PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Marta Boffito

Publications and source records attributed to Marta Boffito.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Influence of atazanavir 200 mg on the intracellular and plasma pharmacokinetics of saquinavir and ritonavir 1600/100 mg administered once daily in HIV-infected patients.

OBJECTIVES: To examine cellular and plasma concentrations of atazanavir when given in combination with saquinavir/ritonavir in HIV+ patients. METHODS: Twelve HIV+ patients were receiving saquinavir/atazanavir/ritonavir 1600/200/100 mg once daily and venous blood samples were taken to determine cellular and plasma concentrations of each protease inhibitor at 2, 6, 12 and 24 h. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were separated by density gradient centrifugation. The ratio of the cellular AUC0-24/plasma AUC0-24 was calculated to determine cellular drug accumulation. Lymphocyte P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) and multidrug resistance-associated protein (MRP1) expression was determined by flow cytometry. Nine of the patients had previously received a regimen of saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg; therefore the effect of atazanavir on the cellular and plasma pharmacokinetics of saquinavir and ritonavir was examined. RESULTS: In vivo cellular and plasma determinations of saquinavir, atazanavir and ritonavir gave accumulation ratios of 4.9, 1.2 and 1.7, respectively. There was no relationship between saquinavir, atazanavir or ritonavir accumulation and P-gp, MRP1 or BCRP expression. When comparing pharmacokinetic values in the nine patients receiving saquinavir/ritonavir with and without atazanavir, the median cellular saquinavir AUC0-24 was significantly increased (34.9-117.2 mg.h/L) on addition of atazanavir (P=0.004). The C24 of saquinavir in plasma and cells was significantly higher with atazanavir (plasma C24 0.05 versus 0.14 mg/L with atazanavir; cellular C24 0.61 versus 2.03 mg/L with atazanavir, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The mechanism of differential intracellular protease inhibitor accumulation is unclear. Co-administration of atazanavir caused an increase in both the plasma and cellular exposure (AUC0-24) and C24 of saquinavir but not ritonavir.

ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Mem↗
PubMed2006

Effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir-500 mg formulation with ritonavir in healthy male and female volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies have described reduced absorption of certain protease inhibitors when administered with agents known to increase gastric pH. No clinically significant interactions between saquinavir absorption and gastric pH have previously been shown. We evaluated the effect of omeprazole, a proton-pump-inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics of the recently developed saquinavir-500 mg formulation co-administered with ritonavir. METHODS: Eighteen healthy subjects (n = 6 women and 12 men) received 1000/100 mg saquinavir/ritonavir twice daily in an open-label study for 15 days. On days 11-15, subjects were administered omeprazole 40 mg daily with the morning dose. Serial plasma samples were collected for 12-h pharmacokinetic profiles of saquinavir and ritonavir on days 10 and 15 and safety analysis on days 1, 4, 10, 15 and 29. RESULTS: The geometric mean and 95% confidence interval (CI), for the area under time-concentration curve (AUC; ng h/ml), trough plasma concentration (C trough; ng/ml) and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax; ng/ml) of saquinavir were 20599 (14396-29360) and 37511 (28733-48970); 737 (482-1127) and 1521 (1039-2227); 3227 (2370-4393) and 5611 (4507-7710) on days 10 and 15, respectively, with geometric mean ratios of 1.82, 2.06 and 1.75. No significant changes were observed in saquinavir elimination half life, ritonavir pharmacokinetic parameters or in safety laboratory tests. No unexpected adverse events attributed to study medication were noted. CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of omeprazole, total saquinavir plasma exposure is significantly increased (82% increase in AUC). The mechanism of this interaction requires elucidation. Despite the significant increase in saquinavir exposure, no short term toxicities were observed.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2006

Pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard-gel/ritonavir and atazanavir when combined once daily in HIV Type 1-infected individuals administered different atazanavir doses.

The pharmacokinetics and short-term safety of atazanavir 150 and 200 mg, when coadministered with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily, were evaluated. On day 1, atazanavir 150 mg once daily, was added to saquinavir/ritonavir regimens and sampling was performed to evaluate saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetics (day 11). Atazanavir was increased to 200 mg and pharmacokinetic assessment repeated (day 30). Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to compare saquinavir, ritonavir, and atazanavir pharmacokinetic parameters in the present study and for 14 of the subjects treated with saquinavir/ritonavir 1600/100 mg once daily without and with atazanavir 300 mg who participated in a previous trial. Geometric mean (GM) saquinavir AUC0-24, Ctrough, and Cmax were 30,589 and 32,312 ng . h/ml, 166 and 182 ng/ml, and 4267 and 4261 ng/ml when coadministered with atazanavir 150 and 200 mg (n = 18). On days 11 and 30, saquinavir and atazanavir Ctrough remained >100 ng/ml in 13/18, 14/18, 18/18, and 17/18 patients. Among the above mentioned 14 subjects, significant increases in saquinavir Ctrough (87%, 92%, 99%), Cmax (40%, 55%, 44%), and AUC0-24 (51%, 60%, 63%) were observed with atazanavir 300, 150, and 200 mg. Ritonavir AUC0-24 and Cmax were significantly increased with the addition of atazanavir 300 mg only. Atazanavir enhances saquinavir and ritonavir by a mechanism that requires elucidation. While saquinavir enhancement was apparently independent of atazanavir dose, atazanavir 300 mg produced an increase in ritonavir Cmax, which is not observed with lower atazanavir doses. Atazanavir-related hyperbilirubinemia was dose dependent. However, higher saquinavir and atazanavir exposure may be required to suppress HIV-resistant strain replication.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Practical perspectives on the use of tipranavir in combination with other medications: lessons learned from pharmacokinetic studies.

Drug-drug interactions are a major practical concern for physicians treating human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) because of the many medications that HIV-positive patients must take. Pharmacokinetic drug interactions can occur at different levels (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion) and are difficult to predict. Of all the processes that give rise to drug interactions, metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP3A) is the most frequent. Moreover, medications prescribed to HIV-positive patients may also be CYP3A inhibitors and inducers: Tipranavir, in the absence of ritonavir, is a CYP3A inducer, and ritonavir is a CYP3A inhibitor. Fortunately, the drug interactions between tipranavir coadministered with ritonavir and other antiretroviral medications or with other medications commonly used in HIV therapy are well characterized. This review summarizes the pharmacokinetic interactions between tipranavir/ritonavir and 11 other antiretroviral medications and between tipranavir/ritonavir and drugs used to treat opportunistic infections such as fungal infections, antiretroviral-treatment-related conditions such as hyperlipidemia, and side effects such as diarrhea.

AIDS-Related Opportunistic Infections↗
PubMed2006

The clinical pharmacology of antiretrovirals in development.

Drugs in development for the management of HIV type 1 (HIV-1) infection include agents in existing classes and agents of novel classes. Of existing classes, new protease inhibitors, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors are in development. Novel therapeutic approaches include the development of chemokine receptor (CCR)5 antagonists, integrase inhibitors and maturation inhibitors. CCR5 antagonists are thought to inhibit HIV-1 entry into host cells by occupying a specific site on the CCR5 receptor, preventing attachment of the HIV-1 envelope protein gp120. Integrase inhibitors are small synthetically prepared molecules that block RNA/DNA interactions and modify protein or enzyme synthesis. Data on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of these new antiretroviral agents continue to generate interest. This review reports the known data on the pharmacokinetics of experimental antiretrovirals, and describe the main drug-drug interactions studied so far.

Animals↗
PubMed2006

The clinical implications of antiretroviral pharmacogenomics.

Heterogeneity exists in the effectiveness and toxic effects of antiretroviral agents between individuals and populations. Although patient-related clinical variables such as age, sex and ethnic origin have been associated with drug response, inherited predispositions may have a significant effect on treatment outcome. The role of host and pathogen pharmacogenomics is gaining increasing interest in the field of both antiretrovirals in development, such as the chemokine (C-C motif) receptor 5 (CCR5) inhibitors, and in established therapies where toxicity and efficacy may be predicted. Despite numerous studies available in the literature, the interpretation of the relationship between genetic polymorphisms and clinical outcomes is often posed with many confounding variables, making clinical interpretations of these results difficult. This review summarizes the key findings in the growing knowledge between human genetics and response to antiretroviral drugs and how these findings may be effectively applied in a clinical context.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2005

Interindividual variability of once-daily ritonavir boosted saquinavir pharmacokinetics in Thai and UK patients.

OBJECTIVES: Differential exposure to saquinavir/ritonavir may lead to therapy failure. The objective was to identify factors that influence variability of saquinavir/ritonavir plasma concentrations. METHODS: Saquinavir/ritonavir data, dosed as 1600/100 mg once daily, from three separate pharmacokinetic studies, in 45 patients from Thailand and the UK, were pooled. Pharmacokinetic parameters were based on non-compartmental analysis. Univariate analysis was performed with saquinavir as the dependent variable, and ritonavir area under the curve (AUC), gender, body weight, body mass index (BMI) and study site as independent variables. Variables with a P value <0.10 were included in a multivariate linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Higher saquinavir AUCs, maximum concentrations (Cmax) and minimum concentrations (Cmin) were seen in Thai patients than in UK patients. Univariate analysis showed associations between body weight, gender, study site and ritonavir AUC and saquinavir AUC (P < 0.05), whereas BMI (P = 0.13) did not. In the multivariate analysis, ritonavir AUC (P = 0.0001) and study site (P = 0.0021) were significantly related to saquinavir AUC (R2 = 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The ritonavir AUC and study site appeared to be related to exposure of saquinavir. Study site should be viewed as the total of country- and study-specific differences--such as differences in lifestyle, environment, genetic background and dietary composition--between the analysed studies.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Early virologic failure in HIV-1 infected subjects on didanosine/tenofovir/efavirenz: 12-week results from a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of two once-daily antiretroviral regimens containing lamivudine (3TC) or tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF), each administered with didanosine (ddI) and efavirenz (EFV) as initial therapy to HIV-1-infected subjects. METHODS: Single centre, randomized (1: 1), open-label study in antiretroviral-naive, HIV-infected adults. Subjects commenced either 3TC/ddI/EFV (3TC group) or TDF/ddI/EFV (TDF group). Safety, Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMScap) and plasma EFV concentration monitoring was performed over the study period. Comparisons between groups were assessed using chi test and linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between EFV concentrations and virological response. RESULTS: Seventy-seven subjects were enrolled prior to recruitment being suspended, 36 to the 3TC group and 41 to the TDF group. Intention-to-treat analysis in which last observation carried forward (LOCF) found the mean viral log10 load [95% confidence interval (CI)] at weeks 4 and 12 to be 2.67 (2.47-2.87) and 1.83 (1.74-1.92) for the 3TC group and 2.75 (2.45-3.05) and 2.28 (1.96-2.6) for the TDF group (P = 0.013). Emergence of resistance occurred in five of 41 (12.2%) subjects in the TDF group up to week 12 compared with none of 36 in the 3TC group, (P < 0.05); these five subjects shared similar baseline characteristics (CD4+ cell counts < 200 x 10 cells/l and HIV-1 RNA > 100,000 copies/ml). Despite MEMScap monitoring showing > 99% adherence in all subjects, among the five failures, three had low EFV concentrations. CONCLUSION: TDF/ddI/EFV as initial therapy appears to have diminished efficacy in subjects with CD4 < 200 x 10 cells/l and viral load > 100,000 copies/ml. Treatment failure with resistance was not attributable to baseline resistance, efavirenz exposure or poor adherence.

Adenine↗
PubMed2005

The management of HIV-1 protease inhibitor pharmacokinetic interactions.

The HIV-1 protease inhibitors (PIs) are widely used in combination antiretroviral therapy for the management of HIV-1 infection. Certain characteristics of the PIs, in particular their metabolism being mainly via the cytochrome P450 isoenzyme group and their gastric absorption being pH dependent, make them prone to clinically significant drug interactions with other antiretrovirals, concomitant medication and complementary treatments. Owing to the nature of the disease, individuals with HIV are frequently prescribed complex treatment regimens (both for the management of intolerance, toxicity and viral resistance to antiretroviral therapy, and in the management of co-morbid states) that may interact with PI therapy. For many of these potential interactions, few data are available. This review will focus on the current use of PIs, highlighting some important management issues encountered with common pharmacokinetic interactions seen in clinical practice.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗
PubMed2005

Boosted saquinavir hard gel formulation exposure in HIV-infected subjects: ritonavir 100 mg once daily versus twice daily.

OBJECTIVES: The amount of ritonavir needed to enhance saquinavir hard gel (hg) plasma concentrations is unclear. Reduced ritonavir dosing may help to reduce ritonavir-related side effects and costs. This study examined the pharmacokinetics of twice-daily saquinavir-hg (1000 mg) in the presence of ritonavir 100 mg, dosed twice-daily and once-daily on one single occasion. METHODS: Eighteen HIV-infected adults taking saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg twice-daily underwent pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment of saquinavir/ritonavir on day 1 following a morning saquinavir/ritonavir dose. On day 2, PK assessment was repeated when subjects took saquinavir without ritonavir. Drug intake (with a standard meal containing 20 g of fat) was timed on days -1, 1 and 2. Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to assess changes in saquinavir PK parameters. RESULTS: Geometric mean saquinavir AUC(0-12), C(trough), C(max) and elimination half-life on days 1 and 2 were 14 389 and 9590 ng.h/mL, 331 and 234 ng/mL, 2503 and 1893 ng/mL and 2.80 and 2.82 h, respectively. The GMR (95% CI) for these parameters were 0.67 (0.53-0.84), 0.71 (0.48-1.04), 0.76 (0.58-0.98) and 1.01 (0.86-1.18), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Withholding a ritonavir dose significantly reduces overall saquinavir exposure and C(max), but had no impact on the elimination half-life. These data establish the need to administer saquinavir and ritonavir simultaneously.

Area Under Curve↗
PubMed2005

The pharmacokinetics of HIV protease inhibitor combinations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The clinical use of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens has evolved recently. This strategy offers a number of unique benefits, including pharmacokinetic enhancement of two different protease inhibitors with low dose ritonavir. We review the pharmacologic rationale for the double-boosted protease inhibitor combinations and the complex drug-drug interactions that occur among different protease inhibitors when co-administered. RECENT FINDINGS: The discovery and widespread clinical use of low dose ritonavir as a pharmacoenhancer of other protease inhibitors has significantly improved the management of HIV infection treatment. This has subsequently led to the development of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens which have been shown to be effective in heavily pre-treated patients, in whom it is crucial to maintain drug concentrations sufficient to suppress viruses with multiple resistance mutations. Interesting pharmacokinetic data have been recently produced showing the complexity of the interactions among three protease inhibitors. As the outcome of these multidrug interactions may be difficult to predict, formal pharmacokinetic studies have been fundamental to determine which protease inhibitors are best to administer in combination. SUMMARY: This review summarizes the current literature regarding the pharmacokinetics of double-boosted protease inhibitor regimens and general considerations regarding their usage in the treatment of HIV-infected patients.

Drug Therapy, Combination↗
PubMed2005

Host determinants of antiretroviral drug activity.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: As physicians are confronted with a diversity of adverse events and variability in response to medication among patients, this review will focus on the available evidence regarding the impact of genetic variation on drug response. Specifically, variation in drug metabolizing enzymes such as the cytochrome P450s, drug transporters and human leucocyte antigen (for idiosyncratic drug reactions). The potential role of pharmacogenetics in the management of HIV-1 infected individuals and drug discovery will be discussed. RECENT FINDINGS: Wide inter-individual variability of antiretroviral therapy efficacy and toxicity in HIV-infected patients has been extensively reported in the literature. Since treatment involves multiple drugs and drug classes with the potential for significant variability in drug-host as well as drug-drug interactions, antiretroviral drug therapy represents a significant challenge. Despite this inherent complexity, considerable recent advances have led to a greater understanding of interactions between genetic and host factors that influence the efficacy and toxicity of these agents. SUMMARY: The goal of pharmacogenetics in antiretroviral therapy is to outline differences within a given population that influence drug efficacy and toxicity. Although to date, despite the numerous studies available in the literature, conclusions on how the analysis of the relationship between single nucleotide polymorphisms and drug efficacy may not always be clinically useful. Further studies are warranted to clarify the role of pharmacogenetics and antiretroviral drug management.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2005

Pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard gel/ritonavir (1000/100 mg twice daily) when administered with tenofovir diproxil fumarate in HIV-1-infected subjects.

AIMS: To investigate whether the administration of tenofovir diproxil fumarate 300 mg once daily alters the plasma pharmacokinetics of the saquinavir hard gel/ritonavir combination in HIV-1 infected individuals. METHODS: On day 1, 12 h pharmacokinetic profiles for saquinavir/ritonavir (1000/100 mg given twice daily) were obtained for 18 subjects. All subjects were receiving ongoing treatment with a saquinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. Tenofovir diproxil fumarate 300 mg given once daily was then added to the regimen and blood sampling was repeated at days 3 and 14. Saquinavir and ritonavir concentrations were measured by HPLC-MS/MS, and tenofovir concentrations by HPLC with UV detection. RESULTS: Following the addition of tenofovir diproxil fumarate to the regimen, saquinavir and ritonavir plasma concentrations were not significantly different compared with day 1. Thus the geometric mean ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the area under the concentration-time curve were 1.16 (0.97, 1.59) and 0.99 (0.87, 1.30) for saquinavir and 1.05 (0.92, 1.28) and 1.08 (0.97, 1.30) for ritonavir, on days 3 and 14, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tenofovir diproxil fumarate did not alter the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard gel/ritonavir.

Adenine↗
PubMed2005

Lack of pharmacokinetic drug interaction between tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and nelfinavir mesylate.

A study explored the pharmacokinetics of tenofovir (300 mg administered once daily) and nelfinavir (1,250 mg twice daily) when coadministered in 29 healthy volunteers. Tenofovir, nelfinavir, and M8 pharmacokinetics was unaltered when tenofovir and nelfinavir were coadministered, and tenofovir administration did not affect the M8/nelfinavir area under the concentration-versus-time curve over the dosing interval (AUC(tau)) ratio. No interaction between tenofovir and nelfinavir was observed.

Adenine↗
PubMed2005

Current status and future prospects of therapeutic drug monitoring and applied clinical pharmacology in antiretroviral therapy.

The consensus of current international guidelines for the treatment of HIV infection is that data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and protease inhibitors provide a framework for the implementation of TDM in certain defined scenarios in clinical practice. However, the utility of TDM is considered to be on an individual basis until more data are obtained from large clinical trials showing the benefit of TDM. In April 2004, a panel of experts met in Rome, Italy. This followed an inaugural meeting in Perugia, Italy, in October 2000, which resulted in the article published in AIDS 2002, 16(Suppl 1):S5-S37. The objectives of this second meeting were to review the questions surrounding TDM of antiretroviral drugs and discuss the clinical utility, current concerns and future prospects of drug concentration monitoring in the care of HIV-1-infected individuals. This report, which has been updated to include material published or presented at international conferences up to the end of September 2004, reviews pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data and reports the issues discussed by the panel, offering advice to clinical care providers who may be currently, or are considering incorporating TDM into the routine care of their patients. In addition, the panel formulated a series of position statements that are relevant to the interpretation of current data and can aid the design of future clinical trials.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2005

Therapeutic drug monitoring and drug-drug interactions involving antiretroviral drugs.

The consensus of current international guidelines for the treatment of HIV infection is that data on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) and protease inhibitors (Pls) provide a framework for the implementation of TDM in certain defined scenarios in clinical practice. However, the utility of TDM is considered to be on an individual basis until more data are obtained from large clinical trials showing the benefit of TDM. In April 2004, a panel of experts met for the second time in Rome, Italy. This was following the inaugural meeting in Perugia, Italy, in October 2000, which resulted in the manuscript published in AIDS 2002, 16(Suppl 1):S5-S37. The objectives of this second meeting were to review and update the numerous questions surrounding TDM of antiretroviral drugs and discuss the clinical utility, current concerns and future prospects of drug concentration monitoring in the care of HIV-1-infected individuals. A major focus of the meeting was to discuss and critically analyse recent and precedent clinical drug-drug interaction data to provide a clear framework of the pharmacological basis of how one drug may impact the disposition of another. This report, which has been updated to include material published or presented at international conferences up to the end of December 2004, reviews recent pivotal pharmacokinetic interaction data and provides advice to clinical care providers on how some drug-drug interactions may be prevented, avoided or managed, and, when data are available, on what dose adjustments and interventions should be performed.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2004

Steady-State pharmacokinetics of saquinavir hard-gel/ritonavir/fosamprenavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

BACKGROUND: In vitro synergy and complementary resistance profiles provide a strong rationale for combining fosamprenavir with saquinavir as part of a potent double-boosted protease inhibitor regimen. This study evaluated the steady-state pharmacokinetics of saquinavir 1000 mg twice daily (bid) and fosamprenavir 700 mg bid administered with 2 different doses of ritonavir (100 and 200 mg bid) in HIV-1-infected subjects. METHODS: On day 1, 12-hour pharmacokinetic profiles for saquinavir/ritonavir (1000/100 mg bid) were obtained for 18 subjects. All subjects were receiving ongoing treatment with a saquinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. Fosamprenavir 700 mg bid was then added to the regimen, and pharmacokinetic sampling was repeated for all 3 agents at day 11. The ritonavir daily dose was then increased to 200 mg bid, and a 3rd pharmacokinetic profile was obtained at day 22. RESULTS: The coadministration of fosamprenavir 700 mg bid with saquinavir/ritonavir 1000/100 mg bid resulted in a statistically nonsignificant decrease in saquinavir concentrations (by 14, 9, and 24%, for saquinavir area under the concentration-time curve [AUC]0-12, C(max), and C(trough), respectively). This was compensated for by an increased ritonavir dose of 200 mg bid, which resulted in a statistically nonsignificant increase in saquinavir exposure compared with baseline. Amprenavir levels did not appear to be significantly influenced by coadministration of saquinavir with fosamprenavir. Fosamprenavir significantly reduced ritonavir exposure, but the increased ritonavir dose compensated for this interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings showed that saquinavir/ritonavir/fosamprenavir was well tolerated over the study period. Saquinavir plasma concentrations were slightly lowered by the addition of fosamprenavir to the regimen. However, the addition of a further 100 mg ritonavir bid restored the small and insignificant decrease.

Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome↗