Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Combined administration of the human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitor indinavir (800 mg every 8 hours) with the antimycobacterial rifabutin (300 mg daily) results in a significant decrease in indinavir concentrations with subsequent risk of treatment failure, as well as a significant increase in rifabutin concentrations with increased toxicity. Therefore this study was designed to evaluate alternative dosing regimens. METHODS:Eighteen healthy volunteers received 300 mg rifabutin daily alone for 14 days and then 1000 mg indinavir every 8 hours plus rifabutin at a reduced dose of 150 mg daily, given at 8 am or noon in a randomized crossover sequence for 14 days. Ten human immunodeficiency virus-infected subjects received 800 mg indinavir every 8 hours for 14 days and then 1000 mg indinavir every 8 hours plus 150 mg rifabutin daily at 8 am for 14 days. Twenty-four-hour pharmacokinetic sampling was performed at the end of each 14-day study period. RESULTS:Indinavir, 1000 mg every 8 hours, coadministered with 150 mg rifabutin daily produced an area under the concentration-time curve similar to that of 800 mg indinavir every 8 hours. The mean area under the concentration-time curve values of rifabutin and 25-desacetyl rifabutin, when 150 mg rifabutin every morning was coadministered simultaneously with 1000 mg indinavir every 8 hours, were 70% and 120% higher than with 300 mg rifabutin daily alone. Drug concentrations were not different when rifabutin and indinavir were administered simultaneously at 8 am or staggered by 4 hours. CONCLUSIONS:Increasing indinavir's dose to 1000 mg every 8 hours when coadministered with rifabutin at a reduced dose of 150 mg daily compensates for rifabutin induction of indinavir metabolism. Rifabutin concentrations were still higher than with rifabutin alone despite a 50% reduction of rifabutin dose, which is the current recommendation when these 2 drugs are combined. The clinical significance of the increase in rifabutin and 25-desacetyl rifabutin concentrations is not known.

Chest wall stimulation by electrical stimuli was employed to suppress permanent demand (ventricular-inhibited) pacemakers in two patients with competitive ventricular rhythms. The stimuli were nor perceived by either patient, and were continued until surgical intervention was effected. In selected patients with permanent pacemaker malfunction, chest wall stimulation may be appropriate and necessary initial therapy until definitive correction is performed