Ritonavir 400 mg combined with saquinavir 400 mg twice daily with the selective addition of reverse transcriptase inhibitors was the best-tolerated regimen of four dose-ranging regimens and was equally as active as the higher dose combinations in HIV-positive patients without previous protease inhibitor treatment.

Ritonavir inhibited the metabolism of rifabutin and 25-O-desacetylrifabutin, suggesting that both are metabolized at least in part by CYP3A. Ritonavir may have enhanced rifabutin bioavailability by reducing either intestinal of hepatic metabolism of both. Clarithromycin is an alternative to rifabutin for antimycobacterial therapy that may be administered concurrently with ritonavir. Administration of ritonavir with a reduced rifabutin dosage regimen (150 mg every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) is being investigated.

The pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interaction between valproate and lorazepam was evaluated in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study. Sixteen healthy male volunteers enrolled in the study to receive either divalproex sodium (500 mg every 12 hours) or matching placebo for 12 days in the first period, and then to receive the other regimen for an identical second 12-day period. In both periods, lorazepam (1 mg every 12 hours) was administered on days 6 through 9 and on the morning of day 10. Concomitant administration of divalproex sodium with lorazepam resulted in an 8%, 20%, and 31% increase in steady-state maximum plasma concentration, area under the concentration-time curve, and trough plasma concentrations of lorazepam, respectively. The apparent clearance of lorazepam through the formation of lorazepam glucuronide was reduced by 31% during coadministration of divalproex sodium. Pharmacokinetic properties of valproate did not change significantly in the ten available participants during coadministration of lorazepam. Sedation scales revealed no statistically significant differences in sedation between the two regimens. It is concluded that valproate increases plasma concentrations and reduces clearance of lorazepam, most likely by impairing hepatic glucuronidation, and that coadministration of lorazepam does not affect the steady-state pharmacokinetic properties of valproate.

Population pharmacokinetic analysis is a relatively new approach which can be used to obtain important pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information from sparse data sets routinely obtained in phase II and III clinical trials, these studies typically have many patients but few observations per patient. Similarly, this approach is beneficial for studies in which intensive blood sampling is not attainable, such as in children and patients with cancer and AIDS. It was not until the late 1980s and the early 1990s that this approach (which had been introduced by Sheiner and Beal approximately 20 years earlier) gained appreciable momentum. Today many pharmaceutical companies use this approach routinely, to differing extents, during their drug development process. Advocacy by the US Food and Drug Administration for pharmacokinetic screening during phase II and III studies was an important factor in the widespread adoption of this approach. A second factor was the gradual realisation that the approach can be cost effective in revealing clinically important information about the determinants of interpatient pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variability in treated patients. However, several important issues remain to be resolved (such as the optimal study design, quality of the data and user-friendly software) which could determine the future role of the population approach in drug development.

A77003, an inhibitor of the human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) protease, was administered to asymptomatic HIV-1-infected patients in a phase I trial. The drug was given by continuous intravenous infusion at dosages of 0.035, 0.07, 0.14, and 0.28 mg/kg of body weight per h. The drug was given first for 24 h and then for up to an additional 4 weeks in a second infusion period following at least a 6-day washout. Apart from reversible increases in hepatic transaminase levels in some patients, no systemic toxicities occurred during extended infusion of the drug. Dose-related local vein irritation, despite dilution of the infusate, however, caused severe infusion site phlebitis precluding dosage escalation beyond 0.28 mg/kg/h. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated dose linear increases in mean steady-state concentrations. However, clearance of the drug from plasma was unexpectedly high, averaging 62 liters/h across all groups. The concentrations of A77003 in plasma achieved the in vitro 50% inhibitory concentration (0.16 g/ml) only in the 0.28-mg/kg/h dosage group, but it did not attain the 90% inhibitory concentration (0.48 g/ml). No statistically significant effect on CD4 cell numbers occurred in any of the groups, and there was no evidence of antiviral activity, as determined by HIV-1 p24 antigen level, quantitative plasma and cell culture, and quantitation of viral RNA in plasma. In conclusion, A77003, as formulated in the present study, causes severe phlebitis, which prevents administration of the infusates necessary to achieve high concentrations of the drug in plasma. The lack of antiviral activity observed in the study may be a consequence of the low concentrations in plasma in all groups.