In this study, switching from stavudine to tenofovir maintained durable virologic suppression when the HAART regimen included a protease inhibitor or a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, led to a slow improvement of lipoatrophy, and improved the lipid profile and lactate levels with excellent tolerability. These results support the proactive change of stavudine to tenofovir.

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 g/ml ⅐ h; maximum concentration of drug in serum (C max ), 10.0 g/ml; trough concentration of drug in serum (C trough ), 7.3 g/ml; and minimum concentration of drug in serum (C min ), 5.5 g/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 g/ml ⅐ h; C max , 2.9 g/ml; C trough , 1.6 g/ml; and C min , 1.4 g/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 inhibitorbased antiretroviral regimen for patients with several prior virologic failures.

The combination of raltegravir, ETR, and DRV/r was a highly effective and well-tolerated antiretroviral salvage regimen in patients infected with multidrug-resistant HIV-1.

We evaluated the efficacy of a 5-drug salvage regimen, preceded by a 12-week, structured treatment interruption (STI), in 46 multidrug-treated, human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients with detectable viremia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a 5-drug salvage regimen immediately (noninterruption [NI] group; n=24 patients) or after 12 weeks of STI (interruption [I] group; n=22 patients). At week 48, 45% of patients in the I group and 46% of patients in the NI group had virus loads <50 HIV-1 RNA copies/mL (P=.619). No differences in CD4 cell counts were seen between groups at week 48 (P=.734). A complete reversion to wild-type genotype was detected in 35% of patients in the I group, but this phenomenon did not affect the virological response. The only overall baseline factor associated with ensuing virus suppression was a lower number of nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor-resistant mutations (relative risk, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.93; P=.021). A prior STI seems to confer no additional benefit to subsequent virological or immunological outcomes of a salvage regimen.

The combination of ATV and LPV/RTV provided high plasma concentrations of both PI, which seemed to be appropriate for patients with multiple prior therapeutic failures, yielding good tolerability and substantial antiviral efficacy.