BACKGROUND: A relationship between plasma concentrations and viral suppression in patients receiving lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) has been observed. Therefore, it is important to increase our knowledge about factors that determine interpatient variability in LPV pharmacokinetics (PK). METHODS: The study, designed to develop and validate population PK models for LPV and RTV, involved 263 ambulatory patients treated with 400/100 mg of LPV/RTV twice daily. A database of 1110 concentrations of LPV and RTV (647 from a single time-point and 463 from 73 full PK profiles) was available. Concentrations were determined at steady state using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. PK analysis was performed with NONMEM software. Age, gender, height, total body weight, body mass index, RTV trough concentration (RTC), hepatitis C virus coinfection, total bilirubin, hospital of origin, formulation and concomitant administration of efavirenz (EFV), saquinavir (SQV), atazanavir (ATV), and tenofovir were analyzed as possible covariates influencing LPV/RTV kinetic behavior. RESULTS: Population models were developed with 954 drug plasma concentrations from 201 patients, and the validation was conducted in the remaining 62 patients (156 concentrations). A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption (including lag-time) and elimination best described the PK. Proportional error models for interindividual and residual variability were used. The final models for the drugs oral clearance (CL/F) were as follows: CL/F(LPV)(L/h)=0.216·BMI·0.81(RTC)·1.25(EFV)·0.84(ATV); CL/F(RTV)(L/h) = 8.00·1.34(SQV)·1.77(EFV)·1.35(ATV). The predictive performance of the final population PK models was tested using standardized mean prediction errors, showing values of 0.03 ± 0.74 and 0.05 ± 0.91 for LPV and RTV, and normalized prediction distribution error, confirming the suitability of both models. CONCLUSIONS: These validated models could be implemented in clinical PK software and applied to dose individualization using a Bayesian approach for both drugs.
BACKGROUND: A relationship between plasma concentrations and viral suppression in patients receiving lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) has been observed. Therefore, it is important to increase our knowledge about factors that determine interpatient variability in LPV pharmacokinetics (PK). METHODS: The study, designed to develop and validate population PK models for LPV and RTV, involved 263 ambulatory patients treated with 400/100 mg of LPV/RTV twice daily. A database of 1110 concentrations of LPV and RTV (647 from a single time-point and 463 from 73 full PK profiles) was available. Concentrations were determined at steady state using high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection. PK analysis was performed with NONMEM software. Age, gender, height, total body weight, body mass index, RTV trough concentration (RTC), hepatitis C virus coinfection, total bilirubin, hospital of origin, formulation and concomitant administration of efavirenz (EFV), saquinavir (SQV), atazanavir (ATV), and tenofovir were analyzed as possible covariates influencing LPV/RTV kinetic behavior. RESULTS: Population models were developed with 954 drug plasma concentrations from 201 patients, and the validation was conducted in the remaining 62 patients (156 concentrations). A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption (including lag-time) and elimination best described the PK. Proportional error models for interindividual and residual variability were used. The final models for the drugs oral clearance (CL/F) were as follows: CL/F(LPV)(L/h)=0.216·BMI·0.81(RTC)·1.25(EFV)·0.84(ATV); CL/F(RTV)(L/h) = 8.00·1.34(SQV)·1.77(EFV)·1.35(ATV). The predictive performance of the final population PK models was tested using standardized mean prediction errors, showing values of 0.03 ± 0.74 and 0.05 ± 0.91 for LPV and RTV, and normalized prediction distribution error, confirming the suitability of both models. CONCLUSIONS: These validated models could be implemented in clinical PK software and applied to dose individualization using a Bayesian approach for both drugs.
Authors: Tim R Cressey; Saik Urien; Edmund V Capparelli; Brookie M Best; Sudanee Buranabanjasatean; Aram Limtrakul; Boonsong Rawangban; Prapan Sabsanong; Jean-Marc Treluyer; Gonzague Jourdain; Alice Stek; Marc Lallemant; Mark Mirochnick Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 2014-09-25 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Adriaan H de Wilde; Dirk Jochmans; Clara C Posthuma; Jessika C Zevenhoven-Dobbe; Stefan van Nieuwkoop; Theo M Bestebroer; Bernadette G van den Hoogen; Johan Neyts; Eric J Snijder Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2014-05-19 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Kun Wang; David Z D'Argenio; Edward P Acosta; Anandi N Sheth; Cecile Delille; Jeffrey L Lennox; Corenna Kerstner-Wood; Ighovwerha Ofotokun Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: José Moltó; Javier A Estévez; Cristina Miranda; Samandhy Cedeño; Bonaventura Clotet; Marta Valle Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Jincheng Yang; Mina Nikanjam; Brookie M Best; Jorge Pinto; Ellen G Chadwick; Eric S Daar; Peter L Havens; Natella Rakhmanina; Edmund V Capparelli Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-09-25 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Sun Bean Kim; Kyungmin Huh; Jung Yeon Heo; Eun Jeong Joo; Youn Jeong Kim; Won Suk Choi; Yae Jean Kim; Yu Bin Seo; Young Kyung Yoon; Nam Su Ku; Su Jin Jeong; Sung Han Kim; Kyong Ran Peck; Joon Sup Yeom Journal: Infect Chemother Date: 2020-04-23