Efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetic of once-daily boosted saquinavir (1500/100 mg) together with 2 nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors in real life: a multicentre prospective study.

BACKGROUND. Ritonavir-boosted saquinavir (SQVr) is nowadays regarded as an alternative antiretroviral drug probably due to several drawbacks, such as its high pill burden, twice daily dosing and the requirement of 200 mg ritonavir when given at the current standard 1000/100 mg bid dosing. Several once-daily SQVr dosing schemes have been studied with the 200 mg SQV old formulations, trying to overcome some of these disadvantages. SQV 500 mg strength tablets became available at the end of 2005, thus facilitating a once-daily regimen with fewer pills, although there is very limited experience with this formulation yet. METHODS. Prospective, multicentre study in which efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of a regimen of once-daily SQVr 1500/100 mg plus 2 NRTIs were evaluated under routine clinical care conditions in either antiretroviral-naïve patients or in those with no previous history of antiretroviral treatments and/or genotypic resistance tests suggesting SQV resistance. Plasma SQV trough levels were measured by HPLV-UV. RESULTS. Five hundred and fourteen caucasian patients were included (47.2% coinfected with hepatitis C and/or B virus; 7.8% with cirrhosis). Efficacy at 52 weeks (plasma RNA-HIV <50 copies/ml) was 67.7% (CI95: 63.6 - 71.7%) by intention-to-treat, and 92.2% (CI95: 89.8 - 94.6%) by on-treatment analysis. The reasons for failure were: dropout or loss to follow-up (18.4%), virological failure (7.8%), adverse events (3.1%), and other reasons (4.6%). The high rate of dropout may be explained by an enrollment and follow-up under routine clinical care condition, and a population with a significant number of drug users. The median SQV Cmin (n = 49) was 295 ng/ml (range, 53-2172). The only variable associated with virological failure in the multivariate analysis was adherence (OR: 3.36; CI95, 1.51-7.46, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS. Our results suggests that SQVr (1500/100 mg) once-daily plus 2 NRTIs is an effective regimen, without severe clinical adverse events or hepatotoxicity, scarce lipid changes, and no interactions with methadone. All these factors and its once-daily administration suggest this regimen as an appropriate option in patients with no SQV resistance-associated mutations.

The use of liver biopsy evaluation in discrimination of idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis versus drug-induced liver injury.

Distinguishing drug-induced liver injury (DILI) from idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) can be challenging. We performed a standardized histologic evaluation to explore potential hallmarks to differentiate AIH versus DILI. Biopsies from patients with clinically well-characterized DILI [n = 35, including 19 hepatocellular injury (HC) and 16 cholestatic/mixed injury (CS)] and AIH (n = 28) were evaluated for Ishak scores, prominent inflammatory cell types in portal and intra-acinar areas, the presence or absence of emperipolesis, rosette formation, and cholestasis in a blinded fashion by four experienced hepatopathologists. Histologic diagnosis was concordant with clinical diagnosis in 65% of cases; but agreement on final diagnosis among the four pathologists was complete in only 46% of cases. Interface hepatitis, focal necrosis, and portal inflammation were present in all evaluated cases, but were more severe in AIH (P < 0.05) than DILI (HC). Portal and intra-acinar plasma cells, rosette formation, and emperiopolesis were features that favored AIH (P < 0.02). A model combining portal inflammation, portal plasma cells, intra-acinar lymphocytes and eosinophils, rosette formation, and canalicular cholestasis yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.90 in predicting DILI (HC) versus AIH. All Ishak inflammation scores were more severe in AIH than DILI (CS) (P ≤ 0.05). The four AIH-favoring features listed above were consistently more prevalent in AIH, whereas portal neutrophils and intracellular (hepatocellular) cholestasis were more prevalent in DILI (CS) (P < 0.02). The combination of portal inflammation, fibrosis, portal neutrophils and plasma cells, and intracellular (hepatocellular) cholestasis yielded an AUC of 0.91 in predicting DILI (CS) versus AIH. Conclusion: Although an overlap of histologic findings exists for AIH and DILI, sufficient differences exist so that pathologists can use the pattern of injury to suggest the correct diagnosis.