Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Lopinavir”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Prediction of early and confirmed virological response by genotypic inhibitory quotients for lopinavir in patients naïve for lopinavir with limited exposure to previous protease inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of genotypic inhibitory quotient (GIQ) for lopinavir (LPV) in patients failing HAART with limited antiretroviral exposure. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a prospective trial. METHODS: Lopinavir GIQ was calculated as the ratio between the mean trough concentration (C(trough)) and the number of protease mutations using eight different HIV drug resistance mutation lists or algorithms. Early (by week 12) and confirmed (up to week 24) virological response (HIV-RNA< 400 copies/mL, ECVR) was used as dependent variable in logistic regression model. RESULTS: Seventy-one of 109 (65%) patients achieved ECVR. At multivariable logistic regression analysis, each mug/mL increase of GIQ was correlated with increasing probability of ECVR as far as the following mutations were computed: multi-protease inhibitor (PI) associated mutations listed by IAS (OR=1.17; 95% CI=0.99-1.39; P=0.058), mutations associated with LPV resistance by ANRS algorithm (OR=1.21; 95% CI=1.02-1.44; P=0.03), major mutations associated with LPV resistance by Stanford database (OR=1.16; 95% CI=1-1.35; P=0.05), and the whole set of mutations associated with LPV resistance in the same database (OR=1.22; 95% CI=1.02-1.46; P=0.03). Using ROC curve method, a specific threshold GIQ was assessed, above which this parameter could predict ECVR with the highest sensitivity (74.6% with GIQ obtained through Stanford LPV mutations) or specificity (89.5% with GIQ obtained through ANRS LPV mutations). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that increasing GIQ can improve virological outcome even in patients with limited exposure to PIs. Further studies are necessary to understand what HIV protease mutations should be considered and whether such mutations should be weighted differently to improve LPV GIQ predictive value.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

A retrospective TDM database analysis of interpatient variability in the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in HIV-infected adults.

Lopinavir is one of the most-widely used protease inhibitors in the treatment of HIV-1 infected patients. Concentration-effect relationships have been described for both antiviral activity and toxicity. Less is known about patient characteristics that may determine interpatient variability in lopinavir plasma concentrations. A database was created containing all Therapeutic Drug Monitoring (TDM) results collected at our Department. Patients were included if they were using lopinavir twice daily for at least two weeks; subjects who were known to be nonadherent (based on either a lopinavir concentration <0.2 mg/L or suspected by the physician) were excluded. Demographic data were collected from TDM application forms and patient charts. Patients attending one of the 22 HIV treatment centers in The Netherlands. The Department of Clinical Pharmacy is a national referral center for TDM of antiretroviral agents. Lopinavir concentration ratios (CRs) were calculated for each patient by dividing the individual plasma concentration by the time-adjusted population value. Relationships with lopinavir CRs were tested using regression analysis and analysis of variance. A total of 802 patients were included (607 males; 150 females; 45 unknown). The age and body weight of the patients ranged from 18 to 74 years (mean 42) and 42 to 121 kg (mean 72), respectively. Race was known for 756 persons: Caucasian 76%, African 18% and Asian 6%. The median (+ interquartile range, IQR) lopinavir CR was 0.98 (IQR: 0.67-1.31). Body weight showed an inverse relationship with lopinavir CR (F = 23.1; P < 0.001). Age was not related with lopinavir CR (P = 0.99). Female patients had a significantly higher lopinavir CR than males: 1.18 vs. 1.03 (P = 0.005); race was not associated with differences in lopinavir CR. In a multivariate regression analysis body weight, but not gender, remained significantly related to lopinavir CR. Body weight is the only demographic factor that could be related to lopinavir exposure; clinicians should be alert for an increased risk of suboptimal antiviral efficacy in patients with high body weight, and for an increased risk of toxicity in patients with a low body weight.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Differences in rates of diarrhea in patients with human immunodeficiency virus receiving lopinavir-ritonavir or nelfinavir.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare rates of diarrhea in patients receiving an antiretroviral regimen containing lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir and in patients who received these drugs sequentially. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Hospital-based human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic. PATIENTS: Four hundred one participants in the HIV Atlanta VA Cohort Study who were prescribed lopinavir-ritonavir or nelfinavir from 1996-2002. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Chart review identified episodes of diarrhea that potentially were associated with an antiretroviral agent. Data collected included antidiarrheal agents dispensed, baseline viral load and CD4+ cell counts, demographic variables, and previous therapy Diarrhea associated with an antiretroviral regimen occurred in 175 (49%) of 354 patients receiving nelfinavir and 17 (17%) of 99 patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir (p < 0.001). Treatment for the diarrhea occurred in 118 (33%) of 354 patients receiving nelfinavir and 9 (9%) of 99 receiving lopinavir-ritonavir (p < 0.001). Patients in the lopinavir-ritonavir group were more likely to have received highly active antiretroviral therapy and azithromycin than patients receiving nelfinavir, and they had lower baseline CD4+ cell counts (p < or = 0.01 for each comparison). The average number of months/person-year of diarrhea treatment was 2.0 for the nelfinavir group and 0.13 for the lopinavir-ritonavir group. Of the 10 antiretroviral-naive patients who received lopinavir-ritonavir, none needed treatment for diarrhea, whereas 78 (36%) of 217 antiretroviral-naive patients who received nelfinavir required treatment for diarrhea. Of the 52 patients who had been taking nelfinavir and were switched to lopinavir-ritonavir, they were more likely to start antidiarrheal treatment while taking nelfinavir (14 [27%]) than while receiving lopinavir-ritonavir (3 [6%]) (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir were significantly less likely to have diarrhea or to require treatment for diarrhea than patients receiving nelfinavir. The same results occurred when the drugs were given to the same patients sequentially (nelfinavir followed by lopinavir-ritonavir). The diarrhea associated with lopinavir-ritonavir was less frequent, less severe, and shorter in duration than diarrhea associated with nelfinavir.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Interactions between amprenavir and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination in heavily pretreated patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus.

OBJECTIVE: This pharmacokinetic study was designed to characterize interactions between amprenavir and the lopinavir-ritonavir combination in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus in whom previous antiretroviral therapy had failed. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients included in a randomized clinical trial (ANRS [National Agency for AIDS Research] Protocol 104) participated in this study. They were randomized to receive ritonavir at a dose of either 100 mg twice daily or 200 mg twice daily. For the first 2 weeks of therapy, they were randomly assigned to receive lopinavir (400 mg twice daily) and ritonavir (100 mg twice daily), amprenavir (600 mg twice daily) plus ritonavir (100 mg twice daily), lopinavir (400 mg twice daily) and ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) plus additional ritonavir (100 mg twice daily), or amprenavir (600 mg twice daily) plus ritonavir (200 mg twice daily). From week 3 onward, all patients received amprenavir plus lopinavir-ritonavir with or without an additional ritonavir dose (100 mg twice daily). The pharmacokinetics of the 3 drugs was studied in weeks 2 and 6 of therapy. RESULTS: Median amprenavir concentrations decreased by 54% (P =.004) when lopinavir was added to the amprenavir-ritonavir regimen. Lopinavir weakly displaced amprenavir from plasma proteins: The average unbound fraction of amprenavir was 0.089 in week 2 and 0.114 in week 6 (P =.03), but this did not fully account for the observed interaction. Increasing the ritonavir dose did not affect the amprenavir concentration. The relationship between lopinavir and ritonavir concentrations fitted a maximum effect (E(max)) model;the average concentration of ritonavir that yielded a lopinavir concentration of 8119 ng/mL (50% of E(max)) was 602 ng/mL (coefficient of variation, 22%). There was a significant relationship between the lopinavir inhibitory quotient and the virologic response in week 2 (P =.005). CONCLUSION: Lopinavir markedly decreases the amprenavir concentration during amprenavir and lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy. The inhibitory quotients were more predictive of the short-term virologic response than was the level of drug exposure.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2002

Lopinavir-ritonavir versus nelfinavir for the initial treatment of HIV infection.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir is a newly developed inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease that, when formulated with ritonavir, yields mean trough plasma lopinavir concentrations that are at least 75 times as high as that needed to inhibit replication of wild-type HIV by 50 percent. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind trial in which 653 HIV-infected adults who had not received antiretroviral therapy for more than 14 days were randomly assigned to receive either lopinavir-ritonavir (400 mg of lopinavir plus 100 mg of ritonavir twice daily) with nelfinavir placebo or nelfinavir (750 mg three times daily) with lopinavir-ritonavir placebo. All patients also received open-label stavudine and lamivudine. The primary efficacy end points were the presence of fewer than 400 HIV RNA copies per milliliter of plasma at week 24 and the time to the loss of virologic response through week 48. RESULTS: At week 48, greater proportions of patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir than of patients treated with nelfinavir had fewer than 400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter (75 percent vs. 63 percent, P<0.001) and fewer than 50 copies per milliliter (67 percent vs. 52 percent, P<0.001). The time to the loss of virologic response was greater in the lopinavir-ritonavir group than in the nelfinavir group (hazard ratio, 2.0; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.7; P<0.001). The estimated proportion of patients with a persistent virologic response through week 48 was 84 percent for patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir and 66 percent for those receiving nelfinavir. Both regimens were well tolerated, with the rate of discontinuation related to the study drugs at 3.4 percent among patients receiving lopinavir-ritonavir and 3.7 percent among patients receiving nelfinavir. Among patients with more than 400 copies of HIV RNA per milliliter at some point from week 24 through week 48, resistance mutations in HIV protease were demonstrated in viral isolates from 25 of 76 nelfinavir-treated patients (33 percent) and none of 37 patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For the initial treatment of HIV-infected adults, a combination regimen that includes lopinavir-ritonavir is well tolerated and has antiviral activity superior to that of a nelfinavir-containing regimen.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of a double-boosting regimen of saquinavir soft gel plus lopinavir plus minidose ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus-infected adults.

Management of treatment-experienced human immunodeficiency virus patients has become complex, and therapy may need to include two protease inhibitors at therapeutic doses. The objective of this study was to characterize the pharmacokinetics in serum of saquinavir (1,000 mg twice daily [b.i.d.]), lopinavir (400 mg b.i.d.), and ritonavir (100 mg b.i.d.) in a multidrug rescue therapy study and to investigate whether steady-state pharmacokinetics of lopinavir-ritonavir are affected by coadministration of saquinavir. Forty patients were included (25 given ritonavir, lopinavir, and saquinavir and 15 given ritonavir and lopinavir). The median pharmacokinetic parameters of lopinavir were as follows: area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), 85.1 microg/ml . h; maximum concentration of drug in serum (C(max)), 10.0 microg/ml; trough concentration of drug in serum (C(trough)), 7.3 microg/ml; and minimum concentration of drug in serum (C(min)), 5.5 microg/ml. Lopinavir concentrations were similar in patients with and without saquinavir. The median pharmacokinetic parameters for saquinavir were as follows: AUC(0-12), 22.9 microg/ml . h; C(max), 2.9 microg/ml; C(trough), 1.6 microg/ml; and C(min), 1.4 microg/ml. There was a strong linear correlation between lopinavir and ritonavir and between saquinavir and ritonavir concentrations in plasma. The correlation between lopinavir and saquinavir levels was weaker. We found higher saquinavir concentrations in women than in men, with no difference in lopinavir levels. Only patients with very high body weight presented lopinavir and saquinavir concentrations lower than the overall group. Ritonavir has a double-boosting function for both lopinavir and saquinavir, and in terms of pharmacokinetics, the drug doses selected seemed appropriate for combining these agents in a dual protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral regimen for patients with several prior virologic failures.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Apparent mechanism-based inhibition of human CYP3A in-vitro by lopinavir.

The influence of the viral protease inhibitor lopinavir on the activity of six human cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes was evaluated in a model system using human liver microsomes. Column chromatography methodology was developed to separate lopinavir from ritonavir starting from the commercially available lopinavir-ritonavir combination dosage form. Lopinavir produced negligible or weak inhibition of human CYP1A2, 2B6, 2C9, 2C19 and 2D6. However, lopinavir was an inhibitor of CYP3A. At 250 microM triazolam (the CYP3A index substrate), the mean (+/- s.e., n = 4) IC50 versus triazolam alpha-hydroxylation (where IC50 is the concentration producing a 50% decrement in reaction velocity) was 7.3 (+/- 0.5) microM. Pre-incubation of lopinavir with microsomes prior to addition of triazolam yielded a significantly lower IC50 of 4.1 (+/- 0.5) microM. This is consistent with mechanism-based inhibition of human CYP3A by lopinavir. Although lopinavir is less potent than ritonavir as an inhibitor of CYP3A, lopinavir is nonetheless likely to contribute to net CYP3A inhibition in-vivo during treatment with the lopinavir-ritonavir combination.

Anti-Bacterial Agents↗
PubMed2004

Metabolism and disposition of the HIV-1 protease inhibitor lopinavir (ABT-378) given in combination with ritonavir in rats, dogs, and humans.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to examine the metabolism and disposition of the HIV protease inhibitor lopinavir in humans and animal models. METHODS: The plasma protein binding of [14C]lopinavir was examined in vitro via equilibrium dialysis technique. The tissue distribution of radioactivity was examined in rats dosed with [14C]lopinavir in combination with ritonavir. The metabolism and disposition of [14C]lopinavir was examined in rats, dogs, and humans given alone (in rats only) or in combination with ritonavir. RESULTS: The plasma protein binding of lopinavir was high in all species (97.4-99.7% in human plasma), with a concentration-dependent decrease in binding. Radioactivity was extensively distributed into tissues, except brain, in rats. On oral dosing to rats, ritonavir was found to increase the exposure of lopinavir-derived radioactivity 13-fold. Radioactivity was primarily cleared via the hepato-biliary route in all species (>82% of radioactive dose excreted via fecal route), with urinary route of elimination being significant only in humans (10.4% of radioactive dose). Oxidative metabolites were the predominant components of excreted radioactivity. The predominant site of metabolism was found to be the carbon-4 of the cyclic urea moiety, with subsequent secondary metabolism occurring on the diphenyl core moiety. In all the three species examined, the primary component of plasma radioactivity was unchanged lopinavir (>88%) with small amounts of oxidative metabolites. CONCLUSIONS: Lopinavir was subject to extensive metabolism in vivo. Co-administered ritonavir markedly enhanced the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir-derived radioactivity in rats, probably due to inhibition of presystemic and systemic metabolism, leading to an increased exposure to this potent HIV protease inhibitor.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2005

Higher plasma lopinavir concentrations are associated with a moderate rise in cholestasis markers in HIV-infected patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between liver function markers (necrosis and cholestasis) and plasma lopinavir levels in a cohort of HIV-infected patients treated with lopinavir and ritonavir. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The blood samples for determining steady-state C(trough) lopinavir levels and analysing liver function were drawn from fasting patients. Steady-state C(trough) lopinavir levels, liver function and immuno-virological markers were assessed on the same day. Plasma lopinavir and ritonavir levels were determined by means of high-performance liquid chromatography. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-nine patients were included in the analysis [57 were HCV co-infected (34%) and 10 were HBV co-infected (6.7%)]; they had been treated with lopinavir/ritonavir for a median of 232 days (range 132-282). All patients received lopinavir/ritonavir [400/100 mg twice daily or 533/133 mg twice daily if amprenavir or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) was part of therapy] and concomitant therapy with NRTI(s). Median (interquartile) lopinavir trough levels were 6391 ng/mL (4121-8726), 5662 (3585-8893) and 6819 ng/mL (5324-8726) in the patients with HIV alone and those with HIV/HCV (or HBV) co-infection, respectively (P = not significant). Univariate analysis showed a significant association between the cholestasis markers and C(trough) lopinavir level. Multivariate analysis selected only gamma glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT) (OR = 1.010, 95% CI: 1.002-1.021) as being independently associated with plasma lopinavir levels of >6425 ng/mL; alkaline phosphatase (OR = 1.004, 95% CI: 1.000-1.010; P = 0.08) and total bilirubin (OR = 3.118, 95% CI: 0.980-11.715; P = 0.07) were not associated. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated lopinavir concentrations are associated with raised GGT.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in combination with ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

AIMS: To develop a population pharmacokinetic model for lopinavir in combination with ritonavir, in which the interaction between both drugs was characterized, and in which relationships between patient characteristics and pharmacokinetics were identified. METHODS: The pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in combination with ritonavir were described using NONMEM (version V, level 1.1). First, ritonavir data were fitted to a previously developed model to obtain individual Bayesian estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters. Hereafter, an integrated model for the description of the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir with ritonavir was designed. RESULTS: From 122 outpatients 748 lopinavir and 748 ritonavir plasma concentrations were available for analysis. The interaction between the drugs was described by a time-independent inverse relationship between the exposure to ritonavir over a dosing-interval and the apparent clearance (CL/F) of lopinavir. The model parameters volume of distribution and absorption rate constant were 61.6 l (95% prediction interval (PI) 22.4, 83.7) and 0.564 h(-1) (95% PI 0.208, 0.947), respectively. The model yielded a theoretical value for the CL/F of lopinavir without ritonavir of 14.8 l h(-1) (95%PI 12.1, 20.1), which translates to a value of 5.73 l h(-1) in the presence of ritonavir. The only factor with significant effect on the pharmacokinetics was concurrent use of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), which increased the CL/F of lopinavir by 39% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a model that has defined a time-independent inverse relationship between the exposure to ritonavir and the CL/F of lopinavir, and provided an adequate description of the pharmacokinetic parameters for the latter. Concomitant use of the NNRTIs efavirenz and nevirapine increased the CL/F of lopinavir.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Pharmacokinetics of adjusted-dose lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin in healthy volunteers.

Coadministration of lopinavir-ritonavir, an antiretroviral protease inhibitor, at the standard dose (400/100 mg twice a day [BID]) with the antituberculous agent rifampin is contraindicated because of a significant pharmacokinetic interaction due to induction of cytochrome P450 3A by rifampin. In the present study, two adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir were tested in combination with rifampin. Thirty-two healthy subjects participated in a randomized, two-arm, open-label, multiple-dose, within-subject controlled study. All subjects were treated with lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/100 mg BID from days 1 to 15. From days 16 to 24, the subjects in arm 1 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 800/200 mg BID in a dose titration, and the subjects in arm 2 received lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/400 mg BID in a dose titration. Rifampin was given at 600 mg once daily to all subjects from days 11 to 24. The multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of lopinavir, ritonavir, and rifampin were assessed. Twelve of 32 subjects withdrew from the study. For nine subjects lopinavir-ritonavir combined with rifampin resulted in liver enzyme level elevations. Pharmacokinetic data for 19 subjects were evaluable. Geometric mean ratios for the lopinavir minimum concentration in serum and the maximum concentration in serum (C(max)) on day 24 versus that on day 10 were 0.43 (90% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.96) and 1.02 (90% CI, 0.85 to 1.23), respectively, for arm 1 (n = 10) and 1.03 (90% CI, 0.68 to 1.56) and 0.93 (90% CI, 0.81 to 1.07), respectively, for arm 2 (n = 9). Ritonavir exposure increased from days 10 to 24 in both arms. The geometric mean C(max) of rifampin was 13.5 mg/liter (day 24) and was similar between the two arms. Adjusted-dose regimens of lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with therapeutic drug monitoring and monitoring of liver function may allow concomitant use of rifampin.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Selection of resistance in protease inhibitor-experienced, human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected subjects failing lopinavir- and ritonavir-based therapy: mutation patterns and baseline correlates.

The selection of in vivo resistance to lopinavir was characterized by analyzing the longitudinal isolates from 54 protease inhibitor-experienced subjects who either experienced incomplete virologic response or viral rebound subsequent to initial response while on treatment with lopinavir-ritonavir in Phase II and III studies. The evolution of incremental resistance to lopinavir (emergence of new mutation[s] and/or at least a twofold increase in phenotypic resistance compared to baseline isolates) was highly dependent on the baseline phenotype and genotype. Among the subjects demonstrating evolution of lopinavir resistance, mutations at positions 82, 54, and 46 in human immunodeficiency virus protease emerged frequently, suggesting that these mutations are important for conferring high-level resistance. Less common mutations, such as L33F, I50V, and V32I together with I47V/A, were also selected; however, new mutations at positions 84, 90, and 71 were not observed. The emergence of incremental resistance contrasts greatly with the low incidence of resistance observed after initiating lopinavir-ritonavir therapy in antiretroviral-naive patients, suggesting that partial resistance accumulated during prior protease inhibitor therapy can compromise the genetic barrier to resistance to lopinavir-ritonavir. The emergence of incremental resistance was uncommon in subjects whose baseline isolates contained eight or more mutations associated with lopinavir resistance and/or displayed >60-fold-reduced susceptibility to lopinavir, providing insight into suitable upper genotypic and phenotypic breakpoints for lopinavir-ritonavir.

Amino Acid Substitution↗
PubMed2000

Lopinavir.

Lopinavir is a protease inhibitor with high specificity for HIV-1 protease. Ritonavir strongly inhibits lopinavir metabolism; coadministration of lopinavir and ritonavir in healthy volunteers increased the area under the lopinavir plasma concentration-time curve >100-fold. Trough plasma concentration: antiviral 50% effective concentration ratio for lopinavir was >75 for wild-type HIV at the dose used in clinical trials, compared to values of < or = 4 for other commonly used protease inhibitors. Coformulated lopinavir and ritonavir (lopinavir/ ritonavir) 400/100mg twice daily for 48 weeks suppressed HIV replication in significantly more antiretroviral-naive patients than nelfinavir 750mg 3 times daily (all patients also received stavudine and lamivudine). Suppression of viral replication was observed in most protease inhibitor-experienced patients with lopinavir/ ritonavir (400/100, 400/200 or 533/133mg twice daily for 48 or 96 weeks) in combination with > or = 2 nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) and either efavirenz or nevirapine. 48 weeks of treatment with twice daily lopinavir/ ritonavir (230/57.5 or 300/75 mg/m2 for the first 12 weeks and then 300/75 mg/m2) in combination with 1 or2 NRTIs, with or without nevirapine, suppressed viral replication in the majority of antiretroviral-naive and -experienced paediatric patients (aged 6 months to 12 years). Diarrhoea, nausea and asthenia were the most frequently reported adverse effects in patients receiving lopinavir/ritonavir-based regimens. Elevated total cholesterol, triglyceride and hepatic enzyme levels were also reported.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks: a randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir-ritonavir is a preferred protease inhibitor co-formulation for initial HIV-1 treatment. Fosamprenavir-ritonavir has shown similar efficacy and safety to lopinavir-ritonavir when each is combined with two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. We compared the two treatments directly in antiretroviral-naive patients. METHODS: This open-label, non-inferiority study included 878 antiretroviral-naive, HIV-1-infected patients randomised to receive either fosamprenavir-ritonavir 700 mg/100 mg twice daily or lopinavir-ritonavir 400 mg/100 mg twice daily, each with the co-formulation of abacavir-lamivudine 600 mg/300 mg once daily. Primary endpoints were proportion of patients achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL at week 48 and treatment discontinuations because of an adverse event. The intent-to-treat analysis included all patients exposed to at least one dose of randomised study medication. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00085943. FINDINGS: At week 48, non-inferiority of fosamprenavir-ritonavir to lopinavir-ritonavir (95% CI around the treatment difference -4.84 to 7.05) was shown, with 315 of 434 (73%) patients in the fosamprenavir-ritonavir group and 317 of 444 (71%) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group achieving HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies per mL. Treatment discontinuations due to an adverse event were few and occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups (fosamprenavir-ritonavir 53, 12%; lopinavir-ritonavir 43, 10%). Diarrhoea, nausea, and abacavir hypersensitivity were the most frequent drug-related grade 2-4 adverse events. Treatment-emergent drug resistance was rare; no patient had virus that developed reduced susceptibility to fosamprenavir-ritonavir or lopinavir-ritonavir. INTERPRETATION: Fosamprenavir-ritonavir twice daily in treatment-naive patients provides similar antiviral efficacy, safety, tolerability, and emergence of resistance as lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine.

Carbamates↗
PubMed2003

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with efavirenz and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in extensively pretreated human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients.

The steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of two oral doses of lopinavir-ritonavir (lopinavir/r; 400/100 and 533/133 mg) twice daily (BID) when dosed in combination with efavirenz, plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, were assessed in a phase II, open-label, randomized, parallel arm study in 57 multiple protease inhibitor-experienced but non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-naive human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected subjects. All subjects began dosing of lopinavir/r at 400/100 mg BID; subjects in one arm increased the lopinavir/r dose to 533/133 mg BID on day 14. When codosed with efavirenz, the lopinavir/r 400/100 mg BID regimen resulted in lower lopinavir concentrations in plasma, particularly C(min), than were observed in previous studies of lopinavir/r administered without efavirenz. Increasing the lopinavir/r dose to 533/133 mg increased the lopinavir area under the concentration-time curve over a 12-h dosing interval (AUC(12)), C(predose), and C(min) by 46, 70, and 141%, respectively. The increase in lopinavir C(max) (33%,) did not reach statistical significance. Ritonavir AUC(12), C(max), C(predose), and C(min) values were increased 46 to 63%. The lopinavir predose concentrations achieved with the 533/133-mg BID dose were similar to those observed with lopinavir/r 400/100 mg BID in the absence of efavirenz. Results from univariate logistic regression analyses identified lopinavir and efavirenz inhibitory quotient (IQ) parameters, as well as the baseline lopinavir phenotypic susceptibility, as predictors of antiviral response (HIV RNA < 400 copies/ml at week 24); however, no lopinavir or efavirenz concentration parameter was identified as a predictor. Multiple stepwise logistic regressions confirmed the significance of the IQ parameters, as well as other baseline characteristics, in predicting virologic response at 24 weeks in this patient population.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Virological and pharmacological parameters predicting the response to lopinavir-ritonavir in heavily protease inhibitor-experienced patients.

The genotypic inhibitory quotient (GIQ) has been proposed as a way to integrate drug exposure and genotypic resistance to protease inhibitors and can be useful to enhance the predictivity of virologic response for boosted protease inhibitors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictivity of the GIQ in 116 protease inhibitor-experienced patients treated with lopinavir-ritonavir. The overall decrease in human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) RNA from baseline to month 6 was a median of -1.50 log(10) copies/ml and 40% of patients had plasma HIV-1 RNA below 400 copies/ml at month 6. The overall median lopinavir study-state C(min) concentration was 5,856 ng/ml. Using univariate linear regression analyses, both lopinavir GIQ and the number of baseline lopinavir mutations were highly associated with virologic response through 6 months. In the multivariate analysis, only lopinavir GIQ, baseline HIV RNA, and the number of prior protease inhibitors were significantly associated with response. When the analysis was limited to patients with more highly mutant viruses (three or more lopinavir mutations), only lopinavir GIQ remained significantly associated with virologic response. This study suggests that GIQ could be a better predictor of the virologic response than virological (genotype) or pharmacological (minimal plasma concentration) approaches used separately, especially among patients with at least three protease inhibitor resistance mutations. Therapeutic drug monitoring for patients treated by lopinavir-ritonavir would likely be most useful in patients with substantially resistant viruses.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

In vitro antiviral interaction of lopinavir with other protease inhibitors.

The in vitro inhibition of wild-type human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) by combinations of lopinavir and six other protease inhibitors over a range of two-drug combination ratios was evaluated. Combinations of lopinavir with indinavir, nelfinavir, amprenavir, tipranavir, and BMS-232632 generally displayed an additive relationship. In contrast, a consistent, statistically significant synergistic inhibition of HIV type 1 replication with combinations of lopinavir and saquinavir was observed. Analysis of the combination indices indicated that lopinavir with saquinavir was synergistic over the entire range of drug combination ratios tested and at all levels of inhibition in excess of 40%. Cellular toxicity was not observed at the highest drug concentrations tested. These results suggest that administration of combinations of the appropriate dose of lopinavir with other protease inhibitors in vivo may result in enhanced antiviral activity with no associated increase in cellular cytotoxicity. More importantly, the observed in vitro synergy between lopinavir and saquinavir provides a theoretical basis for the clinical exploration of a novel regimen of lopinavir-ritonavir and saquinavir.

Anti-HIV Agents↗
PubMed2004

Cerebrospinal fluid and plasma HIV-1 RNA levels and lopinavir concentrations following lopinavir/ritonavir regimen.

Our objective was to study the effect of lopinavir/ritonavir on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) viral load as part of an antiretroviral combination treatment for HIV-1 infected individuals, and to determine the steady-state concentrations of lopinavir in CSF in relationship to plasma concentrations. Paired CSF and plasma samples from 12 antiretroviral-naïve HIV-1 infected patients starting combination therapy containing lopinavir/ritonavir were collected at baseline, and during treatment at a first follow-up at median 3.0 months (range 2.6-6.0 months), and at a second follow-up at median 12.1 months (range 6.0-16.5 months). Levels of HIV-1 RNA, CD4+ T-cell count, beta2-microglobulin, neopterin, and lopinavir concentration were analysed. In addition, CSF and plasma lopinavir concentrations in 4 patients already on combination therapy including lopinavir/ritonavir were analysed. Nine of 11 patients had undetectable viral load in CSF and 5/11 in plasma at the first follow-up. At the second follow-up 7/7 had undetectable viral load in CSF and 9/9 in plasma. Intrathecal immunoactivation, measured by neopterin and beta2-microglobulin, decreased significantly both in CSF and serum. The total CSF concentrations of lopinavir were of the same order of magnitude as the unbound concentrations in plasma. Lopinavir mean (+/-SD) concentrations were 42.1 (+/-31.5) nM in CSF and 52.7 (+/-25.2) nM unbound in plasma. We found that antiretroviral combination therapy including lopinavir/ritonavir substantially decreases the viral load, both in CSF and plasma, as well as the intrathecal immunoactivation, measured by beta2-microglobulin and neopterin. CSF concentrations of lopinavir were low, but probably sufficient to have a virological effect.

Adult↗