Significant improvements in self-reported gastrointestinal tolerability, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and adherence with lopinavir/ritonavir tablet formulation compared with soft gel capsules
Open Access
- 17 September 2008
- journal article
- Published by Springer Nature in AIDS Research and Therapy
- Vol. 5 (1) , 21
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1742-6405-5-21
Abstract
Background: The tablet formulation of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r; Kaletra®) has many advantages over the soft gel capsule (SGC) formulation, including lower pill count, no refrigeration requirement, and no dietary restrictions. These advantages may help improve patient compliance and therefore increase adherence to treatment. However, there are limited data regarding patient preferences and only recently was the comparative efficacy and tolerability data of LPV/r SGC versus tablet formulation presented at an international conference. To address this deficit, we conducted a market research survey to assess potential tolerability benefits, patient satisfaction, changes in adherence, and formulation preference in patients switching from SGCs to the tablet formulation. Data from 332 patients who switched from LPV/r SGCs twice-daily (BID) to tablets BID and 41 patients who switched from LPV/r SGCs BID or once daily (QD) to tablets QD were analyzed. Results: Switching from SGCs to a tablet formulation of LPV/r was associated with increased patient satisfaction, tolerability and self-reported adherence to treatment; gastrointestinal side effects were reduced. In addition, respondents indicated that they preferred the tablet formulation to the SGC. Conclusion: The LPV/r tablet formulation provides HIV-infected patients with multiple benefits over the SGC in terms of tolerability and convenience. Additional assessments to further define the tolerability profile of the LPV/r tablet, including studies using once-daily dosing, are warranted.Keywords
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Short Communication: Comparable Safety and Efficacy with Once-Daily Versus Twice-Daily Dosing of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Tablets with Emtricitabine + Tenofovir DF in Antiretroviral-Naïve, HIV Type 1-Infected Subjects: 96 Week Final Results of the Randomized Trial M05-730AIDS Research and Human Retroviruses, 2010
- The Tablet Formulation of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Provides Similar Bioavailability to the Soft-Gelatin Capsule Formulation With Less Pharmacokinetic Variability and Diminished Food EffectJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 2007
- A Once-Daily Lopinavir/Ritonavir-Based Regimen Provides Noninferior Antiviral Activity Compared With a Twice-Daily RegimenJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 2006
- The KLEAN study of fosamprenavir-ritonavir versus lopinavir-ritonavir, each in combination with abacavir-lamivudine, for initial treatment of HIV infection over 48 weeks: a randomised non-inferiority trialThe Lancet, 2006
- 96-week comparison of once-daily atazanavir/ritonavir and twice-daily lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with multiple virologic failuresAIDS, 2006
- The Importance of Potency and Durability in HIV Patient Antiretroviral Therapy Preferences: A Telephone SurveyAIDS Patient Care and STDs, 2005
- Comparison of atazanavir with lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with prior protease inhibitor failure: a randomized multinational trialCurrent Medical Research and Opinion, 2005
- Once‐Daily versus Twice‐Daily Lopinavir/Ritonavir in Antiretroviral‐Naive HIV‐Positive Patients: A 48‐Week Randomized Clinical TrialThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2004
- Patient preferences regarding antiretroviral therapyInternational Journal of STD & AIDS, 2002
- Lopinavir–Ritonavir versus Nelfinavir for the Initial Treatment of HIV InfectionNew England Journal of Medicine, 2002