Effects of itraconazole and carbamazepine on the pharmacokinetics of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir in healthy adults.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a strong cytochrome P450 family (CYP) 3A4 inhibitor (itraconazole) and inducer (carbamazepine) on the pharmacokinetics and safety of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir. METHODS: Pharmacokinetics were measured in two phase 1, open-label, fixed-sequence studies in healthy adults. During Period 1, oral nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300 mg/100 mg twice daily was administered alone; during Period 2, it was administered with itraconazole or carbamazepine. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was administered as repeated doses or one dose in the itraconazole and carbamazepine studies, respectively. Nirmatrelvir and ritonavir plasma concentrations and adverse event (AE) rates in both periods were analysed. RESULTS: Each study included 12 participants. Following administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with itraconazole (Test) or alone (Reference), test/reference ratios of the adjusted geometric means (90% CIs) for nirmatrelvir AUCtau and Cmax were 138.82% (129.25%, 149.11%) and 118.57% (112.50%, 124.97%), respectively. After administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir with carbamazepine (Test) or alone (Reference), test/reference ratios (90% CIs) of the adjusted geometric means for nirmatrelvir AUCinf and Cmax were 44.50% (33.77%, 58.65%) and 56.82% (47.04%, 68.62%), respectively. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was generally safe when administered with or without itraconazole or carbamazepine. No serious or severe AEs were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of a strong CYP3A4 inhibitor with a strong CYP3A inhibitor used for pharmacokinetic enhancement (i.e., ritonavir) resulted in small increases in plasma nirmatrelvir exposure, whereas coadministration of a strong inducer substantially decreased systemic nirmatrelvir and ritonavir exposures suggesting a contraindication in the label with CYP3A4 strong inducers. Administration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir alone or with itraconazole or carbamazepine was generally safe.

Strengthening the interpretability of clinical trial results by assessing the effect of informative censoring on the primary estimand in PRECISION.

BACKGROUND: The ICH E9(R1) addendum states that the strategy to account for intercurrent events should be included when defining an estimand, the treatment effect to be estimated based on the study objective. The estimator used to assess the treatment effect needs to be aligned with the estimand that accounted for intercurrent events. Regardless of the strategy, missing data resulting from patient premature withdrawal could undermine the robustness of the study results. Informative censoring due to dropouts in an events-based study is one such example. Sensitivity analyses using imputation methods are useful to examine the uncertainty due to informative censoring and address the robustness and strength of the study results. METHODS: We assessed the effect of premature patient withdrawal in the PRECISION study, a randomized non-inferiority clinical trial of patients with chronic arthritic pain that compared the cardiovascular safety of three nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs-based treatment policies or paradigms. The protocol-defined use of concomitant or rescue medications was permitted since changes in pain medications due to insufficient analgesia were expected in patients in this long-term study. Anticipating that premature study discontinuations could potentially lead to informative censoring, a supplementary analysis was pre-specified in which censored outcomes due to the premature study discontinuation were imputed based on adverse events that were clinically associated with the primary endpoint (cardiovascular outcome based on the Antiplatelet Trialists Collaboration composite endpoint). Furthermore, tipping point analyses were conducted to test the robustness of the primary analysis results by assuming data censored not at random. The level of increase at which the primary study conclusion would change was estimated. RESULTS: For the analysis of time to first primary endpoint event through 30 months, 4065 out of the 24,081 enrolled patients were lost to follow-up, withdrew consent, or were no longer willing to participate in the study. These withdrawals occurred gradually and resulted in a cumulative total of 5893 censored patient-years of observation (10.2%). The rate of discontinuation and the baseline characteristics of the discontinued patients were similar across the three treatment groups. The non-inferiority conclusion from the primary analysis was confirmed in the supplementary analysis incorporating relevant adverse events. Furthermore, tipping point analyses demonstrated that in order to lose non-inferiority in the primary analysis, the risk of primary endpoint events during the censored observation time would have to increase by more than 2.7-fold in the celecoxib group while remaining constant in the other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs groups, demonstrating that the scenarios where the study results are invalid appear not plausible. CONCLUSIONS: Supplementary and sensitivity analyses presented to address informative censoring in PRECISION helped to further interpret and strengthen the study results.

Antihypertensive effect of the mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist eplerenone: a pooled analysis of patient-level data from comparative trials using regulatory-approved doses.

PURPOSE: Several options are available for the treatment of hypertension; however, many treated patients are still not below blood pressure (BP) target. Eplerenone, a selective mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, is an approved treatment option for the management of patients with hypertension in a number of countries. This patient-level pooled analysis was conducted to document the efficacy and safety/tolerability of eplerenone at the dosages approved for use in hypertension in comparison to placebo or other approved antihypertensive agents. METHODS: Seventeen Phase III studies conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension in the Eplerenone Hypertension Clinical Program were reviewed; eleven met the selection criteria. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in seated diastolic BP and seated systolic BP measured at the end of the study. RESULTS: A total of 2,698 patients were included in this per-protocol analysis. In patients treated for at least 6 weeks with a stable dose of eplerenone, doses of 50 mg daily and 100 mg daily were associated with greater reductions of seated systolic BP and seated diastolic BP compared with placebo (P<0.001) and active-controlled studies (P< 0.033). In the analysis of covariance model testing of the contribution of four factors (age, body mass index [BMI], history of cardiovascular disease, and diabetes) on the BP lowering effects of eplerenone, only BMI and age were associated with small though statistically significant changes in BP (<0.2 mmHg). Eplerenone was well tolerated; headache was the most common adverse event for patients in any group. Severe hyperkalemia (serum potassium level >6.0 mmol/L) occurred in up to 0.4% in the eplerenone groups, 0.4% in the placebo group, and 0.1% in the active-control group. CONCLUSION: This patient-level pooled analysis provides robust evidence that eplerenone, at 50 mg or 100 mg daily, was effective in lowering BP in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension and was well tolerated.

Differential blood pressure effects of ibuprofen, naproxen, and celecoxib in patients with arthritis: the PRECISION-ABPM (Prospective Randomized Evaluation of Celecoxib Integrated Safety Versus Ibuprofen or Naproxen Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurement) Trial.

AIMS: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), both non-selective and selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, are among the most widely prescribed drugs worldwide, but associate with increased blood pressure (BP) and adverse cardiovascular (CV) events. PRECISION-ABPM, a substudy of PRECISION was conducted at 60 sites, to determine BP effects of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib vs. the non-selective NSAIDs naproxen and ibuprofen. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this double-blind, randomized, multicentre non-inferiority CV-safety trial, 444 patients (mean age 62 ± 10 years, 54% female) with osteoarthritis (92%) or rheumatoid arthritis (8%) and evidence of or at increased risk for coronary artery disease received celecoxib (100-200 mg bid), ibuprofen (600-800 mg tid), or naproxen (375-500 mg bid) with matching placebos in a 1: 1: 1 allocation, to assess the effect on 24-h ambulatory BP after 4 months. The change in mean 24-h systolic BP (SBP) in celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen-treated patients was -0.3 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.25, 1.74], 3.7 (95% CI, 1.72, 5.58) and 1.6 mmHg (95% CI, -0.40, 3.57), respectively. These changes resulted in a difference of - 3.9 mmHg (P = 0.0009) between celecoxib and ibuprofen, of - 1.8 mmHg (P = 0.12) between celecoxib and naproxen, and of - 2.1 mmHg (P = 0.08) between naproxen and ibuprofen. The percentage of patients with normal baseline BP who developed hypertension (mean 24-h SBP ≥ 130 and/or diastolic BP ≥ 80 mmHg) was 23.2% for ibuprofen, 19.0% for naproxen, and 10.3% for celecoxib (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.004 and odds ratio 0.49, P = 0.03 vs. ibuprofen and naproxen, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In PRECISION-ABPM, allocation to the non-selective NSAID ibuprofen, compared with the COX-2 selective inhibitor celecoxib was associated with a significant increase of SBP, and a higher incidence of new-onset hypertension. CLINICALTRIALS: gov number NCT00346216.

Cardiovascular Safety of Celecoxib, Naproxen, or Ibuprofen for Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular safety of celecoxib, as compared with nonselective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), remains uncertain. METHODS: Patients who required NSAIDs for osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis and were at increased cardiovascular risk were randomly assigned to receive celecoxib, ibuprofen, or naproxen. The goal of the trial was to assess the noninferiority of celecoxib with regard to the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular death (including hemorrhagic death), nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. Noninferiority required a hazard ratio of 1.12 or lower, as well as an upper 97.5% confidence limit of 1.33 or lower in the intention-to-treat population and of 1.40 or lower in the on-treatment population. Gastrointestinal and renal outcomes were also adjudicated. RESULTS: A total of 24,081 patients were randomly assigned to the celecoxib group (mean [±SD] daily dose, 209±37 mg), the naproxen group (852±103 mg), or the ibuprofen group (2045±246 mg) for a mean treatment duration of 20.3±16.0 months and a mean follow-up period of 34.1±13.4 months. During the trial, 68.8% of the patients stopped taking the study drug, and 27.4% of the patients discontinued follow-up. In the intention-to-treat analyses, a primary outcome event occurred in 188 patients in the celecoxib group (2.3%), 201 patients in the naproxen group (2.5%), and 218 patients in the ibuprofen group (2.7%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.13; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.04; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). In the on-treatment analysis, a primary outcome event occurred in 134 patients in the celecoxib group (1.7%), 144 patients in the naproxen group (1.8%), and 155 patients in the ibuprofen group (1.9%) (hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. naproxen, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.15; hazard ratio for celecoxib vs. ibuprofen, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P<0.001 for noninferiority in both comparisons). The risk of gastrointestinal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.01) or ibuprofen (P=0.002); the risk of renal events was significantly lower with celecoxib than with ibuprofen (P=0.004) but was not significantly lower with celecoxib than with naproxen (P=0.19). CONCLUSIONS: At moderate doses, celecoxib was found to be noninferior to ibuprofen or naproxen with regard to cardiovascular safety. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00346216 .).

Potent anti-ischaemic effects of statins in chronic stable angina: incremental benefit beyond lipid lowering?

AIMS: The DoUble-blind Atorvastatin AmLodipine (DUAAL) trial investigated whether atorvastatin decreases ischaemia by a vascular benefit, independent of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering, in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), both alone and in combination with the traditional anti-anginal therapy, amlodipine. METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicountry trial (2 weeks run-in and 24 weeks active therapy) comparing three treatments: amlodipine, atorvastatin, and amlodipine + atorvastatin; in 311 patients (78% male; mean age 62 years) with stable angina (≥ 2 attacks/week), CAD history, ≥ 3 transient myocardial ischaemia (TMI) episodes, and/or ≥ 15 min ischaemia on 48 h ambulatory electrocardiographic (AECG) monitoring. Efficacy variables were change in TMI by AECG, exercise ischaemia, angina diary data, and inflammatory biomarkers at Week 26. There was a comparable, highly significant decrease in TMI with amlodipine and atorvastatin, but no additional benefit for the combination. More than 50% of patients became TMI-free in all three groups and this was accompanied by a comparable, marked reduction in angina and nitroglycerin consumption. High-sensitivity C-reactive protein fell by 40% in patients receiving atorvastatin but there was no change with amlodipine. Adverse events were comparable among groups. CONCLUSION: Atorvastatin was as potent an anti-ischaemic agent as amlodipine. Future studies of combination therapies will be instructive. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: National clinical trial number: NCT00159718, protocol number A0531031 listed on http://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Selective aldosterone blockade with eplerenone reduces albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Previous studies have shown that the selective aldosterone blocker eplerenone, in doses of up to 200 mg/d, reduces albuminuria in patients with type 2 diabetes. This study was conducted to ascertain whether lower doses of eplerenone (50 or 100 mg/d) co-administered with the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor enalapril would produce a similar antialbuminuric effect while obviating the hyperkalemia observed previously. After open-label run-in with enalapril 20 mg/d, patients with diabetes and a urinary albumin:creatinine ratio (UACR) > or = 50 mg/g were randomly assigned to receive enalapril plus one of three double-blind daily treatments for 12 wk: placebo, eplerenone 50 mg (EPL50), or eplerenone 100 mg (EPL100). After week 4, amlodipine 2.5 to 10 mg/d was allowed for BP control (systolic/diastolic BP < or = 130/80 mmHg). The primary study end points were the percentage change from baseline at week 12 in UACR and the incidence of hyperkalemia. Secondary end points included percentage changes from baseline in UACR at weeks 4 and 8 and changes from baseline in systolic and diastolic BP. Treatment with EPL50 or EPL100 but not placebo significantly reduced albuminuria from baseline. By week 12, UACR was reduced by 7.4% in the placebo group, by 41.0% in the EPL50 group, and by 48.4% in the EPL100 group (both eplerenone groups, P < 0.001 versus placebo). The incidences of sustained and severe hyperkalemia were not significantly different in any of the three treatment arms and did not differ on the basis of quartile of estimated GFR (all NS). For the secondary end points, both eplerenone treatment groups significantly reduced albuminuria from baseline as early as week 4 (P < 0.001), whereas placebo treatment (including enalapril) did not result in any significant decreases in UACR. Systolic BP decreased significantly in all treatment groups at all time points, but, generally, all treatment groups experienced similar decreases in BP. Co-administration of EPL50 or EPL100 with an ACE inhibitor as compared with an ACE inhibitor alone significantly reduces albuminuria in patients with diabetes without producing significant increases in hyperkalemia.

Medical treatment of myocardial ischemia in coronary artery disease: effect of drug regime and irregular dosing in the CAPE II trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Circadian Anti-ischemia Program in Europe (CAPE II) compared the efficacy of amlodipine and diltiazem (Adizem XL) and the combination of amlodipine/atenolol and diltiazem (Adizem XL)/isosorbide 5-mononitrate on exercise and ambulatory myocardial ischemia during regular therapy and after omission of medication. BACKGROUND: The optimal medical therapy for ischemia suppression and the impact of irregular dosing using agents with different pharmacologic properties has not been established in patients with coronary disease. METHODS: Patients with > or = 4 ischemic episodes or > or = 20 min of ST segment depression on 72-h electrocardiogram were randomized to amlodipine 10 mg once daily or diltiazem (Adizem XL) 300 mg once daily in a 14-week double-blind randomized multicountry study. In the second phase, atenolol 100 mg was added to amlodipine and isosorbide 5-mononitrate 100 mg to diltiazem (Adizem XL). Ambulatory monitoring (72 h) and exercise testing were repeated after both phases, on treatment and after a 24-h drug-free interval. RESULTS: Both monotherapy with amlodipine and diltiazem (Adizem XL) were effective on symptoms and ambulatory and exercise ischemia. Combination therapy reduced ischemia further, with amlodipine/atenolol superior to diltiazem (Adizem XL)/isosorbide 5-mononitrate. Amlodipine/atenolol was significantly superior during the drug-free interval with maintenance of ischemia reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine, with its intrinsically long half-life alone or together with beta-blocker, is likely to produce superior ischemia reduction in clinical practice when patients frequently forget to take medication or dose irregularly.