BACKGROUND: Optimal antiretroviral exposure during pregnancy is critical for prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission and for maternal health. Pregnancy can alter antiretroviral pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to describe lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) pharmacokinetics during pregnancy. METHODS: We performed intensive steady-state 12-h pharmacokinetic profiles of lopinavir and ritonavir (three capsules: LPV 400 mg/r 100 mg) at 30-36 weeks gestation and 6-12 weeks postpartum. Maternal and umbilical cord blood samples were obtained at delivery. We measured LPV and ritonavir by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Target LPV area under concentration versus time curve (AUC) was > or = 52 microg h/ml, the estimated 10th percentile LPV AUC in non-pregnant historical controls (mean AUC = 83 microg h/ml). RESULTS: Seventeen women completed antepartum evaluations; average gestational age was 35 weeks. Geometric mean antepartum LPV AUC was 44.4 microg h/ml [90% confidence interval (CI), 38.7-50.9] and 12-h post-dose concentration (C12h) was 1.6 microg/ml (90% CI, 1.1-2.5). Twelve women completed postpartum evaluations; geometric mean LPV AUC was 65.2 microg h/ml (90% CI, 49.7-85.4) and C12h was 4.6 microg/ml (90% CI, 3.7-5.7). The geometric mean ratio of antepartum/postpartum LPV AUC was 0.72 (90% CI, 0.54-0.96). Fourteen of 17 (82%) pregnant and three of 12 (25%) postpartum women did not meet our target LPV AUC. The ratio of cord blood/maternal LPV concentration in ten paired detectable samples was 0.2 +/- 0.13. CONCLUSIONS: LPV/r exposure during late pregnancy was lower compared to postpartum and compared to non-pregnant historical controls. Small amounts of lopinavir cross the placenta. The pharmacokinetics, safety, and effectiveness of increased LPV/r dosing during the third trimester of pregnancy should be investigated.
BACKGROUND: Optimal antiretroviral exposure during pregnancy is critical for prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission and for maternal health. Pregnancy can alter antiretroviral pharmacokinetics. Our objective was to describe lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) pharmacokinetics during pregnancy. METHODS: We performed intensive steady-state 12-h pharmacokinetic profiles of lopinavir and ritonavir (three capsules: LPV 400 mg/r 100 mg) at 30-36 weeks gestation and 6-12 weeks postpartum. Maternal and umbilical cord blood samples were obtained at delivery. We measured LPV and ritonavir by reverse-phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Target LPV area under concentration versus time curve (AUC) was > or = 52 microg h/ml, the estimated 10th percentile LPV AUC in non-pregnant historical controls (mean AUC = 83 microg h/ml). RESULTS: Seventeen women completed antepartum evaluations; average gestational age was 35 weeks. Geometric mean antepartum LPV AUC was 44.4 microg h/ml [90% confidence interval (CI), 38.7-50.9] and 12-h post-dose concentration (C12h) was 1.6 microg/ml (90% CI, 1.1-2.5). Twelve women completed postpartum evaluations; geometric mean LPV AUC was 65.2 microg h/ml (90% CI, 49.7-85.4) and C12h was 4.6 microg/ml (90% CI, 3.7-5.7). The geometric mean ratio of antepartum/postpartum LPV AUC was 0.72 (90% CI, 0.54-0.96). Fourteen of 17 (82%) pregnant and three of 12 (25%) postpartum women did not meet our target LPV AUC. The ratio of cord blood/maternal LPV concentration in ten paired detectable samples was 0.2 +/- 0.13. CONCLUSIONS:LPV/r exposure during late pregnancy was lower compared to postpartum and compared to non-pregnant historical controls. Small amounts of lopinavir cross the placenta. The pharmacokinetics, safety, and effectiveness of increased LPV/r dosing during the third trimester of pregnancy should be investigated.
Authors: A M Stek; B M Best; W Luo; E Capparelli; S Burchett; C Hu; H Li; J S Read; A Jennings; E Barr; E Smith; S S Rossi; M Mirochnick Journal: HIV Med Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: C Kityo; A S Walker; L Dickinson; F Lutwama; J Kayiwa; F Ssali; R Nalumenya; D Tumukunde; P Munderi; A Reid; C F Gilks; D M Gibb; S Khoo Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-04-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Mark Mirochnick; Brookie M Best; Alice M Stek; Edmund V Capparelli; Chengcheng Hu; Sandra K Burchett; Steven S Rossi; Elizabeth Hawkins; Michael Basar; Elizabeth Smith; Jennifer S Read Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Tim R Cressey; Russell Van Dyke; Gonzague Jourdain; Thanyawee Puthanakit; Anuvat Roongpisuthipong; Jullapong Achalapong; Prapap Yuthavisuthi; Sinart Prommas; Nantasak Chotivanich; Robert Maupin; Elizabeth Smith; David E Shapiro; Mark Mirochnick Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: F T Aweeka; A Stek; B M Best; C Hu; D Holland; A Hermes; S K Burchett; J Read; M Mirochnick; E V Capparelli Journal: HIV Med Date: 2009-12-03 Impact factor: 3.180
Authors: Kristine B Patterson; Julie B Dumond; Heather A Prince; Amanda J Jenkins; Kimberly K Scarsi; Ruili Wang; Stephanie Malone; Michael G Hudgens; Angela D M Kashuba Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2013-05-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Ahizechukwu C Eke; Shelley A McCormack; Brookie M Best; Alice M Stek; Jiajia Wang; Regis Kreitchmann; David Shapiro; Elizabeth Smith; Lynne M Mofenson; Edmund V Capparelli; Mark Mirochnick Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-10-25 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Filip Josephson; Maria C H Andersson; Leo Flamholc; Magnus Gisslén; Lars Hagberg; Vidar Ormaasen; Anders Sönnerborg; Jan Vesterbacka; Ylva Böttiger Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2009-12-05 Impact factor: 2.953