Assessment of Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Letermovir and Fluconazole in Healthy Participants.

Letermovir is a prophylactic agent for cytomegalovirus infection and disease in adult cytomegalovirus-seropositive recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. As the antifungal agent fluconazole is administered frequently in transplant recipients, a drug-drug interaction study was conducted between oral letermovir and oral fluconazole. A phase 1 open-label, fixed-sequence study was performed in healthy females (N = 14, 19-55 years). In Period 1, a single dose of fluconazole 400 mg was administered. Following a 14-day washout, a single dose of letermovir 480 mg was administered (Period 2), and after a 7-day washout, single doses of fluconazole 400 mg and letermovir 480 mg were coadministered in Period 3. Pharmacokinetics and safety were evaluated. The pharmacokinetics of fluconazole and letermovir were not meaningfully changed following coadministration. Fluconazole geometric mean ratio (GMR; 90% confidence interval [CI]) with letermovir for area under the concentration-versus-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞ ) was 1.03 (0.99-1.08); maximum concentration (Cmax ) was 0.95 (0.92-0.99). Letermovir AUC0-∞ GMR (90%CI) was 1.11 (1.01-1.23), and Cmax was 1.06 (0.93-1.21) following coadministration with fluconazole. Coadministration of fluconazole and letermovir was generally well tolerated.

Assessment of Drug Interaction Potential Between the Hepatitis C Virus Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and the Nucleotide Analog Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitor Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate.

Treatment of individuals coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) requires careful consideration of potential drug-drug interactions. We evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction of the direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir and grazoprevir coadministered with the nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Three open-label, multidose studies in healthy adults were conducted. In the first study (N = 10), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, elbasvir 50 mg once daily, and elbasvir coadministered with TDF. In the second study (N = 12), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, grazoprevir 200 mg once daily, and grazoprevir coadministered with TDF. In the third study (N = 14), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily and TDF 300 mg coadministered with coformulated elbasvir/grazoprevir 50 mg/100 mg once daily. Pharmacokinetics and safety were evaluated. Following coadministration, the tenofovir area under the plasma concentration-time curve to 24 hours and maximum plasma concentration geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for tenofovir and coadministered drug(s) versus tenofovir were 1.3 (1.2, 1.5) and 1.5 (1.3, 1.6), respectively, when coadministered with elbasvir; 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.2), respectively, when coadministered with grazoprevir; and 1.3 (1.2, 1.4) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.4), respectively, when coadministered with the elbasvir/grazoprevir coformulation. TDF had minimal effect on elbasvir and grazoprevir pharmacokinetics. Elbasvir and/or grazoprevir coadministered with TDF resulted in no clinically meaningful tenofovir exposure increases and was generally well tolerated, with no deaths, serious adverse events (AEs), discontinuations due to AEs, or laboratory AEs reported. No dose adjustments for elbasvir/grazoprevir or TDF are needed for coadministration in HCV/HIV-coinfected people.

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.

Assessment of the Abuse Potential of the Orexin Receptor Antagonist, Suvorexant, Compared With Zolpidem in a Randomized Crossover Study.

Suvorexant is a dual orexin receptor antagonist approved in the United States and Japan for the treatment of insomnia at a maximum dose of 20 mg. This randomized double-blind crossover study evaluated the abuse potential of suvorexant in 36 healthy recreational polydrug users with a history of sedative and psychedelic drug use. Single doses of suvorexant (40, 80, and 150 mg: 2-7.5 × maximum dose), zolpidem (15 and 30 mg: 1.5-3 × maximum dose), and placebo were administered, with a 10-day washout between treatments. Subjective and objective measures, including visual analog scales (VASs), Addiction Research Center Inventory, and cognitive/psychomotor tests, were evaluated for 24-hour postdose. Suvorexant had significantly greater peak effects on "drug liking" VAS (primary endpoint) than placebo. Although effects of suvorexant on abuse potential measures were generally similar to zolpidem, they remained constant across doses, whereas zolpidem often had greater effects at higher doses. Suvorexant (all doses) had significantly fewer effects than zolpidem 30 mg on secondary measures, such as "high" VAS, Bowdle VAS, and Addiction Research Center Inventory morphine-benzedrine group. The overall incidence of abuse-related adverse events, such as euphoric mood and hallucination, was numerically lower with suvorexant than zolpidem. In agreement with its classification as a schedule IV drug, suvorexant demonstrated abuse potential, compared with placebo. The abuse potential was similar to zolpidem using certain measures, but with a reduced incidence of abuse-related adverse events. Although this suggests that the overall abuse liability of suvorexant may be lower than zolpidem, the actual abuse rates will be assessed with the postmarketing experience.