Use of a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model to simulate artemether dose adjustment for overcoming the drug-drug interaction with efavirenz

PURPOSE: To treat malaria, HIV-infected patients normally receive artemether (80 mg twice daily) concurrently with antiretroviral therapy and drug-drug interactions can potentially occur. Artemether is a substrate of CYP3A4 and CYP2B6, antiretrovirals such as efavirenz induce these enzymes and have the potential to reduce artemether pharmacokinetic exposure. The aim of this study was to develop an in vitro in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) approach to model the interaction between efavirenz and artemether. Artemether dose adjustments were then simulated in order to predict optimal dosing in co-infected patients and inform future interaction study design. METHODS: In vitro data describing the chemical properties, absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of efavirenz and artemether were obtained from published literature and included in a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model (PBPK) to predict drug disposition simulating virtual clinical trials. Administration of efavirenz and artemether, alone or in combination, were simulated to mirror previous clinical studies and facilitate validation of the model and realistic interpretation of the simulation. Efavirenz (600 mg once daily) was administered to 50 virtual subjects for 14 days. This was followed by concomitant administration of artemether (80 mg eight hourly) for the first two doses and 80 mg (twice daily) for another two days. RESULTS: Simulated pharmacokinetics and the drug-drug interaction were in concordance with available clinical data. Efavirenz induced first pass metabolism and hepatic clearance, reducing artemether C(max) by 60% and AUC by 80%. Dose increases of artemether, to correct for the interaction, were simulated and a dose of 240 mg was predicted to be sufficient to overcome the interaction and allow therapeutic plasma concentrations of artemether. CONCLUSIONS: The model presented here provides a rational platform to inform the design for a clinical drug interaction study that may save time and resource while the optimal dose is determined empirically. Wider application of IVIVE could help researchers gain a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underpinning variability in drug disposition

Prevalence of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions Involving Antiretroviral Drugs in a Large Kenyan Cohort

Background: Clinically significant drug-drug interactions (CSDIs) involving antiretrovirals are frequent and under-recognizedin developed countries, but data are lacking for developing countries. Methodology and Principal Findings: To investigate the prevalence of CSDIs between antiretrovirals and coadministered drugs, we surveyed prescriptions dispensed in a large HIV clinic in Kenya. Of 1040 consecutive patients screened, 996 were eligible for inclusion. CSDIs were defined as ‘major’ (capable of causing severe or permanent damage, contraindicated, avoid or not recommended by the manufacturer, or requiring dose modification) ‘moderate’ (manufacturers advise caution, or close monitoring, or capable of causing clinical deterioration). A total of 334 patients (33.5%) were at risk for a CSDI, potentially lowering antiretroviral drug concentrations in 120 (12%) patients. Major interactions most frequently involved rifampicin (12.4%, mostly with efavirenz) and azoles (2.7%) whereas moderate interactions were frequently azoles (13%), steroids (11%), and antimalarials (3%). Multivariable analyses suggested that patients at risk for CSDIs had lower CD4 counts (P = 0.006) and baseline weight (P = 0.023) and WHO Stage 3 or 4 disease (P#0.007). Risk for CSDIs was not associated with particular regimens, although only 116 (11.6%) patients were receiving WHO second line regimens. Conclusions: One in three patients receiving antiretrovirals in our programme were at risk of CSDIs. Strategies need to be urgently developed to avoid important drug interactions, to identify early markers of toxicity and to manage unavoidable interactions safely in order to reduce risk of harm, and to maximize the effectiveness of mass antiretroviral deployment in Africa

Dolutegravir versus efavirenz when starting HIV therapy in late pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial

Background Late initiation of HIV antiretroviral therapy (ART) in pregnancy is associated with not achieving viral suppression before giving birth and increased mother-to-child transmission of HIV. We aimed to investigate virological suppression before giving birth with dolutegravir compared with efavirenz, when initiated during the third trimester. Methods In this randomised, open-label trial, DolPHIN-2, we recruited pregnant women in South Africa and Uganda aged at least 18 years, with untreated but confirmed HIV infection and an estimated gestation of at least 28 weeks, initiating ART in third trimester. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to dolutegravir-based or efavirenz-based therapy. HIV viral load was measured 7 days and 28 days after antiretroviral initiation, at 36 weeks' gestation, and at the post-partum visit (0–14 days post partum). The primary efficacy outcome was a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL at the first post-partum visit, and the primary safety outcome was the occurrence of drug-related adverse events in mothers and infants until the post-partum visit. Longer-term follow-up of mothers and infants continues. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249181. Findings Between Jan 23, and Aug 15, 2018, we randomly assigned 268 mothers to dolutegravir (135) or efavirenz (133). All mothers and their infants were included in the safety analysis, and 250 mothers (125 in the dolutegravir group, 125 in the efavirenz group) and their infants in efficacy analyses, by intention-to-treat analyses. The median duration of maternal therapy at birth was 55 days (IQR 33–77). 89 (74%) of 120 in the dolutegravir group had viral loads less than 50 copies per mL, compared with 50 (43%) of 117 in the efavirenz group (risk ratio 1·64, 95% CI 1·31–2·06). 30 (22%) of 137 mothers in the dolutegravir group reported serious adverse events compared with 14 (11%) of 131 in the efavirenz group (p=0·013), particularly surrounding pregnancy and puerperium. We found no differences in births less than 37 weeks and less than 34 weeks gestation (16·4% vs 3·3%, across both groups). Three stillbirths in the dolutegravir group and one in the efavirenz group were considered unrelated to treatment. Three infant HIV infections were detected, all in the dolutegravir group, and were considered likely to be in-utero transmissions. Interpretation Our data support the revision to WHO guidelines recommending the transition to dolutegravir in first-line ART for all adults, regardless of pregnancy or child-bearing potential. Funding Unitaid

72 weeks post-partum follow-up of dolutegravir versus efavirenz initiated in late pregnancy (DolPHIN-2): an open-label, randomised controlled study.

Late initiation of antiretrovirals in pregnancy is associated with increased risk of perinatal transmission and higher infant mortality. We report the final 72-week postpartum results for efficacy and safety of dolutegravir-based compared with efavirenz-based regimens in mothers and infants. DolPHIN-2 was a randomised, open-label trial. Pregnant women in South Africa and Uganda aged at least 18 years, with untreated but confirmed HIV infection and an estimated gestation of at least 28 weeks, initiating antiretroviral therapy in third trimester were eligible for inclusion. Eligible women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either dolutegravir-based (50 mg dolutegravir, 300 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, and either 200 mg emtricitabine in South Africa or 300 mg lamivudine in Uganda) or efavirenz-based (fixed dose combination 600 mg tenofovir disoproxil fumarate plus either emtricitabine in South Africa or lamivudine in Uganda) therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the time to a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL measured at 6, 12, 24, 48, and 72 weeks postpartum with a Cox model adjusting for viral load and CD4 cell count. Safety endpoints were summarised by the number of women and infants with events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03249181. Between Jan 23 and Aug 15, 2018, 280 women were screened for inclusion, of whom 268 (96%) women were randomly assigned: 133 (50%) to the efavirenz group and 135 (50%) to the dolutegravir group. 250 (93%; 125 [50%] in the efavirenz group and 125 [50%] in the dolutegravir group) women were included in the intention-to-treat analysis of efficacy. Median time to viral load of less than 50 copies per mL was 4·1 weeks (IQR 4·0-5·1) in the dolutegravir group compared with 12·1 weeks (10·7-13·3) in the efavirenz group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·93 [95% CI 1·5-2·5]). At 72 weeks postpartum, 116 (93%) mothers in the dolutegravir group and 114 (91%) in the efavirenz group had a viral load of less than 50 copies per mL. Of 57 (21%) mothers with a severe adverse event, three (2%) in the dolutegravir group and five (4%) in the efavirenz group were related to the drug (dolutegravir drug-related events were one woman each with suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, herpes zoster meningitis; efavirenz drug-related events were one woman each with suicide attempt and liver cirrhosis, and three people with drug-induced liver injury). Of 136 (56%) infants in whom severe adverse events were recorded, none were related to the study drugs. In addition to the three infant HIV infections detected at birth in the dolutegravir group that have been previously reported, an additional transmission in the efavirenz group occurred during breastfeeding despite optimal maternal viral suppression and serial negative infant tests in the first year of life. Dolutegravir was safe and well tolerated, supporting updated WHO treatment recommendations in pregnant and breastfeeding women. Infant HIV transmissions can occur during breastfeeding despite persistently undetectable maternal viral load highlighting the need for continued infant testing

Prediction of drug-drug interactions between various antidepressants and efavirenz or boosted protease inhibitors using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling approach

The rate of depression in patients with HIV is higher than in the general population. The use of antidepressants can have a beneficial effect, improving antiretroviral therapy adherence and consequently their efficacy and safety. Efavirenz and protease inhibitor boosted with ritonavir are major components of the antiretroviral therapy and are inducers and/or inhibitors of several cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms. Although antidepressants are prescribed to a significant proportion of patients treated with antiretrovirals, there are limited clinical data on drug-drug interactions. The aim of this study was to predict the magnitude of drug-drug interactions among efavirenz, boosted protease inhibitors and the most commonly prescribed antidepressants using an in vitro-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) model simulating virtual clinical trials.; In vitro data describing the chemical characteristics, and absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination (ADME) properties of efavirenz, boosted protease inhibitors and the most commonly prescribed antidepressants were obtained from published literature or generated by standard methods. Pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interaction were simulated using the full physiologically based pharmacokinetic model implemented in the Simcyptm ADME simulator. The robustness of our modeling approach was assessed by comparing the magnitude of simulated drug-drug interactions using probe drugs to that observed in clinical studies.; Simulated pharmacokinetics and drug-drug interactions were in concordance with available clinical data. Although the simulated drug-drug interactions with antidepressants were overall weak to moderate according to the classification of the US FDA, fluoxetine and venlafaxine represent better candidates from a pharmacokinetic standpoint for patients on efavirenz and venlafaxine or citalopram for patients on boosted protease inhibitors.; The modest magnitude of interaction could be explained by the fact that antidepressants are substrates of multiple isoforms and thus metabolism can still occur through CYPs that are weakly impacted by efavirenz or boosted protease inhibitors. These findings indicate that IVIVE is a useful tool for predicting drug-drug interactions and designing prospective clinical trials, giving insight into the variability of exposure, sample size and time-dependent induction or inhibition

Cross-sectional study of prescribing errors in patients admitted to nine hospitals across North West England

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence, type and severity of prescribing errors observed between grades of prescriber, ward area, admission or discharge and type of medication prescribed. DESIGN: Ward-based clinical pharmacists prospectively documented prescribing errors at the point of clinically checking admission or discharge prescriptions. Error categories and severities were assigned at the point of data collection, and verified independently by the study team. SETTING: Prospective study of nine diverse National Health Service hospitals in North West England, including teaching hospitals, district hospitals and specialist services for paediatrics, women and mental health. RESULTS: Of 4238 prescriptions evaluated, one or more error was observed in 1857 (43.8%) prescriptions, with a total of 3011 errors observed. Of these, 1264 (41.9%) were minor, 1629 (54.1%) were significant, 109 (3.6%) were serious and 9 (0.30%) were potentially life threatening. The majority of errors considered to be potentially lethal (n=9) were dosing errors (n=8), mostly relating to overdose (n=7). The rate of error was not significantly different between newly qualified doctors compared with junior, middle grade or senior doctors. Multivariable analyses revealed the strongest predictor of error was the number of items on a prescription (risk of error increased 14% for each additional item). We observed a high rate of error from medication omission, particularly among patients admitted acutely into hospital. Electronic prescribing systems could potentially have prevented up to a quarter of (but not all) errors. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to other studies, prescriber experience did not impact on overall error rate (although there were qualitative differences in error category). Given that multiple drug therapies are now the norm for many medical conditions, health systems should introduce and retain safeguards which detect and prevent error, in addition to continuing training and education, and migration to electronic prescribing systems

Flow chart illustrating the flow of information through different stages of data collection and synthesis.

<p>Key: ADR: adverse drug reaction, DDI: drug-drug interaction, IVIVE: in vitro-in vivo extrapolation</p