OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics, safety/tolerability and antiviral activity of enfuvirtide administered once-daily (QD) versus twice-daily (BID). DESIGN: An open-label, randomized, multiple dose, two-period crossover study comparing 180 mg enfuvirtide, two injections QD versus 90 mg enfuvirtide, two injections, BID. METHODS: Steady-state intensive pharmacokinetic samples were obtained on days 7 and 14. RESULTS: Thirty-seven subjects received at least one dose of enfuvirtide. Thirty-three subjects completed both dosing periods. The regimens were bioequivalent based on the ratio of geometric mean area under the curve (AUC)0-tau [112 +/- 6.2 microg x h/ml QD; 115 +/- 6.4 microg x h/ml 2 x BID; QD/BID 0.98; 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.89,1.07]. The maximum observed plasma concentration within a dosing interval (Cmax) was 49% higher for QD (9.5 +/- 2.7 microg/ml) versus BID (6.3 +/- 1.7 microg/ml) and the pre-dose plasma concentration (Ctrough) was 57% lower for QD (1.6 +/- 1.1 microg/ml) versus BID (3.8 +/- 1.3 microg/ml). The LSM decrease in viral load from baseline to day 7 was 1.0 +/- 0.14 log10 (n = 18) for QD and 1.4 +/- 0.2 log10 (n = 17) for BID (LSM difference 0.385; P = 0.07). Linear regression analysis suggested that decline in viral load up to day 7 was associated with Ctrough but not Cmax or AUC. There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two dosing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of enfuvirtide 180 mg QD results in bioequivalence compared with 90 mg BID based on AUC with a similar short-term safety profile, but a trend towards a weaker antiretroviral effect. Larger and longer-term studies are needed to determine if 180 mg once daily is an effective dosing alternative for enfuvirtide.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thompson et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: