Variable adherence to prescribed dosing regimens for protease inhibitors: Scope and outcomes

Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS

Volumn 3, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 603-607

  Blaschke, Terrence F ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Adherence; Dosing regimens; HIV

Indexed keywords

ATAZANAVIR; ATAZANAVIR PLUS SAQUINAVIR; DARUNAVIR; EMTRICITABINE; LAMIVUDINE; LOPINAVIR PLUS RITONAVIR; PROTEINASE INHIBITOR; RITONAVIR; RITONAVIR PLUS SAQUINAVIR; SAQUINAVIR; STAVUDINE; TENOFOVIR; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANTIVIRAL THERAPY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARTMENT MODEL; DIRECTLY OBSERVED THERAPY; DOSAGE SCHEDULE COMPARISON; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG MONITORING; DRUG TREATMENT FAILURE; HEALTH BEHAVIOR; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTED PATIENT; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE CONCENTRATION; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; TREATMENT DURATION; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TREATMENT RESPONSE; VIRUS LOAD;

EID: 67649573938     PISSN: 1746630X     EISSN: 17466318     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/COH.0b013e32831271c2     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Paterson DL, Swindells S, Mohr J, et al. Adherence to protease inhibitor therapy and outcomes in patients with HIV infection. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133:21-30.
2. Tapper ML, Flexner C, Eron JJ, Molina JM. Simplifying antiretroviral therapy. AIDS Read 2004; 14:355-360; 67-71.
3. Casado JL, Sabido R, Perez-Elias MJ, et al. Percentage of adherence correlates with the risk of protease inhibitor (PI) treatment failure in HIVinfected patients. Antivir Ther 1999; 4:157-161.
4. Cahn P, Vibhagool A, Schechter M, et al. Predictors of adherence and virologic outcome in HIV-infected patients treated with abacavir- or indinavir-based triple combination HAART also containing lamivudine/zidovudine. Curr Med Res Opin 2004; 20:1115-1123.
5. Anderson PL. Pharmacologic perspectives for once-daily antiretroviral therapy. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38:1924-1934.
6. Killingley B, Pozniak A. The first once-daily single-tablet regimen for the treatment of HIV-infected patients. Drugs Today (Barc) 2007; 43:427-442.
7. Molina JM. Efficacy and safety of once-daily regimens in the treatment of HIV infection. Drugs 2008; 68:567-578. A comprehensive review that compares newer once-daily administration regimens of highly-active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) with older twice-daily administration regimens in terms of efficacy, durability, potential for adverse effects and patient adherence. The article has excellent tables and is well referenced.
8. Urquhart J. Pharmacodynamics of variable patient compliance: implications for pharmaceutical value. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1998; 33:207-219.
9. Dickinson L, Boffito M, Khoo SH, et al. Pharmacokinetic analysis to assess forgiveness of boosted saquinavir regimens for missed or late dosing. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008; 62:161-167. A meta-analysis of pharmacokinetic data from five studies indicates that once-daily SQV, in particular 1600/100 mg, is not as robust as the twice-daily regimen based on a population of UK patients. This paper raises concern that late or missed doses could result in treatment failure. The authors emphasize, however, that pharmacokinetic data are at best only a guide to the effect of any regimen on long-term efficacy.
10. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 2005; 353:487-497.
11. Comte L, Vrijens B, Tousset E, et al. Estimation of the comparative therapeutic superiority of QD and BID dosing regimens, based on integrated analysis of dosing history data and pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2007; 34:549-558. This article takes the extensive adherence data captured electronically from many clinical trials. Using models of adherence patterns and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships, it shows how actual execution of dosing schedules leads to more frequent excursions of drug concentrations into the subtherapeutic range in patients who had taken drugs once daily compared with those who had taken drugs twice daily.
12. Mildvan D, Gross R, Andrade A, et al., and the ACTG A5073 Study Team. Randomized comparison in treatment-naive patients of once-daily vs twice daily lopinavir/ritonavir based ART and comparison of once-daily selfadministered vs directly observed therapy. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; Los Angeles, CA; 2007. Abstract 138. This study was primarily designed to evaluate DOT given daily, but compared this with LPV/r given twice daily. There were no differences in outcome in twice-daily and once-daily regimens, except in patients who had a high viral load (>100 000 copies/ml) at baseline. DOT provided no clear benefits.
13. Ortiz R, Dejesus E, Khanlou H, et al. Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48. AIDS 2008; 22:1389-1397. In the ARTEMIS study, patients in the LPV/r arm received LPV/r 800/200mg total daily dose, either as 400/100mg twice daily or 800/200 mg once daily. In patients with a baseline viral load of more than 100 000 copies/ml, 56% of LPV/r patients on the once-daily regimen achieved less than 50 copies/ml at 48 weeks, while 71% of patients on the twice-daily regimen did so.
14. Molina JM, Podsadecki TJ, Johnson MA, et al. A lopinavir/ritonavir-based oncedaily regimen results in better compliance and is noninferior to a twice-daily regimen through 96 weeks. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses 2007; 23:1505-1514. This paper describes a carefully done and monitored trial that compared once-daily versus twice-daily LPV/r. No differences were observed in virological outcomes, although the twice-daily group had fewer patients with viral loads of more than 100 000 copies/ml, which may be relevant [12••].
15. Eron JJ, Feinberg J, Kessler HA, et al. Once-daily versus twice-daily lopinavir/ ritonavir in antiretroviral-naive HIV-positive patients: a 48-week randomized clinical trial. J Infect Dis 2004; 189:265-272.
16. Molto J, Valle M, Miranda C, et al. Once- or twice-daily dosing of nevirapine in HIV-infected adults: a population pharmacokinetics approach. J Antimicrob Chemother 2008. [Epub ahead of print] The aim of this study was to develop and validate a population pharmacokinetic model for nevirapine in a population of HIV-infected adults. Based on Bayesian estimates of individual nevirapine concentrations, twice-daily instead of once-daily administration of nevirapine would be more optimal in patients who weighed more than 70 kg.
17. Autar RS, Ananworanich J, Apateerapong W, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of saquinavir hard gel caps/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients: 1600/100 mg once-daily compared with 2000/100 mg once-daily and 1000/100 mg twicedaily. J Antimicrob Chemother 2004; 54:785-790.
18. la Porte CJ, Schippers EF, van der Ende ME, et al. Pharmacokinetics of oncedaily lopinavir/ritonavir and the influence of dose modifications. AIDS 2005; 19:1105-1107.
19. Wood R, Eron J, Arasteh K, et al. A 42-week open-label study to assess the pharmacokinetics, antiretroviral activity, and safety of amprenavir or amprenavir plus ritonavir in combination with abacavir and lamivudine for treatment of HIV-infected patients. Clin Infect Dis 2004; 39:591-594.
20. Cardiello PG, van Heeswijk RP, Hassink EA, et al. Simplifying protease inhibitor therapy with once-daily dosing of saquinavir soft-gelatin capsules/ ritonavir (1600/100 mg): HIVNAT 001.3 study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2002; 29:464-470.
21. Dragsted UB, Gerstoft J, Pedersen C, et al. Randomized trial to evaluate indinavir/ritonavir versus saquinavir/ritonavir in human immunodeficiency virus type 1-infected patients: the MaxCmin1 Trial. J Infect Dis 2003; 188:635-642.
22. Dragsted UB, Gerstoft J, Youle M, et al. A randomized trial to evaluate lopinavir/ritonavir versus saquinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients: the MaxCmin2 trial. Antivir Ther 2005; 10:735-743.
23. Plosker GL, Scott LJ. Saquinavir: a review of its use in boosted regimens for treating HIV infection. Drugs 2003; 63:1299-1324.
24. Ofotokun I, Chuck SK, Binongo JN, et al. Lopinavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetic profile: impact of sex and other covariates following a change from twice-daily to once-daily therapy. J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 47:970-977.
25. King JR, Kakuda TN, Paul S, et al. Pharmacokinetics of saquinavir with atazanavir or low-dose ritonavir administered once daily (ASPIRE I) or twice daily (ASPIRE II) in seronegative volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 47:201-208.
26. Vrijens B, Goetghebeur E. Electronic monitoring of variation in drug intakes can reduce bias and improve precision in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic population studies. Stat Med 2004; 23:531-544.
27. Vrijens B, Gross R, Urquhart J. The odds that clinically unrecognized poor or partial adherence confuses population pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic analyses. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 2005; 96: 225-227.
28. Vrijens B, Tousset E, Rode R, et al. Successful projection of the time course of drug concentration in plasma during a 1-year period from electronically compiled dosing-time data used as input to individually parameterized pharmacokinetic models. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45:461-467.