Progression from Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease to Mild Alzheimer's Disease Dementia in the Verubecestat APECS Study: Adjudicating Diagnostic Transitions.

BACKGROUND: Delay of progression from prodromal Alzheimer's disease (AD) to dementia is an important outcome in AD trials. Centralized adjudication is intended to improve the consistency of dementia diagnosis but has not been scrutinized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate centralized adjudication for determining progression to dementia compared with Site Investigator opinion or change in Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR). METHODS: We used data from the 2-year APECS trial of verubecestat versus placebo in 1,451 prodromal AD participants. Cases were triggered for central adjudication if: 1) the Site Investigator judged the participant had progressed to dementia, or 2) the participant's CDR sum-of-boxes score increased ≥2 points from baseline. Post-hoc analyses were performed on pooled treatment-group data to compare methods of assessing progression. RESULTS: 581/1,451 (40%) participants had changes triggering adjudication and most (83%) were confirmed as progression to dementia. Only 66% of those who met CDR criteria (regardless of whether they also met Site Investigator criteria) were adjudicated to have progressed to dementia and just 15% of those who met only CDR criteria were adjudicated to have progressed, representing 5% of progressors. In contrast, 99% of those who met Site Investigator criteria (regardless of whether they also met CDR criteria) were adjudicated to have progressed, and the same was true for those who met only Site Investigator criteria. CONCLUSION: A positive Site Investigator opinion is an excellent predictor for a positive adjudication decision regarding onset of dementia. Conversely, sole use of CDR sum-of-boxes change ≥2 is inadequate. The benefit of centralized adjudication appears doubtful.

Evaluation of 18F-flutemetamol amyloid PET image analysis parameters on the effect of verubecestat on brain amlyoid load in Alzheimer's disease.

PURPOSE: The BACE inhibitor verubecestat was previously found to reduce amyloid load as assessed by 18F-flutemetamol positron emission tomography (PET) composite cortical standard uptake value ratio (SUVr) in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD) in a substudy of the EPOCH trial. Here, we report on additional analyses relevant to the EPOCH PET data, to help inform on the use of PET for assessing amlyloid load in AD clinical trials. PROCEDURES: The analyses addressed (1) identification of an optimal 18F-flutemetamol reference region, (2) determination of the threshold to characterize the magnitude of the longitudinal change, and (3) the impact of partial volume correction (PVC). Pons and subcortical white matter were evaluated as reference regions. The SUVr cutoffs and final reference region choice were determined using 162 18F-flutemetamol PET scans from the AIBL dataset. 18F-flutemetamol SUVrs were computed at baseline and at Week 78 in EPOCH participants who received verubecestat 12 mg (n = 14), 40 mg (n = 20), or placebo (n = 20). Drug effects on amyloid load were computed using either Meltzer (MZ), or symmetric geometric transfer matrix (SGTM) PVC and compared to uncorrected data. RESULTS: The optimal subcortical white matter and pons SUVr cutoffs were determined to be 0.69 and 0.62, respectively. The effect size to detect longitudinal change was higher for subcortical white matter (1.20) than pons (0.45). Hence, subcortical white matter was used as the reference region for the EPOCH PET substudy. In EPOCH, uncorrected baseline SUVr values correlated strongly with MZ PVC (r2 = 0.94) and SGTM PVC (r2 = 0.92) baseline SUVr values, and PVC did not provide improvement for evaluating treatment effects on amyloid load at Week 78. No change from baseline was observed in the placebo group at Week 78, whereas a 0.02 and a 0.04 decrease in SUVr were observed in the 12 mg and 40 mg arms, with the latter representing a 22% reduction in the amyloid load above the detection threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-related 18F-flutemetamol longitudinal changes in AD clinical trials can be quantified using a subcortical white matter reference region without PVC. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01739348.

Retinal Optical Coherence Tomography Metrics Are Unchanged in Verubecestat Alzheimer's Disease Clinical Trial but Correlate with Baseline Regional Brain Atrophy.

BACKGROUND: We performed exploratory analyses of retinal thickness data from a clinical trial of the AßPP cleaving enzyme (BACE) inhibitor verubecestat in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate: 1) possible retinal thickness changes following BACE inhibition; and 2) possible association between retinal thickness and brain atrophy. METHODS: Retinal thickness was measured using spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in a 78-week randomized placebo-controlled trial of verubecestat in 1,785 patients with mild-to-moderate AD. Changes from baseline in retinal pigment epithelium, macular grid retinal nerve fiber layer, central subfield retinal thickness, and macular grid volume were evaluated for verubecestat versus placebo. Correlation analyses were performed to investigate the potential association between macular grid retinal nerve fiber layer and central subfield retinal thickness with brain volumetric magnetic resonance imaging (vMRI) data at baseline, as well as correlations for changes from baseline at Week 78 in patients receiving placebo. RESULTS: Verubecestat did not significantly alter retinal thickness during the trial compared with placebo. At baseline, mean macular grid retinal nerve fiber layer and central subfield retinal thickness were weakly but significantly correlated (Pearson's r values≤0.23, p-values < 0.01) with vMRI of several brain regions including whole brain, hippocampus, and thalamus. At Week 78, correlations between retinal thickness and brain vMRI changes from baseline in the placebo group were small and mostly not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: BACE inhibition by verubecestat was not associated with adverse effects on retinal thickness in patients with mild-to-moderate AD. Correlations between retinal thickness and brain volume were observed at baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01739348 (registered December 3, 2012; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01739348).

BACE inhibition causes rapid, regional, and non-progressive volume reduction in Alzheimer's disease brain.

In the phase 3 EPOCH trial (Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01739348), treatment with the BACE inhibitor verubecestat failed to improve cognition in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease, but was associated with reduced hippocampal volume after 78 weeks as assessed by MRI. The aims of the present exploratory analyses were to: (i) characterize the effect of verubecestat on brain volume by evaluating the time course of volumetric MRI changes for a variety of brain regions; and (ii) understand the mechanism through which verubecestat might cause hippocampal (and other brain region) volume loss by assessing its relationship to measures of amyloid, neurodegeneration, and cognition. Participants were aged 55-85 years with probable Alzheimer's disease dementia and a Mini Mental State Examination score ≥15 and ≤26. MRIs were obtained at baseline and at Weeks 13, 26, 52 and 78 of treatment. MRIs were segmented using Freesurfer and analysed using a tensor-based morphometry method. PET amyloid data were obtained with 18F-flutemetamol (Vizamyl®) at baseline and Week 78. Standardized uptake value ratios were generated with subcortical white matter as a reference region. Neurofilament light chain in the CSF was assessed as a biomarker of neurodegeneration. Compared with placebo, verubecestat showed increased MRI brain volume loss at Week 13 with no evidence of additional loss through Week 78. The verubecestat-related volumetric MRI loss occurred predominantly in amyloid-rich brain regions. Correlations between amyloid burden at baseline and verubecestat-related volumetric MRI reductions were not significant (r = 0.05 to 0.26, P-values > 0.27). There were no significant differences between verubecestat and placebo in changes from baseline in CSF levels of neurofilament light chain at Week 78 (increases of 7.2 and 14.6 pg/ml for verubecestat versus 19.7 pg/ml for placebo, P-values ≥ 0.1). There was a moderate correlation between volumetric MRI changes and cognitive decline in all groups including placebo at Week 78 (e.g. r = -0.45 to -0.55, P < 0.001 for whole brain), but the correlations were smaller at Week 13 and significant only for the verubecestat groups (e.g. r = -0.15 and -0.11, P < 0.04 for whole brain). Our results suggest that the verubecestat-associated MRI brain volume loss is not due to generalized, progressive neurodegeneration, but may be mediated by specific effects on BACE-related amyloid processes.

Cognitive outcomes in trials of two BACE inhibitors in Alzheimer's disease.

INTRODUCTION: The APECS and AMARANTH trials showed that beta-secretase (BACE) inhibitors verubecestat and lanabecestat failed to slow cognitive and functional decline in individuals with prodromal or early Alzheimer's disease. Here, the performance on secondary and exploratory cognitive measures in both studies is reported. METHODS: APECS (verubecestat) and AMARANTH (lanabecestat) were randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 104-week clinical trials conducted by different sponsors. Measures included the 3-Domain Composite Cognition Score (CCS-3D), Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), Letter/Category Fluency, and Digit Symbol Coding. RESULTS: Verubecestat showed worsening on the CCS-3D Total Score, Episodic Memory, and Attention/Processing Speed domains. Lanabecestat showed worsening on the RBANS Total Score, Immediate Memory, and Visuospatial/Constructional Indexes. Both BACE inhibitors showed worsening on Digit Symbol Coding and improvements on Letter/Category Fluency. DISCUSSION: In both studies, many measures showed treatment-associated cognitive worsening, whereas verbal fluency tasks showed improvement.

The Seychelles Child Development Study of methyl mercury from fish consumption: analysis of subscales from the Child Behaviour Checklist at age 107 months in the main cohort.

Methyl mercury (MeHg) is neurotoxic and all fish contain at least trace amounts. Consequently, prenatal or fetal exposure occurs when pregnant women consume fish and children are exposed postnatally when they breastfeed or consume fish. However, the level of exposure at which toxicity occurs is presently unknown. Since behavioural endpoints can be sensitive indicators of toxic exposure, we administered the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL) to measure behaviour as part of a prospective, longitudinal, double blind study (n=779) of prenatal MeHg exposure, the Seychelles Child Development Study (SCDS). The CBCL Total T score was a primary endpoint at 66 and 107 month evaluations of the cohort and showed no association with prenatal or postnatal MeHg exposure. This paper reports the results of a secondary analysis of the CBCL subscales to see if specific aspects of behaviour might show associations. The SCDS main cohort was enrolled in 1989-90 and evaluated on five occasions through 107 months of age. The child's primary caregiver completed the CBCL at the 107 month evaluation. Prenatal exposure was determined by measuring total mercury (THg) in maternal hair growing during pregnancy and recent postnatal exposure by analysing the child's hair taken at the 107 month evaluation. Analysis included linear and nonlinear multiple regression models. For prenatal MeHg exposure, the Social Problems subscale was significantly associated and the Somatic Complaints subscale was marginally associated. Both were beneficial associations. For postnatal exposure the Thought Problems subscale was associated in an adverse direction. This secondary analysis identified a small number of subtle beneficial and adverse associations with prenatal and postnatal MeHg exposure for specific CBCL subscales. These analyses provide no evidence for an adverse effect of prenatal exposure. The adverse postnatal association is difficult to interpret because we measured only recent (about one month) exposure and no adjustment was made for the multiplicity of endpoints.

Further analyses of the safety of verubecestat in the phase 3 EPOCH trial of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease.

BACKGROUND: Verubecestat, a BACE1 inhibitor that reduces Aß levels in the cerebrospinal fluid of humans, was not effective in a phase 3 trial (EPOCH) of mild-to-moderate AD and was associated with adverse events. To assist in the development of BACE1 inhibitors, we report detailed safety findings from EPOCH. METHODS: EPOCH was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 78-week trial evaluating verubecestat 12 mg and 40 mg in participants with mild-to-moderate AD diagnosed clinically. The trial was terminated due to futility close to its scheduled completion. Of 1957 participants who were randomized and took treatment, 652 were assigned to verubecestat 12 mg, 652 to verubecestat 40 mg, and 653 to placebo. Adverse events and relevant laboratory, vital sign, and ECG findings were assessed. RESULTS: Verubecestat 12 mg and 40 mg were associated with an increase in the percentage of participants reporting adverse events versus placebo (89 and 92% vs. 82%), although relatively few participants discontinued treatment due to adverse events (8 and 9% vs. 6%). Adverse events that were increased versus placebo included falls and injuries, suicidal ideation, weight loss, sleep disturbance, rash, and hair color change. Most were mild to moderate in severity. Treatment differences in suicidal ideation emerged within the first 3 months but did not appear to increase after 6 months. In contrast, treatment differences in falls and injuries continued to increase over time. CONCLUSIONS: Verubecestat was associated with increased risk for several types of adverse events. Falls and injuries were notable for progressive increases over time. While the mechanisms underlying the increased adverse events are unclear, they may be due to BACE inhibition and should be considered in future clinical development programs of BACE1 inhibitors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01739348 , registered on 29 November 2012.

Randomized Trial of Verubecestat for Prodromal Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Prodromal Alzheimer's disease offers an opportunity to test the effect of drugs that modify the deposition of amyloid in the brain before the onset of dementia. Verubecestat is an orally administered ß-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE-1) inhibitor that blocks production of amyloid-beta (Aß). The drug did not prevent clinical progression in a trial involving patients with mild-to-moderate dementia due to Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 104-week trial to evaluate verubecestat at doses of 12 mg and 40 mg per day, as compared with placebo, in patients who had memory impairment and elevated brain amyloid levels but whose condition did not meet the case definition of dementia. The primary outcome was the change from baseline to week 104 in the score on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB; scores range from 0 to 18, with higher scores indicating worse cognition and daily function). Secondary outcomes included other assessments of cognition and daily function. RESULTS: The trial was terminated for futility after 1454 patients had been enrolled; 485 had been assigned to receive verubecestat at a dose of 12 mg per day (the 12-mg group), 484 to receive verubecestat at a dose of 40 mg per day (the 40-mg group), and 485 to receive placebo. A total of 234 patients, 231 patients, and 239 patients per group, respectively, completed 104 weeks of the trial regimen. The estimated mean change from baseline to week 104 in the CDR-SB score was 1.65 in the 12-mg group, 2.02 in the 40-mg group, and 1.58 in the placebo group (P = 0.67 for the comparison between the 12-mg group and the placebo group and P = 0.01 for the comparison between the 40-mg group and the placebo group), suggesting a worse outcome in the higher-dose group than in the placebo group. The estimated rate of progression to dementia due to Alzheimer's disease was 24.5, 25.5, and 19.3 events per 100 patient-years in the 12-mg group, the 40-mg group, and the placebo group, respectively (hazard ratio for 40 mg vs. placebo, 1.38; 97.51% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.79, not adjusted for multiple comparisons), favoring placebo. Adverse events were more common in the verubecestat groups than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Verubecestat did not improve clinical ratings of dementia among patients with prodromal Alzheimer's disease, and some measures suggested that cognition and daily function were worse among patients who received verubecestat than among those who received placebo. (Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01953601.).

Randomized Trial of Verubecestat for Mild-to-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease is characterized by the deposition of amyloid-beta (Aß) plaques in the brain. Aß is produced from the sequential cleavage of amyloid precursor protein by ß-site amyloid precursor protein-cleaving enzyme 1 (BACE-1) followed by γ-secretase. Verubecestat is an oral BACE-1 inhibitor that reduces the Aß level in the cerebrospinal fluid of patients with Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 78-week trial to evaluate verubecestat at doses of 12 mg and 40 mg per day, as compared with placebo, in patients who had a clinical diagnosis of mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease. The coprimary outcomes were the change from baseline to week 78 in the score on the cognitive subscale of the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS-cog; scores range from 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating worse dementia) and in the score on the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study Activities of Daily Living Inventory scale (ADCS-ADL; scores range from 0 to 78, with lower scores indicating worse function). RESULTS: A total of 1958 patients underwent randomization; 653 were randomly assigned to receive verubecestat at a dose of 12 mg per day (the 12-mg group), 652 to receive verubecestat at a dose of 40 mg per day (the 40-mg group), and 653 to receive matching placebo. The trial was terminated early for futility 50 months after onset, which was within 5 months before its scheduled completion, and after enrollment of the planned 1958 patients was complete. The estimated mean change from baseline to week 78 in the ADAS-cog score was 7.9 in the 12-mg group, 8.0 in the 40-mg group, and 7.7 in the placebo group (P=0.63 for the comparison between the 12-mg group and the placebo group and P=0.46 for the comparison between the 40-mg group and the placebo group). The estimated mean change from baseline to week 78 in the ADCS-ADL score was -8.4 in the 12-mg group, -8.2 in the 40-mg group, and -8.9 in the placebo group (P=0.49 for the comparison between the 12-mg group and the placebo group and P=0.32 for the comparison between the 40-mg group and the placebo group). Adverse events, including rash, falls and injuries, sleep disturbance, suicidal ideation, weight loss, and hair-color change, were more common in the verubecestat groups than in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Verubecestat did not reduce cognitive or functional decline in patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease and was associated with treatment-related adverse events. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739348 .).

Randomized, controlled study of telcagepant in patients with migraine and coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of telcagepant in patients with migraine and coronary artery disease. BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists, such as telcagepant, may be useful for acute migraine treatment in patients with cardiovascular disease, a population for whom triptans are contraindicated. METHODS: Randomized, double-blind, two-period (6 weeks per period) crossover study in patients with stable coronary artery disease and migraine. Patients were randomized 1:1 to either: (1) Period 1: telcagepant (280-mg tablet/300-mg capsule), Period 2: acetaminophen (1000-mg); or (2) Period 1: placebo for attack 1 then acetaminophen for subsequent attacks, Period 2: telcagepant. Patients could treat up to 12 migraine attacks per period to assess the tolerability of telcagepant. The primary efficacy analysis evaluated telcagepant vs placebo on 2-hour pain freedom during the first attack of Period 1. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five of the planned 400 patients were enrolled, and 114 took at least one dose of treatment. Telcagepant was not statistically different from placebo for 2-hour pain freedom (25.0% vs 18.9%, odds ratio = 1.62 [95% confidence interval: 0.62, 4.25]). The median number of attacks treated per period was 3. No cardiovascular thrombotic adverse events occurred within 14 days of dosing. CONCLUSION: The study was underpowered due to enrollment difficulties and did not demonstrate a significant efficacy difference between telcagepant and placebo for the treatment of a migraine attack in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Telcagepant was generally well tolerated for acute intermittent migraine treatment in these patients.

Effect of raltegravir on estradiol and norgestimate plasma pharmacokinetics following oral contraceptive administration in healthy women.

AIMS: Oral contraceptives such as norgestimate-ethinyl estradiol (Ortho Tri-Cyclen®) are commonly prescribed in the HIV-infected patient population. A placebo-controlled, randomized, two-period crossover study in healthy HIV-seronegative subjects was conducted to assess the effect of raltegravir on the pharmacokinetics of the estrogen and progestin components of norgestimate-ethinyl estradiol [ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norelgestromin (NGMN), an active metabolite of norgestimate (NGT)]. METHODS: In each of two periods, nineteen healthy women established on norgestimate-ethinyl estradiol contraception (21 days of active contraception; 7 days of placebo) received either 400 mg raltegravir or matching placebo twice daily on days 1-21. Pharmacokinetics were analysed on day 21 of each period. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) for the EE component of norgestimate-ethinyl estradiol when co-administrated with raltegravir relative to EE alone was 0.98 (0.93-1.04) for the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC(0-24 h) ) and 1.06 (0.98-1.14) for the maximum concentration of drug in the plasma (C(max) ); the GMR (90% CI) for the NGMN component of norgestimate-ethinyl estradiol when co-administered with raltegravir relative to NGMN alone was 1.14 (1.08-1.21) for AUC(0-24 h) and 1.29 (1.23-1.37) for C(max) . There were no discontinuations due to a study drug-related adverse experience, nor any serious clinical or laboratory adverse experience. CONCLUSIONS: Raltegravir has no clinically important effect on EE or NGMN pharmacokinetics. Co-administration of raltegravir and an oral contraceptive containing EE and NGT was generally well tolerated; no dose adjustment is required for oral contraceptives containing EE and NGT when co-administered with raltegravir.

Sustained pain freedom and no adverse events as an endpoint in clinical trials of acute migraine treatments: application to patient-level data from a trial of the CGRP receptor antagonist, telcagepant, and zolmitriptan.

BACKGROUND: Endpoints used to evaluate the efficacy of acute anti-migraine drugs do not measure the tolerability. Sustained pain-free response with no adverse events has been recommended as a composite endpoint which measures the efficacy and tolerability attributes that patients desire. METHODS: The aim of this study was to evaluate new composite efficacy-plus-tolerability endpoints based on a post-hoc analysis of patient-level data from a previous randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist, telcagepant, and zolmitriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Endpoints were 2-24-hour sustained pain freedom and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (SPF24NAE), 2-24 hour sustained pain relief and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (SPR24NAE), pain freedom at 2 hours and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (PF2NAE), and pain relief at 2 hours and no adverse events from 0-24 hours (PR2NAE). RESULTS: Compared with placebo, both telcagepant 300 mg and 150 mg achieved nominal superiority (p values <.05) for SPF24NAE, SPR24NAE, PF2NAE and PR2NAE. Zolmitriptan 5 mg showed nominal superiority versus placebo for SPF24NAE, SPR24NAE and PF2NAE, but not PR2NAE. Telcagepant 300 mg showed nominal superiority versus zolmitriptan for SPF24NAE, SPR24NA and PR2NAE. CONCLUSION: Composite efficacy-plus-tolerability endpoints may be useful for facilitating comparisons between treatments.

Antimigraine efficacy of telcagepant based on patient's historical triptan response.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the same or different patients respond to triptans and telcagepant. BACKGROUND: Telcagepant is an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist with acute antimigraine efficacy comparable to oral triptans. It is currently unknown whether migraine patients who cannot be adequately helped with triptans might benefit from treatment with telcagepant. METHODS: Post-hoc analysis of data from a randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant (150 mg, 300 mg) zolmitriptan 5 mg, or placebo for a moderate/severe migraine. Responder rates were analyzed according to patients' self-reported historical triptan response (HTR): (1) good HTR (N = 660): response in 75-100% of attacks; (2) intermediate HTR (N = 248): response in 25-74% of attacks; (3) poor HTR/no use (N = 407): response in < 25% of attacks, or patient did not take triptans. A limitation of the analysis is that the last subgroup comprised mainly (91%) patients who reported that they did not take triptans, but it was not known whether these patients were triptan-naïve or had previously used triptans and stopped taking them. RESULTS: For zolmitriptan, 2-hour pain relief rates were higher in the good HTR subgroup (116/162, 72%) than in the intermediate (29/62, 47%) and poor/no use (44/111, 40%) HTR subgroups. The 2-hour pain relief rates were similar across HTR subgroups for telcagepant 150 mg (48-58%), 300 mg (52-58%), and placebo (26-31%). In the poor/no use HTR subgroup, more patients receiving telcagepant 300 mg (56/98, 57.1%) had 2-hour pain relief than those receiving zolmitriptan (44/111, 39.6%; odds ratio = 2.11 [95% CI: 1.20,3.71], P = .009); the percentage for telcagepant 150 mg (57/119, 47.9%) was not significantly different from zolmitriptan (odds ratio = 1.41 [95% CI: 0.82, 2.40], P = .211). CONCLUSIONS: This suggests that different patients may respond to triptans or telcagepant 300 mg. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the results because of the post-hoc nature of the analysis (clinical trial registry: NCT00442936).

Randomized, controlled trial of telcagepant over four migraine attacks.

METHODS: This study evaluated the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonist telcagepant (tablet formulation) for treatment of a migraine attack and across four attacks. Adults with migraine were randomized, double-blind, to telcagepant 140 mg, telcagepant 280 mg, or control treatment sequences to treat four moderate-to-severe migraine attacks. Control patients received placebo for three attacks and telcagepant 140 mg for one attack. Efficacy for the first attack (Attack 1) and consistency of efficacy over multiple attacks were assessed. For an individual patient, consistent efficacy was defined as ≥ 3 successes, and lack of consistent efficacy was defined as ≥ 2 failures, in treatment response. A total of 1677 patients treated ≥ 1 attack and 1263 treated all four attacks. RESULTS: Based on Attack 1 data, telcagepant 140 mg and 280 mg were significantly (p < .001) more effective than placebo for 2-hour pain freedom, 2-hour pain relief, 2-hour absence of migraine-associated symptoms (phonophobia, photophobia, nausea), and 2-24 hours sustained pain freedom. The percentage of patients with 2-hour pain freedom consistency and 2-hour pain relief consistency was significantly (p < .001) higher for both telcagepant treatment sequences versus control. Adverse events within 48 hours for telcagepant with an incidence ≥ 2% and twice that of placebo were somnolence (placebo = 2.3%, 140 mg = 5.9%, 280 mg = 5.7%) and vomiting (placebo = 1.4%, 140 mg = 1.0%, 280 mg = 2.9%). CONCLUSION: Telcagepant 140 mg and 280 mg were effective for treatment of a migraine attack and were more consistently effective than control for intermittent treatment of up to four migraine attacks. Telcagepant was generally well tolerated. (Clinicaltrials.gov; NCT00483704).

Effect of tipranavir-ritonavir on pharmacokinetics of raltegravir.

Raltegravir (RAL) is a novel and potent human immunodeficiency virus type 1 integrase inhibitor that is predominantly metabolized via glucuronidation. The protease inhibitor combination tipranavir (TPV) at 500 mg and ritonavir (RTV) at 200 mg (TPV-RTV) has inhibitory and inductive effects on metabolic enzymes, which includes the potential to induce glucuronosyltransferase. Because RAL may be coadministered with TPV-RTV, there is the potential for the induction of RAL metabolism. Consequently, we assessed the effect of TPV-RTV on the pharmacokinetics of RAL and the safety and tolerability of this combination. Eighteen healthy adults were enrolled in this open-label study. The participants received RAL at 400 mg twice daily for 4 days (period 1) and TPV-RTV twice daily for 7 days (period 2), followed immediately by 400 mg RAL with TPV-RTV twice daily for 4 days (period 3). Under steady-state conditions, the RAL concentration at 12 h (C(12)) was decreased when RAL was administered with TPV-RTV (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 0.45; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.31, 0.66; P = 0.0021); however, the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 12 h (GMR, 0.76; 90% CI, 0.49, 1.19; P = 0.2997) and the maximum concentration in serum (GMR, 0.82; 90% CI, 0.46, 1.46; P = 0.5506) were not substantially affected. There were no serious adverse experiences or discontinuations due to study drug-related adverse experiences, and RAL coadministered with TPV-RTV was generally well tolerated. Although the RAL C(12) was decreased with TPV-RTV in this study, favorable efficacy data collected in phase III studies substantiate that TPV-RTV may be coadministered with RAL without dose adjustment.

Lack of a clinically important effect of moderate hepatic insufficiency and severe renal insufficiency on raltegravir pharmacokinetics.

Raltegravir is a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor with potent activity in vitro and in vivo. Raltegravir is primarily cleared by hepatic metabolism via glucuronidation (via UDP glucuronosyltransferase 1A1), with a minor component of elimination occurring via the renal pathway. Since the potential exists for raltegravir to be administered to patients with hepatic or renal insufficiency, two studies were conducted to evaluate the influence of moderate hepatic insufficiency (assessed by using the Child-Pugh criteria) and severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance, <30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) on the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir. Study I evaluated the pharmacokinetics of 400 mg raltegravir in eight patients with moderate hepatic insufficiency and eight healthy, matched control subjects. Study II evaluated the pharmacokinetics of 400 mg raltegravir in 10 patients with severe renal insufficiency and 10 healthy, matched control subjects. All participants received a single 400-mg dose of raltegravir in the fasted state. In study I, the geometric mean ratios (GMR; mean value for the group with moderate hepatic insufficiency/mean value for the healthy controls) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)), the maximum concentration of drug in plasma (C(max)), and the concentration at 12 h (C(12)) were 0.86 (90% CI, 0.41, 1.77), 0.63 (90% CI, 0.23, 1.70), and 1.26 (90% CI, 0.65, 2.43), respectively. In study II, the GMRs (mean value for the group with renal insufficiency/mean value for the healthy controls) and 90% CIs for AUC(0-infinity), C(max), and C(12) were 0.85 (90% CI, 0.49, 1.49), 0.68 (90% CI, 0.35, 1.32), and 1.28 (90% CI, 0.79, 2.06), respectively. Raltegravir was generally well tolerated by patients with moderate hepatic or severe renal insufficiency, and there was no clinically important effect of moderate hepatic or severe renal insufficiency on the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir. No adjustment in the dose of raltegravir is required for patients with mild or moderate hepatic or renal insufficiency.

Efficacy and tolerability of MK-0974 (telcagepant), a new oral antagonist of calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, compared with zolmitriptan for acute migraine: a randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-treatment trial.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) probably has a role in migraine pathophysiology, and antagonism of its receptors might provide treatment without the vasoconstrictor effects of triptans. We aimed to assess the clinical profile of MK-0974 (telcagepant), an orally bioavailable antagonist of CGRP receptor. METHODS: In a randomised, parallel-treatment, placebo-controlled, double-blind, trial at 81 sites in the Europe and the USA, adults with migraine diagnosed by International Headache Society criteria treated moderate or severe attacks with either oral telcagepant 150 mg or 300 mg, zolmitriptan 5 mg, or placebo. The five co-primary endpoints were pain freedom, pain relief, or absence of photophobia, phonophobia, or nausea at 2 h after treatment. Analysis was by the full analysis set and multiplicity was controlled for with a step-down closed-testing procedure. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00442936. FINDINGS: 1380 patients were randomly assigned to receive telcagepant 150 mg (n=333) or 300 mg (354), zolmitriptan (345), or placebo (348). Telcagepant 300 mg was more effective than placebo for pain freedom (95 [27%] of 353 patients vs 33 [10%] of 343 [p<0.0001]), pain relief (194 [55%] of 353 vs 95 [28%] of 343 [p<0.0001]), and absences of phonophobia (204 [58%] of 353 vs 126 [37%] of 342 [p<0.0001]), photophobia (180 [51%] of 353 vs 99 [29%] of 342 [p<0.0001]), and nausea (229 [65%] of 352 vs 189 [55%] of 342 [p=0.0061]). Efficacy of telcagepant 300 mg and zolmitriptan 5 mg were much the same, and both were more effective than telcagepant 150 mg. Adverse events were recorded for 31% taking telcagepant 150 mg, 37% taking telcagepant 300 mg, 51% taking zolmitriptan 5 mg, and 32% taking placebo. INTERPRETATION: Telcagepant 300 mg is effective as an acute treatment for migraine with efficacy comparable to that of zolmitriptan 5 mg, but with fewer associated adverse effects. FUNDING: Merck Research Laboratories.

Minimal pharmacokinetic interaction between the human immunodeficiency virus nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor etravirine and the integrase inhibitor raltegravir in healthy subjects.

Etravirine, a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, and raltegravir, an integrase strand transfer inhibitor, have separately demonstrated potent activity in treatment-experienced, human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients. An open-label, sequential, three-period study with healthy, HIV-seronegative subjects was conducted to assess the two-way interaction between etravirine and raltegravir for potential coadministration to HIV-infected patients. In period 1, 19 subjects were administered 400 mg raltegravir every 12 h (q12 h) for 4 days, followed by a 4-day washout; in period 2, subjects were administered 200 mg etravirine q12 h for 8 days; and in period 3, subjects were coadministered 400 mg raltegravir and 200 mg etravirine q12 h for 4 days. There was no washout between periods 2 and 3. Doses were administered with a moderate-fat meal. Etravirine had only modest effects on the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir, while raltegravir had no clinically meaningful effect on the pharmacokinetics of etravirine. For raltegravir coadministered with etravirine relative to raltegravir alone, the geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% confidence interval (CI) were 0.90 and 0.68 to 1.18, respectively, for the area under the concentration curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)), 0.89 and 0.68 to 1.15, respectively, for the maximum concentration of drug in serum (C(max)), and 0.66 and 0.34 to 1.26, respectively, for the trough drug concentration (C(12)); the GMR (90% CI) for etravirine coadministered with raltegravir relative to etravirine alone was 1.10 (1.03, 1.16) for AUC(0-12), 1.04 (0.97, 1.12) for C(max), and 1.17 (1.10, 1.26) for C(12). All drug-related adverse clinical experiences were mild and generally transient in nature. No grade 3 or 4 adverse experiences or discontinuations due to adverse experiences occurred. Coadministration of etravirine and raltegravir was generally well tolerated; the data suggest that no dose adjustment for either drug is necessary.

Minimal effects of ritonavir and efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of raltegravir.

Raltegravir is a novel human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase strand transfer inhibitor with potent in vitro activity against HIV-1 (95% inhibitory concentration = 31 nM in 50% human serum). The possible effects of ritonavir and efavirenz on raltegravir pharmacokinetics were separately examined. Two clinical studies of healthy subjects were conducted: for ritonavir plus raltegravir, period 1, 400 mg raltegravir; period 2, 100 mg ritonavir every 12 h for 16 days with 400 mg raltegravir on day 14; for efavirenz plus raltegravir, period 1, 400 mg raltegravir; period 2, 600 mg efavirenz once daily for 14 days with 400 mg raltegravir on day 12. In the presence of ritonavir, raltegravir pharmacokinetics were weakly affected: the plasma concentration at 12 h (C(12 h)) geometric mean ratio (GMR) (90% confidence interval [CI]) was 0.99 (0.70, 1.40), area under the concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)) was 0.84 (0.70, 1.01), and maximum concentration of drug in serum (C(max)) was 0.76 (0.55, 1.04). In the presence of efavirenz, raltegravir pharmacokinetics were moderately to weakly reduced: C(12 h) GMR (90% CI) was 0.79 (0.49, 1.28); AUC(0-infinity) was 0.64 (0.52, 0.80); and C(max) was 0.64 (0.41, 0.98). There were no substantial differences in the time to maximum concentration of drug in plasma or the half-life. Plasma concentrations of raltegravir were not substantially affected by ritonavir. Though plasma concentrations of raltegravir were moderately to weakly reduced by efavirenz, the degree of this reduction was not clinically meaningful. No dose adjustment is required for raltegravir with coadministration with ritonavir or efavirenz.

Lack of a significant drug interaction between raltegravir and tenofovir.

Raltegravir is a novel human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) integrase inhibitor with potent in vitro activity (95% inhibitory concentration of 31 nM in 50% human serum). This article reports the results of an open-label, sequential, three-period study of healthy subjects. Period 1 involved raltegravir at 400 mg twice daily for 4 days, period 2 involved tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) at 300 mg once daily for 7 days, and period 3 involved raltegravir at 400 mg twice daily plus TDF at 300 mg once daily for 4 days. Pharmacokinetic profiles were also determined in HIV-1-infected patients dosed with raltegravir monotherapy versus raltegravir in combination with TDF and lamivudine. There was no clinically significant effect of TDF on raltegravir. The raltegravir area under the concentration time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC(0-12)) and peak plasma drug concentration (C(max)) were modestly increased in healthy subjects (geometric mean ratios [GMRs], 1.49 and 1.64, respectively). There was no substantial effect of TDF on raltegravir concentration at 12 h postdose (C(12)) in healthy subjects (GMR [TDF plus raltegravir-raltegravir alone], 1.03; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 1.45), while a modest increase (GMR, 1.42; 90% CI, 0.89 to 2.28) was seen in HIV-1-infected patients. Raltegravir had no substantial effect on tenofovir pharmacokinetics: C(24), AUC, and C(max) GMRs were 0.87, 0.90, and 0.77, respectively. Coadministration of raltegravir and TDF does not change the pharmacokinetics of either drug to a clinically meaningful degree. Raltegravir and TDF may be coadministered without dose adjustments.