Dataset Information

The interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected patients.

ABSTRACT: Artemether-lumefantrine is currently the most widely recommended treatment of uncomplicated malaria. Lopinavir-based antiretroviral therapy is the commonly recommended second-line HIV treatment. Artemether and lumefantrine are metabolised by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4, which lopinavir/ritonavir inhibits, potentially causing clinically important drug-drug interactions.An adaptive, parallel-design safety and pharmacokinetic study was conducted in HIV-infected (malaria-negative) patients: antiretroviral-naïve and those stable on lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretrovirals. Both groups received the recommended six-dose artemether-lumefantrine treatment. The primary outcome was day-7 lumefantrine concentrations, as these correlate with antimalarial efficacy. Adverse events were solicited throughout the study, recording the onset, duration, severity, and relationship to artemether-lumefantrine.We enrolled 34 patients. Median day-7 lumefantrine concentrations were almost 10-fold higher in the lopinavir than the antiretroviral-naïve group [3170 versus 336 ng/mL; p?=?0.0001], with AUC(0-inf) and Cmax increased five-fold [2478 versus 445 ?g.h/mL; p?=?0.0001], and three-fold [28.2 versus 8.8 ?g/mL; p?

SUBMITTER: Kredo T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4728832 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected patients.

Kredo T T Mauff K K Workman L L Van der Walt J S JS Wiesner L L Smith P J PJ Maartens G G Cohen K K Barnes K I KI

BMC infectious diseases 20160127

<h4>Background</h4>Artemether-lumefantrine is currently the most widely recommended treatment of uncomplicated malaria. Lopinavir-based antiretroviral therapy is the commonly recommended second-line HIV treatment. Artemether and lumefantrine are metabolised by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP3A4, which lopinavir/ritonavir inhibits, potentially causing clinically important drug-drug interactions.<h4>Methods</h4>An adaptive, parallel-design safety and pharmacokinetic study was conducted in HIV-infect ...[more]

PMID: 26818566

Similar Datasets

Project description:Artemether-lumefantrine and nevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) are the most commonly recommended first-line treatments for malaria and HIV, respectively, in Africa. Artemether, lumefantrine, and nevirapine are metabolized by the cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme system, which nevirapine induces, creating potential for important drug interactions. In a parallel-design pharmacokinetic study, concentration-time profiles were obtained in two groups of HIV-infected patients: ART-naïve patients and those stable on nevirapine-based therapy. Both groups received the recommended artemether-lumefantrine dose. Patients were admitted for intense pharmacokinetic sampling (0 to 72 h) with outpatient sampling until 21 days. Concentrations of lumefantrine, artemether, dihydroartemisinin, and nevirapine were determined by validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods. The primary outcome was observed day 7 lumefantrine concentrations, as these are associated with therapeutic response in malaria. We enrolled 36 patients (32 females). Median (range) day 7 lumefantrine concentrations were 622 ng/ml (185 to 2,040 ng/ml) and 336 ng/ml (29 to 934 ng/ml) in the nevirapine and ART-naïve groups, respectively (P = 0.0002). The median artemether area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 8 h [AUC((0-8 h))] (P < 0.0001) and dihydroartemisinin AUC((60-68 h)) (P = 0.01) were lower in the nevirapine group. Combined artemether and dihydroartemisinin exposure decreased over time only in the nevirapine group (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.76 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.65 to 0.90]; P < 0.0001) and increased with the weight-adjusted artemether dose (GMR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.31 to 3.45]; P = 0.002). Adverse events were similar between groups, with no difference in electrocardiographic Fridericia corrected QT and P-R intervals at the expected time of maximum lumefantrine concentration (T(max)). Nevirapine-based ART decreased artemether and dihydroartemisinin AUCs but unexpectedly increased lumefantrine exposure. The mechanism of the lumefantrine interaction remains to be elucidated. Studies investigating the interaction of nevirapine and artemether-lumefantrine in HIV-infected patients with malaria are urgently needed.

Project description:There is conflicting evidence of the impact of commonly used antiretroviral therapies (ARTs) on the pharmacokinetics of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine. We compared the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to 14 days (AUC0-14 days) of lumefantrine and the safety profile of artemether-lumefantrine in malaria-negative human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected adults in two steps. In step 1, a half-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered as a safety check in four groups (n = 6/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) nevirapine-based ART, (iii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iv) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 2, a standard-dose adult course of artemether-lumefantrine was administered to a different cohort in three groups (n = 10 to 15/group): (i) antiretroviral naive, (ii) efavirenz-based ART, and (iii) ritonavir-boosted lopinavir-based ART. In step 1, lumefantrine's AUC0-14 days was 53% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.27 to 0.82) lower in the efavirenz-based ART group than in the ART-naive group and was 2.4 (95% CI, 1.58 to 3.62) and 2.9(95% CI, 1.75 to 4.72) times higher in the nevirapine- and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir groups, respectively. In step 2, lumefantrine's AUC0-14 days was 1.9 (95% CI, 1.26 to 3.00) times higher in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group and not significantly different between the efavirenz- and ART-naive groups (0.99 [95% CI, 0.63 to 1.57]). Frequent cases of hematological abnormalities (thrombocytopenia and neutropenia) were observed in the nevirapine group in step 1, leading to a recommendation from the data and safety monitoring board not to include a nevirapine group in step 2. Artemether-lumefantrine was well tolerated in the other groups. The therapeutic implications of these findings need to be evaluated among HIV-malaria-coinfected adults. (This study has been registered at the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry under numbers PACTR2010030001871293 and PACTR2010030001971409.).

Project description:BackgroundPharmacokinetic interactions between rifampicin and protease inhibitors (PIs) complicate the management of HIV-associated tuberculosis. Rifabutin is an alternative rifamycin, for patients requiring PIs. Recently some international guidelines have recommended a higher dose of rifabutin (150 mg daily) in combination with boosted lopinavir (LPV/r), than the previous dose of rifabutin (150 mg three times weekly {tiw}). But there are limited pharmacokinetic data evaluating the higher dose of rifabutin in combination with LPV/r. Sub-optimal dosing can lead to acquired rifamycin resistance (ARR). The plasma concentration of 25-O-desacetylrifabutin (d-RBT), the metabolite of rifabutin, increases in the presence of PIs and may lead to toxicity.Methods and resultsSixteen patients with TB-HIV co-infection received rifabutin 300 mg QD in combination with tuberculosis chemotherapy (initially pyrazinamide, isoniazid and ethambutol then only isoniazid), and were then randomized to receive isoniazid and LPV/r based ART with rifabutin 150 mg tiw or rifabutin 150 mg daily. The rifabutin dose with ART was switched after 1 month. Serial rifabutin and d-RBT concentrations were measured after 4 weeks of each treatment. The median AUC0-48 and Cmax of rifabutin in patients taking 150 mg rifabutin tiw was significantly reduced compared to the other treatment arms. Geometric mean ratio (90% CI) for AUC0-48 and Cmax was 0.6 (0.5-0.7) and 0.5 (0.4-0.6) for RBT 150 mg tiw compared with RBT 300 mg and 0.4 (0.4-0.4) and 0.5 (0.5-0.6) for RBT 150 mg tiw compared with 150 mg daily. 86% of patients on the tiw rifabutin arm had an AUC0-24 < 4.5 μg.h/mL, which has previously been associated with acquired rifamycin resistance (ARR). Plasma d-RBT concentrations increased 5-fold with tiw rifabutin dosing and 15-fold with daily doses of rifabutin. Rifabutin was well tolerated at all doses and there were no grade 4 laboratory toxicities. One case of uveitis (grade 4), occurred in a patient taking rifabutin 300 mg daily prior to starting ART, and grade 3 neutropenia (asymptomatic) was reported in 4 patients. These events were not associated with increases in rifabutin or metabolite concentrations.ConclusionsA daily 150 mg dose of rifabutin in combination with LPV/r safely maintained rifabutin plasma concentrations in line with those shown to prevent ARR.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00640887.

Project description:BackgroundNevirapine-based antiretroviral therapy is the predominant (and often the only) regimen available for children in resource-limited settings. Nevirapine resistance after exposure to the drug for prevention of maternal-to-child human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission is common, a problem that has led to the recommendation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in such settings. Regardless of whether there has been prior exposure to nevirapine, the performance of nevirapine versus ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in young children has not been rigorously established.MethodsIn a randomized trial conducted in six African countries and India, we compared the initiation of HIV treatment with zidovudine, lamivudine, and either nevirapine or ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in HIV-infected children 2 to 36 months of age who had no prior exposure to nevirapine. The primary end point was virologic failure or discontinuation of treatment by study week 24.ResultsA total of 288 children were enrolled; the median percentage of CD4+ T cells was 15%, and the median plasma HIV type 1 (HIV-1) RNA level was 5.7 log(10) copies per milliliter. The percentage of children who reached the primary end point was significantly higher in the nevirapine group than in the ritonavir-boosted lopinavir group (40.8% vs. 19.3%; P<0.001). Among the nevirapine-treated children with virologic failure for whom data on resistance were available, more than half (19 of 32) had resistance at the time of virologic failure. In addition, the time to a protocol-defined toxicity end point was shorter in the nevirapine group (P=0.04), as was the time to death (P=0.06).ConclusionsOutcomes were superior with ritonavir-boosted lopinavir among young children with no prior exposure to nevirapine. Factors that may have contributed to the suboptimal results with nevirapine include elevated viral load at baseline, selection for nevirapine resistance, background regimen of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, and the standard ramp-up dosing strategy. The results of this trial present policymakers with difficult choices. (Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and others; P1060 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00307151.).

Dataset Information

The interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected patients.

Publications

The interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets