In Vivo Profiling and Distribution of Known and Novel Phase I and Phase II Metabolites of Efavirenz in Plasma, Urine, and Cerebrospinal Fluid.

Efavirenz (EFV) is principally metabolized by CYP2B6 to 8-hydroxy-efavirenz (8OH-EFV) and to a lesser extent by CYP2A6 to 7-hydroxy-efavirenz (7OH-EFV). So far, most metabolite profile analyses have been restricted to 8OH-EFV, 7OH-EFV, and EFV-N-glucuronide, even though these metabolites represent a minor percentage of EFV metabolites present in vivo. We have performed a quantitative phase I and II metabolite profile analysis by tandem mass spectrometry of plasma, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and urine samples in 71 human immunodeficiency virus patients taking efavirenz, prior to and after enzymatic (glucuronidase and sulfatase) hydrolysis. We have shown that phase II metabolites constitute the major part of the known circulating efavirenz species in humans. The 8OH-EFV-glucuronide (gln) and 8OH-EFV-sulfate (identified for the first time) in humans were found to be 64- and 7-fold higher than the parent 8OH-EFV, respectively. In individuals (n = 67) genotyped for CYP2B6, 2A6, and CYP3A metabolic pathways, 8OH-EFV/EFV ratios in plasma were an index of CYP2B6 phenotypic activity (P < 0.0001), which was also reflected by phase II metabolites 8OH-EFV-glucuronide/EFV and 8OH-EFV-sulfate/EFV ratios. Neither EFV nor 8OH-EFV, nor any other considered metabolites in plasma were associated with an increased risk of central nervous system (CNS) toxicity. In CSF, 8OH-EFV levels were not influenced by CYP2B6 genotypes and did not predict CNS toxicity. The phase II metabolites 8OH-EFV-gln, 8OH-EFV-sulfate, and 7OH-EFV-gln were present in CSF at 2- to 9-fold higher concentrations than 8OH-EFV. The potential contribution of known and previously unreported EFV metabolites in CSF to the neuropsychological effects of efavirenz needs to be further examined in larger cohort studies.

Switching from tenofovir disoproxil fumarate to tenofovir alafenamide in antiretroviral regimens for virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 infection: a randomised, active-controlled, multicentre, open-label, phase 3, non-inferiority study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral regimens containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate have been associated with renal toxicity and reduced bone mineral density. Tenofovir alafenamide is a novel tenofovir prodrug that reduces tenofovir plasma concentrations by 90%, thereby decreasing off-target side-effects. We aimed to assess whether efficacy, safety, and tolerability were non-inferior in patients switched to a regimen containing tenofovir alafenamide versus in those remaining on one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. METHODS: In this randomised, actively controlled, multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority trial, we recruited HIV-1-infected adults from Gilead clinical studies at 168 sites in 19 countries. Patients were virologically suppressed (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate of 50 mL per min or greater, and were taking one of four tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens for at least 96 weeks before enrolment. With use of a third-party computer-generated sequence, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive a once-a-day single-tablet containing elvitegravir 150 mg, cobicistat 150 mg, emtricitabine 200 mg, and tenofovir alafenamide 10 mg (tenofovir alafenamide group) or to carry on taking one of four previous tenofovir disoproxil fumarate-containing regimens (tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group) for 96 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by previous treatment regimen in blocks of six. Patients and treating physicians were not masked to the assigned study regimen; outcome assessors were masked until database lock. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received at least one dose of study drug who had undetectable viral load (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies per mL) at week 48. The non-inferiority margin was 12%. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01815736. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2013 and April 3, 2014, we enrolled 1443 patients. 959 patients were randomly assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and 477 to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. Viral suppression at week 48 was noted in 932 (97%) patients assigned to the tenofovir alafenamide group and in 444 (93%) assigned to the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group (adjusted difference 4·1%, 95% CI 1·6-6·7), with virological failure noted in ten and six patients, respectively. The number of adverse events was similar between the two groups, but study drug-related adverse events were more common in the tenofovir alafenamide group (204 patients [21%] vs 76 [16%]). Hip and spine bone mineral density and glomerular filtration were each significantly improved in patients in the tenofovir alafenamide group compared with those in the tenofovir disoproxil fumarate group. INTERPRETATION: Switching to a tenofovir alafenamide-containing regimen from one containing tenofovir disoproxil fumarate was non-inferior for maintenance of viral suppression and led to improved bone mineral density and renal function. Longer term follow-up is needed to better understand the clinical impact of these changes. FUNDING: Gilead Sciences.

Optimized exosome isolation protocol for cell culture supernatant and human plasma.

Extracellular vesicles represent a rich source of novel biomarkers in the diagnosis and prognosis of disease. However, there is currently limited information elucidating the most efficient methods for obtaining high yields of pure exosomes, a subset of extracellular vesicles, from cell culture supernatant and complex biological fluids such as plasma. To this end, we comprehensively characterize a variety of exosome isolation protocols for their efficiency, yield and purity of isolated exosomes. Repeated ultracentrifugation steps can reduce the quality of exosome preparations leading to lower exosome yield. We show that concentration of cell culture conditioned media using ultrafiltration devices results in increased vesicle isolation when compared to traditional ultracentrifugation protocols. However, our data on using conditioned media isolated from the Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) SK-MES-1 cell line demonstrates that the choice of concentrating device can greatly impact the yield of isolated exosomes. We find that centrifuge-based concentrating methods are more appropriate than pressure-driven concentrating devices and allow the rapid isolation of exosomes from both NSCLC cell culture conditioned media and complex biological fluids. In fact to date, no protocol detailing exosome isolation utilizing current commercial methods from both cells and patient samples has been described. Utilizing tunable resistive pulse sensing and protein analysis, we provide a comparative analysis of 4 exosome isolation techniques, indicating their efficacy and preparation purity. Our results demonstrate that current precipitation protocols for the isolation of exosomes from cell culture conditioned media and plasma provide the least pure preparations of exosomes, whereas size exclusion isolation is comparable to density gradient purification of exosomes. We have identified current shortcomings in common extracellular vesicle isolation methods and provide a potential standardized method that is effective, reproducible and can be utilized for various starting materials. We believe this method will have extensive application in the growing field of extracellular vesicle research.