Molnupiravir for Oral Treatment of Covid-19 in Nonhospitalized Patients.

BACKGROUND: New treatments are needed to reduce the risk of progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). Molnupiravir is an oral, small-molecule antiviral prodrug that is active against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with molnupiravir started within 5 days after the onset of signs or symptoms in nonhospitalized, unvaccinated adults with mild-to-moderate, laboratory-confirmed Covid-19 and at least one risk factor for severe Covid-19 illness. Participants in the trial were randomly assigned to receive 800 mg of molnupiravir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence hospitalization or death at day 29; the incidence of adverse events was the primary safety end point. A planned interim analysis was performed when 50% of 1550 participants (target enrollment) had been followed through day 29. RESULTS: A total of 1433 participants underwent randomization; 716 were assigned to receive molnupiravir and 717 to receive placebo. With the exception of an imbalance in sex, baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. The superiority of molnupiravir was demonstrated at the interim analysis; the risk of hospitalization for any cause or death through day 29 was lower with molnupiravir (28 of 385 participants [7.3%]) than with placebo (53 of 377 [14.1%]) (difference, -6.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -11.3 to -2.4; P = 0.001). In the analysis of all participants who had undergone randomization, the percentage of participants who were hospitalized or died through day 29 was lower in the molnupiravir group than in the placebo group (6.8% [48 of 709] vs. 9.7% [68 of 699]; difference, -3.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -5.9 to -0.1). Results of subgroup analyses were largely consistent with these overall results; in some subgroups, such as patients with evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, those with low baseline viral load, and those with diabetes, the point estimate for the difference favored placebo. One death was reported in the molnupiravir group and 9 were reported in the placebo group through day 29. Adverse events were reported in 216 of 710 participants (30.4%) in the molnupiravir group and 231 of 701 (33.0%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment with molnupiravir reduced the risk of hospitalization or death in at-risk, unvaccinated adults with Covid-19. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme; MOVe-OUT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04575597.).

Clinical and microbiological outcomes, by causative pathogen, in the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled, Phase 3 trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia.

OBJECTIVES: In the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated. METHODS: Mechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7-14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population. RESULTS: The mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: -4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: -18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: -4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. METHODS: In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, -1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, -7.6%; 97.5% CI: -15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02019420.

A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study).

BACKGROUND: Imipenem combined with the ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7-14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7-14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. RESULTS: Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, -5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, -3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02493764.

Ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem in patients with ventilated hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia: subset analysis of the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. METHODS: ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. RESULTS: Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI - 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. CONCLUSIONS: There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

A Mortality Analysis of Letermovir Prophylaxis for Cytomegalovirus (CMV) in CMV-seropositive Recipients of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 3 trial, letermovir reduced clinically significant cytomegalovirus infections (CS-CMVi) and all-cause mortality at week 24 versus placebo in CMV-seropositive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients. This post hoc analysis of phase 3 data further investigated the effects of letermovir on all-cause mortality. METHODS: Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated by treatment group for all-cause mortality. Observations were censored at trial discontinuation for reasons other than death or at trial completion. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using Cox modeling, adjusting for risk factors associated with mortality. RESULTS: Of 495 patients with no detectable CMV DNA at randomization, 437 had vital-status data available through week 48 post-HCT at trial completion (101 deaths, 20.4%). Following letermovir prophylaxis, the HR for all-cause mortality was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35-0.98; P = .04) at week 24 and 0.74 (95% CI, 0.49-1.11; P = .14) at week 48 post-HCT versus placebo. Incidence of all-cause mortality through week 48 post-HCT in the letermovir group was similar in patients with or without CS-CMVi (15.8 vs 19.4%; P = .71). However, in the placebo group, all-cause mortality at week 48 post-HCT was higher in patients with versus those without CS-CMVi (31.0% vs 18.2%; P = .02). The HR for all-cause mortality in patients with CS-CMVi was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.21-1.00; P = .05) at week 48 for letermovir versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Letermovir may reduce mortality by preventing or delaying CS-CMVi in HCT recipients. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02137772.

RESTORE-IMI 1: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-blind Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Relebactam vs Colistin Plus Imipenem in Patients With Imipenem-nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

BACKGROUND: The ß-lactamase inhibitor relebactam can restore imipenem activity against imipenem-nonsusceptible gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated imipenem/relebactam for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. METHODS: Randomized, controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Hospitalized patients with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated pneumonia, complicated intraabdominal infection, or complicated urinary tract infection caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible (but colistin- and imipenem/relebactam-susceptible) pathogens were randomized 2:1 to 5-21 days imipenem/relebactam or colistin+imipenem. Primary endpoint: favorable overall response (defined by relevant endpoints for each infection type) in the modified microbiologic intent-to-treat (mMITT) population (qualifying baseline pathogen and ≥1 dose study treatment). Secondary endpoints: clinical response, all-cause mortality, and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity. Safety analyses included patients with ≥1 dose study treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients received imipenem/relebactam and 16 colistin+imipenem. Among mITT patients (n = 21 imipenem/relebactam, n = 10 colistin+imipenem), 29% had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores >15, 23% had creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, and 35% were aged ≥65 years. Qualifying baseline pathogens: Pseudomonas aeruginosa (77%), Klebsiella spp. (16%), other Enterobacteriaceae (6%). Favorable overall response was observed in 71% imipenem/relebactam and 70% colistin+imipenem patients (90% confidence interval [CI] for difference, -27.5, 21.4), day 28 favorable clinical response in 71% and 40% (90% CI, 1.3, 51.5), and 28-day mortality in 10% and 30% (90% CI, -46.4, 6.7), respectively. Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 10% of imipenem/relebactam and 31% of colistin+imipenem patients, drug-related AEs in 16% and 31% (no drug-related deaths), and treatment-emergent nephrotoxicity in 10% and 56% (P = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imipenem/relebactam is an efficacious and well-tolerated treatment option for carbapenem-nonsusceptible infections. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02452047.

Outcomes of patients with detectable CMV DNA at randomization in the phase III trial of letermovir for the prevention of CMV infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.

Letermovir, a cytomegalovirus (CMV) terminase-complex inhibitor, is indicated for prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease in adult CMV-seropositive recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). In a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial, letermovir significantly reduced the risk of clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) vs placebo through Week 24 post-HCT. This analysis investigated outcomes in participants with detectable CMV DNA at randomization, who were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis. In total, 70 of 565 randomized participants had detectable CMV DNA at randomization (letermovir 48; placebo 22). Study treatment completion rates were greater in letermovir-treated participants compared with placebo (52.1% vs 9.1%). The incidence of CS-CMVi or imputed primary endpoint events through Week 24 were 64.6% and 90.9% in the letermovir and placebo groups, respectively (treatment difference -26.1%; P = .010). Kaplan-Meier event rates for CS-CMVi onset through Week 14 (end-of-treatment period) were 33.1% for letermovir and 86.6% for placebo (P < .001). Median viral loads at the CS-CMVi events was similar in both treatment arms. All-cause mortality through Week 24 posttransplant was 15.0% for letermovir and 18.2% for placebo; through Week 48, mortality rates were 26.5% and 40.9%, respectively (P = .268). Overall, clinical outcomes were similar to those reported for participants with undetectable CMV DNA at randomization.

Comparison of Treatment Outcomes between Analysis Populations in the RESTORE-IMI 1 Phase 3 Trial of Imipenem-Cilastatin-Relebactam versus Colistin plus Imipenem-Cilastatin in Patients with Imipenem-Nonsusceptible Bacterial Infections.

The RESTORE-IMI 1 phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy and safety of imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) combined with relebactam (REL) for treating imipenem-nonsusceptible infections. The objective of this analysis was to compare the outcomes among patients meeting eligibility requirements based on central laboratory susceptibility versus local laboratory susceptibility. Patients with serious infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible, colistin-susceptible, and imipenem-REL-susceptible pathogens were randomized 2:1 to IMI-REL plus placebo or colistin plus IMI for 5 to 21 days. The primary endpoint was a favorable overall response. Key endpoints included the clinical response and all-cause mortality. We compared outcomes between the primary microbiological modified intent-to-treat (mMITT) population, where eligibility was based on central laboratory susceptibility testing, and the supplemental mMITT (SmMITT) population, where eligibility was based on local, site-level testing. The SmMITT (n = 41) and MITT (n = 31) populations had similar baseline characteristics, including sex, age, illness severity, and renal function. In both analysis populations, favorable overall response rates in the IMI-REL treatment group were >70%. Favorable clinical response rates at day 28 were 71.4% for IMI-REL and 40.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 75.0% for IMI-REL and 53.8% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. Day 28 all-cause mortality rates were 9.5% for IMI-REL and 30.0% for colistin plus IMI in the mMITT population, whereas they were 10.7% for IMI-REL and 23.1% for colistin plus IMI in the SmMITT population. The outcomes in the SmMITT population were generally consistent with those in the mMITT population, suggesting that outcomes may be applicable to the real-world use of IMI-REL for treating infections caused by imipenem-nonsusceptible Gram-negative pathogens. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02452047.).

Impact of renal impairment and human organic anion transporter inhibition on pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of relebactam combined with imipenem and cilastatin.

AIMS: Two phase 1, open-label studies were conducted to investigate the effect of renal impairment (RI) and organic anion transporter (OAT) inhibition on pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of relebactam (REL) plus imipenem/cilastatin (IMI). METHODS: Study PN005 evaluated the PK of REL (125 mg) plus IMI (250 mg) in participants with RI vs healthy controls. Study PN019 evaluated the PK of REL (250 mg) and imipenem (500 mg; dosed as IMI) with/without probenecid (1 g; OAT inhibitor) in healthy adults. RESULTS: Geometric mean ratios (RI/healthy matched controls) of area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞ ; 90% confidence interval) for REL, imipenem and cilastatin increased as RI increased from mild (1.6 [1.1, 2.4], 1.4 [1.1, 1.8] and 1.6 [1.0, 2.5], respectively) to severe (4.9 [3.4, 7.0], 2.5 [1.9, 3.3] and 5.6 [3.6, 8.6], respectively). For all 3 analytes, plasma and renal clearance decreased and corresponding plasma apparent terminal half-life increased with increasing RI. Geometric mean ratios ([probenecid+IMI/REL]/[IMI/REL]) of plasma exposure for REL and imipenem were 1.24 (1.19, 1.28) and 1.16 (1.13, 1.20), respectively. The dose fraction excreted (fe) in the urine decreased progressively from mild to severe RI. Probenecid reduced renal clearance of REL and imipenem by 25 and 31%, respectively. Compared with IMI/REL, coadministration of IMI/REL with probenecid yielded lower fe for REL and imipenem. In both studies, treatment was well tolerated; there were no serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: RI increased plasma exposure and similarly decreased clearance of REL, imipenem and cilastatin; IMI/REL dose adjustment (fixed-ratio) will be required for patients with RI. Probenecid had no clinically meaningful impact on the PK of REL or imipenem.

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.

Characterisation of the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and mass balance of doravirine, a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor in humans.

Absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination of doravirine (MK-1439), a novel non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, were investigated. Two clinical trials were conducted in healthy subjects: an oral single dose [14 C]doravirine (350 mg, ∼200 µCi) trial (n = 6) and an intravenous (IV) single-dose doravirine (100 µg) trial (n = 12). In vitro metabolism, protein binding, apparent permeability and P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transport studies were conducted to complement the clinical trials. Following oral [14 C]doravirine administration, all of the administered dose was recovered. The absorbed dose was eliminated primarily via metabolism. An oxidative metabolite (M9) was the predominant metabolite in excreta and was the primary circulating metabolite (12.9% of circulating radioactivity). Following IV administration, doravirine clearance and volume of distribution were 3.73 L/h (95% confidence intervals (CI) 3.09, 4.49) and 60.5 L (95% CI 53.7, 68.4), respectively. In vitro, doravirine is not highly bound to plasma proteins (unbound fraction 0.24) and has good passive permeability. The metabolite M9 was generated by cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A)4/5-mediated oxidation. Doravirine was a P-gp substrate but P-gp efflux is not expected to play a significant role in limiting doravirine absorption or to be involved in the elimination of doravirine. In conclusion, doravirine is a low clearance drug, primarily eliminated by CYP3A-mediated metabolism.

Intrapulmonary Pharmacokinetics of Relebactam, a Novel ß-Lactamase Inhibitor, Dosed in Combination with Imipenem-Cilastatin in Healthy Subjects.

This phase I study assessed the intrapulmonary pharmacokinetic profiles of relebactam (MK-7655), a novel ß-lactamase inhibitor, and imipenem. Sixteen healthy subjects received 250 mg relebactam with 500 mg imipenem-cilastatin, given intravenously every 6 h for 5 doses, and were randomized to bronchoscopy/bronchoalveolar lavage at 0.5, 1, 1.5, or 3 h after the last dose (4 subjects per time point). Both drugs penetrated the epithelial lining fluid (ELF) to a similar degree, with the profiles being similar in shape to the corresponding plasma profiles and with the apparent terminal half-lives in plasma and ELF being 1.2 and 1.3 h, respectively, for relebactam and 1.0 h in both compartments for imipenem. The exposure (area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity) in ELF relative to that in plasma was 54% for relebactam and 55% for imipenem, after adjusting for protein binding. ELF penetration for relebactam was further analyzed by fitting the data to a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model to capture its behavior in plasma, with a partitioning coefficient capturing its behavior in the lung compartment. In this model, the time-invariant partition coefficient for relebactam was found to be 55%, based on free drug levels. These results support the clinical evaluation of relebactam with imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Single and Multiple Doses of Relebactam, a ß-Lactamase Inhibitor, in Combination with Imipenem and Cilastatin in Healthy Participants.

Relebactam is a novel class A and C ß-lactamase inhibitor that is being developed in combination with imipenem-cilastatin for the treatment of serious infections with Gram-negative bacteria. Here we report on two phase 1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability studies of relebactam administered with or without imipenem-cilastatin to healthy participants: (i) a single-dose (25 to 1,150 mg) and multiple-dose (50 to 625 mg every 6 h [q6h] for 7 to 14 days) escalation study with men and (ii) a single-dose (125 mg) study with women and elderly individuals. Following single- or multiple-dose intravenous administration over 30 min, plasma relebactam concentrations declined biexponentially, with a terminal half-life (t1/2) ranging from 1.35 to 1.85 h independently of the dose. Exposures increased in a dose-proportional manner across the dose range. No clinically significant differences in pharmacokinetics between men and women, or between adult and elderly participants, were observed. Urine pharmacokinetics demonstrated that urinary excretion is the major route of relebactam elimination. No drug-drug interaction between relebactam and imipenem-cilastatin was observed, and the observed t1/2 values for relebactam, imipenem, and cilastatin were comparable, thus supporting coadministration. Relebactam administered alone or in combination with imipenem-cilastatin was well tolerated across the dose ranges studied. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported. The pharmacokinetic profile and favorable safety results supported q6h dosing of relebactam with imipenem-cilastatin in clinical treatment trials.

Effect of Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Grazoprevir, a Hepatitis C Virus Protease Inhibitor.

Grazoprevir (GZR) plus elbasvir is an approved treatment for chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 or 4. HCV infection complications include liver cirrhosis, end-stage liver disease, and hepatocellular carcinoma. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of multiple-dose GZR (200, 100, or 50 mg) in non-HCV participants with mild, moderate, or severe hepatic impairment (HI), respectively, and in healthy matched controls (protocol MK-5172_p013; Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ). Participants with mild, moderate, or severe HI and controls (aged 18 to 65 years) matched for race, age, sex, and body mass index were enrolled in a 3-part, open-label, sequential-panel pharmacokinetic study. Participants received oral doses of GZR 200 mg (two 100-mg tablets), 100 mg (one 100-mg tablet), or 50 mg (two 25-mg tablets) once daily for 10 days. A total of 50 participants were enrolled: 8 with mild HI, 9 with moderate HI, 8 with severe HI, and a corresponding number of healthy matched controls for each hepatic cohort. Participants with HI demonstrated higher GZR exposure than healthy matched controls and showed an increase in exposure with increasing HI severity. The steady-state GZR AUC0-24 (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h) for participants with mild, moderate, or severe HI was ≈2-, ≈5-, or ≈12-fold higher, respectively, than that for healthy matched controls. GZR was generally well tolerated in participants with HI. No dose adjustment is required for GZR in people with HCV with mild HI. GZR is contraindicated for those with moderate or severe HI (Child-Pugh class B or C), since they may have significantly increased GZR exposures that may lead to an increased risk of transaminase elevation.

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.