Steady‐state pharmacokinetics of once‐daily fosamprenavir/ritonavir and atazanavir/ritonavir alone and in combination with 20 mg omeprazole in healthy volunteers

Objectives Use of proton pump inhibitors in HIV‐infected patients is common. The purpose of this study was to determine the steady‐state pharmacokinetics of once‐daily (qd) fosamprenavir/ritonavir (FPV/r) and atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) alone and in combination with 20 mg qd omeprazole (OMP) in hea...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inHIV medicine Vol. 8; no. 7; pp. 457 - 464
Main Authors Luber, AD, Brower, R, Kim, D, Silverman, R, Peloquin, CA, Frank, I
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Oxford, UK Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.10.2007
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Objectives Use of proton pump inhibitors in HIV‐infected patients is common. The purpose of this study was to determine the steady‐state pharmacokinetics of once‐daily (qd) fosamprenavir/ritonavir (FPV/r) and atazanavir/ritonavir (ATV/r) alone and in combination with 20 mg qd omeprazole (OMP) in healthy volunteers. Design and methods A prospective, open‐label, single‐site, two‐period, crossover pharmacokinetic study was carried out in healthy volunteers. Subjects received either qd FPV/r 1400 mg/200 mg or ATV/r 300 mg/100 mg in the morning for 14 days and then 20 mg OMP in the evening for an additional 7 days. The pharmacokinetics were assessed over 24 h on days 14 and 21. Following a 2‐week washout, subjects repeated the process with the other regimen. Trough protease inhibitor (PI) concentrations were taken on day 16 of each period to assess the impact of a single dose of OMP on ATV and amprenavir (APV) concentrations. Plasma ATV and APV pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed by noncompartmental analysis; geometric mean ratios (GMRs; PI+OMP/PI; 90% confidence interval) were calculated between days 14 and 21. Results Nineteen healthy, non‐HIV‐infected volunteers were evaluated. OMP reduced ATV exposure [area under the concentration curve at 0–24 h (AUC0–24 h)] and the minimum drug concentration (Cmin) by 27% each. In contrast, APV exposure and Cmin were decreased by 4 and 2%, respectively. Four subjects (21%) experienced greater than 50% declines in both ATV AUC0–24 h and Cmin after the addition of OMP; this was not observed in any subject following receipt of FPV/r. No alterations in APV or ATV trough concentrations were observed following a single dose of OMP. Conclusions The addition of 20 mg OMP administered in the evening has minimal effect on APV pharmacokinetics. In contrast, ATV pharmacokinetics were altered; a number of ATV‐treated subjects experienced pronounced declines in exposures upon the addition of 20 mg OMP administered in the evening, whereas others experienced little to no change.
Bibliography:*
Presented at the 7th International Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology of HIV Therapy, Lisbon, Portugal, 2006 (Abstract 36).
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:1464-2662
1468-1293
DOI:10.1111/j.1468-1293.2007.00496.x