. et al. Suppression of plasma viral load below 20 copies/ml is required to achieve a long-term response to therapy. AIDS 1998, 12: 1619–1624.

39. Reijers MHE, Weverling GJ, Jurriaans S. et al. Maintenance therapy after quadruple induction therapy in HIV-1 infected individuals: Amsterdam Duration of Antiretroviral Medication (ADAM) study. Lancet 1998, 352: 185–190.

40. Flexner C. Dual protease inhibitor therapy in HIV-infected patients: pharmacologic rationale and clinical benefits. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2000, 40: 651–676.

41. Burger D, Hugen PWH, Droste J, Huitema ADR, for the Athena study group. Therapeutic drug monitoring of indinavir in treatment-naive patients improves therapeutic outcome after 1 year: results from ATHENA. In:2nd Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology in HIV Therapy. Noordwijk, the Netherlands, 2–4 April 2001 [Abstract 6.2a].

42. Ruane P, Mendonaca J, Timerman A, et al. Kaletra vs. nelfinavir in antiretroviral-naive subjects: week 60 comparison in a phase III blinded, randomized clinical trial. In:1st IAS Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Buenos Aires, 10 July 2001.

43. Katzenstein TL, Kirk O, Pederson C. et al. The Danish protease inhibitor study: a randomized study comparing the virological efficacy of 3 protease inhibitor-containing regimens for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection. J Infect Dis 2000, 182: 744–750.

44. Cameron DW, Japour AJ, Xu Y. et al. Ritonavir and saquinavir combination therapy for the treatment of HIV infection. AIDS 1998, 13: 213–224.

45. Anderson PL, Brundage RC, Wynn HE, Fletcher CV. Steady-state plasma pharmacokinetics and urine elimination of indinavir alone and when combined with ritonavir in HIV-infected subjects. In:2nd International Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology of HIV Therapy. Noordwijk, the Netherlands, 2 April 2001 [Abstract 1.18].

46. Pui CH, Evans WE. Drug therapy: acute lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med 1998, 339: 605–615.

Cited By:

This article has been cited 74 time(s).

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of ASP2151, a Helicase-Primase Inhibitor, in a Murine Model of Herpes Simplex Virus Infection
Katsumata, K; Chono, K; Kato, K; Ohtsu, Y; Takakura, S; Kontani, T; Suzuki, H
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 57(3): 1339-1346.
10.1128/AAC.01803-12
CrossRef
Clinical Pharmacokinetics
High variability of indinavir and nelfinavir pharmacokinetics in HIV-infected patients with a sustained virological response on highly active antiretroviral therapy
Goujard, U; Legrand, M; Panhard, X; Diquet, B; Duval, X; Peytavin, G; Vincent, I; Katlama, C; Leport, C; Bonnet, B; Salmon-Ceron, D; Mentre, F; Taburet, AM
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 44(): 1267-1278.

Lancet Infectious Diseases
Clinical pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: use of inhibitory quotients to optimise pharmacotherapy
Morse, GD; Catanzaro, LM; Acosta, EP
Lancet Infectious Diseases, 6(4): 215-225.

Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Stavudine plasma concentrations and lipoatrophy
ter Hofstede, HJM; Koopmans, PP; Burger, DM
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 61(4): 933-938.
10.1093/jac/dkn041
CrossRef
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Effects of minocycline and valproic acid coadministration on atazanavir plasma concentrations in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults receiving atazanavir-ritonavir
DiCenzo, R; Peterson, DR; Cruttenden, K; Mariuz, P; Rezk, NL; Hochreiter, J; Gelbard, H; Schifitto, G
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 52(9): 3035-3039.
10.1128/AAC.00194-08
CrossRef
Drugs
Therapeutic drug monitoring - An aid to optimising response to antiretroviral drugs?
Aarnoutse, RE; Schapiro, JM; Boucher, CAB; Hekster, YA; Burger, DM
Drugs, 63(8): 741-753.

Hiv Medicine
British HIV Association (BHIVA) guidelines for the treatment of HIV-infected adults with antiretroviral therapy (2005)
Gazzard, B
Hiv Medicine, 6(): 1-61.

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Therapeutic drug monitoring of atazanavir: surveillance of pharmacotherapy in the clinic
Ray, JE; Marriott, D; Bloch, MT; McLachlan, AJ
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 60(3): 291-299.
10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02413.x
CrossRef
Infectious Disease Clinics of North America
Pharmacodynamics and clinical use of anti-HIV drugs
Preston, SL; Piliero, PJ; Drusano, GL
Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, 17(3): 651-+.
10.1016/S0891-5520(03)00064-3
CrossRef
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Diarrhea and reduced levels of antiretroviral drugs: Improvement with glutamine or alanyl-glutamine in a randomized controlled trial in northeast Brazil
Bushen, OY; Davenport, JA; Lima, AB; Piscitelli, SC; Uzgiris, AJ; Silva, TMJ; Leite, R; Kosek, M; Dillingham, RA; Girao, A; Lima, AAM; Guerrant, RL
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 38(): 1764-1770.

Antiviral Therapy
Current status and future prospects of therapeutic drug monitoring and applied clinical pharmacology in antiretroviral therapy
Boffito, M; Acosta, E; Burger, D; Fletcher, CV; Flexner, C; Garaffo, R; Gatti, G; Kurowski, M; Perno, CF; Peytavin, G; Regazzi, M; Back, D
Antiviral Therapy, 10(3): 375-392.

New Microbiologica
Thymidine kinase and deoxycytidine kinase in HIV-infected children
Falasca, F; Maida, P; Boni, A; Bernardi, S; Cursi, L; Rizzo, B; Antonelli, G; Gattinara, GC; Turriziani, O
New Microbiologica, 32(4): 411-413.

Pharmacological Research
Feasibility of, and critical paths for mycophenolate mofetil Bayesian dose adjustment: Pharmacological re-appraisal of a concentration-controlled versus fixed-dose trial in renal transplant recipients
Premaud, A; Rousseau, A; Le Meur, Y; Venisse, N; Loichot, C; Turcant, A; Hoizey, G; Compagnon, P; Hary, L; Debruyne, D; Saivin, S; Jacqz-Aigrain, E; Marquet, P
Pharmacological Research, 61(2): 167-174.
10.1016/j.phrs.2009.09.006
CrossRef
Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift
Measurement of Plasma concentration of anti retroviral drugs in HIV-therapy
Langmann, P
Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 133(): 1205-1206.
10.1055/s-2008-1077239
CrossRef
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Relationship Between Plasma Protease Inhibitor Concentrations and Lipid Elevations in HIV Patients on a Double-Boosted Protease Inhibitor Regimen (Saquinavir/Lopinavir/Ritonavir)
Rhee, MS; Hellinger, JA; Sheble-Hall, S; Cohen, CJ; Greenblatt, DJ
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 50(4): 392-400.
10.1177/0091270009339739
CrossRef
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
The use of pharmacokinetically guided indinavir dose reductions in the management of indinavir-associated renal toxicity
Boyd, MA; Siangphoe, U; Ruxrungtham, K; Reiss, P; Mahanontharit, A; Lange, JMA; Phanuphak, P; Cooper, DA; Burger, DM
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 57(6): 1161-1167.
10.1093/jac/dk1112
CrossRef
Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology
Gender: A possible determinant in dosing of dermatologic drugs - An overview
Modjtahedi, BS; Modjtahedi, SP; Maibach, HI
Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, 25(3): 195-210.
10.1080/15569520600860355
CrossRef
AIDS
Antiretroviral drug exposure in the female genital tract: implications for oral pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis
Dumond, JB; Yeh, RF; Patterson, KB; Corbett, AH; Jung, BH; Rezk, NL; Bridges, AS; Stewart, PW; Cohen, MS; Kashuba, ADM
AIDS, 21(): 1899-1907.

Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Practical therapeutic drug management in HIV-infected patients: Use of population pharmacokinetic models supplemented by individualized Bayesian dose optimization
Neely, M; Jelliffe, R
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 48(9): 1081-1091.
10.1177/0091270008321789
CrossRef
Enfermedades Infecciosas Y Microbiologia Clinica
Resistance genotyping in patients with therapeutic failure
Cabrera, C; Clotet, B
Enfermedades Infecciosas Y Microbiologia Clinica, 24(4): 219-221.

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses
Pharmacokinetic parameters of nevirapine and efavirenz in relation to antiretroviral efficacy
Van Leth, F; Kappelhoff, BS; Johnson, D; Losso, MH; Boron-Kaczmarska, A; Saag, MS; Livrozet, JM; Hall, DB; Leith, J; Huitema, ADR; Wit, FW; Beijnen, JH; Lange, JMA
AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 22(3): 232-239.

Clinical Pharmacokinetics
Intracellular Pharmacokinetics of Antiretroviral Drugs in HIV-Infected Patients, and their Correlation with Drug Action
Bazzoli, C; Jullien, V; Le Tiec, C; Rey, E; Mentre, F; Taburet, AM
Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 49(1): 17-45.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Intrapatient variability of efavirenz concentrations as a predictor of virologic response to antiretroviral therapy
Brundage, RC; Yong, FH; Fenton, T; Spector, SA; Starr, SE; Fletcher, CV
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 48(3): 979-984.
10.1128/AAC.48.3.979-984.2004
CrossRef
Current Hiv Research
Improving HIV infection management using antiretroviral plasma drug levels monitoring: A clinician's point of view
Clevenbergh, P; Mouly, S; Sellier, P; Badsi, E; Cervoni, J; Vincent, V; Trout, H; Bergmann, JF
Current Hiv Research, 2(4): 309-321.

British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Randomized exposure-controlled trials; impact of randomization and analysis strategies
Karlsson, KE; Grahnen, A; Karlsson, MO; Jonsson, EN
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 64(3): 266-277.

Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift
Plasma concentration measurement of antiretrovirals in HIV therapy
von Hentig, N
Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, 133(5): 191-195.
10.1055/s-2008-1017496
CrossRef
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Practical, Individualized Dosing: 21st Century Therapeutics and the Clinical Pharmacometrician
Neely, M; Jelliffe, R
Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 50(7): 842-847.
10.1177/0091270009356572
CrossRef
AIDS
PharmAdapt: a randomized prospective study to evaluate the benefit of therapeutic monitoring of protease inhibitors: 12 week results
Clevenbergh, P; Garraffo, R; Durant, J; Dellamonica, P
AIDS, 16(): 2311-2315.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Indinavir, efavirenz, and abacavir pharmacokinetics in human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects
DiCenzo, R; Forrest, A; Squires, KE; Hammer, SM; Fischl, MA; Wu, HL; Cha, R; Morse, GD
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 47(6): 1929-1935.
10.1128/AAC.47.6.1929-1935.2003
CrossRef
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Pharmacokinetics of indinavir and nelfinavir in treatment-naive, human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects
DiCenzo, R; Forrest, A; Fischl, MA; Collier, A; Feinberg, J; Ribaudo, H; DiFrancecso, R; Morse, GD
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 48(3): 918-923.
10.1128/AAC.48.3.918-923.2004
CrossRef
Antiviral Therapy
Pharmacokinetics of reduced-dose indinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg twice daily in HIV-1-infected Thai patients
Boyd, M; Mootsikapun, P; Burger, D; Chuenyam, T; Ubolyam, S; Mahanontharit, A; Sangkote, J; Bunyaprawit, P; Horsakulchai, M; Lange, J; Cooper, D; Phanuphak, P; Ruxrungtham, K
Antiviral Therapy, 10(2): 301-307.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
High levels of zidovudine (AZT) and its intracellular phosphate metabolites in AZT- and AZT-lamivudine-treated newborns of human immunodeficiency virus-infected mothers
Durand-Gasselin, L; Pruvost, A; Dehee, A; Vaudre, G; Tabone, MD; Grassi, J; Leverger, G; Garbarg-Chenon, A; Benech, H; Dollfus, C
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 52(7): 2555-2563.
10.1128/AAC.01130-07
CrossRef
Danish Medical Bulletin
Protease inhibitor plasma concentrations in HIV antiretroviral therapy
Justesen, US
Danish Medical Bulletin, 55(4): 165-185.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretrovirals for people with HIV
Kredo, T; Van der Walt, JS; Siegfried, N; Cohen, K
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (3): -.
ARTN CD007268
CrossRef
Biochemical Pharmacology
Indinavir alters sterol and fatty acid homeostatic mechanisms in primary rat hepatocytes by increasing levels of activated sterol regulatory element-binding proteins and decreasing cholesterol 7 alpha-hydroxylase mRNA levels
Williams, K; Rao, YP; Natarajan, R; Pandak, WM; Hylemon, PB
Biochemical Pharmacology, 67(2): 255-267.
10.1016/j.bcp.2003.08.044
CrossRef
Antiviral Therapy
Relative prognostic value of self-reported adherence and plasma NNRTI/PI concentrations to predict virological rebound in patients initially responding to HAART
Antinori, A; Cozzi-Lepri, A; Ammassari, A; Trotta, MP; Nauwelaers, D; Hoetelmans, R; Murri, R; Melzi, S; Narciso, P; Nasta, P; Zaccarelli, M; Santopadre, P; Vecchiet, J; Izzo, CM; Monforte, AD
Antiviral Therapy, 9(2): 291-296.

European Journal of Medical Research
Differences of nine drug resistance interpretation systems in predicting short-term therapy outcomes of treatment-experienced HIV-1 infected patients: A retrospective observational cohort study
Helm, M; Walter, H; Ehret, R; Schmit, JC; Kurowski, M; Knechten, H; Korn, K; Braun, P; Schmidt, B
European Journal of Medical Research, 12(6): 231-242.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Effects of valproic acid coadministration on plasma efavirenz and lopinavir concentrations in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults
DiCenzo, R; Peterson, D; Cruttenden, M; Morse, G; Riggs, G; Gelbard, H; Schifitto, G
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 48(): 4328-4331.
10.1128/AAC.48.11.4328-4331.2004
CrossRef
Antiviral Therapy
A computer-based system to aid in the interpretation of plasma concentrations of antiretrovirals for therapeutic drug monitoring
Goicoechea, M; Vidal, A; Capparelli, E; Rigby, A; Kemper, C; Diamond, C; Witt, MD; Haubrich, R
Antiviral Therapy, 12(1): 55-62.

Journal of Infectious Diseases
Sex-based differences in saquinavir pharmacology and virologic response in AIDS Clinical Trials Group study 359
Fletcher, CV; Jiang, HY; Brundage, RC; Acosta, EP; Haubrich, R; Katzenstein, D; Gulick, RM
Journal of Infectious Diseases, 189(7): 1176-1184.

Journal of the Formosan Medical Association
Simultaneous determination of indinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir in plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography
Hsieh, SM; Yu, HY; Chang, SC
Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 103(3): 191-195.

Microbiologica
Host factors and efficacy of antiretroviral treatment
Turriziani, O; Antonelli, G
Microbiologica, 27(2): 63-69.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Model for intracellular lamivudine metabolism in peripheral blood mononuclear cells ex vivo and in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected adolescents
Zhou, ZX; Rodman, JH; Flynn, PM; Robbins, BL; Wilcox, CK; D'Argenio, DZ
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 50(8): 2686-2694.
10.1128/AAC.01637-05
CrossRef
Antiviral Therapy
The NIQ of lopinavir is predictive of a 48-week virological response in highly treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected subjects treated with a lop inavir/ritonavir-containing regimen
Castagna, A; Gianotti, N; Galli, L; Danise, A; Hasson, H; Boerr, E; Hoetelmans, R; Nauwelaers, D; Lazzarin, A
Antiviral Therapy, 9(4): 537-543.

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses
Position paper on therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral agents
Acosta, EP; Gerber, JG
AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 18(): 825-834.

Current Medicinal Chemistry
Therapeutic drug monitoring in the management of HIV-infected patients
Jelena, I; Emanuele, N; Paolo, A; Rita, B; Elisabetta, DM; Stefania, N; Paolo, PL; Valerio, T; Giuseppe, I; Pasquale, N
Current Medicinal Chemistry, 15(): 1925-1939.

Journal of Clinical Virology
Therapeutic drug monitoring in the treatment of HIV-infection
Gerber, JG; Acosta, EP
Journal of Clinical Virology, 27(2): 117-128.
10.1016/S1386-6532(03)00033-7
CrossRef
Hiv Clinical Trials
Therapeutic drug monitoring in HIV treatment: A literature review
Wertheimer, BZ; Freedberg, KA; Walensky, RP; Yazdanapah, Y; Losina, E
Hiv Clinical Trials, 7(2): 59-69.

AIDS
Antiviral dynamics and sex differences of zidovudine and lamivudine triphosphate concentrations in HIV infected individuals
Anderson, PL; Kakuda, TN; Kawle, S; Fletcher, CV
AIDS, 17(): 2159-2168.
10.1097/01.aids.0000076338.42412.62
CrossRef
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology
Therapeutic drug monitoring and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antiretroviral therapy
Justesen, US
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 98(1): 20-31.

Biochemical Pharmacology
3 '-azido-3 '-deoxythymidine (AZT) is a competitive inhibitor of thymidine phosphorylation in isolated rat heart and liver mitochondria
Lynx, MD; Mckee, EE
Biochemical Pharmacology, 72(2): 239-243.
10.1016/j.bcp.2006.04.004
CrossRef
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
Impact of censoring data below an arbitrary quantification limit on structural model misspecification
Byon, W; Fletcher, CV; Brundage, RC
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, 35(1): 101-116.
10.1007/s10928-007-9078-9
CrossRef
Journal of Structural Biology
A new drug binding subsite on human serum albumin and drug-drug interaction studied by X-ray crystallography
Zhu, LL; Yang, F; Chen, LQ; Meehan, EJ; Huang, MD
Journal of Structural Biology, 162(1): 40-49.
10.1016/j.jsb.2007.12.004
CrossRef
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
CD4 response is correlated with peak plasma concentrations of indinavir in adults with undetectable human immunodeficiency virus ribonucleic acid
Anderson, PL; Brundage, RC; Kakuda, TN; Fletcher, CV
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 71(4): 280-285.
10.1067/mcp.2002.121910
CrossRef
Clinical Infectious Diseases
Switch from ritonavir to indinavir in combination therapy for HIV-1-infected children
Pelton, SI; Stanley, K; Yogev, R; Fletcher, CV; McIntosh, K; Wiznia, A; Nachman, S
Clinical Infectious Diseases, 40(8): 1181-1187.

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
Population pharmacokinetics of indinavir in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus
Csajka, C; Marzolini, C; Fattinger, K; Decosterd, LA; Telenti, A; Biollaz, M; Buclin, T
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, 48(9): 3226-3232.
10.1128/AAC.48.9.3226-3232.2004
CrossRef
Hiv Medicine
GENOPHAR: a randomized study of plasma drug measurements in association with genotypic resistance testing and expert advice to optimize therapy in patients failing antiretroviral therapy
Bossi, P; Peytavin, G; Ait-Mohand, H; Delaugerre, C; Ktorza, N; Paris, L; Bonmarchand, M; Cacace, R; David, DJ; Simon, A; Lamotte, C; Marcelin, AG; Calvez, V; Bricaire, F; Costagliola, D; Katlama, C
Hiv Medicine, 5(5): 352-359.

Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology
Pharmacokinetics of two randomized trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of indinavir, saquinavir and lopinavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir: The MaxCmin1 and 2 trials
Justesen, US; Fox, Z; Pedersen, C; Cahn, P; Gerstoft, J; Clumeck, N; Losso, M; Peters, B; Obel, N; Castagna, A; Dragsted, UB; Lundgren, JD
Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 101(5): 339-344.
10.1111/j.1742-7843.2007.00117.x
CrossRef
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy
Pharmacokinetic variability of antiretroviral drugs and correlation with virological outcome: 2 years of experience in routine clinical practice
Fabbiani, M; Di Giambenedetto, S; Bracciale, L; Bacarelli, A; Ragazzoni, E; Cauda, R; Navarra, P; De Luca, A
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 64(1): 109-117.
10.1093/jac/dkp132
CrossRef
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine
Therapeutic drug monitoring in human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome - Quo vadis?
Soldin, OP; Elin, RJ; Soldin, SJ
Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 127(1): 102-104.

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses
Indinavir plasma concentrations and resistance mutations in patients experiencing early virological failure
de Requena, DG; Gallego, O; de Mendoza, C; Corral, A; Jimenez-Nacher, I; Soriano, V
AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 19(6): 457-459.

AIDS Patient Care and Stds
Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral therapy
Rakhmanina, NY; Van den Anker, JN; Soldin, SJ
AIDS Patient Care and Stds, 18(1): 7-14.

AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses
Polymeric Nanoparticles Containing Combination Antiretroviral Drugs for HIV Type 1 Treatment
Shibata, A; McMullen, E; Pham, A; Belshan, M; Sanford, B; Zhou, Y; Goede, M; Date, AA; Destache, CJ
AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 29(5): 746-754.
10.1089/aid.2012.0301
CrossRef
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy
Coadministration of tenofovir decreased atazanavir plasma concentration after unilateral nephrectomy
Kunimoto, Y; Yasui, H; Touda, N; Okazaki, M; Nakata, H; Noda, N; Ikeda, H; Hayashi, T; Takahashi, S; Shinomura, Y; Ishida, T; Miyamoto, A
Journal of Infection and Chemotherapy, 19(4): 750-753.
10.1007/s10156-012-0488-2
CrossRef
AIDS
Thymidine kinase and deoxycytidine kinase activity in mononuclear cells from antiretroviral-naive HIV-infected patients
Turriziani, O; Butera, O; Gianotti, N; Parisi, SG; Mazzi, R; Girardi, E; Iaiani, G; Antonelli, L; Lazzarin, A; Antonelli, G
AIDS, 19(5): 473-479.

PDF (146)
AIDS
Therapeutic drug monitoring of nelfinavir and indinavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected individuals
Brinkman, K; Richter, C; Prins, J; Aarnoutse, R; Lange, J; for the ATHENA Cohort Study Group, ; Burger, D; Hugen, P; Reiss, P; Gyssens, I; Schneider, M; Kroon, F; Schreij, G
AIDS, 17(8): 1157-1165.

PDF (128)
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
An Update on Therapeutic Drug Monitoring for Antiretroviral Drugs
Back, D; Gibbons, S; Khoo, S
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 28(3): 468-473.
10.1097/01.ftd.0000211825.57984.41
PDF (117) | CrossRef
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring
Limited Sampling Strategy for the Estimation of Systemic Exposure to the Protease Inhibitor Nelfinavir
Regazzi, MB; Tinelli, C; Villani, P; Cusato, M; Zucchi, P; Silvestri, AD; Briganti, E; Roda, R; Sacchelli, L; Gatti, F; Foglie, PD; Nardini, G; Mori, F; Castelli, P; Testa, L; Maserati, R
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 27(5): 571-575.

PDF (98)
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
Comparable Pharmacokinetics of Generic Indinavir (Inhibisam) Versus Brand Indinavir (Crixivan) When Boosted With Ritonavir
Zala, C; Alexander, CS; Ochoa, C; Guillemi, S; Ting, LS; Bonner, S; Cahn, P; Harrigan, PR; Montaner, JS
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 38(3): 363-364.

PDF (133)
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
Pharmacologic Optimization of Protease Inhibitors and Nonnucleoside Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (POPIN)-A Randomized Controlled Trial of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Adherence Support
Khoo, SH; Lloyd, J; Dalton, M; Bonington, A; Hart, E; Gibbons, S; Flegg, P; Sweeney, J; Wilkins, EG; Back, DJ
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 41(4): 461-467.
10.1097/01.qai.0000218345.65434.21
PDF (484) | CrossRef
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
Pharmacogenetic Characteristics of Indinavir, Zidovudine, and Lamivudine Therapy in HIV-Infected Adults: A Pilot Study
Anderson, PL; Lamba, J; Aquilante, CL; Schuetz, E; Fletcher, CV
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 42(4): 441-449.
10.1097/01.qai.0000225013.53568.69
PDF (171) | CrossRef
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of Efavirenz: Trough Levels Cannot Be Estimated on the Basis of Earlier Plasma Determinations
López-Cortés, LF; Ruiz-Valderas, R; Marín-Niebla, A; Pascual-Carrasco, R; Rodríguez-Díez, M; Lucero-Muñoz, MJ
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 39(5): 551-556.

PDF (115)
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
Efavirenz Dose Reduction Is Safe in Patients With High Plasma Concentrations and May Prevent Efavirenz Discontinuations
van Luin, M; Gras, L; Richter, C; van der Ende, ME; Prins, JM; Wolf, Fd; Burger, DM; Wit, FW
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 52(2): 240-245.
10.1097/QAI.0b013e3181b061e6
PDF (103) | CrossRef
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Treatment-Naive and -Experienced HIV-1-Infected Patients
the California Collaborative Treatment Group 578 Study Team, ; Holland, DT; Sun, S; Jain, S; Wagner, G; Capparelli, EV; McCutchan, JA; Haubrich, RH; Best, BM; Goicoechea, M; Witt, MD; Miller, L; Daar, ES; Diamond, C; Tilles, JG; Kemper, CA; Larsen, R
JAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 46(4): 433-442.
10.1097/QAI.0b013e318156f029
PDF (368) | CrossRef
Back to Top | Article Outline
Keywords:

Antiretroviral therapy; combination therapy; drug concentrations; pharmacokinetics; therapeutic drug monitoring

© 2002 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.