This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Adams, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Morse, G. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Adams, J. M.
Right arrow Articles by Morse, G. D.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 1998, p. 821-826, Vol. 42, No. 4
0066-4804/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Relationship between Didanosine Exposure and Surrogate Marker Response in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Outpatients

John M. Adams,1,2,3 Mark J. Shelton,1,2,3 Ross G. Hewitt,3,4 Thaddeus H. Grasela,5 Mary DeRemer,1 and Gene D. Morse1,2,3,4,*

Laboratory for Antiviral Research1 and Departments of Pharmacy Practice2 and Medicine,4 Schools of Pharmacy and Medicine, State University of New York at Buffalo, and the Antiviral Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Immunodeficiency Clinic, Erie County Medical Center,3 Buffalo, New York, and Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research, Inc., Williamsville, New York5

Received 13 December 1996/Returned for modification 15 June 1997/Accepted 23 December 1997

We used information available from routine clinic visits to characterize the pharmacokinetics of didanosine in 82 human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. A total of 271 blood samples were collected for the measurement of didanosine concentrations in plasma (mean ± standard deviation [SD], 3.30 ± 2.21 samples/patient). Bayesian estimates of didanosine oral clearance (CLoral) were obtained for these patients by the POSTHOC option within the NONMEM software package. Population priors from a previous NONMEM analysis of didanosine pharmacokinetics were used. The mean ± SD CLoral was 132 ± 27.7 liters/h, which agrees reasonably well with estimates obtained from previous pharmacokinetic studies of didanosine. Estimates of individual didanosine exposure were then used to consider potential relationships between drug exposure and surrogate marker response over a 6-month period. No correlations were found between the didanosine area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 6 months and the absolute CD4 cell count (r = 0.305; 0.1 < P < 0.2), weight response (r = 0.0857; P > 0.4), or percentage of CD4 lymphocytes (r = 0.0559; P > 0.4). Future efforts to characterize didanosine exposure in outpatients by random sampling methods should involve more directed efforts to limit residual variability in the data.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: State University of New York at Buffalo, 247 Cooke, North Campus, Amherst, NY 14260. Phone: (716) 645-3635, ext. 252. Fax: (716) 645-2001. E-mail: emorse{at}acsu.buffalo.edu.


Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, April 1998, p. 821-826, Vol. 42, No. 4
0066-4804/98/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1998, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.