Exposure-Efficacy Analyses Support Optimal Dosing Regimens of Ceftolozane/Tazobactam in Participants with Hospital-Acquired/Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia in ASPECT-NP.

An exposure-efficacy analysis of the phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial was performed to evaluate the relationship between plasma exposure of ceftolozane and tazobactam and efficacy endpoints (primary: 28-day all-cause mortality; key secondary: clinical cure at test-of-cure visit) in adult participants with hospital-acquired or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Participants (N = 231) from the ceftolozane/tazobactam treatment group in the intention-to-treat population who had pharmacokinetic data available and relevant baseline lower respiratory tract (LRT) pathogen(s) susceptibility data were included. Population pharmacokinetic models were used to predict individual ceftolozane and tazobactam plasma exposure measures (percentage of the interdose interval with free drug concentrations above the MIC [%ƒT>MIC] and %ƒT above a threshold [%ƒT>CT = 1 µg/mL], respectively) associated with the last dose using the highest ceftolozane/tazobactam MIC for the relevant baseline LRT pathogens. Efficacy measures were comparable between the baseline LRT pathogens and across MIC cutoffs (1-8 µg/mL). Most participants (82%) had 99% ƒT>MIC for ceftolozane; 9% (N = 21/231) had 0% ƒT>MIC due to high MICs of the LRT pathogen (64-256 µg/mL). The %ƒT>MIC for ceftolozane exceeded 73% for all participants with baseline LRT pathogen(s) MIC ≤4 µg/mL. All 231 participants achieved the tazobactam pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic target of >20% ƒT>CT where CT = 1 µg/mL. For either efficacy endpoint, median ceftolozane %ƒT>MIC was 99% in participants achieving efficacy. No exposure-efficacy trend was observed for ceftolozane or tazobactam. These results further support the recommended ceftolozane/tazobactam dosing regimens evaluated in ASPECT-NP for patients with HABP/VABP.

Population Pharmacokinetics, Exposure-Response, and Probability of Target Attainment Analyses for Tedizolid in Adolescent Patients with Acute Bacterial Skin and Skin Structure Infections.

Tedizolid phosphate is an oxazolidinone antibacterial agent approved for the treatment of Gram-positive acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSIs) in patients aged ≥12 years. To support the use of tedizolid phosphate in adolescents with ABSSSIs, a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model, developed using adult and pediatric data, was updated to include PK data from a phase 3 clinical trial (PN012) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of once-daily oral or intravenous 200-mg tedizolid phosphate treatment in adolescents (12 to <18 years) with ABSSSIs, along with emerging data from a phase 1 trial (PN013) in children (2 to <12 years). Updated PK parameter estimates remained similar to those of the previous model. Body weight was a statistically significant covariate on clearance and volume parameters, with no clinically meaningful effects on exposure in adolescents. Tedizolid exposures in adolescents from PN012 were slightly higher with largely overlapped area under the concentration-time curve distribution compared with adults from previous phase 2 and 3 trials. The probability of PK/pharmacodynamic target attainment at the MIC susceptibility breakpoint of 0.5 µg/ml for Staphylococcus and Streptococcus sp. was 100%. As most participants from the PN012 trial were cured, no significant exposure-efficacy relationship was identified. Tedizolid exposures were similar between participants with and without a safety event from PN012; no clear relationship was detected between exposure and safety. Despite lower body weight and higher exposures in adolescents, safety profiles in adolescents were similar those in adults. These results support the 200-mg, once-daily intravenous or oral dose of tedizolid phosphate in adolescents with ABSSSIs.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam probability of target attainment and outcomes in participants with augmented renal clearance from the randomized phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial evaluated the efficacy of 3 g of ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) versus 1 g of meropenem infused every 8 h for 8 to 14 days for treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). We assessed the probability of target attainment and compared efficacy outcomes from ASPECT-NP in participants with augmented renal clearance (ARC) versus those with normal renal function. METHODS: Baseline renal function was categorized as normal renal function (creatinine clearance 80-130 mL/min) or ARC (creatinine clearance > 130 mL/min). Population pharmacokinetic models informed Monte Carlo simulations to assess probability of target attainment in plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid. Outcomes included 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure and per-participant microbiologic cure rates at the test-of-cure visit. RESULTS: A > 99% and > 80% probability of target attainment was demonstrated for ceftolozane and tazobactam, respectively, in simulated plasma and epithelial lining fluid. Within treatment arms, 28-day all-cause mortality rates in participants with normal renal function (C/T, n = 131; meropenem, n = 123) and ARC (C/T, n = 96; meropenem, n = 113) were comparable (data comparisons presented as rate; treatment difference [95% CI]) (C/T: normal renal function, 17.6%; ARC, 17.7%; 0.2 [- 9.6 to 10.6]; meropenem: normal renal function, 20.3%; ARC, 17.7%; - 2.6 [- 12.6 to 7.5]). Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure were also comparable across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 57.3%; ARC, 59.4%; - 2.1 [- 14.8 to 10.8]; meropenem: normal renal function, 59.3%; ARC, 57.5%; 1.8 [- 10.6 to 14.2]). Per-participant microbiologic cure rates at test-of-cure were consistent across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 72.2% [n/N = 70/97]; ARC, 71.4% [n/N = 55/77]; 0.7 [- 12.4 to 14.2]; meropenem: normal renal function, 75.0% [n/N = 66/88]; ARC, 70.0% [n/N = 49/70]; 5.0 [- 8.7 to 19.0]). CONCLUSIONS: C/T and meropenem resulted in 28-day all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiologic cure rates that were comparable between participants with ARC or normal renal function. In conjunction with high probability of target attainment, these results confirm that C/T (3 g) every 8 h is appropriate in patients with HABP/VABP and ARC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02070757, registered February 25, 2014; EudraCT: 2012-002862-11.

Outcomes in Participants with Renal Impairment from a Phase 3 Clinical Trial for Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia (ASPECT-NP).

In the phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial (NCT02070757), ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) was noninferior to meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we report outcomes in participants from ASPECT-NP with renal impairment (RI). Participants were categorized by their baseline renal function as follows: normal renal function (NRF; creatinine clearance [CLCR], ≥80 ml/min), mild RI (CLCR, >50 to <80 ml/min), moderate RI (CLCR, ≥30 to ≤50 ml/min), and severe RI (CLCR, ≥15 to <30 ml/min). Dosing of both study drugs was adjusted based on renal function. The following C/T doses were administered every 8 h: NRF or mild RI, 3 g; moderate RI, 1.5 g; and severe RI, 0.75 g. The primary and key secondary endpoints were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM) and clinical response at the test-of-cure visit in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, respectively. In the ITT population, day 28 ACM rates for the C/T arm versus the meropenem arm were 17.6% versus 19.1% (NRF), 36.6% versus 28.6% (mild RI), 31.4% versus 38.5% (moderate RI), and 35.3% versus 61.9% (severe RI). Rates of clinical cure in the ITT population for the C/T arm versus the meropenem arm were 58.1% versus 58.5% (NRF), 54.9% versus 45.5% (mild RI), 37.1% versus 42.3% (moderate RI), and 41.2% versus 47.6% (severe RI). Small sample sizes in the RI groups resulted in large 95% confidence intervals (CIs), limiting conclusive interpretation of the analysis. Both drugs were well tolerated across all renal function groups. Overall, these results support the use of the study dosing regimens of C/T for treatment of vHABP/VABP in patients with RI. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02070757.).

Use of Translational Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Infection Models To Understand the Impact of Neutropenia on the Efficacy of Tedizolid Phosphate.

Tedizolid phosphate, the prodrug of the active antibiotic tedizolid, is an oxazolidinone for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections. Studies in a mouse thigh infection model demonstrated that tedizolid has improved potency and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) compared with those of linezolid. Subsequent studies showed that the efficacy of tedizolid was enhanced in immunocompetent (IC) mice compared with neutropenic (immunosuppressed [IS]) mice, with stasis at clinically relevant doses being achieved only in the presence of granulocytes. The tedizolid label therefore contains a warning about its use in neutropenic patients. This study reevaluated the PK/PD of tedizolid and linezolid in the mouse thigh infection model in IC and IS mice using a methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain (ATCC 33591) and a methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) strain (ATCC 29213). The antistaphylococcal effect of doses ranging from 1 to 150 mg/kg of body weight tedizolid (once daily) or linezolid (twice daily) was determined at 24, 48, and 72 h after initiating treatment. In IC mice, stasis was achieved in the absence of antibiotics, and both tedizolid and linezolid reduced the burden further beyond a static effect. In IS mice, tedizolid achieved stasis against MRSA ATCC 33591 and MSSA ATCC 29213 at 72 h at a human clinical dose of 200 mg, severalfold lower than that in earlier studies. Linezolid achieved a static effect against MRSA ATCC 33591 in IS mice at a dose lower than that used clinically. This study demonstrates that, with time, both tedizolid and linezolid at clinically relevant exposures achieve stasis in neutropenic mice with an MRSA or MSSA thigh infection.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions between the Hepatitis C Virus Inhibitors Elbasvir and Grazoprevir and HIV Protease Inhibitors Ritonavir, Atazanavir, Lopinavir, and Darunavir in Healthy Volunteers.

The combination of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor elbasvir and the NS3/4A protease inhibitor grazoprevir is a potent, once-daily therapy indicated for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in individuals coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We explored the pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir and grazoprevir with ritonavir and ritonavir-boosted HIV protease inhibitors in three phase 1 trials. Drug-drug interaction trials with healthy participants were conducted to evaluate the effect of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of grazoprevir (n = 10) and the potential two-way pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir (n = 30) or grazoprevir (n = 39) when coadministered with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, lopinavir, or darunavir. Coadministration of ritonavir with grazoprevir increased grazoprevir exposure; the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for grazoprevir plus ritonavir versus grazoprevir alone area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24) was 1.91 (90% confidence interval [CI]; 1.31 to 2.79). Grazoprevir exposure was markedly increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for grazoprevir AUC0-24 of 10.58 (90% CI, 7.78 to 14.39), 12.86 (90% CI, 10.25 to 16.13), and 7.50 (90% CI, 5.92 to 9.51), respectively. Elbasvir exposure was increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for elbasvir AUC0-24 of 4.76 (90% CI, 4.07 to 5.56), 3.71 (90% CI, 3.05 to 4.53), and 1.66 (90% CI, 1.35 to 2.05), respectively. Grazoprevir and elbasvir had little effect on atazanavir, lopinavir, and darunavir pharmacokinetics. Coadministration of elbasvir-grazoprevir with atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or darunavir-ritonavir is contraindicated, owing to an increase in grazoprevir exposure. Therefore, HIV treatment regimens without HIV protease inhibitors should be considered for HCV/HIV-coinfected individuals who are being treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir.

Assessment of drug interaction potential between the HCV direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir/grazoprevir and the HIV integrase inhibitors raltegravir and dolutegravir.

BACKGROUND: Elbasvir/grazoprevir is a once-daily fixed-dose combination therapy for the treatment of chronic HCV infection, including HCV/HIV coinfection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction of elbasvir and grazoprevir with raltegravir or dolutegravir. METHODS: Three open-label trials in healthy adult participants were conducted. In the raltegravir trials, participants received a single dose of raltegravir 400 mg, a single dose of elbasvir 50 mg or grazoprevir 200 mg, and raltegravir with either elbasvir or grazoprevir. In the dolutegravir trial, participants received a single dose of dolutegravir 50 mg alone or co-administered with once-daily elbasvir 50 mg and grazoprevir 200 mg. RESULTS: The raltegravir AUC0-∞ geometric mean ratio (GMR) (90% CI) was 1.02 (0.81-1.27) with elbasvir and 1.43 (0.89-2.30) with grazoprevir. Dolutegravir AUC0-∞ GMR (90% CI) was 1.16 (1.00-1.34) with elbasvir and grazoprevir. The elbasvir AUC0-∞ GMR (90% CI) was 0.81 (0.57-1.17) with raltegravir and 0.98 (0.93-1.04) with dolutegravir. The grazoprevir AUC0-24 GMR (90% CI) was 0.89 (0.72-1.09) with raltegravir and 0.81 (0.67-0.97) with dolutegravir. CONCLUSIONS: Elbasvir or grazoprevir co-administered with raltegravir or dolutegravir resulted in no clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions and was generally well tolerated. These results support the assertion that no dose adjustments for elbasvir, grazoprevir, raltegravir or dolutegravir are needed for co-administration in HCV/HIV-coinfected people.

Pharmacokinetics of elbasvir and grazoprevir in subjects with end-stage renal disease or severe renal impairment.

PURPOSE: To describe the phase 1 and population pharmacokinetic investigations that support dosing recommendations for elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in hepatitis C virus-infected people with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: This was an open-label, two-part, multiple-dose trial (MK-5172 PN050; NCT01937975) in 24 non-HCV-infected participants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or severe renal impairment who received once-daily EBR 50 mg and GZR 100 mg for 10 days. Population pharmacokinetic analyses from the phase 3 C-SURFER study (PN052, NCT02092350) were also conducted. RESULTS: When comparing haemodialysis (HD) and non-HD days in participants with ESRD, geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) for EBR and GZR AUC0-24 were 1.14 (1.08-1.21) and 0.97 (0.87-1.09). When comparing ESRD and healthy participants, GMRs (90% CIs) for EBR and GZR AUC0-24 were 0.99 (0.75-1.30) and 0.83 (0.56-1.22) on HD days, and 0.86 (0.65-1.14) and 0.85 (0.58-1.25) on non-HD days. GMRs (90% CIs) for AUC0-24 in participants with severe renal impairment relative to healthy controls were 1.65 (1.09-2.49) for GZR and 1.86 (1.38-2.51) for EBR. In population modelling of data from C-SURFER, absolute geometric means of steady-state EBR AUC0-24 were 2.78 and 3.07 µM*h (HD and non-HD recipients) and GZR AUC0-24 were 1.80 and 2.34 µM*h (HD and non-HD recipients). CONCLUSIONS: EBR/GZR represents an important treatment option for HCV infection in people with severe renal impairment and those with ESRD. No dosage adjustment of EBR/GZR is required in people with any degree of renal impairment, including those receiving dialysis.

Population pharmacokinetics of tazobactam/ceftolozane in Japanese patients with complicated urinary tract infection and complicated intra-abdominal infection.

Tazobactam/ceftolozane is a combination of a ß-lactamase inhibitor and a cephalosporin antibiotic, with recommended dosage for patients with normal renal function of tazobactam 0.5 g/ceftolozane 1 g administered as a 1-h intravenous infusion every 8 h. The doses in patients with moderate and severe renal impairment are recommended to be reduced by half and 1/4th, respectively. The dose in patients undergoing dialysis is a single loading dose of 750 mg followed after 8 h by a 150 mg maintenance dose. In order to evaluate pharmacokinetics (PK) in Japanese patients, individual Bayes PK parameters were derived using the previously developed population PK models. Furthermore, attainment of PK/pharmacodynamic target in Japanese patients was calculated to confirm the recommended dosage. Based on PK data from 200 Japanese patients in the phase 3 studies, including patients with mild and moderate renal impairment, individual tazobactam/ceftolozane PK parameters were derived. No clinically relevant difference was observed in tazobactam/ceftolozane exposures between Japanese and non-Japanese patients. All Japanese patients achieved a target percent of time that free ceftolozane concentrations are above the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 30% for MICs of up to 8 µg/mL. Also for tazobactam, all Japanese patients achieved a target percent of time that the free tazobactam concentration exceeds a threshold concentration (1 µg/mL) of 20%. The results suggest that the doses will be efficacious in the Japanese population. The results indicate that the recommended dose in patients with normal renal function or renal impairment is appropriate in Japanese patients.

No clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interaction between the hepatitis C virus inhibitors elbasvir and grazoprevir and the oral contraceptives ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel.

PURPOSE: Oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) are an important element of hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment in women of childbearing potential. These studies evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetic interactions between elbasvir (EBR) and grazoprevir (GZR) and ethinyl estradiol/levonorgestrel (EE/LNG). METHODS: Both studies were open-label, single-site, two-period, fixed-sequence, one-way interaction studies. In period 1, subjects received one tablet of EE/LNG (0.03 mg/0.15 mg). In period 2, subjects received EBR (50 mg once daily) for 13 days or GZR (200 mg once daily) for 10 days, with one tablet of EE/LNG on day 7 (GZR group) or 10 (EBR group). Each study enrolled 20 healthy, nonsmoking adult females. RESULTS: There was no clinically meaningful effect of multiple doses of EBR or GZR on the pharmacokinetics of EE or LNG. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for AUC0-∞ and Cmax in the presence and absence of EBR were 1.01 and 1.10 for EE and 1.14 and 1.02 for LNG, with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) that were contained in the interval [0.80, 1.25]. Similarly, the AUC0-∞ and Cmax GMRs in the presence and absence of GZR were 1.10 and 1.05 for EE and 1.23 and 0.93 for LNG, respectively. The 90% CIs for EE AUC0-∞ and for EE and LNG Cmax were contained in the interval [0.80, 1.25]; however, the 90% CI for the LNG AUC0-∞ [1.15, 1.32] slightly exceeded the upper bound. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that EBR/GZR can be co-administered to female patients with HCV of childbearing potential who are on OCPs to prevent pregnancy.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between HCV protease inhibitor boceprevir and methadone or buprenorphine in subjects on stable maintenance therapy.

PURPOSE: Intravenous opioid use is a common route of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection; consequently, the prevalence of HCV is high among patients on methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone. The authors evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction of boceprevir with methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone in patients on stable maintenance therapy. METHODS: This was a two-center, open-label, fixed-sequence study in 21 adult volunteers on stable maintenance therapy. Oral methadone (20-150 mg once daily) or sublingual buprenorphine/naloxone (8/2-24/6 mg once daily) was administered alone or in combination with boceprevir (800 mg every 8 h) on days 2-7. Pharmacokinetic sampling occurred before and up to 24 h after the dose on days 1 and 7. RESULTS: Coadministration of boceprevir reduced the area under the concentration-time curve during a dosing interval τ (AUC τ ) and maximum observed plasma (or serum) concentration (C max) of R-methadone (geometric mean ratios (GMRs) [90 % confidence intervals (CIs)], 0.85 [0.74, 0.96] and 0.90 [0.71, 1.13]) and S-methadone (GMRs [90 % CIs], 0.78 [0.66, 0.93] and 0.83 [0.64, 1.09]). Boceprevir increased the AUC τ and C max of buprenorphine (GMRs [90 % CIs], 1.19 [0.91, 1.58] and 1.18 [0.93, 1.50]) and naloxone (GMRs [90 % CIs], 1.33 [0.90, 1.93] and 1.09 [0.79, 1.51]). Boceprevir exposure upon methadone or buprenorphine/naloxone coadministration was not clinically different from historical controls and there was no evidence of opioid withdrawal or excess. CONCLUSIONS: There was no clinically meaningful impact of boceprevir on methadone or buprenorphine pharmacokinetics, suggesting that methadone/buprenorphine dose adjustments are not required upon coadministration with boceprevir. Individual patients may differ in their clinical experience and clinicians should maintain vigilance when coadministering these medications.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between the hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor, boceprevir, and the oral contraceptive ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine drug interactions between boceprevir, a hepatitis C virus NS3/4A protease inhibitor, and a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norethindrone (NE). METHODS: A single-center, open-label study was conducted in 20 healthy female volunteers. In three consecutive 28-day treatment periods, subjects received EE/NE (0.035 mg/1 mg; 21 days on, 7 days off). During period 3, subjects also received boceprevir (800 mg three times daily) for 28 days. RESULTS: Coadministration of boceprevir with EE/NE did not affect NE AUC0-24 but slightly reduced NE C max. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for NE AUC0-24 and C max with EE/NE alone and EE/NE plus boceprevir were 0.96 (90% confidence interval (CI), 0.87-1.06) and 0.83 (90% CI, 0.76-0.90). Coadministration of boceprevir with EE/NE reduced EE AUC0-24 and C max by 26 and 21%, with GMRs of 0.74 (90% CI, 0.68-0.80) and 0.79 (90% CI, 0.75-0.84). Boceprevir had no effect on mid-cycle luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), or sex hormone-binding globulin levels, and progesterone concentrations remained <1 ng/ml during the luteal phase. Adverse events reported in this study were consistent with the well-established safety profile of boceprevir. CONCLUSION: Serum progesterone, LH, and FSH levels indicate that ovulation was suppressed during coadministration of boceprevir with EE/NE. Coadministration of boceprevir with combined oral contraceptives containing EE and ≥1 mg of NE is therefore unlikely to alter contraceptive effectiveness. The ovulation suppression activity of oral contraceptives containing lower doses of NE, and of other forms of hormonal contraception during coadministration with boceprevir, has not been established.

Pharmacokinetic interactions between the hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor boceprevir and ritonavir-boosted HIV-1 protease inhibitors atazanavir, darunavir, and lopinavir.

BACKGROUND: Boceprevir represents a new treatment option for hepatitis C (HCV)-infected patients, including those with HCV/human immunodeficiency virus coinfection; however, little is known about pharmacokinetic interactions between boceprevir and antiretroviral drugs. METHODS: A randomized, open-label study to assess the pharmacokinetic interactions between boceprevir and ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) was conducted in 39 healthy adults. Subjects received boceprevir (800 mg, 3 times daily) for 6 days and then received PI/r as follows: atazanavir (ATV) 300 mg once daily, lopinavir (LPV) 400 mg twice daily, or darunavir (DRV) 600 mg twice daily, each with ritonavir (RTV) 100 mg on days 10-31, plus concomitant boceprevir on days 25-31. RESULTS: Boceprevir decreased the exposure of all PI/r, with area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] from time 0 to the time of the last measurable sample geometric mean ratios of 0.65 (90% confidence interval [CI], .55-.78) for ATV/r; 0.66 (90% CI, .60-.72) for LPV/r, and 0.56 (90% CI, .51-.61) for DRV/r. Coadministration with boceprevir decreased RTV AUC during a dosing interval τ (AUC(τ)) by 22%-36%. ATV/r did not significantly affect boceprevir exposure, but boceprevir AUC(τ) was reduced by 45% and 32% when coadministered with LPV/r and DRV/r, respectively. Overall, treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant administration of boceprevir with PI/r resulted in reduced exposures of PI and boceprevir. These drug-drug interactions may reduce the effectiveness of PI/r and/or boceprevir when coadministered.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between the hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor boceprevir and cyclosporine and tacrolimus in healthy volunteers.

UNLABELLED: The hepatitis C virus protease inhibitor boceprevir is a strong inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A4 and 3A5 (CYP3A4/5). Cyclosporine and tacrolimus are calcineurin inhibitor immunosuppressants used to prevent organ rejection after liver transplantation; both are substrates of CYP3A4. This two-part pharmacokinetic interaction study evaluated boceprevir with cyclosporine (part 1) and tacrolimus (part 2). In part 1, 10 subjects received single-dose cyclosporine (100 mg) on day 1, single-dose boceprevir (800 mg) on day 3, and concomitant cyclosporine/boceprevir on day 4. After washout, subjects received boceprevir (800 mg three times a day) for 7 days plus single-dose cyclosporine (100 mg) on day 6. In part 2A, 12 subjects received single-dose tacrolimus (0.5 mg). After washout, they received boceprevir (800 mg three times a day) for 11 days plus single-dose tacrolimus (0.5 mg) on day 6. In part 2B, 10 subjects received single-dose boceprevir (800 mg) and 24 hours later received boceprevir (800 mg) plus tacrolimus (0.5 mg). Coadministration of boceprevir with cyclosporine/tacrolimus was well tolerated. Concomitant boceprevir increased the area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity after single dosing (AUC(inf) ) and maximum observed plasma (or blood) concentration (C(max) ) of cyclosporine with geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% confidence interval [CI]) of 2.7 (2.4-3.1) and 2.0 (1.7-2.4), respectively. Concomitant boceprevir increased the AUC(inf) and C(max) of tacrolimus with GMRs (90% CI) of 17 (14-21) and 9.9 (8.0-12), respectively. Neither cyclosporine nor tacrolimus coadministration had a meaningful effect on boceprevir pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSION: Dose adjustments of cyclosporine should be anticipated when administered with boceprevir, guided by close monitoring of cyclosporine blood concentrations and frequent assessments of renal function and cyclosporine-related side effects. Administration of boceprevir plus tacrolimus requires significant dose reduction and prolongation of the dosing interval for tacrolimus, with close monitoring of tacrolimus blood concentrations and frequent assessments of renal function and tacrolimus-related side effects.

Probability of Target Attainment Analyses to Inform Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Dosing Regimens for Patients With Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia and End-Stage Renal Disease Receiving Intermittent Hemodialysis.

ASPECT-NP, a phase 3 trial of ceftolozane/tazobactam in hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP), excluded patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). A modeling/simulation approach was undertaken to inform optimal dosing in this population, using previously developed ceftolozane and tazobactam population pharmacokinetic models informed by data from 16 clinical studies. Stochastic simulations were performed using NONMEM to support dose justification. Probability of target attainment (PTA) simulations in plasma and epithelial lining fluid were conducted using a 14-day treatment, with hemodialysis every other weekday for a high-dose (4X), middle-dose (3X), or low-dose (2X) regimen, where X was the recommended dose in patients with complicated intra-abdominal infection/complicated urinary tract infection and ESRD (500 mg/250 mg ceftolozane/tazobactam loading dose and 100 mg/50 mg ceftolozane/tazobactam maintenance dose administered by 1-hour infusion every 8 hours). PTA was determined using established pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets: ceftolozane, 30% of the interdose interval (8 hours) in which free ceftolozane concentration exceeded the minimum inhibitory concentration value of 4 µg/mL; tazobactam, 20% of the interdose interval in which free tazobactam concentration exceeded 1 µg/mL. Plasma PTA was >90% for both agents for all 3 regimens. Plasma ceftolozane exposures at the high-dose regimen exceeded those from phase 3 study experience. Epithelial lining fluid PTA was >90% for high- and middle-dose regimens but was <80% for tazobactam on dialysis days at the low-dose regimen. For patients with HABP/VABP and ESRD requiring intermittent hemodialysis, the middle-dose regimen of 1.5 g/0.75 g ceftolozane/tazobactam loading + 300 mg/150 mg maintenance every 8 hours by 1-hour infusion is recommended.

Effects of an inhaled soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) stimulator MK-5475 in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).

BACKGROUND: Novel therapeutics for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) with improved safety/tolerability profiles are needed to address continued high rates of morbidity/mortality. METHODS: This Phase 1 study evaluated efficacy/safety of inhaled single-dose MK-5475, an investigational, small-molecule stimulator of soluble guanylate cyclase designed for inhaled delivery via a dry-powder inhaler device, in participants with PAH (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03744637). Eligible participants were 18-70 years of age; body mass index ≤35 kg/m2; diagnosis of PAH (Group 1 pulmonary hypertension). In Part 1, participants received double-blind MK-5475 or placebo for safety assessment (primary outcome). In Part 2, 4 panels participated in ≤3 open-label periods. Part 2/Period 1 assessed safety/tolerability. Part 2/Periods 2 and 3, respectively, involved functional respiratory imaging for measuring pulmonary blood volume (secondary outcome) and right heart catheterization for measuring pulmonary vascular resistance (primary outcome). RESULTS: MK-5475 was generally well tolerated without systemic side effects on blood pressure or heart rate up to 24 h post dose. With respect to the primary pharmacodynamic outcome, mean reductions in pulmonary vascular resistance ranged from 21% to 30% across 120 µg and 360 µg doses. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with inhaled single-dose MK-5475 showed rapid and sustained reductions in pulmonary vascular resistance and increases in pulmonary blood volume. MK-5475 was generally well tolerated versus placebo without vasodilatory systemic side effects. The promising pulmonary selectivity and favorable safety/tolerability profile of MK-5475 seen in this study of adult participants with PAH lays the foundation for further clinical development.

A single- and multiple-dose study to characterize the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of ceftolozane/tazobactam in healthy Chinese participants.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) is approved in several countries to treat complicated urinary tract infections, complicated intra-abdominal infections, and nosocomial pneumonia. There is a paucity of pharmacokinetics and safety data for C/T in Chinese participants. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of C/T in 12 healthy Chinese participants after three single administrations of increasing doses (0.75 g, 1.5 g, and 3 g) and multiple administrations of 1.5 g C/T every 8 h for 3 days. After single doses, maximum concentrations of ceftolozane and tazobactam were reached by the end of the 1-h infusion and declined in a biphasic manner thereafter, with mean half-lives of 1.9-2.2 h and 0.74-0.95 h, respectively. Volume of distribution (Vd) and renal clearance (CL) were consistent across the three single-dose levels for ceftolozane (Vd, 15.8-19.5 L; CL, 5.68-6.09 L/h) and tazobactam (Vd, 23.3-28.6 L; CL, 20.8-23.5 L/h). Area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) extrapolated to infinity (ceftolozane, 88.1-328 h∙µg/mL; tazobactam, 10.7-48.0 h∙µg/mL) increased in a dose-dependent manner. After multiple doses over 3 days, AUC from time 0 to 8 h, and concentration at the end of infusion were similar to single-dose measurements (geometric mean ratios, 0.87-1.01 for both drugs). C/T was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events or discontinuations reported; all adverse events were mild. The pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability of C/T in healthy Chinese participants was comparable to that in previous studies in other populations, supporting the use of C/T for the treatment of Chinese patients.

Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Probability of Target Attainment in Patients With Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

Probability of target attainment (PTA) analyses were conducted to support the recommended ceftolozane/tazobactam dosing regimens, adjusted for renal function, in patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Previously published population pharmacokinetic models describing the disposition of ceftolozane and tazobactam in plasma and epithelial lining fluid (ELF) in patients with HABP/VABP were used to simulate ceftolozane and tazobactam concentration-time profiles in plasma and ELF over the course of 14 days. The simulations were conducted for patients with normal renal function and for patients receiving adjusted doses for mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment. PTA was calculated using established pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic targets for ceftolozane and tazobactam. Across renal function groups, plasma PTA was 100% for ceftolozane and >99% for tazobactam; ELF PTA was >99% for ceftolozane and >87% for tazobactam. These results provided support for the currently recommended ceftolozane/tazobactam dosing regimens for HABP/VABP, which were efficacious and well tolerated in the Ceftolozane-Tazobactam Versus Meropenem for Treatment of Nosocomial Pneumonia (ASPECT-NP) trial.

Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis for Plasma and Epithelial Lining Fluid Ceftolozane/Tazobactam Concentrations in Patients With Ventilated Nosocomial Pneumonia.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) is a combination of a novel cephalosporin with tazobactam, recently approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia. The plasma pharmacokinetics (PK) of a 3-g dose of C/T (2 g ceftolozane and 1 g tazobactam) administered via a 1-hour infusion every 8 hours in adult patients with nosocomial pneumonia (NP) were evaluated in a phase 3 study (ASPECT-NP; NCT02070757). The present work describes the development of population PK models for ceftolozane and tazobactam in plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid (ELF). The concentration-time profiles of both agents were well characterized by 2-compartment models with zero-order input and first-order elimination. Consistent with the elimination pathway, renal function estimated by creatinine clearance significantly affected the clearance of ceftolozane and tazobactam. The central volumes of distribution for both agents and the peripheral volume of distribution for tazobactam were approximately 2-fold higher in patients with pneumonia compared with healthy participants. A hypothetical link model was developed to describe ceftolozane and tazobactam disposition in ELF in healthy participants and patients with pneumonia. Influx (from plasma to the ELF compartment) and elimination (from the ELF compartment) rate constants were approximately 97% lower for ceftolozane and 52% lower for tazobactam in patients with pneumonia versus healthy participants. These population PK models adequately described the plasma and ELF concentrations of ceftolozane and tazobactam, thus providing a foundation for further modeling and simulation, including the probability of target attainment assessments to support dose recommendations of C/T in adult patients with NP.

Evaluation of Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions of the Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir and Grazoprevir with Pitavastatin, Rosuvastatin, Pravastatin, and Atorvastatin in Healthy Adults.

BACKGROUND: Many people infected with hepatitis C virus have comorbidities, including hypercholesterolemia, that are treated with statins. In this study, we evaluated the drug-drug interaction potential of the hepatitis C virus inhibitors elbasvir (EBR) and grazoprevir (GZR) with statins. Pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, and atorvastatin are substrates of organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B, whereas rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are also breast cancer resistance protein substrates. METHODS: Three open-label, phase I clinical trials in healthy adults were conducted with multiple daily doses of oral GZR or EBR/GZR and single oral doses of statins. Trial 1: GZR 200 mg plus pitavastatin 10 mg. Trial 2: Part 1, GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg, then EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg; Part 2, EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus pravastatin 40 mg. Trial 3: EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg. RESULTS: Neither GZR nor EBR pharmacokinetics were meaningfully affected by statins. Coadministration of EBR/GZR did not result in clinically relevant changes in the exposure of pitavastatin or pravastatin. However, EBR/GZR increased exposure to rosuvastatin (126%) and atorvastatin (94%). Coadministration of statins plus GZR or EBR/GZR was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Although statins do not appreciably affect EBR or GZR pharmacokinetics, EBR/GZR can impact the pharmacokinetics of certain statins, likely via inhibition of breast cancer resistance protein but not organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B. Coadministration of EBR/GZR with pitavastatin or pravastatin does not require adjustment of either dose of statin, whereas the dose of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin should be decreased when coadministered with EBR/GZR.