Darunavir Trough Concentrations Research Articles

Pharmacokinetic profile and safety of adjusted doses of darunavir/ritonavir with rifampicin in people living with HIV.

Darunavir/ritonavir is better tolerated than lopinavir/ritonavir and has a higher genetic barrier to resistance. Co-administration with rifampicin has been contraindicated as a significant reduction in darunavir exposure is expected. This is a barrier to darunavir/ritonavir use where TB is endemic. To evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetic profile of adjusted doses of darunavir/ritonavir with rifampicin. Virally suppressed participants on second-line lopinavir/ritonavir-based ART were switched to darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg q24h. In sequence: rifampicin was added; the dose of ritonavir was escalated; and darunavir was increased (darunavir/ritonavir 1600/200 mg q24h and 800/100 mg q12h were given in randomized sequence with rifampicin). Darunavir plasma concentrations were measured on the seventh/last day of each treatment period. To prevent viral rebound, dolutegravir (50 mg q12h) was added during rifampicin administration and for 1 week thereafter. Clinical events, ALT and bilirubin were monitored every 2-3 days during rifampicin administration. A total of 17/28 participants started study treatment. Six (35.3%) were withdrawn for symptomatic hepatitis with severe ALT elevations, developing after 9-11 days of rifampicin and 2-4 days of ritonavir 200 mg. The study was stopped prematurely due to this high rate of hepatotoxicity. Only four participants completed the study. All hepatotoxicity resolved on withdrawal of study treatment. All participants were successfully re-established on their lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimen. After doubling the darunavir/ritonavir doses on rifampicin, darunavir pre-dose concentrations approached those on standard doses without rifampicin for q12h doses, but not for q24h doses. Adjusted doses of darunavir/ritonavir with rifampicin had unacceptable risk of hepatotoxicity. Darunavir trough concentrations were markedly reduced with the daily adjusted dose.

Darunavir/cobicistat showing similar effectiveness as darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy despite lower trough concentrations.

IntroductionWhen darunavir (DRV) 800 mg is boosted with 150 mg cobicistat (DRV cobi), DRV trough concentration (Ctrough) is about 30% lower as compared to 100 mg ritonavir (DRV rtv). DRV cobi shows similar virological efficacy as DRV rtv when combined with two nucleos(t)ide analogue reverse‐transcriptase inhibitors, but it is unknown whether a lower DRV Ctrough would undermine the effectiveness of DRV cobi when given as monotherapy (mtDRV cobi).MethodsProspective observational study on virologically suppressed HIV‐infected subjects who switched to mtDRV cobi. Virological failure was defined as two consecutive HIV‐RNA >200 copies/mL. Efficacy was evaluated by intention‐to‐treat (ITT) and on‐treatment (OT) analyses, and compared with data from a previous cohort of subjects on mtDRV rtv conducted at our centre. Plasma DRV Ctrough was measured using LC–MS/MS.ResultsA total of 234 subjects were enrolled. At week 96, the efficacy rates were 67.8% (CI 95, 61.8 to 73.7) by ITT and 86.9% (CI 95, 78.0 to 87.7) by OT analyses. The corresponding rates in our historical DRV rtv controls were 67.6% (CI 95, 60.0 to 75.2) and 83.6% (CI 95: 77.2 to 90.0). A total of 135 DRV determinations were performed in 83 subjects throughout the follow‐up period, with a median plasma DRV Ctrough of 1305 ng/mL (range, 150 to 5895) compared with 1710 ng/mL (range, 200 to 3838) in subjects on monotherapy with DRV rtv (p = 0.05).Conclusions DRV Ctrough was lower in HIV‐infected subjects receiving DRV cobi than with DRV rtv. However, this did not appear to influence the efficacy of DRV cobi, when administered as monotherapy.

HIV treatment simplification to elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disproxil fumarate (E/C/F/TDF) plus darunavir: a pharmacokinetic study

BackgroundAs a simplification strategy for treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients who have achieved virologic suppression on a multi-drug, multi-class antiretroviral regimen, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetics of once-daily elvitegravir/cobicistat/emtricitabine/tenofovir disproxil fumarate (E/C/F/TDF) with darunavir.MethodsA single arm, open-label 48-week study was conducted of regimen simplification to E/C/F/TDF plus darunavir 800 mg daily from stable therapy including two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors, a ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor, and an integrase inhibitor. Participants had plasma HIV viral load consistently < 200 copies/mL for ≥ 6 months, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 60 mL/min, and no genotypic resistance to major components of the study regimen. Plasma viral load was measured at weeks 2 and 4, then every 4 weeks throughout the study. Safety laboratory assessments were conducted at baseline and at weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48. Antiretroviral drug concentrations were measured at baseline and once ≥ 2 weeks after the regimen change.ResultsTen HIV-infected adults (8 male and 2 female; median age 50.5 years) were enrolled. All maintained virologic suppression on the new regimen for 48 weeks. One subject experienced a decrease in eGFR from 62 mL/min at baseline to 52 mL/min at week 12; study medications were continued and his eGFR remained stable (50–59 mL/min) thereafter. No subjects discontinued study medications for renal function changes or other adverse events. Darunavir trough concentration were lower on the new regimen than on darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg (n = 5; p < 0.05).ConclusionsDespite low darunavir trough concentrations, treatment simplification to a two-pill, once-daily regimen of E/C/F/TDF plus darunavir was safe and effective for 48 weeks among 10 selected treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients.Trial registration The study protocol was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02199613) on July 22, 2014

Food intake and darunavir plasma concentrations in people living with HIV in an outpatient setting.

AimsPatients receiving darunavir are advised to take it concomitantly with food. The objectives of the present cross‐sectional study were to evaluate the actual concomitant food intake of patients visiting an HIV outpatient clinic.MethodsSixty participants treated with darunavir/ritonavir once daily were subjected to a food recall questionnaire concerning their last concomitant food intake with darunavir. Darunavir trough concentrations were calculated.ResultsThe median food intake was 507 (0–2707) kcal; protein intake, 20 (0–221)g; carbohydrate intake, 62 (0–267)g; fat intake: 14 (0–143)g; and dietary fibre: 4 (0–30)g. Twenty‐five patients (42%) ingested their drug with between‐meal snacks. No relationship was found between food intake and trough concentrations.ConclusionsClear advice on the optimal caloric intake is needed, to avoid high caloric intake in patients who already have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease due to their HIV infection.

Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Darunavir Administered Once or Twice Daily in Combination with Ritonavir or the Three-Direct-Acting Antiviral Regimen of Ombitasvir/Paritaprevir/Ritonavir and Dasabuvir in Adults Coinfected with Hepatitis C and Human Immunodeficiency Viruses.

The three-direct-acting antiviral (3D) regimen containing ombitasvir, paritaprevir, ritonavir, and dasabuvir with or without ribavirin (RBV) is approved for treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 (GT1)/human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) coinfection. Results of a pharmacokinetic substudy of 3D and darunavir are presented. HCV/HIV-1-coinfected subjects were randomized to maintain an antiretroviral regimen with darunavir at 800 mg once daily (QD) or switched to a regimen with darunavir at 600 mg twice daily (BID). On study day 1, subjects received 3D and RBV plus darunavir for 12 weeks. Pharmacokinetic parameters were compared for darunavir and ritonavir with and without 3D (week 4 and day -1). Pharmacokinetic parameters of 3D were compared to historical data. Ten subjects received darunavir QD, and 12 subjects received darunavir BID. The central value ratios (90% confidence interval [CI]) for maximum concentrations (Cmax), area under the plasma concentration-time curve between 0 and 24 h postdose (AUC24), and trough plasma concentration at 24 h postdose (C24) of darunavir administered QD with 3D versus administration of darunavir alone were 0.92 (0.72, 1.18), 0.83 (0.71, 0.98), and 0.64 (0.44, 0.93), respectively. The ratios (90% CI) for darunavir Cmax, AUC12, and C12 administered BID with 3D were 0.92 (0.76, 1.12), 0.88 (0.73, 1.05), and 0.73 (0.58, 0.92), respectively. Exposures of 3D were similar to or slightly lower than those in historical data. All darunavir trough concentrations (Ctrough) associated with an HIV-1 RNA level of >40 copies/ml were above the darunavir 50% effective concentration (EC50) of 550 ng/ml for resistant virus. In conclusion, the 3D regimen with darunavir QD or BID did not affect darunavir Cmax and AUC, whereas the darunavir Ctrough decreased. Changes in pharmacokinetic parameters of 3D were not considered clinically significant. Episodes of intermittent HIV-1 viremia were infrequent and were not associated with darunavir Ctrough values below 550 ng/ml. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT01939197.).

When food can make the difference: The case of elvitegravir-based co-formulation

Stribild should be administered under fed conditions to optimize drugs exposure. Here we assessed to what extent this advice is applied in the real life scenario by therapeutic drug monitoring in 75 HIV-infected patients given Stribild-based antiretroviral therapy. Fifty-three percent of our patients took Stribild at lunch/supper time, 23% in the morning with breakfast, and 24% middle in the morning or late in the evening. Twelve out of the 75 patients had unquantifiable elvitegravir concentrations, whereas in the remaining the levels were largely distributed. Wide inter-individual variability in the tenofovir, cobicistat and darunavir trough concentrations was also observed.In real life settings a significant proportion of patients took Stribild without food, namely in the mid-morning or late in the evening. This resulted in a wide inter-individual variability of antiretroviral drug trough concentrations. To avoid the risk for patients to experience suboptimal drug exposure, it is important that health professionals more convincingly advise their patients to take Stribild in fed conditions. On the other hand, the role of patient education and patient responsibility to correctly take the therapy should not be underestimated.

Boceprevir in combination with HIV protease inhibitors in patients with advanced fibrosis‐altered drug‐drug interactions?

In HIV/HCV co‐infected patients improved treatment outcomes have been reported for the HCV protease inhibitors (PIs) boceprevir (BOC) and telaprevir (TVR), reaching SVR rates of up to 70% in pilot trials. Due to complex drug‐drug‐interactions triple therapy is substantially limited in HIV/HCV‐coinfected individuals. Co‐administration of BOC with the commonly available HIV PIs has been reported not only to decrease the level of BOC but also to lead to relevant decreases in the respective HIV PI. Here, we report on two patients who received BOC‐containing HCV triple therapy in combination with a HIV PI. Patient 1 was on darunavir 800 mg/ritonavir 100 mg once‐daily mono‐therapy. Using FibroScan a liver stiffness of 34 kPa suggested liver cirrhosis prior to start of HCV triple therapy. At week 5 of HCV triple therapy darunavir trough concentration was measured in the reference range with 3777 ng/ml (reference trough concentration 2400–4600 ng/ml). HCV‐RNA became negative at week 10 and HIV‐RNA was below detection limit (&lt;40 copies/ml) at all times. Patient 2 was on a simplified FTC qd and fos‐amprenavir 700 mg/ritonavir 100 mg bid regimen. Liver disease had also progressed to liver cirrhosis, confirmed in FibroScan, with a liver stiffness of 32 kPa. At week 8 of HCV triple therapy fos‐amprenavir trough level was measured in the normal reference range with 1699 ng/ml (reference trough concentration 750–2500 ng/ml). At week 11 HCV‐RNA was &lt;12 IU/ml and HIV viral load was below detection limit of &lt;40 copies/ml at all times. Our clinical data suggest that in patients with advanced liver disease possibly drug levels of HIV PIs which are coadministered with BOC may be within the normal range. In order to better understand the true amount of drug interactions between BOC and commonly used HIV PIs in HIV/HCV‐coinfected patients with more advanced liver fibrosis, urgently more PK studies are required to make HCV triple therapy accessible for a wider number of HIV/HCV‐coinfected patients in desperate need of these drugs.

Determinants of darunavir cerebrospinal fluid concentrations

To compare cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) darunavir and ritonavir concentrations in patients receiving darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg once daily or 600/100 mg twice daily. To determine the influence of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes encoding for blood-brain barrier transporters (ABCB1 3435 C>T, ABCB1 1236 C>T, ABCB1 2677 G>T, SLCO1A2 38 A>G, SLCO1A2 516 A>C, ABCC2 -24 G>A) on darunavir and ritonavir penetration into CSF. Comparative pharmacokinetics study in patients. Plasma and CSF darunavir and ritonavir concentrations (2-26 h after drug intake) were determined by a validated HPLC coupled with mass spectrometry method in adults on darunavir-based combination antiretroviral therapy undergoing a lumbar puncture. HIV-infected patients on once-daily darunavir/ritonavir had significantly lower CSF darunavir trough concentrations and CSF-to-plasma ratios than patients on darunavir/ritonavir twice-daily (10.7 versus 38.2 ng/ml and 0.32 versus 0.90%; P < 0.05). No significant effect of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes encoding for blood-brain barrier transporters was noted apart from slightly higher CSF darunavir penetration in patients carrying OATP1A2 uncommon variants. This is the first study to compare darunavir CSF concentrations in patients taking the once-daily or the twice-daily dosage: our data show that darunavir and ritonavir dosing significantly affects not only CSF concentrations but also the extent of drug penetration into the CSF. Furthermore a minority of patients in the once-daily arm presented very low CSF concentration of potential concern for HIV control in the central nervous system. The relative importance of pharmacogenetics in influencing CSF darunavir pharmacokinetics deserves further clinical investigation.

Darunavir/ritonavir and raltegravir coadministered in routine clinical practice: Potential role for an unexpected drug interaction

The present study aimed to investigate potential drug interactions between darunavir and raltegravir in patients treated for HIV infection. We enrolled HIV-infected subjects on darunavir-containing regimens that underwent measurement of plasma darunavir trough concentration (12 ± 3 h after dosing). Two groups of patients were compared: those taking darunavir plus a nucleoside/nucleotide backbone (group 1) or a backbone + raltegravir (group 2). Interindividual pharmacokinetic variability was evaluated through the coefficient of variation (CV inter). We obtained 156 plasma samples from 63 patients, of which 44 in group 1 and 19 in group 2. Overall, darunavir geometric mean concentration was 2.90 mg/L (95% CI 2.34–3.60) while ritonavir geometric mean concentration was 0.21 mg/L (95% CI 0.17–0.27). We observed a high inter-individual variability in darunavir (CV inter 59%) and ritonavir (CV inter 103%) plasma levels. Darunavir concentration correlated with concomitant ritonavir levels ( r = 0.476, p < 0.001). Patients in group 1 had a higher darunavir geometric mean concentration than those in group 2 [3.44 mg/L (95% CI 2.79–4.23) versus 1.95 mg/L (95% CI 1.19–3.20), p = 0.017]. However, the proportion of subjects with concomitant HIV-RNA <50 copies/mL was higher in group 2 (78.9% versus 47.7%, p = 0.028). In a multivariable model, raltegravir co-administration was independently related to a lower darunavir concentration (mean difference −0.25 log 10 mg/L, 95% CI −0.46/−0.04, p = 0.020) after adjusting for time from last drug intake and concomitant drugs used. In conclusion, a potential drug interaction between darunavir and raltegravir was observed, although this did not seem virologically significant. For the distinct metabolic pathways of these drugs, its mechanism remains to be determined.

Pharmacokinetics of etravirine, raltegravir and darunavir/ritonavir in treatment experienced patients

Etravirine is an enzyme inducer and could lower the concentration of combined drugs. Ten HIV-1-infected patients with multiple treatment failure received raltegravir (400 mg, twice daily) and darunavir/ritonavir (600/100 mg, twice daily). Addition of etravirine (200 mg, twice daily) leads to a significant increase in raltegravir and darunavir trough concentrations (405 vs. 118 and 3837 vs. 2241 ng/ml) and darunavir area under the curve (AUC(12h)) (50 083 vs. 36 277 ng h/ml). All pharmacokinetic parameters appeared to be highly variable regardless to the addition of etravirine.

Pharmacokinetics of Darunavir at 900 Milligrams and Ritonavir at 100 Milligrams Once Daily when Coadministered with Efavirenz at 600 Milligrams Once Daily in Healthy Volunteers

Ritonavir-boosted darunavir with efavirenz may be considered a nucleoside-sparing regimen for treatment-naïve HIV-infected patients. However, the pharmacokinetics of this combination administered once daily have not been studied. We conducted a three-period interaction study with healthy volunteers. The subjects were given darunavir at 900 mg with ritonavir at 100 mg once daily for 10 days. Efavirenz at 600 mg once daily was added for 14 days. Darunavir-ritonavir was then stopped and efavirenz alone was given for 14 days. At the end of each period, blood was taken predosing and for up to 24 h postdosing to measure the drug concentrations. We recruited seven males and five females ages 24 to 49 years and weighing 50 to 83 kg. The darunavir trough concentrations were reduced after efavirenz administration (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.43; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.32 to 0.57]; P < 0.001). The mean darunavir trough concentrations were 1,180 ng/ml (standard deviation, 1,138 ng/ml) after efavirenz administration, but all darunavir trough concentrations were above the 50% effective concentration (EC(50)) of 55 ng/ml for the wild-type virus. For darunavir, the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24)) (GMR, 0.86; 90% CI, 0.75 to 0.97; P = 0.05) and the half-life (GMR, 0.56; 90% CI, 0.49 to 0.65; P < 0.001) were also significantly reduced. The darunavir peak concentrations were not significantly changed (GMR, 0.92; 90% CI, 0.82 to 1.03; P = 0.23). The ritonavir trough concentrations (GMR, 0.46; 90% CI, 0.33 to 0.63; P = 0.001), AUC(0-24) (GMR, 0.74; 90% CI, 0.64 to 0.86; P = 0.004), and half-life (GMR, 0.80; 90% CI, 0.75 to 0.86; P < 0.001) were also significantly reduced. The efavirenz half-life was significantly longer when it was coadministered with darunavir-ritonavir than when it was given alone (GMR, 1.66; 90% CI, 1.24 to 2.23; P = 0.01), but there were no differences in the efavirenz trough or peak concentration or AUC(0-24) when it was coadministered with darunavir-ritonavir. Efavirenz reduced the trough concentrations of darunavir significantly, but the concentrations remained above the EC(50) for the wild-type virus. This regimen should be evaluated with treatment-naïve patients with no preexisting resistance.

Darunavir Inhibitory Quotient Predicts the 48-Week Virological Response to Darunavir-Based Salvage Therapy in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Protease Inhibitor-Experienced Patients

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between the virological response to darunavir-based salvage antiretroviral therapy and the darunavir genotypic and virtual inhibitory quotients (gIQ and vIQ, respectively). Thirty-seven HIV-infected patients failing protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimens who started salvage therapy containing darunavir-ritonavir were prospectively studied. The primary outcome of the study was a viral load (VL) of <50 copies/ml at week 48. The trough concentrations of darunavir in plasma, the number of darunavir resistance mutations, the change in the 50% inhibitory concentration (IC(50)) of darunavir in the virtual phenotype, and the darunavir gIQ and vIQ were correlated with the virological outcome in regression analyses adjusted by the number of active drugs in the background regimen. The VL was <50 copies/ml in 56.8% of patients at week 48. Changes in the VL were not significantly associated with the darunavir concentration (P = 0.304), the number of darunavir resistance mutations (P = 0.695), or the change in the IC(50) (P = 0.750). However, patients with darunavir vIQs of >or=1.5 had a 12-fold greater chance of achieving a >or=1 log(10) reduction in the VL (odds ratio [OR], 12.7; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.9 to 81.6; P = 0.007), and a 5-fold greater chance of achieving a VL of <50 copies/ml (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 24.5; P = 0.028), at week 48 than patients with darunavir vIQs of <1.5. The positive and negative predictive values of this darunavir vIQ cutoff for achieving a VL of <50 copies/ml at week 48 were 70% and 69%, respectively. The darunavir vIQ predicts virological response to darunavir-based salvage therapy better than the darunavir trough concentration or resistance mutations alone. We suggest targeting a darunavir vIQ of 1.5 for achieving long-term viral suppression.