The interaction between artemether-lumefantrine and lopinavir/ritonavir-based antiretroviral therapy in HIV-1 infected patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kredo T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4728832 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3232823 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC6201074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diminished growth is highly prevalent among HIV-infected children and might be improved by antiretroviral therapy (ART). We examined growth recovery in a rural Ugandan cohort of HIV-infected children randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) or non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based ART.HIV-infected children 2 months to 6 years of age were randomized to LPV/r- or non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based ART. Changes in weight-for-age (WAZ), height-for-age (HAZ) and weight-for-height Z-scores for 24 months were evaluated using generalized linear repeated measures models. Recovery from being underweight (WAZ<-2), stunted (HAZ<-2) and wasted (weight-for-height <-2) to Z-scores greater than -2 was also compared by arm using Kaplan-Meier survival and Cox proportional hazard modeling.A total of 129 children with median age of 3 years initiated therapy; 64 received LPV/r-based and 65 non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based ART (nevirapine: 36 and efavirenz: 29). The median (interquartile range) difference in growth measures between baseline and 24 months for LPV/r (n = 45) versus non nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor-based therapy (n = 40) were as follows: WAZ, 0.47 (0.10, 1.62) versus 0.53 (0.03, 1.14) (P = 0.59) and HAZ, median 1.55 (0.78, 1.86) versus 1.19 (0.62, 1.65) (P = 0.23), respectively. ART regimen was not predictive of change in WAZ (?: -0.02, 95% confidence interval: -0.25, 0.20) or HAZ (?: 0.05, 95% confidence interval: -0.10, 0.19). The presence of confirmed virologic failure was not associated with growth.Most ART-naive children experienced recovery of both WAZ and HAZ over the 24 months after ART initiation, with no significant difference between those receiving LPV/r versus non nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-based ART. However, the persistence of median Z-scores below 0 underscores the need for additional strategies to improve growth outcomes in HIV+ African children.
| S-EPMC5106322 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe choice of malaria treatment for HIV-infected pregnant women receiving efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy must consider the potential impact of drug interactions on antimalarial exposure and clinical response. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of efavirenz on artemether-lumefantrine (AL) because no studies have isolated the impact of efavirenz for HIV-infected pregnant women.MethodsA prospective clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) study compared HIV-infected, efavirenz-treated pregnant women with HIV-uninfected pregnant women in Tororo, Uganda. All women received the standard 6-dose AL treatment regimen for Plasmodium falciparum malaria with intensive PK samples collected over 21 days and 42-days of clinical follow-up. PK exposure parameters were calculated for artemether, its active metabolite dihydroartemisinin (DHA), and lumefantrine to determine the impact of efavirenz.ResultsNine HIV-infected and 30 HIV-uninfected pregnant women completed intensive PK evaluations. Relative to controls, concomitant efavirenz therapy lowered the 8-hour artemether concentration by 76% (P = 0.013), DHA peak concentration by 46% (P = 0.033), and day 7 and 14 lumefantrine concentration by 61% and 81% (P = 0.046 and 0.023), respectively. In addition, there were nonsignificant reductions in DHA area under the concentration-time curve0-8hr (35%, P = 0.057) and lumefantrine area under the concentration-time curve0-∞ (34%, P = 0.063) with efavirenz therapy.ConclusionsPregnant HIV-infected women receiving efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy during malaria treatment with AL showed reduced exposure to both the artemisinin and lumefantrine. These data suggest that malaria and HIV coinfected pregnant women may require adjustments in AL dosage or treatment duration to achieve exposure comparable with HIV-uninfected pregnant women.
| S-EPMC7061940 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveCombination antiretroviral therapy (ART) is now the global standard for HIV-infected pregnant and breastfeeding women at all CD4⁺ cell counts. We compared the efficacy and safety of an efavirenz versus lopinavir/ritonavir regimen for HIV-infected pregnant women initiating ART in rural Uganda.DesignRandomized clinical trial.MethodsWe performed a planned secondary analysis comparing viral load suppression (HIV-1 RNA ≤400 copies/ml), safety, and HIV transmission to infants in a trial designed to test the hypothesis that lopinavir/ritonavir versus efavirenz-based ART would reduce placental malaria (PROMOTE, ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00993031). HIV-infected, ART-naive pregnant women at 12-28 weeks gestation and any CD4⁺ cell count were randomized. ART was provided and participants were counseled to breastfeed for 1 year postpartum.ResultsThe median age of the 389 study participants was 29 years; median CD4⁺ cell count was 370 cells/μl. At delivery, virologic suppression was 97.6% in the efavirenz arm and 86.0% in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm (P < 0.001). At 48 weeks postpartum, 91.0% of women on efavirenz and 88.4% on lopinavir/ritonavir had viral suppression (P = 0.49). Grade 1 or 2 gastrointestinal adverse events were higher among women on lopinavir/ritonavir versus efavirenz. Only two infants acquired HIV (both in the lopinavir/ritonavir arm), and HIV-free infant survival was similar between study arms: 92.9% (lopinavir/ritonavir) versus 97.2% (efavirenz) (P = 0.10).ConclusionVirologic suppression at delivery was higher with an efavirenz versus lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen. However, women in both arms achieved high levels of virologic suppression through 1 year postpartum and the risk of transmission to infants was low.
| S-EPMC4428759 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4277828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been associated with preterm birth in some studies. We examined risk factors for preterm birth among women randomized to lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r)- or efavirenz (EFV)-based ART. METHODS:This was a planned secondary analysis of the PROMOTE-Pregnant Women and Infants Study, an open-label, randomized controlled trial comparing the risk of placental malaria among HIV-infected, ART-naive pregnant Ugandan women assigned to initiate LPV/r- or EFV-based ART at 12-28 weeks gestation. Gestational age was determined based on last menstrual period and ultrasound biometry. All women received bednets and trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole. Stillbirths, spontaneous abortions, and multiple gestations were excluded from the primary analysis. Potential risk factors for preterm birth (<37 weeks gestation) were evaluated by univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS:Three hundred fifty-six women were included in this analysis. At enrollment, median gestational age was 21 weeks and median CD4 cell count was 368 cells per cubic millimeter. 14.7% of deliveries in the EFV arm and 16.2% in the LPV/r arm were preterm. Preterm birth was associated with gestational weight gain below 0.1 kg/week versus 0.1 kg/week or more [odds ratio (OR) = 2.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38 to 4.47; P = 0.003]. Neither ART regimen of LPV/r versus EFV (OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 0.63 to 2.00; P = 0.69) nor placental malaria (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.38 to 1.44; P = 0.37) was associated with preterm birth. CONCLUSIONS:LPV/r was not associated with an increased risk of preterm birth compared with EFV. However, interventions are needed to address modifiable risk factors for preterm birth, such as nutritional status (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00993031).
| S-EPMC4414017 | biostudies-literature
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.).
| S-EPMC3443859 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo access the costs of care for Ivoirian children before and after initiating LPV/r-based antiretroviral therapy (ART) before the age of two.MethodsWe assessed the direct costs of care for all HIV-infected children over the first 12 months on LPV/r-based ART initiated <2 years of age in Abidjan. We recorded all drug prescriptions, ART and cotrimoxazole prophylaxis delivery, medical analyses/examinations and hospital admissions. We compared these costs to those accrued in the month prior to ART initiation. Costs and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI) were estimated per child-month, according to severe morbidity.ResultsOf the 114 children screened, 99 initiated LPV/r-based ART at a median age of 13.5 months (IQR: 6.8-18.6); 45% had reached World Health Organization stage 3 or 4. During the first 12 months on ART, 5% died and 3% were lost to follow-up. In the month before ART initiation, the mean cost of care per child-month reached $123.39 (95%CI:$121.02-$125.74). After ART initiation, it was $42.53 (95%CI:$42.15-$42.91); 50% were ART costs. The remaining costs were non-antiretroviral drugs (18%) and medical analyses/examinations (14%). Mean costs were significantly higher within the first three months on ART ($48.76, 95%CI:$47.95-$49.56) and in children experiencing severe morbidity ($49.76, 95%CI:$48.61-50.90).ConclusionART reduces the overall monthly cost of care of HIV-infected children < 2 years. Because children were treated at an advanced HIV disease stage, the additional costs of treating severe morbidity on ART remain substantial. Strategies for treating HIV-infected children as early as possible must remain a priority in Côte d'Ivoire.
| S-EPMC5147813 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Co-administration of artemether/lumefantrine with antiretroviral therapy has potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions. We investigated drug-drug interactions between artemether/lumefantrine and efavirenz or nevirapine.We performed a cross-over study in which HIV-infected adults received standard six-dose artemether/lumefantrine 80/480 mg before and at efavirenz or nevirapine steady state. Artemether, dihydroartemisinin, lumefantrine, efavirenz and nevirapine plasma concentrations were measured and compared.Efavirenz significantly reduced artemether maximum concentration (C(max)) and plasma AUC (median 29 versus 12 ng/mL, P?<?0.01, and 119 versus 25 ng?·?h/mL, P?<?0.01), dihydroartemisinin C(max) and AUC (median 120 versus 26 ng/mL, P?<?0.01, and 341 versus 84 ng?·?h/mL, P?<?0.01), and lumefantrine C(max) and AUC (median 8737 versus 6331 ng/mL, P?=?0.03, and 280?370 versus 124?381 ng?·?h/mL, P?<?0.01). Nevirapine significantly reduced artemether C(max) and AUC (median 28 versus 11 ng/mL, P?<?0.01, and 123 versus 34 ng?·?h/mL, P?<?0.01) and dihydroartemisinin C(max) and AUC (median 107 versus 59 ng/mL, P?<?0.01, and 364 versus 228 ng?·?h/mL, P?<?0.01). Lumefantrine C(max) and AUC were non-significantly reduced by nevirapine. Artemether/lumefantrine reduced nevirapine C(max) and AUC (median 8620 versus 4958 ng/mL, P?<?0.01, and 66?329 versus 35?728 ng?·?h/mL, P?<?0.01), but did not affect efavirenz exposure.Co-administration of artemether/lumefantrine with efavirenz or nevirapine resulted in a reduction in artemether, dihydroartemisinin, lumefantrine and nevirapine exposure. These drug interactions may increase the risk of malaria treatment failure and development of resistance to artemether/lumefantrine and nevirapine. Clinical data from population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trials evaluating the impact of these drug interactions are urgently needed.
| S-EPMC3465101 | biostudies-literature