USE OF LOPINAVIR/RITONAVIR ASSOCIATED WITH ERGOTAMINE RESULTING IN FOOT AMPUTATION: BRIEF COMMUNICATION

A 32-year-old female, was diagnosed in 2004 with a C1 HIV1 infection, using zidovudine/lamivudine 300/150 mg BID and lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg BID, in addition to prophylaxis with trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole 800/160 mg QD, but no prophylaxis with macrolide antibiotics. The patient presented with a severe headache and was prescribed two capsules of the anti-migraine drug Ormigrein™, which contained ergotamine tartrate 1 mg, caffeine 100 mg, paracetamol 220 mg, hyoscyamine sulfate 87.5 mcg, and atropine sulfate 12.5 mcg. Afterwards she was prescribed one capsule of Ormigrein every 30 minutes for a total of six capsules a day. The patient took the medication as prescribed but developed a pain in her left ankle three days later, which evolved to the need for amputation.

Effect on renal function of tenofovir co-administered with either efavirenz or boosted lopinavir or boosted atazanavir: the Swiss HIV Cohort Study

Reduced re'nal function has been reported with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). It is not clear whether TDF co-administered with a boosted protease inhibitor (PI) leads to a greater decline in renal function than TDF co-administered with a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI).Methods: We selected ail antiretroviral therapy-naive patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study (SHCS) with calibrated or corrected serum creatinine measurements starting antiretroviral therapy with TDF and either efavirenz (EFV) or the ritonavir-boosted PIs, lopinavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir (ATV/r). As a measure of renal function, we used the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation to estimate the glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). We calculated the difference in eGFR over time between two therapies using a marginal model for repeated measures. In weighted analyses, observations were weighted by the product of their point of treatment and censoring weights to adjust for differences both in the sort of patients starting each therapy and in the sort of patients remaining on each therapy over time.Results: By March 2011, 940 patients with at least one creatinine measurement on a first therapy with either TDF and EFV (n=484), TDF and LPVlr (n=269) or TDF and ATV/r (n=187) had been followed for a median of 1. 7, 1.2 and 1.3 years, respectively. Table 1 shows the difference in average estimated GFR (eGFR) over time since starting cART for two marginal models. The first model was not adjusted for potential confounders; the second mode! used weights to adjust for confounders. The results suggest a greater decline in renal function during the first 6 months if TDF is used with a PI rather than with an NNRTI, but no further difference between these therapies after the first 6 months. TDF and ATV/r may lead to a greater decline in the first 6 months than TDF and LPVlr.Conclusions: TDF co-administered with a boosted PI leads to a greater de cline in renal function over the first 6 months of therapy than TDF co-administered with an NNRTI; this decline may be worse with ATV/r than with LPV/r.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-1-infected children.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in a population-based cohort of HIV-1-infected children. METHODS: All children enrolled in the Swiss Mother and Child HIV Cohort Study, treated with LPV/r-based combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) between November 2000 and October 2008, were included. RESULTS: 88 children (25 (28%) protease inhibitor (PI)-naive, 16 (18%) ART-naive) were analysed (251 patient-years on LPV/r). After 48 weeks on LPV/r, 70 children had a median (interquartile range (IQR)) decrease in HIV-1 viral load of 4.25 log (5.45-3.17; PI-naive, n=17) and 2.53 (3.68-1.38; PI-experienced, n=53). Median (IQR) increase in CD4 count was 429 (203-593; PI-naive) and 177 (21-331; PI-experienced) cells/microl. These effects remained stable throughout 192 weeks for 25 children. Treatment was stopped for viral rebound in seven and suspected toxicity in 12 children. CONCLUSION: Long-term treatment with LPV/r-based cART is safe and effective in HIV-1-infected children.

A 48-week study of fat molecular alterations in HIV naïve patients starting tenofovir/emtricitabine with lopinavir/ritonavir or efavirenz: Greater deleterious effects of efavirenz.

S’han descrit informes contradictoris sobre els efectes d’Efavirenz (EFV) i lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) al teixit adipós subcutani (SAT). L’objectiu d’aquest estudi era evaluar els efectes moleculars i clínics de LPV/r i EFV, tots dos en combinació amb tenofovir/emtricitabina (TDF/FTC), sobre el SAT dels pacients infectats per VIH sense tractament antirretroviral previ. Després de 48 setmanes de tractament, TDF/FTC més LPV/r va augmentar de forma significativa el greix de les extremitats i els paràmetres lipídics, mentre que TDF/FTC/EFV només va augmentar de forma significativa el colesterol total i LDL. La expressió dels gens implicats en la diferenciació dels adipòcits i dels gens relacionats amb la mitocondria no va canviar de forma significativa en el SAT dels pacients exposats a LPV/r, mentre que Cyt b i els gens relacionats amb la imflamació estaven estimulats de forma significativa en el SAT dels pacients exposats a EFV.

Long-term safety and effectiveness of ritonavir, nelfinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected children.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of ritonavir, nelfinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir in antiretroviral-experienced, initially protease inhibitor (PI)-naive, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-1-infected children. METHODS: HIV-1-infected children enrolled in the Swiss Mother and Child HIV Cohort Study were eligible for this observational cohort study if they received at least 1 PI of interest between March 1996 and October 2003: ritonavir, nelfinavir, or lopinavir/ritonavir. Data regarding demographics, clinical disease and antiretroviral treatment history, HIV-1 RNA copies/mL, CD4 T-cell counts [absolute (cells/microL) and percentages (%)], adverse events, clinical laboratory values, reasons for discontinuation of PIs, and concomitant medications were extracted from the database for PI-naive (first-line) and PI-experienced (second- or higher-line) PI use. RESULTS: The total duration of ritonavir, nelfinavir, and lopinavir/ritonavir use for 133 HIV-1-infected children was 163.8, 235.0, and 46.1 patient-years, respectively. In an on-treatment analysis, first-line therapy with any of the PIs significantly reduced HIV-1 concentrations and increased CD4 T-cell counts and percentages from baseline throughout the 288-week study (P <or= 0.05) for ritonavir and nelfinavir and throughout 84 weeks of use for lopinavir/ritonavir, which was introduced into treatment more recently. All PIs investigated were most effective in PI-naive children. Thirteen PI-associated toxicities occurred requiring treatment changes or interruptions (neurologic symptoms, n = 2; pancreatitis, n = 1; allergic reactions, n = 4; visual symptoms, n = 3; and hyperlipidemia, n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term PI-based therapy seems to be safe and to result in durable virologic and immunologic effectiveness in HIV-1-infected antiretroviral-experienced children.

Free and total plasma levels of lopinavir during pregnancy, at delivery and postpartum: implications for dosage adjustments in pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Physiological changes associated with pregnancy may alter antiretroviral plasma concentrations and might jeopardize prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission. Lopinavir is one of the protease inhibitors more frequently prescribed during pregnancy in Europe. We described the free and total pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in HIV-infected pregnant and non-pregnant women, and evaluated whether significant alterations in its disposition and protein binding warrant systematic dosage adjustment. METHODS: Plasma samples were collected at first, second and third trimester of pregnancy, at delivery, in umbilical cord and postpartum. Lopinavir free and total plasma concentrations were measured by HPLC-MS/MS. Bayesian calculations were used to extrapolate total concentrations to trough (Cmin). RESULTS: A total of 42 HIV-positive pregnant women and 37 non-pregnant women on lopinavir/ritonavir were included in the study. Compared to postpartum and control values, total lopinavir Cmin was decreased moderately (31-39%) during pregnancy, and free Cmin minimally, showing significant alteration only at delivery (-35%). However, total and free Cmin remained in all patients above the target concentrations for wild-type virus of 1,000 ng/ml, and above the unbound IC50(WT) of 0.64-0.77 ng/ml of lopinavir, respectively. Lopinavir free fractions remained higher during pregnancy compared to postpartum and controls, and were influenced by α-1-acid-glycoprotein and albumin decrease. Free cord-to-mother ratio (0.43) was 2.7-fold higher than total cord-to-mother ratio (0.16), suggesting higher fetal exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The moderate decrease of total lopinavir concentrations during pregnancy is not associated with proportional decrease in free concentrations. Both reach a nadir at delivery, albeit not to an extent that would put treatment-naive women at risk of insufficient exposure to the free, pharmacologically active concentrations of lopinavir. No dosage adjustment is therefore needed during pregnancy as it is unlikely to further enhance treatment efficacy but could potentially increase the risk of maternal and fetal toxicity. Nonetheless, in case of viral resistance in treatment-experienced pregnant women, loss of virological control or questionable adherence, it is justified to consider lopinavir dosage adjustment based on total plasma concentration measurement.

Virological and immunological responses to efavirenz or boosted lopinavir as first-line therapy for patients with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Efavirenz and lopinavir boosted with ritonavir are both recommended as first-line therapies for patients with HIV when combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. It is uncertain which therapy is more effective for patients starting therapy with an advanced infection. METHODS: We estimated the relative effect of these two therapies on rates of virological and immunological failure within the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and considered whether estimates depended on the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. We defined virological failure as either an incomplete virological response or viral rebound after viral suppression and immunological failure as failure to achieve an expected CD4(+) T-cell increase calculated from EuroSIDA statistics. RESULTS: Patients starting efavirenz (n=660) and lopinavir (n=541) were followed for a median of 4.5 and 3.1 years, respectively. Virological failure was less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.63 (0.50-0.78) then multiplied by a factor of 1.00 (0.90-1.12) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy. Immunological failure was also less likely for patients on efavirenz, with the adjusted hazard ratio of 0.68 (0.51-0.91) then multiplied by a factor of 1.29 (1.14-1.46) for each 100 cells/mm(3) decrease in CD4(+) T-cell count below the mean when starting therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Virological failure is less likely with efavirenz regardless of the CD4(+) T-cell count when starting therapy. Immunological failure is also less likely with efavirenz; however, this advantage disappears if patients start therapy with a low CD4(+) T-cell count.

Renal function in patients with HIV starting therapy with tenofovir and either efavirenz, lopinavir or atazanavir.

BACKGROUND: Tenofovir is associated with reduced renal function, but it is not clear whether there is a greater decline in renal function when tenofovir is co-administered with a boosted protease inhibitor rather than with a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI). METHODS: We calculated the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for patients in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. We estimated the difference in eGFR over time between first therapies containing tenofovir and either the NNRTI efavirenz or the protease inhibitors lopinavir (LPV/r) or atazanavir (ATV/r), both boosted with ritonavir. RESULTS: Patients on a first therapy of tenofovir co-administered with efavirenz (n  = 484), LPV/r (n = 269) and ATV/r (n =  187) were followed for a median of 1.7, 1.2 and 1.3 years, respectively. Relative to tenofovir and efavirenz, the estimated difference in eGFR for tenofovir and LPV/r was -2.6 ml/min per 1.73 m [95% confidence interval (CI) -7.3 to 2.2) during the first 6 months of therapy, then followed by a difference of 0.0 ml/min per 1.73 m (95% CI -1.1 to 1.1) for each additional 6 months of therapy. Relative to tenofovir and efavirenz, the estimated difference in eGFR for tenofovir and ATV/r was -7.6 ml/min per 1.73 m (95% CI -11.8 to -3.4) during the first 6 months of therapy, then followed by a difference of -0.5 ml/min per 1.73 m (95% CI -1.6 to 0.7) for each additional 6 months of therapy. CONCLUSION: Tenofovir with either boosted protease inhibitor leads to a greater initial decline in eGFR than tenofovir with efavirenz; this decline may be worse with ATV/r than with LPV/r.

Lipid and lipoprotein profile in HIV-infected patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir as a component of the first combination antiretroviral therapy.

We characterized lipid and lipoprotein changes associated with a lopinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. We enrolled previously antiretroviral-naive patients participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Fasting blood samples (baseline) were retrieved retrospectively from stored frozen plasma and posttreatment (follow-up) samples were collected prospectively at two separate visits. Lipids and lipoproteins were analyzed at a single reference laboratory. Sixty-five patients had two posttreatment lipid profile measurements and nine had only one. Most of the measured lipids and lipoprotein plasma concentrations increased on lopinavir/ritonavir-based treatment. The percentage of patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG >150 mg/dl) increased from 28/74 (38%) at baseline to 37/65 (57%) at the second follow-up. We did not find any correlation between lopinavir plasma levels and the concentration of triglycerides. There was weak evidence of an increase in small dense LDL-apoB during the first year of treatment but not beyond 1 year (odds ratio 4.5, 90% CI 0.7 to 29 and 0.9, 90% CI 0.5 to 1.5, respectively). However, 69% of our patients still had undetectable small dense LDL-apoB levels while on treatment. LDL-cholesterol increased by a mean of 17 mg/dl (90% CI -3 to 37) during the first year of treatment, but mean values remained below the cut-off for therapeutic intervention. Despite an increase in the majority of measured lipids and lipoproteins particularly in the first year after initiation, we could not detect an obvious increase of cardiovascular risk resulting from the observed lipid changes.

ADME pharmacogenetics: investigation of the pharmacokinetics of the antiretroviral agent lopinavir coformulated with ritonavir.

BACKGROUND: An ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)-pharmacogenetics association study may identify functional variants relevant to the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir co-formulated with ritonavir (LPV/r), a first-line anti-HIV agent. METHODS: An extensive search of literature and web resources helped select ADME genes and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs, functional and HapMap tagging SNPs) with a proven or potentially relevant role in LPV/r pharmacokinetics. The study followed a two-stage design. Stage 1 (discovery) considered a Caucasian population (n=638) receiving LPV/r, where we selected 117 individuals with low LPV clearance (cases) and 90 individuals with high clearance (controls). Genotyping was performed by a 1536-SNP customized GoldenGate Illumina BeadArray. Stage 2 (confirmation) represented a replication study of candidate SNPs from the stage 1 in 148 individuals receiving LPV/r. The analysis led to formal population pharmacokinetic-pharmacogenetic modeling of demographic, environmental and candidate SNP effects. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred and eighty SNPs were successfully genotyped. Nine SNPs prioritized by the stage 1 analysis were brought to replication. Stage 2 confirmed the contribution of two functional SNPs in SLCO1B1, one functional SNP in ABCC2 and a tag SNP of the CYP3A locus in addition to body weight effect and ritonavir coadministration. According to the population pharmacokinetic-pharmacogenetic model, genetic variants explained 5% of LPV variability. Individuals homozygous rs11045819 (SLCO1B1*4) had a clearance of 12.6 l/h, compared with 5.4 l/h in the reference group, and 3.9 l/h in individuals with two or more variant alleles of rs4149056 (SLCO1B1*5), rs717620 (ABCC2) or rs6945984 (CYP3A). A subanalysis confirmed that although a significant part of the variance in LPV clearance was attributed to fluctuation in ritonavir levels, genetic variants had an additional effect on LPV clearance. CONCLUSION: The two-stage strategy successfully identified genetic variants affecting LPV/r pharmacokinetics. Such a general approach of ADME pharmacogenetics should be generalized to other drugs.

Lipid and lipoprotein profile in HIV-infected patients treated with lopinavir/ritonavir as a component of the first combination antiretroviral therapy

We characterized lipid and lipoprotein changes associated with a lopinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. We enrolled previously antiretroviral-naive patients participating in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study. Fasting blood samples (baseline) were retrieved retrospectively from stored frozen plasma and posttreatment (follow-up) samples were collected prospectively at two separate visits. Lipids and lipoproteins were analyzed at a single reference laboratory. Sixty-five patients had two posttreatment lipid profile measurements and nine had only one. Most of the measured lipids and lipoprotein plasma concentrations increased on lopinavir/ritonavir-based treatment. The percentage of patients with hypertriglyceridemia (TG >150?mg/dl) increased from 28/74 (38%) at baseline to 37/65 (57%) at the second follow-up. We did not find any correlation between lopinavir plasma levels and the concentration of triglycerides. There was weak evidence of an increase in small dense LDL-apoB during the first year of treatment but not beyond 1 year (odds ratio 4.5, 90% CI 0.7 to 29 and 0.9, 90% CI 0.5 to 1.5, respectively). However, 69% of our patients still had undetectable small dense LDL-apoB levels while on treatment. LDL-cholesterol increased by a mean of 17?mg/dl (90% CI -3 to 37) during the first year of treatment, but mean values remained below the cut-off for therapeutic intervention. Despite an increase in the majority of measured lipids and lipoproteins particularly in the first year after initiation, we could not detect an obvious increase of cardiovascular risk resulting from the observed lipid changes.

ADME pharmacogenetics: investigation of the pharmacokinetics of the antiretroviral agent lopinavir coformulated with ritonavir

An ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion)-pharmacogenetics association study may identify functional variants relevant to the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir co-formulated with ritonavir (LPV/r), a first-line anti-HIV agent.