Plasma and Intrapulmonary Concentrations of ETX2514 and Sulbactam following Intravenous Administration of ETX2514SUL to Healthy Adult Subjects.

ETX2514 is a novel ß-lactamase inhibitor that broadly inhibits Ambler class A, C, and D ß-lactamases. ETX2514 combined with sulbactam (SUL) in vitro restores sulbactam activity against Acinetobacter baumannii ETX2514-sulbactam (ETX2514SUL) is under development for the treatment of A. baumannii infections. The objective of this study was to determine and compare plasma, epithelial lining fluid (ELF), and alveolar macrophage (AM) concentrations following intravenous (i.v.) ETX2514 and sulbactam. Plasma, ELF, and AM concentrations of ETX2514 and sulbactam were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in 30 healthy adult subjects following repeated dosing (ETX2514 [1 g] and sulbactam [1 g] every 6 h [q6h], as a 3-h i.v. infusion, for a total of 3 doses). A bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) was performed once in each subject at either 1, 2.5, 3.25, 4, or 6 h after the start of the last infusion. Penetration ratios were calculated from area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 6 h (AUC0-6) values for total plasma and ELF using mean and median concentrations at the BAL fluid sampling times. Respective ELF AUC0-6 values, based on mean and median concentrations, were 40.1 and 39.4 mg · h/liter for ETX2514 and 34.7 and 34.5 mg · h/liter for sulbactam. Respective penetration ratios of ELF to total/unbound plasma concentrations, based on mean and median AUC0-6 values, of ETX2514 were 0.37/0.41 and 0.36/0.40, whereas these same ratio values were 0.50/0.81 and 0.50/0.80 for sulbactam. ETX2514 and sulbactam concentrations in AM were measurable and fairly constant throughout the dosing interval (median values of 1.31 and 1.01 mg/liter, respectively). These data support further study of ETX2514SUL for the treatment of pneumonia caused by multidrug-resistant A. baumannii (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT03303924.).

Raltegravir: the first HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor in the HIV armamentarium.

Raltegravir is the first integrase strand transfer inhibitor approved for the treatment of HIV-1 infection. As the first agent in this new class of antiretroviral therapies, raltegravir has demonstrated safety and efficacy in treatment-naive as well as heavily pretreated HIV-infected patients failing therapy with multidrug-resistant virus. Raltegravir has a favorable drug interaction profile that permits both administration to a wide, demographically diverse patient population and coadministration with many other therapeutic agents, including antiretroviral agents and supportive medications, without restrictions or dose adjustment. Data through 96 weeks of follow-up in three phase III studies, protocol 021 (STARTMRK) in treatment-naive patients, and protocols 018 (BENCHMRK-1) and 019 (BENCHMRK-2) in treatment-experienced patients, demonstrated the potent and durable antiretroviral and immunologic effects and the favorable long-term safety profile of raltegravir in both treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients. Raltegravir represents an important addition to the current armamentarium for the treatment of HIV infection.

Long-term efficacy and safety of the HIV integrase inhibitor raltegravir in patients with limited treatment options in a Phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir in combination therapy has demonstrated potent suppression of HIV-1 with a favorable safety profile. This report provides 96-week efficacy and safety data from Protocol 005, a Phase II study. METHODS: HIV-infected patients with very limited treatment options and failing antiretroviral therapy were randomized to raltegravir 200, 400, or 600 mg or placebo b.i.d., plus optimized background therapy for >or=24 weeks; all patients were then offered open-label raltegravir 400 mg b.i.d. Efficacy measurements included changes in viral load and CD4 count from baseline and percent of patients with HIV-1 RNA <400 and <50 copies/mL. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-three patients received raltegravir and 45 received placebo. No dose-dependent differentiation in the safety or antiviral activity of raltegravir was observed during the double-blind phase. For the combined raltegravir groups, mean change in viral load from baseline was -1.60 log10 copies/mL at week 48 and -1.38 log10 copies/mL at week 96 (observed failure approach). At week 48, HIV-1 RNA levels were <400 copies/mL in 68% of raltegravir recipients and <50 copies/mL in 55%; these levels were maintained in 55% and 48% of raltegravir recipients, respectively, at week 96 (noncompleter = failure). There were few discontinuations of raltegravir (4%) due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir with OBT had a potent and sustained antiretroviral effect and was generally well tolerated through 96 weeks.

Long-term efficacy and safety of Raltegravir combined with optimized background therapy in treatment-experienced patients with drug-resistant HIV infection: week 96 results of the BENCHMRK 1 and 2 Phase III trials.

BENCHMRK-1 and -2 are ongoing double-blind phase III studies of raltegravir in patients experiencing failure of antiretroviral therapy with triple-class drug-resistant human immunodeficiency virus infection. At week 96 (combined data), raltegravir (400 mg twice daily) plus optimized background therapy was generally well tolerated, with superior and durable antiretroviral and immunological efficacy, compared with optimized background therapy alone.

Sustained antiretroviral effect of raltegravir after 96 weeks of combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir vs efavirenz-based antiretroviral therapy after 96 weeks in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection. METHODS: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized study of raltegravir (100, 200, 400, or 600 mg twice a day) vs efavirenz (600 mg every day), both with tenofovir/lamivudine (TDF/3TC), for 48 weeks, after which raltegravir arms were combined and all dosed at 400 mg twice a day. Eligible patients had HIV-1 RNA > or =5000 copies per milliliter and CD4 T cells > or =100 cells per microliter. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-eight patients were randomized and treated; 160 received raltegravir and 38 received efavirenz. At week 96, 84% of patients in both groups achieved HIV-1 RNA <400 copies per milliliter; 83% in the raltegravir group and 84% in the efavirenz group achieved <50 copies per milliliter (noncompleter = failure). Both groups showed similar increases in CD4 T cells (221 vs 232 cells/uL, respectively). An additional 2 patients (1 in each group) met the protocol definition of virologic failure between weeks 48 and 96; no known resistance mutations were observed in the raltegravir recipient; the efavirenz recipient had nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor and nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations. Investigator reported drug-related clinical adverse events (AEs) were less frequent with raltegravir (51%) than efavirenz (74%). Drug-related AEs occurring in >10% of patients in either group were nausea in both groups and dizziness and headache in the efavirenz group. Laboratory AEs remained infrequent. Raltegravir had no adverse effect on total or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol or on triglycerides. Neuropsychiatric AEs remained less frequent with raltegravir (34%) than efavirenz (58%). There were no drug-related serious AEs in patients receiving raltegravir. CONCLUSIONS: In antiretroviral therapy-naive patients, raltegravir with TDF/3TC had potent antiretroviral activity, which was similar to efavirenz/TDF/3TC and was sustained to week 96. Raltegravir was generally well tolerated; drug-related AEs were less frequent in patients treated with raltegravir compared with efavirenz.

Effects of omeprazole on plasma levels of raltegravir.

Raltegravir, a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase inhibitor, has pH-dependent solubility. Raltegravir plasma concentration increases with omeprazole coadministration in healthy subjects; this is likely secondary to an increase in bioavailability attributable to increased gastric pH. Increased gastric pH has been reported in HIV-1-infected individuals, and the effects of omeprazole in this intended population may be diminished. Further investigation is necessary.

Raltegravir with optimized background therapy for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an inhibitor of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase active against HIV-1 susceptible or resistant to older antiretroviral drugs. METHODS: We conducted two identical trials in different geographic regions to evaluate the safety and efficacy of raltegravir, as compared with placebo, in combination with optimized background therapy, in patients infected with HIV-1 that has triple-class drug resistance in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. Patients were randomly assigned to raltegravir or placebo in a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS: In the combined studies, 699 of 703 randomized patients (462 and 237 in the raltegravir and placebo groups, respectively) received the study drug. Seventeen of the 699 patients (2.4%) discontinued the study before week 16. Discontinuation was related to the study treatment in 13 of these 17 patients: 7 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (1.5%) and 6 of the 237 placebo recipients (2.5%). The results of the two studies were consistent. At week 16, counting noncompletion as treatment failure, 355 of 458 raltegravir recipients (77.5%) had HIV-1 RNA levels below 400 copies per milliliter, as compared with 99 of 236 placebo recipients (41.9%, P<0.001). Suppression of HIV-1 RNA to a level below 50 copies per milliliter was achieved at week 16 in 61.8% of the raltegravir recipients, as compared with 34.7% of placebo recipients, and at week 48 in 62.1% as compared with 32.9% (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Without adjustment for the length of follow-up, cancers were detected in 3.5% of raltegravir recipients and in 1.7% of placebo recipients. The overall frequencies of drug-related adverse events were similar in the raltegravir and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: In HIV-infected patients with limited treatment options, raltegravir plus optimized background therapy provided better viral suppression than optimized background therapy alone for at least 48 weeks. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Subgroup and resistance analyses of raltegravir for resistant HIV-1 infection.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the efficacy of raltegravir and the development of viral resistance in two identical trials involving patients who were infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) with triple-class drug resistance and in whom antiretroviral therapy had failed. METHODS: We conducted subgroup analyses of the data from week 48 in both studies according to baseline prognostic factors. Genotyping of the integrase gene was performed in raltegravir recipients who had virologic failure. RESULTS: Virologic responses to raltegravir were consistently superior to responses to placebo, regardless of the baseline values of HIV-1 RNA level; CD4 cell count; genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score; use or nonuse of darunavir, enfuvirtide, or both in optimized background therapy; or demographic characteristics. Among patients in the two studies combined who were using both enfuvirtide and darunavir for the first time, HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 89% of raltegravir recipients and 68% of placebo recipients. HIV-1 RNA levels of less than 50 copies per milliliter were achieved in 69% and 80% of the raltegravir recipients and in 47% and 57% of the placebo recipients using either darunavir or enfuvirtide for the first time, respectively. At 48 weeks, 105 of the 462 raltegravir recipients (23%) had virologic failure. Genotyping was performed in 94 raltegravir recipients with virologic failure. Integrase mutations known to be associated with phenotypic resistance to raltegravir arose during treatment in 64 patients (68%). Forty-eight of these 64 patients (75%) had two or more resistance-associated mutations. CONCLUSIONS: When combined with an optimized background regimen in both studies, a consistently favorable treatment effect of raltegravir over placebo was shown in clinically relevant subgroups of patients, including those with baseline characteristics that typically predict a poor response to antiretroviral therapy: a high HIV-1 RNA level, low CD4 cell count, and low genotypic or phenotypic sensitivity score. (ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00293267 and NCT00293254.)

Rapid and durable antiretroviral effect of the HIV-1 Integrase inhibitor raltegravir as part of combination therapy in treatment-naive patients with HIV-1 infection: results of a 48-week controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir is an HIV-1 integrase strand-transfer inhibitor with potent in vitro activity. This study explored the antiretroviral activity and safety of raltegravir in treatment-naive patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels > or = 5000 copies/mL and CD4 T-cell counts > or = 100 cells/mm. METHODS: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled study of raltegravir at doses of 100, 200, 400, and 600 mg twice daily versus efavirenz at a dose of 600 mg/d, all in combination with tenofovir at a dose of 300 mg/d and lamivudine at a dose of 300 mg/d (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00100048). RESULTS: In the 198 patients treated (160 on raltegravir and 38 on efavirenz), the mean HIV-1 RNA level ranged from 4.6 to 4.8 log10 copies/mL at baseline. At weeks 2, 4, and 8, the proportion of patients achieving an HIV-1 RNA level <50 copies/mL was greater in each of the raltegravir treatment groups than in the efavirenz group. By week 24, all treatment groups appeared similar, with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels <400 copies/mL in 85% to 98% of patients and <50 copies/mL in 85% to 95% of patients. These reductions were maintained through week 48 in 85% to 98% of patients and in 83% to 88% of patients, respectively. Five (3%) patients on raltegravir and 1 (3%) on efavirenz experienced virologic failure before week 48. Drug-related clinical adverse events were less common with raltegravir than with efavirenz. After 24 and 48 weeks of treatment, raltegravir did not result in increased serum levels of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, or triglycerides. CONCLUSIONS: Raltegravir at all doses studied was generally well tolerated in combination with tenofovir and lamivudine. Raltegravir exhibited potent and durable antiretroviral activity similar to that of efavirenz at 24 and 48 weeks but achieved HIV-1 RNA levels below detection at a more rapid rate.

Safety and efficacy of the HIV-1 integrase inhibitor raltegravir (MK-0518) in treatment-experienced patients with multidrug-resistant virus: a phase II randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Raltegravir (MK-0518) is an HIV-1 integrase inhibitor with potent in-vitro activity against HIV-1 strains including those resistant to currently available antiretroviral drugs. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of raltegravir when added to optimised background regimens in HIV-infected patients. METHODS: HIV-infected patients with HIV-1 RNA viral load over 5000 copies per mL, CD4 cell counts over 50 cells per muL, and documented genotypic and phenotypic resistance to at least one nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, one non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and one protease inhibitor were randomly assigned to receive raltegravir (200 mg, 400 mg, or 600 mg) or placebo orally twice daily in this multicentre, triple-blind, dose-ranging, randomised study. The primary endpoints were change in viral load from baseline at week 24 and safety. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the number NCT00105157. FINDINGS: 179 patients were eligible for randomisation. 44 patients were randomly assigned to receive 200 mg raltegravir, 45 to receive 400 mg raltegravir, and 45 to receive 600 mg raltegravir; 45 patients were randomly assigned to receive placebo. One patient in the 200 mg group did not receive treatment and was therefore excluded from the analyses. For all groups, the median duration of previous antiretroviral therapy was 9.9 years (range 0.4-17.3 years) and the mean baseline viral load was 4.7 (SD 0.5) log10 copies per mL. Four patients discontinued due to adverse experiences, three (2%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and one (2%) of the 45 patients on placebo. 41 patients discontinued due to lack of efficacy: 14 (11%) of the 133 patients across all raltegravir groups and 27 (60%) of the 45 patients on placebo. At week 24, mean change in viral load from baseline was -1.80 (95% CI -2.10 to -1.50) log10 copies per mL in the 200 mg group, -1.87 (-2.16 to -1.58) log10 copies per mL in the 400 mg group, -1.84 (-2.10 to -1.58) log10 copies per mL in the 600 mg group, and -0.35 (-0.61 to -0.09) log(10) copies per mL for the placebo group. Raltegravir at all doses showed a safety profile much the same as placebo; there were no dose-related toxicities. INTERPRETATION: In patients with few remaining treatment options, raltegravir at all doses studied provided better viral suppression than placebo when added to an optimised background regimen. The safety profile of raltegravir is comparable with that of placebo at all doses studied.

Ertapenem therapy for community-acquired pneumonia in the elderly.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of ertapenem, 1 g once a day, with ceftriaxone, 1 g once a day, for treatment of the subgroup of patients aged 65 and older with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring parenteral therapy. DESIGN: Combined data from patients aged 65 and older in two randomized, double-blind clinical trials. SETTING: Eighty international centers. PARTICIPANTS: Eight hundred fifty-seven treated patients, of whom 351 were aged 65 and older. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous or intramuscular ertapenem or ceftriaxone with the option to switch to oral amoxicillin-clavulanate after at least 3 days of parenteral therapy. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical efficacy was assessed at completion of parenteral therapy and 7 to 14 days after all therapy had been completed (test of cure (TOC) assessment). Bacterial eradication was assessed at the TOC visit. Safety was assessed daily during study therapy and for 14 days thereafter. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight clinically evaluable patients aged 65 and older were treated with ertapenem and 125 with ceftriaxone. Pathogens were identified in 157 (57.5%) patients (the most common being Streptococcus pneumoniae), most of which were penicillin-susceptible. Clinical cure rates were 95.9% for patients in the ertapenem group and 92.7% for patients in the ceftriaxone group at completion of parenteral therapy and 93.9% and 90.4%, respectively, at the TOC assessment. Overall bacterial eradication rates were 92.8% (77 of 83) for patients treated with ertapenem and 93.2% (69 of 74) for those treated with ceftriaxone. The most common drug-related adverse experiences in both treatment groups were diarrhea and mild to moderate elevation of serum aminotransferase levels. CONCLUSION: Ertapenem 1 g once a day was highly effective for treatment of elderly patients with CAP requiring parenteral therapy and was as effective as ceftriaxone. Ertapenem was generally well tolerated, with an overall safety profile similar to ceftriaxone.