AimsTo 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. MethodsThe 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. ResultsFrom 122 outpatients 748 lopinavir and 748 ritonavir plasma concentrations were available for analysis. The interaction between the drugs was described by a timeindependent inverse relationship between the exposure to ritonavir over a dosinginterval 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 nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI), which increased the CL/ F of lopinavir by 39% ( P < 0.001). ConclusionsWe 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. Correspondence

The pharmacokinetic parameters of efavirenz were adequately described with the developed population pharmacokinetic model. Asian race and baseline TBR were found to be significantly correlated with the bioavailability of efavirenz. The described model will be an essential tool in further optimisation of efavirenz-containing antiretroviral therapy, e.g. by the use of Bayesian estimation of individual pharmacokinetic parameters.

Several relationships have been reported between antiretroviral drug concentrations and the efficacy of treatment, and toxicity. Therefore, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) may be a valuable tool in improving the treatment of HIV-1-infected patients in daily practice. In this regard, several measures of exposure have been studied, e.g. trough and maximum concentrations, concentration ratios and the inhibitory quotient. However, it has not been unambiguously established which pharmacokinetic parameter should be monitored to maintain optimal viral suppression. Each pharmacokinetic parameter has its pros and cons. Many factors can affect the pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral agents, resulting in variability in plasma concentrations between and within patients. Therefore, plasma concentrations should be considered on several occasions. In addition, the interpretation of the drug concentration of a patient should be performed on an individual basis, taking into account the clinical condition of the patient. Important factors herewith are viral load, immunology, occurrence of adverse events, resistance pattern and comedication. In spite of the described constraints, the aim of this review is to provide a practical guide for TDM of antiretroviral agents. This article outlines pharmacokinetic target values for the HIV protease inhibitors amprenavir, atazanavir, indinavir, lopinavir, nelfinavir, ritonavir and saquinavir, and the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors efavirenz and nevirapine. Detailed advice is provided on how to interpret the results of TDM of these drugs.

Optimal adherence is essential for successful antiretroviral therapy. We analyzed the relation between minimum plasma drug concentration (Cmin) and total drug exposure over 24 hr (AUC24) with virologic failure for therapy-adherent patients in the nevirapine (NVP) and efavirenz (EFV) groups of the double nonnucleoside study (2NN), which compared the efficacy of NVP and/or EFV together with stavudine and lamivudine. The objective was to find cutoff values of the Cmin and AUC24 below which the risk of virologic failure increased. The relation between Cmin and AUC24 with virologic failure (never a plasma viral load [pVL] < 50 copies/ml or a rebound to two consecutive pVL > 50 copies/ml) was analyzed with proportional hazard analyses. Data were censored at end of study or change of allocated treatment. The risk of virologic failure with NVP (n = 511) started to increase at a Cmin < 3.1 mg/L (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.89-1.97), but there was no cutoff value below which a statistically significant increased risk occurred. Neither was such a cutoff point identified for the AUC24. The risk of virologic failure with EFV (n = 312) was significantly increased at a Cmin < 1.1 mg/L (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.08-3.54) and an AUC24 < 40 mg x hr x L1 (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.07-3.54). Both cutoff values represent the median values for adherent patients. These associations were driven by patients from Thailand. Adjusting for geographical region made the association between Cmin and AUC24 with virologic failure statistically nonsignificant. The sensitivity of the Cmin values was too low (29% for NVP, 64% for EFV) to be an adequate predictor for virologic failure. We conclude that identifying the Cmin value for the sole purpose of predicting virologic failure in patients who report to be adherent to NVP or EFV is questionable because of the absence of a concentration-response relation (NVP) or the low sensitivity for such a cutoff value (NVP and EFV).

No abstract

No abstract

The daily exposure to nevirapine (AUC24h) was similar for the 400 mg once-daily and the 200 mg twice-daily dosing regimens. The Cmin of nevirapine is lower and the Cmax of nevirapine is higher for the once-daily regimen as compared to the twice-daily regimen. As a result, 200 mg nevirapine dosed twice daily may be preferred over 400 mg nevirapine dosed once daily.

No abstract