Switch to fixed-dose doravirine (100 mg) with islatravir (0·75 mg) once daily in virologically suppressed adults with HIV-1 on antiretroviral therapy: 48-week results of a phase 3, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Doravirine and islatravir is an investigational, once-daily, single-tablet regimen with high antiviral potency, favourable safety and tolerability, and low propensity for resistance. We report week 48 results from a phase 3 trial evaluating switch from stable, oral antiretroviral therapy (ART) to the fixed combination of doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg). METHODS: This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial was conducted at 77 research, community, and hospital-based clinics in 15 countries. Adults aged 18 years or older with fewer than 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL on any oral, two-drug or three-drug ART regimen for at least 3 months, and no history of previous virological failure on any past or current regimen were randomly assigned (1:1) by a computer-generated randomisation schedule to switch to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) or to continue their baseline ART regimen. Block randomisation was based on a block size of four, and randomisation was stratified by baseline regimen (ie, protease inhibitor, integrase inhibitor, or other). Participants in the doravirine and islatravir group were instructed to take one tablet at approximately the same time each day, and participants in the baseline ART group continued to take the medication according to the locally approved label. HIV-1 RNA and safety evaluations were done at baseline and weeks 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48. CD4 cell counts were measured at baseline, week 24, and week 48. The primary endpoint was proportion of participants with greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL at week 48 in the full analysis set (ie, all participants who received at least one dose of study drug) using the US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach and prespecified non-inferiority margin of 4%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04223778) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 18 and Oct 2, 2020, 740 individuals were screened for eligibility, of whom 672 (90·8%) participants (249 [37·1%] women and 423 [62·9%] men; median CD4 count of 678 cells per µL [IQR 496-868]) were randomly assigned to doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg; n=336) or to continue baseline ART (n=336). The last follow-up visit occurred on Sept 8, 2021. At week 48, zero of 336 participants in the doravirine and islatravir group versus five (1·5%) of 336 participants in the baseline ART group had greater than or equal to 50 HIV-1 RNA copies per mL (difference -1·5, 95% CI -3·4 to -0·3). The per-protocol analysis showed consistent results. Headache was the most common adverse event in both groups (35 [10·4%] of 336 participants in the doravirine and islatravir group, 16 [4·8%] of 336 in the baseline ART group), infection rates were similar (113 [33·6%] in both groups), and discontinuations due to adverse events were low (seven [2·1%] vs one [0·3%]). 66 (19·6%) of 336 participants had treatment-related adverse events in the doravirine and islatravir group compared with 30 (8·9%) of 336 in the baseline ART group. In the islatravir and doravirine group, CD4 cell counts (mean change -30·3 cells per µL) and total lymphocyte counts (mean change -0·26 × 109/L) were decreased at 48 weeks. INTERPRETATION: Switching to single-tablet doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg) maintained viral suppression up to week 48 and was non-inferior to antiretroviral combinations used in clinical practice for adults with HIV-1; however, decreases in CD4 cell and total lymphocyte counts do not support further development of once-daily doravirine (100 mg) and islatravir (0·75 mg). FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co.

Pharmacokinetic and Exposure Response Analysis of the Double-Blind Randomized Study of Posaconazole and Voriconazole for Treatment of Invasive Aspergillosis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A double-blind phase 3 study was conducted to compare posaconazole 300 mg intravenously (IV)/300 mg orally once daily (twice daily day 1) with voriconazole 4 mg/kg IV twice daily/200 mg orally twice daily (6 mg/kg day 1) for treatment of invasive aspergillosis. This analysis was conducted to summarize the pharmacokinetics and exposure-response relationships of posaconazole and voriconazole using plasma trough concentration (Ctrough) as a surrogate for exposure from the double-blind phase 3 study. METHODS: The pharmacokinetic evaluable population included all intention-to-treat (ITT) participants with at least one plasma concentration during the treatment period. Treatment blinding was maintained without therapeutic drug monitoring. Ctrough sampling occurred throughout treatment; efficacy and safety were evaluated using quartiles determined by mean Ctrough concentrations. Exposure efficacy variables included day 42 all-cause mortality (primary study endpoint) and global clinical response. Exposure safety variables included all adverse events and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic analysis population included 506 of 575 ITT participants (437 with Ctrough concentrations: 228 posaconazole, 209 voriconazole). No trend was seen across quartiles of posaconazole Ctrough for the key efficacy endpoint of all-cause mortality through day 42. Participants in the highest quartile of voriconazole Ctrough had higher all-cause mortality through day 42 than participants in the lower three quartiles of voriconazole Ctrough. Similar findings were observed for global clinical response and Ctrough. No clear exposure safety trend by quartile was seen for posaconazole or voriconazole. CONCLUSIONS: A strong exposure-response relationship was not observed across the range of exposure from the administered doses and formulations for posaconazole or voriconazole. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01782131; registered January 30, 2013.

Elbasvir/grazoprevir in children aged 3-18 years with chronic HCV genotype 1 or 4 infection: a pharmacokinetic modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 3.5 million children and adolescents worldwide are chronically infected with HCV. This study uses pharmacokinetic modeling to identify pediatric doses of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) that achieve plasma concentrations similar to those seen in adults receiving the approved fixed-dose combination regimen of EBR/GZR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a nonrandomized, single-arm, multicenter, open-label phase 2b trial in children and adolescents aged 3 to <18 years with chronic HCV genotype 1 or 4 infection (NCT03379506). Pharmacokinetic data were used to bridge efficacy and safety data from adults to children in a stepwise (oldest to youngest) manner. A total of 57 participants were enrolled: cohort 1 (aged 12 to <18 y), n=22; cohort 2 (aged 7 to <12 y), n=17; and cohort 3 (aged 3 to <7 y), n=18. RESULTS: Steady-state plasma exposures were achieved by week 4 for EBR and GZR in all cohorts and daily dosing achieved geometric mean steady-state area under the concentration-time curve at 0-24 hours that fell within comparability bounds established for adults. All participants achieved sustained virologic response 12 weeks after completing treatment (ie, undetectable HCV RNA 12 wk following completion of treatment). Headache (n=4), fatigue (n=4), and nausea (n=2) were the most common treatment-related adverse events (all mild or moderate); no participant discontinued because of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric EBR/GZR pharmacokinetic models were successfully developed based on complex adult population pharmacokinetic models. At appropriate age-related doses, EBR/GZR is safe and effective in pediatric and adolescent participants with HCV infection.

Brief Report: Efficacy and Safety of Oral Islatravir Once Daily in Combination With Doravirine Through 96 Weeks for Treatment-Naive Adults With HIV-1 Infection Receiving Initial Treatment With Islatravir, Doravirine, and Lamivudine.

BACKGROUND: Islatravir (MK-8591) is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for treatment and prevention of HIV-1. We present efficacy and safety data for islatravir and doravirine (DOR) through 96 weeks of the phase 2b trial (NCT03272347). METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging trial, participants initially received islatravir (0.25, 0.75, or 2.25 mg) with doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (3TC, 300 mg) or a fixed-dose combination of doravirine, 3TC, and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (DOR/3TC/TDF) daily. Beginning at week 24, participants receiving islatravir stopped 3TC if HIV-1 RNA from the prior visit was <50 copies per milliliter and continued taking the assigned islatravir dose (still blinded) with doravirine. All islatravir groups transitioned to open-label use of 0.75 mg between weeks 60 and 84. Efficacy end points at week 96 included the proportion of participants maintaining HIV-1 RNA of <50 copies per milliliter (FDA Snapshot). Safety was assessed by adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-one treatment-naive participants received the study drugs and were included in the analyses. Through week 96, HIV-1 RNA<50 copies per milliliter was maintained in 86.2% (25/29), 90.0% (27/30), and 67.7% (21/31) of participants in the 0.25-, 0.75-, and 2.25-mg islatravir groups, respectively, 81.1% (73/90) of the combined islatravir group, and 80.6% (25/31) of the DOR/3TC/TDF group. One participant in the 2.25-mg islatravir group had Protocol-Defined Virologic Failure after week 48. Drug-related AE rates were higher for DOR/3TC/TDF participants (22.6%) compared with islatravir (combined 7.8%). Two participants (2.2%) receiving islatravir with doravirine and one (3.2%) receiving DOR/3TC/TDF discontinued because of an AE. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine maintained viral suppression through week 96 and were well tolerated regardless of dose.

Islatravir in combination with doravirine for treatment-naive adults with HIV-1 infection receiving initial treatment with islatravir, doravirine, and lamivudine: a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, dose-ranging trial.

BACKGROUND: Islatravir is a nucleoside reverse transcriptase translocation inhibitor in development for the treatment and prevention of HIV-1 infection. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of islatravir-based regimens for the treatment of HIV-1. METHODS: We did a phase 2b, randomised, double-blind, comparator-controlled, dose-ranging trial at 24 clinics or hospitals in four countries (Chile, France, the UK, and the USA). Treatment-naive adults (≥18 years) with plasma HIV-1 RNA concentrations of at least 1000 copies per mL, CD4 T-cell counts of at least 200 cells per mL, and a calculated creatinine clearance of at least 50 mL/min (all within 60 days before study treatment) were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of four via an interactive voice and web response system to receive oral treatment with one of three doses of islatravir (0·25 mg, 0·75 mg, or 2·25 mg) plus doravirine (100 mg) and lamivudine (300 mg) or to doravirine (100 mg) plus lamivudine (300 mg) plus tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF; 300 mg) once daily with placebo (part 1). Treatment groups were stratified according to screening HIV-1 RNA concentration (≤100 000 copies per mL or >100 000 copies per mL). After at least 24 weeks of treatment, participants taking islatravir who achieved an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL switched to a two-drug regimen of islatravir and doravirine (part 2). All participants and study investigators were masked to treatment in part 1; in part 2, the islatravir dose was masked to all participants and investigators, but the other drugs were given open label. The primary efficacy outcomes were the proportions of participants with an HIV-1 RNA concentration lower than 50 copies per mL at weeks 24 and 48 (US Food and Drug Administration snapshot approach). The primary safety outcomes were the number of participants experiencing adverse events and the number of participants discontinuing study drug owing to adverse events. All participants who received at least one dose of any study drug were included in the analyses. This trial is ongoing, but closed to enrolment of new participants; herein, we report study findings through 48 weeks of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03272347. FINDINGS: Between Nov 27, 2017, and April 25, 2019, 121 participants (mean age 31 years [SD 10·9], 112 [93%] male, 92 [76%] white, 27 [22%] with HIV-1 RNA concentration >100 000 copies per mL) were randomly assigned: 29 to the 0·25 mg, 30 to the 0·75 mg, and 31 to the 2·25 mg islatravir groups, and 31 to the doravirine, lamivudine, and TDF group. At week 24, 26 (90%) of 29 participants in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 30 (100%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 27 (87%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group achieved HIV-1 RNA concentrations lower than 50 copies per mL compared with 27 (87%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 2·8%, 95% CI -14·9 to 20·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 12·9%, -1·6 to 27·5, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and 0·3%, -17·9 to 18·5, for the 2·25 mg islatravir group). At week 48, these data were 26 (90%) of 29 in the 0·25 mg islatravir group, 27 (90%) of 30 in the 0·75 mg islatravir group, and 24 (77%) of 31 in the 2·25 mg islatravir group compared with 26 (84%) of 31 in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group (difference 6·1%, 95% CI -12·4 to 24·4, for the 0·25 mg islatravir group; 6·2%, -12·2 to 24·6, for the 0·75 mg islatravir group; and -6·1%, -27·1 to 14·8, for the 2·75 mg islatravir group). 66 (73%) of participants in the islatravir groups combined and 24 (77%) of those in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group reported at least one adverse event. Two participants in the 2·25 mg islatravir group and one participant in the doravirine plus lamivudine plus TDF group discontinued owing to an adverse event. No deaths were reported up to week 48. INTERPRETATION: Treatment regimens containing islatravir and doravirine showed antiviral efficacy and were well tolerated regardless of dose. Doravirine in combination with islatravir has the potential to be a potent two-drug regimen that warrants further clinical development. FUNDING: Merck, Sharp, & Dohme Corp, a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc.

Posaconazole versus voriconazole for primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis: a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Voriconazole has been recommended as primary treatment for patients with invasive aspergillosis. Intravenous and tablet formulations of posaconazole that have improved systemic absorption could be an effective alternative to voriconazole. We aimed to assess non-inferiority of posaconazole to voriconazole for the primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis. METHODS: We did a randomised, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, controlled trial comparing posaconazole (intravenous or oral posaconazole 300 mg twice on day 1, followed by 300 mg once a day for days 2-84) with voriconazole (6 mg/kg intravenous or 300 mg oral twice on day 1 followed by 4 mg/kg intravenously or 200 mg orally twice a day for days 2-84) for 12 weeks or less in the primary treatment of invasive aspergillosis. Participants were from 91 study sites in 26 countries, were aged 13 years or older, weighed at least 40 kg, and met criteria for proven, probable, or possible fungal disease. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation schedule with stratification by risk status. The primary endpoint was cumulative all-cause mortality up until day 42 in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (defined as randomly assigned participants who received ≥1 dose of study drug), with a 10% non-inferiority margin. The ITT population was also evaluated for safety. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01782131, and EudraCT, 2011-003938-14. FINDINGS: Between Oct 25, 2013, and Sept 10, 2019, of 653 individuals assessed for eligibility, 575 ITT participants were randomly assigned and received one or more doses of study drug (n=288 [50%] posaconazole, n=287 [50%] voriconazole). Mortality up until day 42 was 15% (44 of 288) in the posaconazole group and 21% (59 of 287) in the voriconazole group (treatment difference -5·3% [95% CI -11·6 to 1·0]; p<0·0001). Mortality up until day 42 in the full-analysis-set subpopulation (ITT participants with proven or probable invasive aspergillosis) supported this conclusion: 31 (19%) of 163 participants in the posaconazole group and 32 (19%) of 171 participants in the voriconazole group (treatment difference 0·3% [95% CI -8·2 to 8·8]). The most frequently reported treatment-related adverse events (incidence >3%) were increased aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine aminotransferase (ALT), nausea, hypokalaemia, and vomiting in the posaconazole group and increased ALT, AST, or alkaline phosphatase, hallucination, increased γ-glutamyltransferase peptidase, nausea, and blurred vision in the voriconazole group. The overall incidence of treatment-related adverse event rates in the ITT population was 30% for posaconazole and 40% for voriconazole (treatment difference -10·2% [95% CI -17·9 to -2·4]). INTERPRETATION: Posaconazole was non-inferior to voriconazole for all-cause mortality up until day 42 in participants with invasive aspergillosis. Posaconazole was well tolerated, and participants had fewer treatment-related adverse events than in the voriconazole group. This study supports the use of posaconazole as a first-line treatment for the condition. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Inc.

Daptomycin for Pediatric Gram-Positive Acute Hematogenous Osteomyelitis.

BACKGROUND: We prospectively evaluated efficacy and safety of daptomycin versus active comparator in children with acute hematogenous osteomyelitis (AHO). METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, global, multicenter, phase 3 trial. Patients 1-17 years of age with suspected/confirmed AHO requiring hospitalization and intravenous therapy were randomized 1:1 to intravenous daptomycin (once-daily, age-adjusted doses) or comparator (vancomycin, nafcillin or equivalent) ≥4 days, followed by oral therapy (14-42 days total). Primary endpoint: protocol-defined clinical improvement by Day 5 in the modified intention-to-treat (MITT) population (confirmed AHO, ≥1 dose of study treatment); differences between study arms were evaluated using a prespecified 15% noninferiority margin for daptomycin. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients per arm received treatment. Pathogens were isolated from 62% of patients (83% methicillin-susceptible Staphylococcus aureus, 9% methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]). Clinical improvement by Day 5 was observed in 55/71 (78%) daptomycin- and 58/70 (83%) comparator-treated MITT patients (95% confidence interval [CI]: -19.4, 7.4). This difference was not statistically significant; however, daptomycin did not meet the prespecified 15% noninferiority margin, since the lower bound of the 95% CI extended below 15%. Overall, 82% of daptomycin and 87% of comparator patients achieved clinical cure at the test-of-cure visit (secondary endpoint). More comparator patients had treatment-emergent (63% vs. 46%) and treatment-related (18% vs. 7%) adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between daptomycin and comparator for the primary endpoint were not statistically significant; however, prespecified noninferiority criteria for daptomycin were not met. With insufficient cases of confirmed MRSA, we could not evaluate daptomycin for MRSA AHO. Our nonvalidated protocol design yields valuable information for implementing future trials in AHO (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01922011).

Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing Safety and Efficacy of Daptomycin Versus Standard-of-care in Pediatric Patients With Staphylococcal Bacteremia.

BACKGROUND: Staphylococcus aureus, including community-associated methicillin-resistant S. aureus, is an important cause of pediatric bacteremia. Daptomycin is a well-established treatment option for Gram-positive bacteremia in adults, but its safety and efficacy in children require confirmation. METHODS: This was a randomized (2:1), evaluator-blinded, multicenter, phase 4 clinical trial comparing intravenous daptomycin with standard-of-care (SOC) for treatment of S. aureus bacteremia in 1- to 17-year-old patients (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01728376). Total treatment duration (intravenous followed by oral step-down therapy) was 5-42 days. Daptomycin was dosed once daily by patient age: 12-17 years, 7 mg/kg; 7-11 years, 9 mg/kg and 1-6 years, 12 mg/kg. The primary objective was to evaluate daptomycin safety in children who received ≥1 dose; secondary objectives included comparing daptomycin efficacy with SOC (the trial was not designed to confirm noninferiority) and pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-five children were randomized to daptomycin and 27 to SOC (primarily vancomycin or cefazolin); 90% had S. aureus. In both groups, 15% of patients had drug-related adverse events, primarily diarrhea (4% daptomycin, 8% SOC) and increased creatine phosphokinase (4% daptomycin, 0% SOC). Clinical success (blinded evaluator-assessed complete/partial resolution of bacteremia signs and symptoms 7-14 days after end-of-treatment) rates were similar for daptomycin (88%) and SOC (77%; 95% confidence interval for difference: -9% to 31%). Daptomycin plasma levels across age groups were comparable with those in adults receiving daptomycin at 6 mg/kg. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily, age-appropriate daptomycin was well tolerated in children with staphylococcal bacteremia; efficacy was comparable with SOC. Daptomycin in age-adjusted doses is a safe treatment alternative in this setting.

Safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin in participants with and without cirrhosis with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection (C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2, part B): two randomised, phase 2, open-label trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies with excellent efficacy across genotypes and in diverse populations. Part A of the C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2 trials led to the selection of a three-drug regimen of grazoprevir (MK-5172; an HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor; 100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (MK-8408; an NS5A inhibitor; 60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (MK-3682; an HCV NS5B polymerase inhibitor; 450 mg/day). Part B of the studies tested this combination as a single formulation in different treatment durations in a broader population. METHODS: Part B of these randomised, phase 2, open-label clinical trials enrolled individuals from 15 countries who were chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1-6 (HCV RNA ≥10 000 IU/mL) with or without compensated cirrhosis. Those with genotype 1, genotype 2, genotype 4, or genotype 6 were treatment-naive; those with genotype 3 could be treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Randomisation occurred centrally using an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system. Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment for 8, 12, or 16 weeks with a fixed-dose combination of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of all study therapy (SVR12), defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification (either target detected unquantifiable or target not detected [<15 IU/mL]). The trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02332707 and NCT02332720. FINDINGS: 676 participants were randomly assigned between Feb 18, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016. In all 675 participants who received at least one dose of study drug (full analysis set), SVR12 for the 8-week regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with and without ribavirin was achieved in 39 (93% [95% CI 81-99]) of 42 participants with genotype 1a, 45 (98% [88-100]) of 46 with genotype 1b, 54 (86% [75-93]) of 63 with genotype 2, 98 (95% [89-98]) of 103 with genotype 3, and seven (100% [59-100]) of seven participants with genotype 4. SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 87 (99% [95% CI 94-100]) of 88 participants with genotype 1, 61 (98% [91-100]) of 62 with genotype 2, and four (100% [40-100]) of four with genotype 6. Among participants with cirrhosis who were infected with genotype 3, SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 28 (97% [95% CI 82-100]) of 29 of those who were treatment-naive and 29 (100% [88-100]) of 29 who were treatment-experienced. SVR12 for the 16-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 26 (100% [95% CI 87-100]) of 26 participants with genotype 2 infection and 72 (96% [89-99]) of 75 participants with genotype 3 infection. The most common adverse events were headache (143 [22%] of 664), fatigue (129 [19%] of 664), and nausea (83 [13%] of 664). 16 (2%) of 664 participants had serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: The combined regimen of grazoprevir (100 mg/day), ruzasvir (60 mg/day), and uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day) has the potential to provide a simplified treatment for HCV that is effective and well tolerated in most individuals infected with HCV, as well as a shorter duration of treatment in many individuals. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

Safety and efficacy of an 8-week regimen of grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir compared with grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir in participants without cirrhosis infected with hepatitis C virus genotypes 1, 2, or 3 (C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2, part A): two randomised, phase 2, open-label trials.

BACKGROUND: New hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies with pan-genotypic efficacy are needed. The goals of part A of C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2 were to compare the efficacies of two doses (300 mg or 450 mg once daily) of uprifosbuvir (MK-3682; NS5B inhibitor) in an 8-week regimen combined with grazoprevir (NS3/4A inhibitor; 100 mg once daily) and an NS5A inhibitor, either elbasvir (50 mg once daily) or ruzasvir (MK-8408; 60 mg once daily), and to evaluate the safety and tolerability of these combination regimens in individuals infected with genotypes 1, 2, or 3. METHODS: Part A of these phase 2, randomised, multicentre, open-label, clinical trials enrolled participants from 11 countries, aged 18 years or older, chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1, 2, or 3, with HCV RNA of at least 10 000 IU/mL, without evidence of cirrhosis, who had not received previous treatment for HCV infection. Within each HCV genotype, participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) with a block size of 4, to open-label treatment to one of four treatment groups: grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (300 mg/day); grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day); grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus elbasvir (50 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (300 mg/day); or grazoprevir (100 mg/day) plus elbasvir (50 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day), according to a computer-generated allocation schedule. Randomisation was centrally implemented using an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving sustained virological response at 12 weeks (SVR12; HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantitation at 12 weeks after the end of all study therapy) in the per-protocol analysis set, which included all participants who were randomised and received at least one dose of study drug. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02332707 and NCT02332720. FINDINGS: 241 participants were randomised between Feb 18, 2015, and March 16, 2015. 240 participants completed 8 weeks of treatment and reached follow-up 12 weeks after the end of treatment. Of the four regimens, grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg had the most consistently high SVR12 (>90%) for participants infected with genotype 1 (21 [91%] of 23), genotype 2 (15 [94%] of 16), and genotype 3 (20 [91%] of 22). In particular, among those with genotype 2 infection, the grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg regimen had a higher SVR12 (15 [94%] of 16) than the grazoprevir plus ruzasvir plus uprifosbuvir 300 mg regimen (ten [71%] of 14), grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir 300 mg regimen (11 [69%] of 16), or grazoprevir plus elbasvir plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg regimen (nine [60%] of 15). Overall, the most common adverse events were headache (55 [23%] of 240), fatigue (47 [20%] of 240), and nausea (32 [13%] of 240). Two (<1%) of 240 participants had serious adverse events (pharyngeal abscess and keratitis), which were not considered drug related by the respective investigators. INTERPRETATION: These results support further evaluation of the three-drug direct-acting antiviral agent regimen of grazoprevir 100 mg plus ruzasvir 60 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg among a more diverse HCV-infected population, including those with compensated cirrhosis, previous treatment with an interferon-containing regimen, and HCV-HIV co-infection. FUNDING: Merck & Co, Inc.

A multiple testing procedure for multi-dimensional pairwise comparisons with application to gene expression studies.

BACKGROUND: Often researchers are interested in comparing multiple experimental groups (e.g. tumor size) with a reference group (e.g. normal tissue) on the basis of thousands of features (e.g. genes) and determine if a differentially expressed feature is up or down regulated in a pairwise comparison. There are two sources of false discoveries, one due to multiple testing involving several pairwise comparisons and the second due to falsely declaring a feature to be up (or down) regulated when it is not (known as directional error). Together, the total error rate is called the mixed directional false discovery rate (mdFDR). RESULTS: We develop a general powerful mdFDR controlling testing procedure and illustrate the methodology by analyzing uterine fibroid gene expression data (PLoS ONE 8:63909, 2013). We identify several differentially expressed genes (DEGs) and pathways that are specifically enriched according to the size of a uterine fibroid. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed general procedure strongly controls mdFDR. Several specific methodologies can be derived from this general methodology by using appropriate testing procedures at different steps of the general procedure. Thus we are providing a general framework for making multiple pairwise comparisons. Our analysis of the uterine fibroid growth gene expression data suggests that molecular characteristics of a fibroid changes with size. Our powerful methodology allowed us to draw several interesting conclusions regarding the molecular characteristics of uterine fibroids. For example, IL-1 signaling pathway (Sci STKE 2003:3, 2003), associated with inflammation and known to activate prostaglandins that are implicated in the progression of fibroids, is significantly enriched only in small tumors (volume < 5.7 cm (3)). It appears that the molecular apparatus necessary for fibroid growth and development is established during tumor development. A complete list of all DEGs and the corresponding enriched pathways according to tumor size is provided for researchers to mine these data. Identification of these DEGs and the pathways may potentially have clinical implications.