Management of treatment-experienced patients with multidrug resistance can be challenging. Fortunately, since 2006, 4 new antiretroviral agents-darunavir, maraviroc, raltegravir, and etravirine-with activity against drug-resistant HIV have been approved.
Management of treatment-experienced patients with multidrug resistance can be challenging. Fortunately, since 2006, 4 new antiretroviral agents-darunavir, maraviroc, raltegravir, and etravirine-with activity against drug-resistant HIV have been approved. Notably, 3 of these 4 new agents-all but raltegravir-are metabolized by and influence the cytochrome P-450 (CYP) system. In this regard, they are similar to existing protease inhibitors (PIs) and NNRTIs. This extraordinary period in HIV drug development has led to a significant increase in the proportion
of treatment-experienced patients achieving virological suppression.1
We recently encountered 2 patients with extensive PI resistance who had never received NNRTI therapy. For these patients, a regimen of ritonavir-boosted darunavir (DRV/r) and efavirenz or nevirapine was considered. A third patient was a candidate for treatment with DRV/r and the NNRTI etravirine. A review of these cases serves as a backdrop against which to discuss the potential pharmacokinetic interactions when coadministering DRV/r-a boosted PI with demonstrated efficacy in patients with PI resistance2-5-and the 3 NNRTIs now in widest clinical use.
Disease characteristics and resistance profiles for the 3 case patients are described in Table 1. All had long-standing HIV infection, with a mean 15 years since diagnosis and 5 or more years of virological failure on a PI-containing regimen. The mean baseline CD4+ cell count was 214/µL and mean plasma HIV RNA level was 19,142 copies/mL. All 3 patients had extensive genotypic evidence of PI and NRTI resistance (a mean of 9 NRTI and 11 PI mutations). Of note, 2 of the patients had been maintained on long-term failing therapy with indinavir, an agent no longer considered a preferred or alternative option for initial therapy.6 Also, 2 patients were NNRTI-naive, and the third, who had been previously treated with efavirenz, had 3 NNRTI mutations.
A 53-year-old woman was referred for evaluation of multidrug-resistant HIV infection with a CD4+ cell count of 185/µL (CD4%, 23) and an HIV RNA level of 27,807 copies/mL. She had been given a diagnosis of HIV infection 15 years earlier and had initially received dual-NRTI therapy consisting of stavudine and lamivudine, followed by a regimen of indinavir, stavudine, and lamivudine for nearly 10 years. Her plasma HIV RNA level had never been fully suppressed. In 2004, an HIV genotype revealed multiple thymidine analogue–associated mutations and another NRTI mutation, M184V, as well as 12 PI mutations. She was offered an enfuvirtide-based regimen but refused. The decision was therefore made to maintain the current failing regimen and avoid exposure to the NNRTI class in anticipation of newer antiretroviral options. The NRTI component of her regimen was ultimately changed to coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine to reduce further risk of lipoatrophy.
A phenotype was requested 3 months before referral and confirmed susceptibility to the NNRTI class but with extensive PI resistance except for preserved susceptibility to tipranavir. (This test was performed before the availability of darunavir testing.) At the time of referral, the patient acknowledged that she had chosen to discontinue indinavir in the preceding months because of lipoatrophy and thus had been taking only 2 NRTIs.
Despite high-level PI resistance, the presence of only 1 major and 1 accessory darunavir-associated mutation predicted a favorable response to this PI (Table 2).7-9 Therefore, when darunavir became available in June 2006, a regimen of DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, and coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily was started. The patient tolerated the new regimen well, without notable adverse effects, and achieved virological suppression within 4 months.
A 48-year-old man with bipolar disorder and drug-resistant HIV infection was referred for recommendations regarding antiretroviral therapy options. His HIV infection was diagnosed in 1990, and he was subsequently treated with zidovudine monotherapy, followed by the addition of didanosine. In 1996, the regimen was switched to indinavir plus stavudine and lamivudine. At the time of referral in June 2006, his regimen consisted of indinavir, tenofovir, and emtricitabine. Although his HIV RNA level had never been fully suppressed, it had remained relatively low at about 5000 copies/mL. His absolute CD4+ cell count, which had consistently been above 200/µL, had recently declined to 128/µL (CD4%, 15).
A resistance phenotype and genotype test (PhenoSense GT, Monogram Biosciences, Inc, South San Francisco) at the time of referral revealed moderate-high–level NRTI resistance (partial susceptibility only to tenofovir and didanosine), but hypersusceptibility to the then-available NNRTIs (efavirenz and nevirapine); the replication capacity was 9%. Within the PI class, the virus was susceptible to darunavir (fold change, 1.1) and fosamprenavir, with partial susceptibility to tipranavir (fold change, 2.69).
Given its potential for neuropsychiatric adverse effects, efavirenz was considered to be a poor option for this patient with bipolar disease. Since his CD4+ cell count of 128/µL was below the threshold of 400/µL considered to confer a greater risk of nevirapine hypersensitivity in men, he was started on a regimen of DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily, nevirapine 200 mg twice daily (after a 14 day lead-in of 200 mg once daily), and coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. After 6 weeks of therapy, his plasma HIV RNA level declined to less than 75 copies/mL.
A 49-year-old woman with long-standing virological failure was maintained on a regimen of ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir and coformulated tenofovir/emtricitabine while awaiting new therapeutic options. Her HIV infection was diagnosed 12 years earlier (CD4+ cell nadir of 73/µL), and she had been treated with numerous antiretroviral combinations, which included 5 different PIs. Despite having a persistently detectable HIV RNA level in the range of 5000 to 20,000 copies/mL, her CD4+ cell count remained above 300/µL. Although enfuvirtide remained a treatment option, she strongly wished to avoid injections unless her CD4+ count declined significantly.
A virtual phenotype/genotype test (vircoTYPE HIV-1, Virco Lab Inc, Bridgewater, NJ) was obtained in March 2007 because access to several new antiretrovirals became available through FDA approval or early access programs. The analysis revealed resistance to all NRTIs. The patient also had resistance to the NNRTIs efavirenz and nevirapine, which was conferred by the K103N mutation (she had received nevirapine about 10 years before referral). In addition, there was a total of 15 PI mutations, with a reduced response to DRV/r (fold change, 11.4) and ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (fold change, 1.4). Three darunavir-associated mutations were present: L33F, I54L, and I84V.
Since the only significant NNRTI mutation was K103N, etravirine susceptibility was preserved. Darunavir was selected as the PI component of the regimen, although full activity was not anticipated given the predicted fold change of 11.4.10 Tipranavir/ritonavir was not an option because it has been shown to reduce etravirine bioavailability (area under the concentration-time curve) by 76%.11 Finally, raltegravir was added as the second agent for which full activity was expected. Thus, her regimen consisted of DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily, etravirine 200 mg twice daily, raltegravir 400 mg twice daily, and co-formulated tenofovir/emtricitabine 300/200 mg once daily. After 20 days on this new regimen, the plasma HIV RNA level was below 75 copies/mL and the CD4+ cell count had risen to 435/µL.
PHARMACOKINETIC INTERACTIONS WITH SPECIFIC NNRTIs AND DARUNAVIR
Tables 3 and 4 provide a summary of the pharmacokinetic interactions between DRV/r and efavirenz, nevirapine, and etravirine.
Efavirenz and DRV/r
No prospective clinical studies have evaluated the virological efficacy of efavirenz coadministered with DRV/r. Knowledge of the pharmacokinetic interaction between these agents is derived from data from a study of HIV-negative persons.12 In that study, 12 healthy volunteers received DRV/r 300/100 mg twice daily and efavirenz 600 mg once daily. The medications were first given individually, followed by a period of coadministration. The efavirenz 24-hour bioavailability (AUC0-24h) was increased by 21% during coadministration with DRV/r. Conversely, the darunavir AUC0-12h and minimum plasma concentration (Cmin) decreased by 13% and 31%, respectively. The combination was well tolerated, and no serious adverse events occurred during the study. It should be noted that the DRV/r dosage used in this study was 300/100 mg twice daily. Studies using the recommended dosage of DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily are expected to result in similar concentration changes.
The slight increase in efavirenz and decrease in darunavir levels noted in this study are consistent with the CYP3A4 induction and inhibitory effects, respectively, of these drugs. Efavirenz both induces and inhibits CYP3A4, while darunavir is a substrate of CYP3A4. The resultant decrease in plasma darunavir concentrations is consistent with the potent CYP3A4 induction effect of efavirenz in this setting.
While efavirenz is primarily metabolized by CYP2B6, partial metabolism occurs via CYP3A4.13,14 Although the mechanism has not been fully elucidated, inhibition of CYP3A4 by DRV/r may contribute to the mildly increased plasma efavirenz concentrations observed in the study of HIV-negative volunteers.12 Further studies are needed to elucidate the specific mechanisms involved.
The clinical significance of these changes in drug concentration is unknown, and dose adjustment for either darunavir or efavirenz is not currently recommended. However, given the potential for increased exposure to efavirenz, clinical monitoring for CNS toxicity is indicated. Conversely, if darunavir susceptibility is marginal, the reduction in darunavir levels by efavirenz might be expected to reduce antiviral efficacy.
Nevirapine and DRV/r
The pharmacokinetic effect of DRV/r and nevirapine coadministration was studied in a randomized crossover trial of 16 HIV-infected patients who were receiving stable nevirapine therapy (200 mg twice daily for 16 or more weeks).15 When DRV/r 400/100 mg twice daily was given concurrently with nevirapine in 8 of the patients, the AUC0-12h, peak plasma concentration (Cmax), and Cmin of nevirapine were increased by 27%, 18%, and 47%, respectively. Nevirapine is primarily metabolized by CYP3A4 and CYP2B6, although other liver isozymes may be involved. In addi-tion, autoinduction of CYP3A4 and CYP2B6 by multidose nevirapine over time results in decreases in nevirapine's half-life. Therefore, inhibition of CYP3A4 by DRV/r may account for the decreased metabolism and resultant increased nevirapine levels noted in this study.
Since all patients were receiving nevirapine therapy at baseline in that study,15 the study investigators used the darunavir concentrations in patients without nevirapine exposure from the TMC114-C137 trial as historical controls.16 In the TMC114-C137 trial, 8 HIV-negative volunteers received DRV/r 400/100 mg twice daily for 6 days plus a final dose on day 7. Thus, based on between-study comparisons of darunavir concentrations with and without nevirapine exposure, nevirapine increased the darunavir AUC0-12h, Cmax, and Cmin by 24%, 40%, and 2%, respectively. One would expect a reduction in darunavir concentrations based on CYP3A4 induction by nevirapine. However, the role of nevirapine autoinduction in this case is unclear because the effects are concentration-dependent and full-dose nevirapine (200 mg twice daily) was used in the study.
With an increase in the AUC0-12h of darunavir and nevirapine by 24% and 27%, respectively, the study investigators concluded that the concentration changes were not clinically significant. No dose alterations are recommended when DRV/r and nevirapine are given in combination; however, it should again be noted that a DRV/r dosage of 400/100 mg twice daily was used instead of the currently approved dosage of 600/100 mg twice daily for treatment-experienced patients. Thus, as with concomitant use of darunavir and efavirenz, the clinical experience of darunavir combined with nevirapine is limited, but the risk of increased adverse effects in the setting of coadministration appears to exist.
Etravirine and DRV/r
The NNRTI etravirine received FDA approval on January 18, 2008, and has activity against both wild-type virus and several NNRTI-resistant viral strains, including those harboring the K103N mutation.17-20 In addition, clinical trials of etravirine in patients with current or historical resistance to NNRTIs have shown that etravirine plus an optimized background regimen containing darunavir is more effective than the background regimen alone.21-23 Etravirine is a diarylpyrimidine analogue that was specifically designed to have a higher genetic barrier to resistance than other available NNRTIs.24 The structural flexibility of etravirine allows it to bind the reverse transcriptase enzyme in multiple conformations, thereby preserving antiviral activity against some reverse transcriptase mutations.25
The pharmacokinetic interaction between DRV/r and etravirine was investigated in a crossover trial of 32 HIV-negative volunteers.26,27 All volunteers initially received etravirine 100 mg twice daily for 8 days, followed by a wash-out period of at least 14 days. DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily was then administered for 16 days with etravirine at a dosage of either 100 or 200 mg twice daily, given concurrently during the final 8 days of therapy.
Coadministration of etravirine 100 mg with DRV/r decreased the AUC0-12h, Cmax, and Cmin of etravirine by 37%, 32%, and 49%, respectively. The effect on darunavir levels was negligible, with an increase in darunavir's AUC0-12h, Cmax, and Cmin of 15%, 11%, and 2%, respectively.
The study authors noted that increasing the dosage of etravirine to 200 mg twice daily during the coadministration phase of the study resulted in an increase in etravirine AUC0-12h and Cmin of 80% and 67%, respectively. However, this is in comparison to the levels attained with etravirine monotherapy at a dosage of 100 mg twice daily. Without baseline data for the FDA-approved dosage of etravirine-200 mg twice daily-it is difficult to interpret the pharmacokinetic effects of coadministration in the context of this study. By comparing the results with historical control data, the authors concluded that etravirine 200 mg twice daily can be administered with DRV/r without dose adjustment.26,27
Another study assessed the pharmacokinetics of etravirine 200 mg twice daily and DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily in 10 HIV-infected persons with highly resistant virus. The findings were similar to those of the crossover study of HIV-negative volunteers: plasma exposure to darunavir was similar to that in historical control patients taking darunavir without etravirine. In addition, etravirine levels in the study participants were reduced by about 30% in the setting of coadministration compared with the etravirine levels in historical controls. This was not considered to be clinically significant because the Cmin was higher than the median inhibition concentration for HIV wild-type virus.28,29
Etravirine is a substrate for CYP3A4, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19; an inducer of CYP3A4; and an inhibitor of CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and P-glycoprotein. Thus, the mechanism by which DRV/r reduces etravirine levels remains uncertain, because one would predict that CYP3A4 inhibition by DRV/r would result in the converse effect. However, it is possible that factors affecting drug absorption or metabolism, such as drug transport proteins or pharmacogenomic factors, are not currently fully appreciated. It should be noted that food increases the bioavailability of etravirine,30 and it is recommended that etravirine be taken with food.
Although the AUC0-12h of etravirine was reduced by 37%, the combination of DRV/r and etravirine was found to be effective in 2 large clinical trials.21,28,29 Furthermore, pooled analysis of the week 24 DUET-1 and DUET-2 results found no link between etravirine pharmacokinetics and its efficacy or safety.31 As a result, the authors concluded that etravirine and DRV/r can be coadministered without dose adjustment.30
Since patients may be immediately switching from a failing efavirenz-based regimen to one containing etravirine, a potential drug-drug interaction could arise if the enzyme induction by efavirenz were to influence etravirine levels. No formal pharmacokinetic data are available to address this issue. However, because etravirine takes approximately 7 days to achieve steady-state concentrations (the half-life of etravirine is approximately 41 hours30), it is likely that enzyme induction properties associated with the discontinued efavirenz will be diminished significantly over this time (unpublished data, Tibotec Pharmaceuticals, 2008). Thus, steady-state levels of standard-dose etravirine may very well be similar to those in a patient who had not been taking efavirenz immediately before receiving etravirine. A study is currently ongoing that will address this possible efavirenz-etravirine interaction.
For patients with highly drug-resistant HIV infection, the development of novel therapies in both existing and new drug classes marks an exciting time for patients and clinicians alike. Several recent studies2-4,21,22,32,33 suggest that a majority of treatment-experienced patients can now be expected to achieve sustained virological suppression despite extensive PI and NNRTI resistance, with response rates comparable with those seen in treatment-naive patients from the late 1990s.
We have described 3 patients with extensive PI and NRTI resistance who achieved virological suppression on regimens containing an NNRTI plus DRV/r. In 2 of the 3 patients, the virological suppression achieved was most likely because of the activity of the NNRTIs and DRV/r, since the NRTI component used was significantly compromised by resistance mutations. In the third case, the use of the integrase inhibitor raltegravir contributed an additional active drug, and the contribution of the DRV/r individually cannot be determined.
Despite alterations in plasma concentrations of both darunavir and the NNRTI during coadministration, the package insert for darunavir does not recommend dose adjustment. However, the knowledge of pharmacokinetic trends does provide insight into and understanding of what to expect in certain clinical situations in which patients may be more vulnerable to adverse effects or inadequate antiviral activity. These would include the potential for efavirenz-related CNS toxicity in someone with baseline neuropsychiatric disease; the potential for decreased etravirine effectiveness with 1 or 2 etravirine-related mutations; and the potential for reduced darunavir activity in cases of marginal predicted activity based on resistance testing.
While the published clinical data on the use of etravirine with DRV/r is extensive,5,21 information on the use of this boosted PI combination with the NNRTIs nevirapine and efavirenz is much more limited. In the POWER studies, all patients who received darunavir already had resistance to nevirapine and efavirenz.2,3 In the TITAN study, an efavirenz-based optimized background regimen was used with darunavir in only 9% of study participants, and 2% used nevirapine.5 As a result, information on the coadministration of these NNRTIs with darunavir will come largely from the pharmacokinetic studies in healthy volunteers cited here.
For patients whose antiretroviral history and resistance profile allow treatment with DRV/r plus an NNRTI (in addition to other select agents), the combination may be a highly effective option. Although pharmacokinetic data suggest that dose adjustments are not necessary when DRV/r is given in combination with any of the currently available NNRTIs, understanding pharmacokinetic trends allows clinicians to gauge the potential for adverse effects as well as regimen potency and thus provide the maximum chance for regimen success.
Dr Sax reports consulting for Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, and GlaxoSmithKline; receiving grant support from GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer; and receiving honoraria for teaching from Abbott, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, and Tibotec.
References1. Lima V, Hudson E, Wynhoven B, et al. Drastically declining incidence of HIV drug resistance: the end of the beginning? 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 3-6, 2008; Boston. Abstract 895.
2. Katlama C, Esposito R, Gatell JM, et al. Efficacy and safety of TMC114/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV patients: 24-week results of POWER 1. AIDS. 2007;21:395-402.
3. Haubrich R, Berger D, Chiliade P, et al; POWER 2 Study Group. Week 24 efficacy and safety of TMC114/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV patients. AIDS. 2007;21:F11-F18.
4. Clotet B, Bellos N, Molina JM, et al; POWER 1 and 2 study groups. Efficacy and safety of darunavir-
ritonavir at week 48 in treatment-experienced patients with HIV-1 infection in POWER 1 and 2: a pooled subgroup analysis of data from two randomised trials [published correction appears in Lancet. 2008;371:116]. Lancet. 2007;369:1169-1178.
5. Madruga JV, Berger D, McMurchie M, et al; TITAN Study Group. Efficacy and safety of darunavir-ritoÂnavir compared with that of lopinavir-ritonavir at 48 weeks in treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients in TITAN: a randomised controlled phase III trial. Lancet. 2007;370:49-58.
6. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. JanÂuary 29, 2008;1-128. http://www.aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2008. Table 12, page 72.
7. Johnson VA, Brun-VÃ©zinet F, Clotet B, et al. Update of the drug resistance mutations in HIV-1: 2007. Top HIV Med. 2007;15:119-125.
8. Poveda E, de Mendoza C, Martin-Carbonero L, et al. Prevalence of darunavir resistance mutations in HIV-1-infected patients failing other protease inhibitors. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007;60:885-888.
9. Cohen CJ, Falcon R, Rinehart A, Lefebvre E. Factors influencing darunavir/r efficacy in treatment-experienced HIV patients: POWER 1, 2, and 3 pooled 48-week analysis. 44th Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; October 12-15, 2006; Toronto. Abstract P688.
10. De Meyer S, Vangeneugden T, Lefebvre E, et al. Phenotypic and genotypic determinants of TMC114 (darunavir) resistance: POWER 1, 2 and 3 pooled analysis. 8th International Congress on Drug Therapy in HIV Infection; November 12-16, 2006; Glasgow, UK. Abstract P196.
11. SchÃ¶ller M, Kraft M, Hoetelmans R, et al. Significant decrease in TMC125 exposures when co- administered with tipranavir boosted with ritonavir in health subjects. 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 5-8, 2006; Denver. Abstract 583.
12. Sekar VJ, De Pauw M, MariÃ«n K, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between TMC114/r and efaÂvirenz in healthy volunteers. Antivir Ther. 2007;12: 509-514.
13. Smith PF, DiCenzo R, Morse GD. Clinical pharmacokinetics of non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40:893-905.
14. Mouly S, Lown KS, Kornhauser D, et al. Hepatic but not intestinal CYP3A4 displays dose-dependent induction by efavirenz in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72:1-9.
15. Sekar V, Lefebvre E, MariÃ«n K, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between the antiretroviral agents TMC114 and nevirapine, in the presence of low-dose ritonavir. 44th Annual Meeting of the Infectious Diseases Society of America; October 12-15, 2006; Toronto. Abstract 956.
16. Boffito M, Moyle G, Hill A, et al. The pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of darunavir with low-dose ritÂonavir (DRV/r) in various multiple-dose regimens over 120 hours. 9th International Workshop on Clinical Pharmacology of HIV Therapy; April 7-9, 2008; New Orleans. www.natap.org/2008/Pharm/Pharm_13.htm.
17. Antinori A, Zaccarelli M, Cingolani A, et al. Cross-resistance among nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors limits recycling efavirenz after nevirapine failure. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2002; 18:835-838.
18. Vingerhoets J, Azijn H, Fransen E, et al. TMC125 displays a high genetic barrier to the development of resistance: evidence from in vitro selection experiments. J Virol. 2005;79:12773-12782.
19. Vingerhoets J, Janssen K, Welkenhuysen-Gybels J, et al. Impact of baseline K103N or Y181C on the virological response to the NNRTI TMC125: analysis of study TMC125-C223. Antivir Ther. 2006;11:S22.
20. Vingerhoets J, Buelens A, Peeters M, et al. Impact of baseline mutations NNRTI mutations on the virological response to TMC125 in the phase III clinical trials DUET-1 and DUET-2. Antivir Ther. 2007;12:S34.
21. Madruga JV, Cahn P, Grinsztejn B, et al; DUET-1 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of TMC125 (etravirine) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in DUET-1: 24-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;370:29-38.
22. Lazzarin A, Campbell T, Clotet B, et al; DUET-2 Study Group. Efficacy and safety of TMC125 (etravirine) in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients in DUET-2: 24-week results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;370:39-48.
23. Gazzard BG, Pozniak AL, Rosenbaum W, et al. An open-label assessment of TMC 125-a new, next-generation NNRTI, for 7 days in HIV-1 infected individuals with NNRTI resistance. AIDS. 2003;17:F49-F54.
24. Andries K, Azijn H, Thielemans T, et al. TMC125, a novel next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor active against nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor-resistant human immunodeficiency virus type 1. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:4680-4686.
25. Das K, Clark AD Jr, Lewi PJ, et al. Roles of conformational and positional adaptability in structure-based design of TMC125-R165335 (etravirine) and related non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors that are highly potent and effective against wild-type and drug-resistant HIV-1 variants. J Med Chem. 2004;47:2550-2560.
26. SchÃ¶ller-Gyure M, Kakuda TN, Sekar V, et al. Pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir and TMC125 alone and coadministered in HIV-negative volunteers. Antivir Ther. 2007;12:789-796.
27. Kakuda TN, SchÃ¶ller-Gyure M, Peeters M, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction study with TMC125 and TMC114/r in HIV-negative volunteers. 16th International AIDS Conference; August 13-18, 2006; Toronto. Poster TUPE0086.
28. Vingerhoets J, Peeters M, Corbett C, et al. Effect of baseline resistance on the virologic response to a novel NNRTI, TMC125, in patients with extensive NNRTI and PI resistance: analysis of study TMC125-223. 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 5-8, 2006; Denver. Abstract 154.
29. Boffito M, Winston A, Jackson A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and antiretroviral response to darunaÂvir/ritonavir and etravirine combination in patients with high-level viral resistance. AIDS. 2007;21:1449-1455.
30. Intelence (etravirine) [package insert]. Raritan, NJ: Tibotec Therapeutics Inc; January 2008.
31. Kakuda T, Wade J, Snoeck E, et al. PharmacoÂkinetics and pharmacodynamics of the NNRTI TMC125 in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients: pooled 24-week results of DUET-1 and DUET-2. 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 3-6, 2008; Boston. Abstract 762.
32. Cooper D, Gatell J, Rockstroh J, et al. 48-Week results from BENCHMRK-1, a phase III study of ralÂtegravir in patients failing ART with triple-class resistant HIV-1. 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 3-6, 2008; Boston. Abstract 788.
33. Hardy D, Reynes J, Konourina I, et al. Efficacy and safety of maraviroc plus optimized background therapy in treatment-experienced patients infected with CCR5-tropic HIV-1: 48-week combined analysis of the MOTIVATE studies. 15th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 3-6, 2008; Boston. Abstract 792.