skip navigation

Skip Nav

Clinical Guidelines Portal

Clinical Guidelines Portal

Table of Contents

Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in Pediatric HIV Infection

Role of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Management of Pediatric HIV Infection

(Last updated: February 12, 2014; last reviewed: February 12, 2014)

Panel's Recommendations

Panel's Recommendations

  • Evaluation of plasma concentrations of antiretroviral drugs are not required in the management of most pediatric patients with HIV, but should be considered in children on combination antiretroviral therapy in the following scenarios: (BII)
    • Use of antiretroviral drugs with limited pharmacokinetic data and therapeutic experience in children (e.g., for use of efavirenz in children aged <3 years and darunavir with once-daily dosing in children aged <12 years); 
    • Significant drug-drug interactions and food-drug interactions; 
    • Unexpected suboptimal treatment response (e.g., lack of virologic suppression with history of medical adherence and lack of resistance mutations);
    • Suspected suboptimal absorption of the drug; or
    • Suspected dose-dependent toxicity. 
  • Evaluation of the genetic G516T polymorphism of drug metabolizing enzyme cytochrome P450 (CYP450) 2B6 in combination with the evaluation of plasma efavirenz concentrations is recommended for children aged <3 years receiving efavirenz due to significant association of this polymorphism with efavirenz concentrations (AII).
Rating of Recommendations: A = Strong; B = Moderate; C = Optional
Rating of Evidence: I = One or more randomized trials in children with clinical outcomes and/or validated endpoints; I* = One or more randomized trials in adults with clinical outcomes and/or validated laboratory endpoints with accompanying data in children from one or more well-designed, nonrandomized trials or observational cohort studies with long-term clinical outcomes; II = One or more well-designed, nonrandomized trials or observational cohort studies in children with long-term outcomes; II* = One or more well-designed, nonrandomized trials or observational studies in adults with long-term clinical outcomes with accompanying data in children† from one or more similar nonrandomized trials or cohort studies with clinical outcome data; III = expert opinion
 Studies that include children or children/adolescents, but not studies limited to post-pubertal adolescents

The goal of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs is to optimize treatment responses and tolerability, and to minimize drug-associated toxicity. A limited number of adult studies suggest that modified doses and regimen choices based on TDM result in achievement of targeted ARV drug concentrations and are associated with improved clinical response and/or tolerability.1-9 In children, the usefulness of TDM to guide dosing of ARV drugs has been demonstrated in a limited number of non-randomized clinical trials and case reports.6,7,10-17

Dosing of ARV drugs in HIV-infected children and adolescents depends on chronological age and/or body parameters (e.g., height, weight). Ongoing growth requires continuous reassessment of dosing of ARV drugs in order to avoid low drug exposure and development of viral resistance and virologic failure. Developmental differences in drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination contribute to high variability and a greater frequency of suboptimal exposure to multiple therapeutic agents in children and adolescents compared to adults.18 Suboptimal exposure to selected ARV agents with recommended dosing has been demonstrated in pediatric patients, especially in young children.14,15,19-21

Because of the diverse developmental challenges in palatability and acceptability of combination antiretroviral therapy (cART), children and adolescents are frequently faced with the use of altered dosing regimens and ARV combinations for which safety and efficacy have not been established in large clinical trials. Furthermore, dosing recommendations for ARV drugs at the time of licensing for pediatric use are frequently derived from a limited number of patients and pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling and may be revised as newer PK data become available.14,15,19,21 The Panel recommends considering TDM for certain ARV agents when the newly approved pediatric formulation and/or dosing are used based on limited PK and efficacy data in small populations (see specific drug information sections). TDM can also be considered in management of treatment failure for children on cART to increase efficacy and to decrease toxicity.

Use of TDM to Improve Efficacy 

The relationship between ARV drug concentrations and ARV efficacy must be clearly defined for TDM to be useful.22-25 This association has been shown to be the strongest for protease inhibitors (PIs) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) as well as for the CCR5 receptor antagonist maraviroc.26-28 For nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), intracellular concentrations of their triphosphate metabolites have been shown to be most important in determining therapeutic response. Obtaining intracellular NRTI metabolite concentrations is expensive, labor-intensive, requires large blood volumes, and is limited to research settings. Limited data have demonstrated that serum concentrations of NRTIs are also correlated with virologic suppression; however, no efficacy plasma concentrations have been derived for NRTIs.29 

Based on data from adult studies, consensus target efficacy plasma trough concentrations for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients have been developed by clinical pharmacology experts from the United States and Europe for the many PIs and NNRTIs, as well as the CCR5 receptor antagonist maraviroc (see Table 16). Efficacy trough concentrations for maraviroc and tipranavir have been derived in patients with multiple drug-resistant HIV strains only. Although exposure-response data for the PI darunavir, the NNRTI etravirine, and the integrase inhibitor raltegravir are accumulating, they have been considered insufficient to define target efficacy concentrations at this time.30-33 Table 16 includes data on the plasma trough concentrations derived from clinical trials of these drugs.

Click here to view this table as an image

Table 16. Target Trough Concentrations of Antiretroviral Drugsa
 Drug Concentration (ng/mL)
 Established Efficacy Plasma Trough Concentrations
Atazanavir 150
Fosamprenavir 400b
Indinavir 100
Lopinavir 1,000
Nelfinavirc 800
Saquinavir 100-250
Efavirenz 1,000
Nevirapine 3,000
Maraviroc >50d
Tiprinavir 20,500d
Plasma Trough Concentrations from Clinical Trials
Darunavire 3,300 (1,255-7,368)f
Etravirine 275 (81-2,980)f
Raltegravir 72 (29-118)f
a Adapted from: Guidelines for the Use of Antiretroviral Agents in HIV-1-Infected Adults and Adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services. http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/contentfiles/lvguidelines/adultandadolescentgl.pdf.
b Measurable amprenavir concentration
c Measurable active (M8) metabolite
d Plasma trough concentration in treatment-experienced patients with resistant HIV-1 strain only 
e Darunavir dose 600 mg twice daily
f Median (range)

The suggested efficacy plasma trough concentrations are generally applicable to patients whose HIV is susceptible to the particular ARV drug. In treatment-experienced patients with virologic failure, a higher plasma trough concentration may be required to suppress viral replication when there is decreased susceptibility to the ARV drug.11,34-36 For the majority of PIs, viral resistance develops cumulatively with successive mutations, and higher drug exposure can potentially overcome lower levels of resistance. The concept of inhibitory quotient (IQ) has been developed and successfully applied to certain PIs, such as lopinavir/ritonavir.37 IQ is expressed as the ratio of patient plasma trough concentration (Cmin) to specific viral susceptibility parameters (e.g., fold change in inhibitory concentration or the number of the drug specific resistance-associated mutations).1,34 This approach does not apply to drugs with low, single mutation thresholds for resistance (e.g., the NNRTIs nevirapine and efavirenz) because it is not possible to overcome such resistance by increasing the ARV drug exposure. Suboptimal plasma concentrations of efavirenz and nevirapine have been linked to virologic failure in children.10,21,38 Evaluation of efavirenz plasma concentrations in combination with pharmacogenetic evaluation for the polymorphism of the main drug metabolizing enzyme cytochrome P (CYP) 450 CYP2B6 is recommended if efavirenz is used in children aged <3 years to avoid suboptimal drug exposure (see Efavirenz in Appendix A: Pediatric Antiretroviral Drug Information).

Use of TDM to Decrease Toxicity 

The exposure-toxicity response relationship has been well defined for the PIs indinavir and atazanavir and the NNRTI efavirenz.24,39 Increased frequency of indinavir-associated nephrolithiasis has been reported to be associated with elevated peak and trough plasma concentrations of the drug in adults (indinavir is not recommended for use in pediatric patients).40 Increased plasma concentrations of atazanavir have been linked to elevated bilirubin concentrations in adolescents, and measurement of the atazanavir plasma concentrations has been suggested for management of the atazanavir-associated hyperbilirubinemia in adolescents.39 

Adverse central nervous system (CNS) effects (e.g., CNS depression, dizziness, insomnia, hallucinations) associated with efavirenz have been shown to correlate with efavirenz plasma trough concentrations >4 mcg/mL in adult and pediatric studies.10,41,42 TDM-guided reduction in the efavirenz dose has been shown to successfully reduce neuropsychiatric side effects while allowing for continued virologic suppression in a prospective open-label multicenter adult study.43 A recent report on the PK of efavirenz in children aged <3 years demonstrated a significant relationship between high plasma efavirenz median concentrations and area under the curve versus time concentration (AUC) and drug-associated hematologic and CNS toxicity.12 Evaluation of the efavirenz plasma concentrations in combination with determination of polymorphism of the main drug-metabolizing enzyme CYP2B6 should be considered for preventing and decreasing efavirenz associated adverse events in children aged <3 years (see next section on pharmacogenetics). 

Pharmacogenetic Evaluation as Part of TDM 

The pharmacogenetics of HIV therapy investigate the interactions between human genetic polymorphisms and PK and the outcome of cART. Multiple metabolizing and drug transporter genes have been studied for their association with efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral drugs. The most clinically significant relationship is demonstrated by the association between the CYP2B6 G to T polymorphism and the PK, toxicity and the clinical response to efavirenz. CYP2B6 T516T and G516T genotypes have been associated with elevated plasma efavirenz concentrations and CNS toxicity in children and adults, while CYP2B6 G516G genotype has been linked to the low plasma concentrations of efavirenz, decreased rates of virologic suppression and development of resistance.12,42,44,45 Adjustment of efavirenz dose based on a patient’s CYP2B6 G516T genotype has been shown to minimize risk of development of resistance and treatment failure and avoid or decrease drug-associated toxicity in adults and adolescents.11,46-48

The effect of CYP2B6 G516T polymorphism on the PK of efavirenz appears to be most pronounced in younger children undergoing maturation of CYP450 enzymatic system.38 In ongoing PACTG P1070 study, efavirenz dosing of approximately 40 mg/kg in children aged <3 years produced therapeutic efavirenz plasma concentrations in 68% of children with GG/GT 516 rapid CYP2B6 genotypes, while the same dose led to significantly higher exposure with treatment-related toxicities ≥grade 3 in children with TT 516 CYP2B6 genotype.12 In this ongoing study, genotyping for CYP2B6 G516T polymorphism is incorporated in the pretreatment evaluation and will be used to determine the dosing regimen. While efavirenz is not recommended for initial therapy in children aged <3 years, should efavirenz use be considered in children aged <3 years, the Panel recommends obtaining CYP2B6 genotype as part of pretreatment evaluation and dose selection (see Efavirenz in Appendix A: Pediatric Antiretroviral Drug Information). 

Practical Considerations 

The use of TDM in clinical practice poses multiple challenges, including availability of the ARV drug assays and certified laboratories; difficulties in collecting timed blood samples in children to obtain true plasma trough concentrations; prolonged time to obtain the results; limited availability of pharmacologic pediatric expertise; and cost and reimbursement considerations. More extended PK evaluation of the AUC in children involves higher volumes of blood samples, cost, and time commitment. Limited information on safety and effectiveness of dose adjustment strategies in children and adolescents may also limit the application of TDM in clinical practice. 

When obtaining plasma concentrations in pediatric and adolescent patients, several important steps need to be taken. Crucially important for interpretation of the results is documentation of the following: 
  • Accurate information about the dose and formulation 
  • List of concomitant medications
  • Food intake with the dose
  • Timing of the dose and blood sample collection
  • Adherence and resistance information 
Additional practical suggestions on TDM of ARV drugs can be found in a position paper by the Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group Pharmacology Committee22 and several pediatric review manuscripts.7,16,49 Most importantly, consultation with an expert in pediatric HIV pharmacology is required to obtain guidance on when to obtain samples for TDM, how to interpret the PK data, and how to evaluate the need for dose adjustment and repeat PK evaluation and follow up. 

References

  1. Bossi P, Peytavin G, Ait-Mohand H, et al. GENOPHAR: a randomized study of plasma drug measurements in association with genotypic resistance testing and expert advice to optimize therapy in patients failing antiretroviral therapy. HIV Med. Sep 2004;5(5):352-359. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15369510.
  2. Burger D, Hugen P, Reiss P, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring of nelfinavir and indinavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected individuals. AIDS. May 23 2003;17(8):1157-1165. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12819517.
  3. Clevenbergh P, Garraffo R, Durant J, Dellamonica P. PharmAdapt: a randomized prospective study to evaluate the benefit of therapeutic monitoring of protease inhibitors: 12 week results. AIDS. Nov 22 2002;16(17):2311-2315. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12441803.
  4. de Requena DG, Nunez M, Gallego O, Jimenez-Nacher I, Gonzalez-Lahoz J, Soriano V. Does an increase in nevirapine plasma levels cause complete virologic suppression in patients experiencing early virologic failure? HIV Clin Trials. Nov-Dec 2002;3(6):463-467. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501129.
  5. Fletcher CV, Anderson PL, Kakuda TN, et al. Concentration-controlled compared with conventional antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection. AIDS. Mar 8 2002;16(4):551-560. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11872998.
  6. Fraaij PL, Rakhmanina N, Burger DM, de Groot R. Therapeutic drug monitoring in children with HIV/AIDS. Ther Drug Monit. Apr 2004;26(2):122-126. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15228151.
  7. Rakhmanina NY, van den Anker JN, Soldin SJ, van Schaik RH, Mordwinkin N, Neely MN. Can therapeutic drug monitoring improve pharmacotherapy of HIV infection in adolescents? Ther Drug Monit. Jun 2010;32(3):273-281. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20445485.
  8. Haas DW. Can responses to antiretroviral therapy be improved by therapeutic drug monitoring? Clin Infect Dis. Apr 15 2006;42(8):1197-1199. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16575742.
  9. Nettles RE, Kieffer TL, Parsons T, et al. Marked intraindividual variability in antiretroviral concentrations may limit the utility of therapeutic drug monitoring. Clin Infect Dis. Apr 15 2006;42(8):1189-1196. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16575741.
  10. Fletcher CV, Brundage RC, Fenton T, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of efavirenz and nelfinavir in HIV-infected children participating in an area-under-the-curve controlled trial. Clin Pharmacol Ther. Feb 2008;83(2):300-306. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17609682.
  11. Rakhmanina N, van den Anker J, Baghdassarian A, Soldin S, Williams K, Neely MN. Population pharmacokinetics of lopinavir predict suboptimal therapeutic concentrations in treatment-experienced human immunodeficiency virus-infected children. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. Jun 2009;53(6):2532-2538. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19258274.
  12. Bolton C, Samson P, Capparelli E, Bwakura-Dangarembizi M, Jean-Philippe P, et al. Strong influence of CYP2B6 Genotypic Polymorphisms on EFV Pharmacokinetics in HIV+ Children <3 Years of Age and Implications for Dosing. Paper presented at: Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; 2013; Atlanta, GA.
  13. Neely M, Jelliffe R. Practical therapeutic drug management in HIV-infected patients: use of population pharmacokinetic models supplemented by individualized Bayesian dose optimization. J Clin Pharmacol. Sep 2008;48(9):1081-1091. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18635757.
  14. Fillekes Q, Mulenga V, Kabamba D, et al. Pharmacokinetics of nevirapine in HIV-infected infants weighing 3 kg to less than 6 kg taking paediatric fixed dose combination tablets. AIDS. Sep 10 2012;26(14):1795-1800. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22739394.
  15. Fillekes Q, Natukunda E, Balungi J, et al. Pediatric underdosing of efavirenz: a pharmacokinetic study in Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. Dec 1 2011;58(4):392-398. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21926634.
  16. Neely MN, Rakhmanina NY. Pharmacokinetic optimization of antiretroviral therapy in children and adolescents. Clin Pharmacokinet. Mar 2011;50(3):143-189. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21294595.
  17. Rakhmanina NY, Neely MN, Capparelli EV. High dose of darunavir in treatment-experienced HIV-infected adolescent results in virologic suppression and improved CD4 cell count. Ther Drug Monit. Jun 2012;34(3):237-241. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22549499.
  18. Kearns GL, Abdel-Rahman SM, Alander SW, Blowey DL, Leeder JS, Kauffman RE. Developmental pharmacology--drug disposition, action, and therapy in infants and children. N Engl J Med. Sep 18 2003;349(12):1157-1167. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13679531.
  19. Menson EN, Walker AS, Sharland M, et al. Underdosing of antiretrovirals in UK and Irish children with HIV as an example of problems in prescribing medicines to children, 1997-2005: cohort study. BMJ. May 20 2006;332(7551):1183-1187. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16709991.
  20. Chadwick EG, Pinto J, Yogev R, et al. Early initiation of lopinavir/ritonavir in infants less than 6 weeks of age: pharmacokinetics and 24-week safety and efficacy. Pediatr Infect Dis J. Mar 2009;28(3):215-219. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19209098.
  21. Zoufaly A, Fillekes Q, Hammerl R, et al. Prevalence and determinants of virological failure in HIV-infected children on antiretroviral therapy in rural Cameroon: a cross-sectional study. Antivir Ther. 2013;18(5):681-690. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23502762.
  22. Acosta EP, Gerber JG, Adult Pharmacology Committee of the ACTG. Position paper on therapeutic drug monitoring of antiretroviral agents. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. Aug 10 2002;18(12):825-834. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12201904.
  23. Anderson PL, Fletcher CV. Updated clinical pharmacologic considerations for HIV-1 protease inhibitors. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. Apr 2004;1(1):33-39. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16091221.
  24. Morse GD, Catanzaro LM, Acosta EP. Clinical pharmacodynamics of HIV-1 protease inhibitors: use of inhibitory quotients to optimise pharmacotherapy. Lancet Infect Dis. Apr 2006;6(4):215-225. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16554246.
  25. Back D, Gatti G, Fletcher C, et al. Therapeutic drug monitoring in HIV infection: current status and future directions. AIDS. Mar 2002;16 Suppl 1:S5-37. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12035820.
  26. Pfizer Inc. Selzentry (maraviroc) tablets prescribing information. 2007.  
  27. McFayden L, Jacqmin P, Wade J, et al. Maraviroc exposure response analysis: phase 3 antiviral efficacy in treatmentexperienced HIV+ patients. Abstract P4-13. Paper Presented at: 16th Population Approach Group in Europe Meeting; June 2007, 2007; Kobenhavn, Denmark.
  28. Albrecht M, Mukherjee AL, Tierney C, et al. 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. Jul-Aug 2011;12(4):201-214. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22044856.
  29. Fletcher CV, Acosta EP, Henry K, et al. Concentration-controlled zidovudine therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. Sep 1998;64(3):331-338. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9757157.
  30. Markowitz M, Morales-Ramirez JO, Nguyen BY, et al. Antiretroviral activity, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of MK-0518, a novel inhibitor of HIV-1 integrase, dosed as monotherapy for 10 days in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected individuals. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. Dec 15 2006;43(5):509-515. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17133211.
  31. Kakuda TN, Wade JR, Snoeck E, et al. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the non-nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor etravirine in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther. Nov 2010;88(5):695-703. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20881958.
  32. Sekar V, DeMeyer S, Vangeneugden T, et al. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analysies of TMC114 in the POWER 1 and POWER 2 trials in treatment-experienced HIV-infected patients. Abstract J-121. Paper presented at: 13th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections; February 5, 2006, 2006; Denver, CO.
  33. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Prezista (package insert). 2010. Available at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2010/021976s016lbl.pdf.
  34. Acosta EP, King JR. Methods for integration of pharmacokinetic and phenotypic information in the treatment of infection with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis. Feb 1 2003;36(3):373-377. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12539082.
  35. Ellner PD, Neu HC. The inhibitory quotient. A method for interpreting minimum inhibitory concentration data. JAMA. Oct 2 1981;246(14):1575-1578. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7277631.
  36. Hsu A, Isaacson J, Brun S, et al. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of lopinavir-ritonavir in combination with efavirenz and two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors in extensively pretreated human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. Jan 2003;47(1):350-359. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12499212.
  37. Castagna A, Gianotti N, Galli L, et al. The NIQ of lopinavir is predictive of a 48-week virological response in highly treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected subjects treated with a lopinavir/ritonavir-containing regimen. Antivir Ther. Aug 2004;9(4):537-543. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15456085.
  38. Saitoh A, Fletcher CV, Brundage R, et al. Efavirenz pharmacokinetics in HIV-1-infected children are associated with CYP2B6-G516T polymorphism. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. Jul 1 2007;45(3):280-285. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17356468.
  39. Nso Roca AP, Larru B, Bellon JM, et al. HIV-infected adolescents: relationship between atazanavir plasma levels and bilirubin concentrations. J Adolesc Health. Jan 2011;48(1):100-102. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21185531.
  40. Solas C, Basso S, Poizot-Martin I, et al. High indinavir Cmin is associated with higher toxicity in patients on indinavir-ritonavir 800/100 mg twice-daily regimen. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. Apr 1 2002;29(4):374-377. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11917242.
  41. Marzolini C, Telenti A, Decosterd LA, Greub G, Biollaz J, Buclin T. Efavirenz plasma levels can predict treatment failure and central nervous system side effects in HIV-1-infected patients. AIDS. Jan 5 2001;15(1):71-75. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11192870.
  42. Wintergerst U, Hoffmann F, Jansson A, et al. Antiviral efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of efavirenz in an unselected cohort of HIV-infected children. J Antimicrob Chemother. Jun 2008;61(6):1336-1339. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18343800.
  43. Fayet Mello A, Buclin T, Decosterd LA, et al. Successful efavirenz dose reduction guided by therapeutic drug monitoring. Antivir Ther. 2011;16(2):189-197. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21447868.
  44. Haas DW, Ribaudo HJ, Kim RB, et al. Pharmacogenetics of efavirenz and central nervous system side effects: an Adult AIDS Clinical Trials Group study. AIDS. Dec 3 2004;18(18):2391-2400. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15622315.
  45. Frasco MA, Mack WJ, Van Den Berg D, et al. Underlying genetic structure impacts the association between CYP2B6 polymorphisms and response to efavirenz and nevirapine. AIDS. Oct 23 2012;26(16):2097-2106. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22951632.
  46. Gatanaga H, Hayashida T, Tsuchiya K, et al. Successful efavirenz dose reduction in HIV type 1-infected individuals with cytochrome P450 2B6 *6 and *26. Clin Infect Dis. Nov 1 2007;45(9):1230-1237. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17918089.
  47. Cabrera SE, Santos D, Valverde MP, et al. Influence of the cytochrome P450 2B6 genotype on population pharmacokinetics of efavirenz in human immunodeficiency virus patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. Jul 2009;53(7):2791-2798. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19433561.
  48. Arab-Alameddine M, Di Iulio J, Buclin T, et al. Pharmacogenetics-based population pharmacokinetic analysis of efavirenz in HIV-1-infected individuals. Clin Pharmacol Ther. May 2009;85(5):485-494. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19225447.
  49. Burger DM. The role of therapeutic drug monitoring in pediatric HIV/AIDS. Ther Drug Monit. Jun 2010;32(3):269-272. Available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20445482.

Back to Top