PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 28, 2026Frontiers in Pharmacology1 citationsOpen Access

Efavirenz metabolism and CNS toxicity in Ugandan children: impact of CYP2B6 genotype and plasma metabolite profiles

SSSandra Soeria‐AtmadjaMBMadeleine Pettersson BergstrandPAPauline Amuge

Key Points

  • This study investigates the metabolism of efavirenz and its metabolites in Ugandan children and evaluates their association with CYP2B6 genotypes and CNS toxicity.
  • Prospectively followed 99 Ugandan children aged 3–12 years from 2015–2016 after initiating efavirenz-based ART.
  • Quantified efavirenz and metabolites using liquid chromatography high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry during multiple plasma sampling times.
  • Performed genotyping for SNPs in CYP2B6 and CYP2A6, assessing CNS adverse effects and autoinduction with multivariate methods.
  • Metabolite/EFV ratios varied significantly with CYP2B6 metabolizer phenotypes, with slow metabolizers showing higher parent drug levels.
  • CNS symptoms were associated with high EFV concentrations above 4,000 ng/mL in slow CYP2B6 metabolizers, but metabolites did not elevate CNS toxicity risk.
  • Observed autoinduction of EFV metabolism among extensive metabolizers.

Abstract

Introduction The non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor efavirenz (EFV) is used in antiretroviral therapy (ART) against HIV. EFV is mainly metabolized by CYP2B6 to 8-hydroxyefavirenz (8-OH-EFV) and to a lesser extent by CYP2A6 to 7-hydroxyefavirenz (7-OH-EFV). Previous studies have only examined these metabolites in adults, indicating that EFV-hydroxy-metabolites might contribute to central nervous system (CNS) toxicity. Aims This study aimed to quantify EFV and its metabolites including a recently identified EFV metabolite named EFAdeg in plasma and to explore their association with CYP2B6 metabolizer phenotypes and CNS adverse effects, in Ugandan children. Additionally, we examined signs of EFV autoinduction. Methods We prospectively followed 99 Ugandan ART-naïve children in 2015–2016, aged 3–12 years with plasma sampling at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks after initiating-EFV-based ART. Using liquid chromatography high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry, we quantified EFV, 8-OH-EFV, 7-OH-EFV and EFAdeg in both unconjugated and conjugated forms. Genotyping for single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in CYP2B6 and CYP2A6 was performed. CYP2B6 metabolizer phenotypes were predicted by the composite genotype of the two SNPs CYP2B6 c.516GT and CYP2B6 c.983TC. CNS adverse effects were assessed via a questionnaire. Autoinduction was investigated in a multivariate restricted maximum likelihood regression model (REML) with log (e) ((8-OH-EFV + EFAdeg)/EFV) as the outcome variable. Results Metabolite/EFV ratios in plasma varied significantly with CYP2B6 metabolizer phenotypes. Conjugated 8-OH-EFV (8-OH-EFV -glucuronide and 8-OH-EFV-sulfate) and conjugated EFAdeg constituted the major circulating forms of EFV in extensive and intermediate metabolizers, while the parent drug EFV dominated in slow metabolizers, who also displayed the highest levels of 7-OH-EFV. CNS symptoms were common, transient and mild and significantly associated with EFV plasma concentrations above 4,000 ng/mL and slow CYP2B6 metabolizer phenotype. None of the metabolites in plasma were associated with an increased risk of CNS toxicity. Evidence of autoinduction of EFV metabolism was observed among extensive metabolizers. Conclusion This first study of EFV metabolites in children revealed distinct distribution patterns influenced by CYP2B6 metabolizer phenotype. Mild CNS-related adverse effects were associated with high EFV levels and slow CYP2B6 metabolizer phenotype, but not with EFV hydroxy metabolites. Autoinduction of EFV metabolism was observed in CYP2B6 extensive metabolizers.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Soeria‐Atmadja et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f04d9f727298f751e71f39https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2026.1778383
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper