No abstract

ObjectivesAntiretroviral therapy during pregnancy is recommended to reduce the risk of mother-to-child transmission of HIV and for maternal care management. Physiological changes during pregnancy can affect pharmacokinetics, potentially altering pharmacological activity. We therefore evaluated the pharmacokinetics of twice-daily (bid) darunavir in HIV-1-infected pregnant women.MethodsHIV-1-infected pregnant women receiving an antiretroviral regimen containing darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid were enrolled in this study. Total and unbound darunavir and total ritonavir plasma concentrations were obtained over 12 h during the second and third trimesters and postpartum. Total darunavir and ritonavir plasma concentrations were determined using a validated high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry assay and unbound darunavir was determined using 14C-darunavir-fortified plasma. Pharmacokinetic parameters were derived using noncompartmental analysis.ResultsData were available for 14 women. The area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC12h) for total darunavir was 17–24% lower during pregnancy than postpartum. The AUC12h for unbound darunavir was minimally reduced during pregnancy vs. postpartum. The minimum plasma concentration (Cmin) of total and unbound darunavir was on average 43–86% and 10–14% higher, respectively, during pregnancy vs. postpartum. The antiviral response (< 50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL) was 33% at baseline and increased to 73–90% during treatment; the percentage CD4 count increased over time. One serious adverse event was reported (increased transaminase). All 12 infants born to women remaining in the study at delivery were HIV-1-negative; four of these infants were premature.ConclusionsTotal darunavir exposure decreased during pregnancy. No clinically relevant change in unbound (active) darunavir occurred during pregnancy, suggesting that no dose adjustment is required for darunavir/ritonavir 600/100 mg bid in pregnant women.

No abstract

Objectives. Evaluation of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of darunavir and etravirine among HIV-1–infected, treatment-experienced adults from GRACE, by sex and race. Methods. Patients received darunavir/ritonavir 600/100mg twice daily plus other antiretrovirals, which could include etravirine 200mg twice daily. Population pharmacokinetics for darunavir and etravirine were determined over 48 weeks and relationships assessed with virologic response and safety. Rich sampling for darunavir, etravirine, and ritonavir was collected in a substudy at weeks 4, 24, and 48. Results. Pharmacokinetics were estimated in 376 patients for darunavir and 190 patients for etravirine. Median darunavir AUC12h and C0h were 60,642ng·h/mL and 3624ng/mL, respectively; and for etravirine were 4183ng · h/mL and 280ng/mL, respectively. There were no differences in darunavir or etravirine AUC12h or C0h by sex or race. Age, body weight, or use of etravirine did not affect darunavir exposure. No relationships were seen between darunavir pharmacokinetics and efficacy or safety. Patients with etravirine exposure in the lowest quartile generally had lower response rates. Rich sampling showed no time-dependent relationship for darunavir, etravirine, or ritonavir exposure over 48 weeks. Conclusions. Population pharmacokinetics showed no relevant differences in darunavir or etravirine exposure by assessed covariates. Lower etravirine exposures were associated with lower response rates.

Background : PD psychosis is often associated with cognitive impairment, including dementia, and involves dopaminergic, serotonergic, and cholinergic mechanisms. Objective : To evaluate the differential effect of the antipsychotic pimavanserin, a selective serotonin 2A receptor inverse agonist, in PD psychosis patients with versus without cognitive impairment and in those receiving versus not receiving cognitive‐enhancing medications. Methods : Data from the pivotal randomized clinical trial of pimavanserin for PD psychosis were stratified by (1) screening MMSE score as cognitively impaired (21‐24) versus unimpaired (≥25) and (2) concomitant use versus nonuse of cognitive‐enhancing medications. The primary outcome measure was change in the PD‐adapted Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms. Results : Mean (pimavanserin vs. placebo) change from baseline was larger in the cognitively impaired (n = 50; –6.62 vs. –0.91; P = 0.002) versus the cognitively unimpaired (n = 135; –5.50 vs. –3.23; p = 0.046) group. The comparable change was –6.04 versus –2.18 ( P = 0.012) and –5.66 versus –3.15 ( P = 0.041) in patients treated (n = 69) and not treated (n = 116) with concomitant cognitive‐enhancing medication. Pimavanserin was similarly tolerated across all cognitive groups with no additional safety concerns identified. Overall adverse event rates were comparable across the concomitant cognitive‐enhancing medication groups; however, rates of serious adverse events and discontinuations attributed to adverse events were increased in patients taking cholinesterase inhibitors. Conclusions : The antipsychotic effect of pimavanserin is robust in PD patients with cognitive impairment and may be enhanced by concomitant cognitive‐enhancing medication use. Future prospective studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings. © 2018 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.