4.1 Article

A popluation analysis of weight-related differences in lopinavir pharmacokinetics and possible consequences for protease inhibitor-naive and -experienced patients

Journal

ANTIVIRAL THERAPY
Volume 14, Issue 7, Pages 923-929

Publisher

INT MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.3851/IMP1414

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Lopinavir is a potent protease inhibitor (PI) used for the treatment of HIV infection. Different lopinavir target trough concentrations (C-troughs) were previously determined according to patient treatment histories: 1 mg/l for PI-naive patients, and 4 and 5.7 mg/l for PI-experienced patients. However, the probability to achieve these target C-troughs with the current 400 mg twice-daily or 800 mg once-daily doses of the new tablet form, and the influence of body weight on this probability are unknown. Methods: A population pharmacokinetic model for lopinavir was developed using data from 424 HIV type-1-infected patients, and the final model was used to estimate the probability to achieve target C-troughs via Monte Carlo simulations. Results: A one-compartment model adequately described the data. Mean population estimates (percentage interindividual variability) were 4.61 l/h (36%) for apparent clearance (CL/F) and 63.21 (70%) for apparent distribution volume. Body weight was found to explain the interindividual variability of lopinavir CL/F. Probability to achieve the 1 mg/l target C-trough was >96% for the twice-daily dose and comprised between 80% and 90% for the once-daily dose. The probability to achieve the 4 and 5.7 mg/l target Ctroughs with the twice-daily dose significantly decreased when body weight increased (from 76% to 61% and from 56% to 37% respectively, for body weights increasing from 50 to 90 kg). Conclusions: These results support lopinavir therapeutic drug monitoring and the use of higher lopinavir doses for PI-pretreated patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available