AIMS: To measure the unbound plasma concentrations of saquinavir (SQV) and indinavir (IDV) and to relate them to the total plasma concentrations in order to establish the unbound percentage of protease inhibitors in vivo during a full dosage interval profile. METHODS: HIV-infected subjects (n = 35; median CD4 cell count = 340 x 10(6) cells l-1, range: 120-825; viral load < 50 copies ml-1 in 22/35) treated with SQV or IDV containing regimens were studied. Plasma drug samples were collected at 0, 2, 4, 8 and 12 h postdose for the twice daily regimens and 0, 1, 2, 4 and 8 h for the three times daily regimens. Ultra-filtration was used to separate unbound IDV and SQV in plasma and their respective concentrations were measured by a fully validated method using high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectometry (h.p.l.c.-MS/MS). RESULTS: Based on the ratio AUCunbound/AUCtotal, the median unbound percentage (95% CI for differences) of SQV and IDV from all the samples studied was 1.19% (0.99, 1.58%) and 36.3% (35.1, 44.2%), respectively. No significant difference was seen in the percentage binding of SQV between patients receiving SQV alone (median = 1.49%) or with ritonavir (median = 1.09%; P = 0.141; 95% CI for difference between medians = -0.145, 0.937) over the pharmacokinetic profile. Similarly, no significant difference was seen in the percentage binding of IDV in patients receiving IDV alone (median 35.2%) or with ritonavir (median = 41.3%; P = 0.069; 95% CI for difference between medians = -0.09, 15.4). The unbound concentrations of SQV (P < 0.0001; 95% CI for r(2) = 0.634, 0.815) and IDV (P < 0.0001; 95% CI for r(2) = 0.830, 0.925) remained constant as a proportion of total concentration over the full dosing profile. CONCLUSIONS: These in vivo data confirm previously published in vitro measurements of SQV and IDV protein binding. The unbound percentage of both protease inhibitors remained constant over the dosing interval.
AIMS: To measure the unbound plasma concentrations of saquinavir (SQV) and indinavir (IDV) and to relate them to the total plasma concentrations in order to establish the unbound percentage of protease inhibitors in vivo during a full dosage interval profile. METHODS:HIV-infected subjects (n = 35; median CD4 cell count = 340 x 10(6) cells l-1, range: 120-825; viral load < 50 copies ml-1 in 22/35) treated with SQV or IDV containing regimens were studied. Plasma drug samples were collected at 0, 2, 4, 8 and 12 h postdose for the twice daily regimens and 0, 1, 2, 4 and 8 h for the three times daily regimens. Ultra-filtration was used to separate unbound IDV and SQV in plasma and their respective concentrations were measured by a fully validated method using high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectometry (h.p.l.c.-MS/MS). RESULTS: Based on the ratio AUCunbound/AUCtotal, the median unbound percentage (95% CI for differences) of SQV and IDV from all the samples studied was 1.19% (0.99, 1.58%) and 36.3% (35.1, 44.2%), respectively. No significant difference was seen in the percentage binding of SQV between patients receiving SQV alone (median = 1.49%) or with ritonavir (median = 1.09%; P = 0.141; 95% CI for difference between medians = -0.145, 0.937) over the pharmacokinetic profile. Similarly, no significant difference was seen in the percentage binding of IDV in patients receiving IDV alone (median 35.2%) or with ritonavir (median = 41.3%; P = 0.069; 95% CI for difference between medians = -0.09, 15.4). The unbound concentrations of SQV (P < 0.0001; 95% CI for r(2) = 0.634, 0.815) and IDV (P < 0.0001; 95% CI for r(2) = 0.830, 0.925) remained constant as a proportion of total concentration over the full dosing profile. CONCLUSIONS: These in vivo data confirm previously published in vitro measurements of SQV and IDV protein binding. The unbound percentage of both protease inhibitors remained constant over the dosing interval.
Authors: J Durant; P Clevenbergh; R Garraffo; P Halfon; S Icard; P Del Giudice; N Montagne; J M Schapiro; P Dellamonica Journal: AIDS Date: 2000-07-07 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: D Descamps; P Flandre; V Calvez; G Peytavin; V Meiffredy; G Collin; C Delaugerre; S Robert-Delmas; B Bazin; J P Aboulker; G Pialoux; F Raffi; F Brun-Vézinet Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E L Murphy; A C Collier; L A Kalish; S F Assmann; M F Para; T P Flanigan; P N Kumar; L Mintz; F R Wallach; G J Nemo Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-07-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: C C Carpenter; D A Cooper; M A Fischl; J M Gatell; B G Gazzard; S M Hammer; M S Hirsch; D M Jacobsen; D A Katzenstein; J S Montaner; D D Richman; M S Saag; M Schechter; R T Schooley; M A Thompson; S Vella; P G Yeni; P A Volberding Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-01-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J W Holladay; M J Dewey; B B Michniak; H Wiltshire; D L Halberg; P Weigl; Z Liang; K Halifax; W E Lindup; D J Back Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Susan L Ford; Y Sunila Reddy; Maggie T Anderson; Sharon C Murray; Pedro Fernandez; Daniel S Stein; Mark A Johnson Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Valeria Micheli; Mario Regazzi; Laura Dickinson; Paola Meraviglia; Paola Villani; Saye H Khoo; Paolo Viganò; Laura Cordier; Maria Cusato; Piergiorgio Duca; Giovanna Orlando; Giuliano Rizzardini; David J Back; Antonietta Cargnel Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 3.681