| Literature DB >> 28886044 |
Sandra Soeria-Atmadja1,2, Emma Österberg1, Lars L Gustafsson3, Marja-Liisa Dahl3, Jaran Eriksen3, Johanna Rubin1,2, Lars Navér1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately 2.6 million children live with HIV globally, and efavirenz (EFV) is one of the most widely used antiretroviral agents for HIV treatment in children and adults. There are concerns about the appropriateness of current EFV dosing and it has been discussed whether EFV dosing should be adapted according to genotype in children as suggested for adults. AIM: To investigate if pediatric EFV dosing should be guided by genetic variation in drug metabolizing enzymes rather than by body weight.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28886044 PMCID: PMC5590735 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181316
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of administration information for efavirenz (Stocrin).
| 13–15 kg | 200 mg o.d. |
| 15–20 kg | 250 mg o.d. |
| 20–25 kg | 300 mg o.d. |
| 25–32.5 kg | 350 mg o.d. |
| 32.5–40 kg | 400 mg o.d. |
| Over 12 years and/or ≥ 40 kg | 600 mg o.d. |
Tablets: 50 mg, 200 mg and 600 mg.
Bedtime dosing and intake without food were recommended.
o.d.; once daily
Genotype and allele frequency distribution.
| Genotype | Origin | Total | Frequency % | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| African | Asian | Latin American | ||||
| 26 | 2 | 1 | 29 | 81 | ||
| 4 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 17 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 4 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 11 | ||
| 24 | 1 | 2 | 27 | 75 | ||
| 6 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 25 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 6 | 3 | 0 | 9 | 13 | ||
| 10 | 4 | 1 | 15 | 42 | ||
| 15 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 44 | ||
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 14 | ||
| 25 | 0 | 1 | 26 | 36 | ||
| 28 | 4 | 2 | 34 | 94 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 14 | ||
| 26 | 4 | 1 | 31 | 86 | ||
| 4 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 7 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | ||
| 28 | 4 | 2 | 34 | 94 | ||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 11 | 2 | 1 | 14 | 39 | ||
| 13 | 2 | 1 | 16 | 44 | ||
| 6 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 17 | ||
| 25 | 2 | 1 | 28 | 39 | ||
| 22 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 78 | ||
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 19 | ||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 9 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 13 | ||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6 | ||
| 28 | 4 | 2 | 34 | 94 | ||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 8 | ||
| 8 | 3 | 0 | 11 | 31 | ||
| 21 | 0 | 1 | 22 | 61 | ||
| 10 | 5 | 2 | 17 | 26 | ||
| 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 8 | ||
| 8 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 28 | ||
| 19 | 3 | 1 | 23 | 64 | ||
| 14 | 1 | 1 | 16 | 22 | ||
The distribution of alleles between the 11 studied genotypes.
Fig 1Correlation between dose/weight and efavirenz plasma concentration.
Scatterplot visualizing the EFV plasma concentrations from 36 patients with 182 samples and corresponding dose/weight. Linear regression with cluster robust standard errors: P-EFV (mg/L) = 4.34–0.0556*Dose/Weight (mg/kg/day); p = 0.36; r2 = 0.0046.
Relation between genetic variants, age at treatment initiation, time from treatment initiation, sex and loge EFV plasma concentration/(dose/weight).
| Coefficient | P > |z| | [95% Confidence Interval] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.053 | 0.74 | -0.26 | 0.36 | |
| 1.10 | < 0.0005 | 0.67 | 1.54 | |
| 0.54 | 0.17 | -0.24 | 1.32 | |
| 1.60 | < 0.0005 | 0.86 | 2.33 | |
| -0.084 | 0.61 | -0.41 | 0.24 | |
| 0.50 | 0.001 | 0.20 | 0.80 | |
| -0.66 | 0.12 | -1.49 | 0.16 | |
| 0.00014 | < 0.0005 | 0.000074 | 0.00021 | |
| 0.064 | 0.002 | 0.023 | 0.10 | |
| 0.084 | 0.54 | -0.19 | 0.36 | |
First, separate mixed models for all genetic polymorphisms adjusted for time from treatment initiation, age and sex were run. The significant variables were then analyzed in a multivariate mixed model. The outcome measure EFV plasma concentration/(dose/weight) was loge transformed to normalize the distribution.
Fig 2Distribution of loge mean efavirenz plasma concentration/(dose/weight) by geographical origin.
Number of patients 36 (African 30, Asian 4, Latin American 2), number of samples 182. Mean, standard deviation and 95% confidence interval are incorporated.
Fig 3Interindividual variability in mean EFV plasma concentrations and mean dose/weight.
Variation in the mean dose/weight (left) and EFV mean plasma concentration (right) in all included patients (n = 36).