About this item:

173 Views | 128 Downloads

Author Notes:

Correspondence Ighovwerha Ofotokun, M.D., MSc. Associate Professor Division of Infectious Disease, Department of Medicine Emory University School of Medicine 49 Jesse Hill Jr. Drive, Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: 404-616-0659; Fax: 404-616-0592; iofotok@emory.edu

We would like to acknowledge the individuals that participated in these studies. Without their dedication this work could not have been accomplished.

All authors declare no conflicts or interest.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

Supported by National Institutes of Health grants 1K23 A1073119 (IO), 5K12 RR017643 (IO), 1U01AI103408-01 (IO), P41-EB001978 (DZD), KL2TR000455 (ANS), UL1TR000454(ANS), Emory University CFAR (NIH P30 A1050409), and the Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NIH MO1 RR00039).

Keywords:

  • Science & Technology
  • Life Sciences & Biomedicine
  • Pharmacology & Pharmacy
  • VIRUS TYPE-1 INFECTION
  • IN-VIVO
  • LOPINAVIR PHARMACOKINETICS
  • ALPHA-1-ACID GLYCOPROTEIN
  • HIV-1-INFECTED PATIENTS
  • PROTEIN-BINDING
  • RAPID TURNOVER
  • RITONAVIR
  • EXPOSURE
  • THERAPY

Integrated Population Pharmacokinetic/Viral Dynamic Modelling of Lopinavir/Ritonavir in HIV-1 Treatment-Naive Patients

Tools:

Journal Title:

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

Volume:

Volume 53, Number 4

Publisher:

, Pages 361-371

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review

Abstract:

Background: Lopinavir (LPV)/ritonavir (RTV) co-formulation (LPV/RTV) is a widely used protease inhibitor (PI)-based regimen to treat HIV-infection. As with all PIs, the trough concentration (C trough) is a primary determinant of response, but the optimum exposure remains poorly defined. The primary objective was to develop an integrated LPV population pharmacokinetic model to investigate the influence of α-1-acid glycoprotein and link total and free LPV exposure to pharmacodynamic changes in HIV-1 RNA and assess viral dynamic and drug efficacy parameters. Methods: Data from 35 treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients initiating therapy with LPV/RTV 400/100 mg orally twice daily across two studies were used for model development and simulations using ADAPT. Total LPV (LPVt) and RTV concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet (UV) detection. Free LPV (LPVf) concentrations were measured using equilibrium dialysis and mass spectrometry. Results: The LPVt typical value of clearance ( CLLPVt/F) was 4.73 L/h and the distribution volume (V LPVt) was 55.7 L. The clearance ( CL LPVt/F) and distribution volume (V fF) for LPVf were 596 L/h and 6,370 L, respectively. The virion clearance rate was 0.0350 h-1. The simulated LPVLPVttrough values at 90 % (EC90) and 95 % (EC95) of the maximum response were 316 and 726 ng/mL, respectively. Conclusions: The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model provides a useful tool to quantitatively describe the relationship between LPV/RTV exposure and viral response. This comprehensive modelling and simulation approach could be used as a surrogate assessment of antiretroviral (ARV) activity where adequate early-phase dose-ranging studies are lacking in order to define target trough concentrations and possibly refine dosing recommendations.

Copyright information:

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland.

Export to EndNote