Advertisement

Medical Microbiology and Immunology

, Volume 207, Issue 5–6, pp 339–343 | Cite as

Lopinavir serum concentrations of critically ill infants: a pharmacokinetic investigation in South Africa

  • Michael Schultheiß
  • Sharon Kling
  • Ulrike Lenker
  • Miriam von Bibra
  • Bernd Rosenkranz
  • Hartwig Klinker
Rapid Communication
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

The role of therapeutic drug monitoring in pediatric antiretroviral therapy is unclear. A little pharmacokinetic datum from clinical practice exists beyond controlled approval studies including clinically stable children. The aim of this study is to quantify LPV exposure of critically ill infants in an ICU and—by identifying risk factors for inadequate exposure—to define sensible indications for TDM in pediatric HIV care; in addition, assume total drug adherence in ICU to compare LPV exposure with a setting of unknown adherence. In this prospective investigation, 15 blood samples from critically ill infants in the pediatric ICU at Tygerberg Hospital were analyzed for LPV–serum concentrations. They were then compared to those of 22 blood samples from out-patient children. Serum-level measurements were performed with an established high-performance liquid chromatography method. All LPV–serum levels of ICU patients were higher than a recommended Ctrough (= 1.000 ng/ml), 60% of levels were higher than Cmax (8.200 ng/ml). Partly, serum levels reached were extremely high (Maximum: 28.778 ng/ml). Low bodyweight and age correlated significantly with high LPV concentrations and were risk factors for serum levels higher than Cmax. Significantly fewer serum levels from infants in ICU care (mean: 11.552 ng/ml ± SD 7760 ng/ml) than from out-patient children (mean: 6.756 ng/ml ± SD 6.003 ng/ml) were subtherapeutic (0 vs. 28%, p = 0.008). Under total adherence in the ICU group, there were no subtherapeutic serum levels, while, in out-patient, children with unknown adherence 28% of serum levels were found subtherapeutic. Low bodyweight and age are risk factors for reaching potentially toxic LPV levels in this extremely fragile population. TDM can be a reasonable tool to secure sufficient and safe drug exposure in pediatric cART.

Keywords

Therapeutic drug monitoring HIV Infectious diseases Pediatric intensive care Pediatric HIV care Infant HIV care Lopinavir Drug adherence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Lots of gratitude to the doctors and nurses of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit Ward A9 of Tygerberg Hospital, Cape Town, who lost their beloved consultant Dr. Louis Heynes to violent crime during the course of this investigation.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

  1. 1.
    Kredo T, Van der Walt J-S, Siegfried N, Cohen K (2009) Therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretrovirals for people with HIV. Cochrane Database Syst RevGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Albrecht M, Mukherjee AL, Tierney C et al (2011) A randomized clinical trial evaluating therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for protease inhibitor-based regimens in antiretroviral-experienced HIV-infected individuals: week 48 results of the A5146 study. HIV Clin Trials 12:201–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katsounas A, Frank A, Klinker H, Langmann P (2007) Efavirenz-therapy in HIV-patients with underlying liver disease: importance of continuous TDM of EFV. Eur J Med Res 12:331–336PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stek AM, Mirochnick M, Capparelli E et al (2006) Reduced lopinavir exposure during pregnancy. AIDS (London England) 20:1931–1939CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Department of Health RoSA (2015) National consolidated guidelines for the prevention of mother-to-child-transmission of HIV (PMTCT) and the management of HIV in children, adolescents and adults. Antiretroviral therapy. Pretoria 61Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Agency EM (2012) EPAR summary for the public—Kaletra. In: EMA, ed. EMA, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chadwick EG, Capparelli EV, Yogev R et al (2008) Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of lopinavir/ritonavir in infants less than 6 months of age: 24 week results. AIDS (London England) 22:249–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verweel G, Burger D, Sheehan N et al (2007) Plasma concentrations of the HIV-protease inhibitor lopinavir are suboptimal in children aged 2 years and belowGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bergshoeff AS, Fraaij PL, van Rossum AM et al (2003) Pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir in children: influencing factors and dose implications. Antiviral Ther 8:215–222Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Health RoSA. National consolidated guidelines for the prevention of mother-to-child-transmission of HIV (PMTCT) and the MANAGEMENT of HIV in children, adolescents and adults. Antiretroviral Therapy. Pretoria 51–69Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Foissac F, Urien S, Hirt D et al (2011) Pharmacokinetics and virological efficacy after switch to once-daily lopinavir-ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 55:4320–4325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Langmann P, Klinker H, Schirmer D, Zilly M, Bienert A, Richter E (1999) High-performance liquid chromatographic method for the simultaneous determination of HIV-1 protease inhibitors indinavir, saquinavir and ritonavir in plasma of patients during highly active antiretroviral therapy. J Chromatogr B Biomed Sci Appl 735:41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    von Bibra M, Rosenkranz B, Pretorius E et al (2014) Are lopinavir and efavirenz serum concentrations in HIV-infected children in the therapeutic range in clinical practice? Paediatr Int Child Health 34:138–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chadwick EG, Pinto J, Yogev R et al (2009) Early initiation of lopinavir/ritonavir in infants less than 6 weeks of age: pharmacokinetics and 24-week safety and efficacy. Pediatr Infect Dis J 28:215–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Calcagno A, Pagani N, Ariaudo A et al (2017) Therapeutic drug monitoring of boosted PIs in HIV-positive patients: undetectable plasma concentrations and risk of virological failure. J Antimicrob Chemother 72:1741–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Casado JL, Del Palacio M, Moya J et al (2011) Safety and pharmacokinetics of lopinavir in HIV/HCV coinfected patients with advanced liver disease. HIV Clinical Trials 12:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van der Lee M, Verweel G, de Groot R, Burger D (2006) Pharmacokinetics of a once-daily regimen of lopinavir/ritonavir in HIV-1-infected children. Antiviral Ther 11:439–445Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dunn D (2003) Short-term risk of disease progression in HIV-1-infected children receiving no antiretroviral therapy or zidovudine monotherapy: a meta-analysis. Lancet 362:1605–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael Schultheiß
    • 1
  • Sharon Kling
    • 2
  • Ulrike Lenker
    • 1
  • Miriam von Bibra
    • 1
  • Bernd Rosenkranz
    • 3
  • Hartwig Klinker
    • 1
  1. 1.Medizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Schwerpunkt InfektiologieUniversitätsklinikum WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Pediatrics and Child Health, Ward A9, Tygerberg HospitalUniversity of StellenboschTygerbergSouth Africa
  3. 3.Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Tygerberg HospitalUniversity of StellenboschTygerbergSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations