AIMS: To evaluate the interindividual variability in the plasma concentrations of lopinavir in the context of routine monitoring with or without treatment with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and to assess the interaction between the coformulation of lopinavir/ritonavir and efavirenz or nevirapine. METHODS: Plasma trough and peak concentrations (C(trough), C(max)) of lopinavir from 182 HIV-1-infected patients were analysed by high-performace liquid chromatography. Three lopinavir/ritonavir regimens were assessed, namely (A) 400 mg lopinavir/100 mg ritonavir twice daily given alone (n = 125), (B) 400/100 mg twice daily together with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (n = 25), and (C) 533/133 mg twice daily together with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (n = 32). RESULTS: Median (ng ml(-1)) C(trough) and C(max) lopinavir (interquartile range, CV) were: (A) 4852 (3198-6891, 56%) and 8501 (6333-11 584, 41%), (B) 2979 (1704-5186, 74%) and 5612 (3362-11 704, 76%) and (C) 5082 (2696-7226, 74%) and 9757 (4883-12 963, 60%). Median C(trough) of lopinavir was lower in patients taking both efavirenz [P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference between medians 343, 2713] and nevirapine (P = 0.019, 95% CI for difference between medians 354, 3681) compared with those taking lopinavir/ritonavir alone. A higher interindividual variability was observed when lopinavir/ritonavir was given with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The risk of achieving a 'suboptimal'C(trough) of lopinavir (below a threshold of 3000 ng ml(-1)) was statistically higher in patients treated with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (P < 0.001, 95% CI for difference between percentages 8.8, 43.1%) compared with those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed the interaction between lopinavir and efavirenz, and also demonstrated a significant interaction between the former drug and nevirapine, resulting in lower C(trough) of lopinavir. The wide interpatient variability in this interaction suggests that therapeutic drug monitoring may be useful in optimizing the dose of lopinavir.
AIMS: To evaluate the interindividual variability in the plasma concentrations of lopinavir in the context of routine monitoring with or without treatment with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and to assess the interaction between the coformulation of lopinavir/ritonavir and efavirenz or nevirapine. METHODS: Plasma trough and peak concentrations (C(trough), C(max)) of lopinavir from 182 HIV-1-infectedpatients were analysed by high-performace liquid chromatography. Three lopinavir/ritonavir regimens were assessed, namely (A) 400 mg lopinavir/100 mg ritonavir twice daily given alone (n = 125), (B) 400/100 mg twice daily together with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (n = 25), and (C) 533/133 mg twice daily together with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (n = 32). RESULTS: Median (ng ml(-1)) C(trough) and C(max) lopinavir (interquartile range, CV) were: (A) 4852 (3198-6891, 56%) and 8501 (6333-11 584, 41%), (B) 2979 (1704-5186, 74%) and 5612 (3362-11 704, 76%) and (C) 5082 (2696-7226, 74%) and 9757 (4883-12 963, 60%). Median C(trough) of lopinavir was lower in patients taking both efavirenz [P = 0.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) for difference between medians 343, 2713] and nevirapine (P = 0.019, 95% CI for difference between medians 354, 3681) compared with those taking lopinavir/ritonavir alone. A higher interindividual variability was observed when lopinavir/ritonavir was given with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. The risk of achieving a 'suboptimal'C(trough) of lopinavir (below a threshold of 3000 ng ml(-1)) was statistically higher in patients treated with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (P < 0.001, 95% CI for difference between percentages 8.8, 43.1%) compared with those receiving lopinavir/ritonavir alone. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirmed the interaction between lopinavir and efavirenz, and also demonstrated a significant interaction between the former drug and nevirapine, resulting in lower C(trough) of lopinavir. The wide interpatient variability in this interaction suggests that therapeutic drug monitoring may be useful in optimizing the dose of lopinavir.
Authors: G Gatti; A Di Biagio; R Casazza; C De Pascalis; M Bassetti; M Cruciani; S Vella; D Bassetti Journal: AIDS Date: 1999-10-22 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: R L Murphy; S Brun; C Hicks; J J Eron; R Gulick; M King; A C White; C Benson; M Thompson; H A Kessler; S Hammer; R Bertz; A Hsu; A Japour; E Sun Journal: AIDS Date: 2001-01-05 Impact factor: 4.177
Authors: H L Sham; D J Kempf; A Molla; K C Marsh; G N Kumar; C M Chen; W Kati; K Stewart; R Lal; A Hsu; D Betebenner; M Korneyeva; S Vasavanonda; E McDonald; A Saldivar; N Wideburg; X Chen; P Niu; C Park; V Jayanti; B Grabowski; G R Granneman; E Sun; A J Japour; J M Leonard; J J Plattner; D W Norbeck Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: David M Burger; Patricia W H Hugen; Rob E Aarnoutse; Richard M W Hoetelmans; Marielle Jambroes; Pythia T Nieuwkerk; Gerrit Schreij; Margriet M E Schneider; Marchina E van der Ende; Joep M A Lange Journal: Ther Drug Monit Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 3.681
Authors: K M L Crommentuyn; B S Kappelhoff; J W Mulder; A T A Mairuhu; E C M van Gorp; P L Meenhorst; A D R Huitema; J H Beijnen Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Wolfgang Stöhr; David Back; David Dunn; Caroline Sabin; Alan Winston; Richard Gilson; Deenan Pillay; Teresa Hill; Jonathan Ainsworth; Brian Gazzard; Clifford Leen; Loveleen Bansi; Martin Fisher; Chloe Orkin; Jane Anderson; Margaret Johnson; Philippa Easterbrook; Sara Gibbons; Saye Khoo Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Yunfeng Tie; Brooks McPhail; Huixiao Hong; Bruce A Pearce; Laura K Schnackenberg; Weigong Ge; Dan A Buzatu; Jon G Wilkes; James C Fuscoe; Weida Tong; Bruce A Fowler; Richard D Beger; Eugene Demchuk Journal: Molecules Date: 2012-03-15 Impact factor: 4.411