Inhibition of structural joint damage progression with upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: 1-year outcomes from the SELECT phase 3 program.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the inhibition of progression of structural joint damage through week 48 in patients with moderately to severely active RA receiving upadacitinib as monotherapy or in combination with MTX. METHODS: Radiographic progression was assessed in two phase 3 randomized controlled trials. MTX-naïve patients were randomized to upadacitinib 15 or 30 mg once daily or MTX monotherapy (SELECT-EARLY, n = 945), while MTX inadequate responders (IRs) were randomized to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily or adalimumab 40 mg every other week or placebo added to background MTX (SELECT-COMPARE, n = 1629). The mean changes from baseline in modified total Sharp score (mTSS), joint space narrowing and erosion scores were determined. Data were analysed both by linear extrapolation for missing data imputation and treatment switching and as observed. RESULTS: In patients naïve or with limited exposure to MTX (SELECT-EARLY), mean changes from baseline to week 48 in mTSS were 0.03 for upadacitinib 15 mg, 0.14 for upadacitinib 30 mg and 1.00 for MTX based on linear extrapolation (P < 0.001 for both upadacitinib doses vs MTX). Among patients with an inadequate response to MTX (SELECT-COMPARE), the mean change from baseline in mTSS was significantly reduced in the upadacitinib 15 mg plus MTX group vs placebo plus MTX (0.28 vs 1.73; P < 0.001). The mean change from baseline in the adalimumab plus MTX group was 0.39. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib monotherapy or in combination with background MTX was effective in inhibiting the progression of structural joint damage through week 48 in MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with RA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov), NCT02706873 and NCT02629159.

Upadacitinib in patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea with rheumatoid arthritis and an inadequate response to conventional therapy.

AIM: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib (UPA), in combination with conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs), in Chinese, Brazilian, and South Korean patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and an inadequate response (IR) to csDMARDs. METHODS: Patients on stable csDMARDs were randomized (1:1) to once-daily UPA 15 mg or matching placebo (PBO) for a 12-week, double-blind period. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving ≥20% improvement in American College of Rheumatology criteria (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS: In total, 338 patients were randomized and treated, of whom 310 (91.7%) completed the double-blind phase. The study met the primary endpoint of ACR20 at week 12 for UPA 15 mg vs PBO (71.6% vs 31.4%, P < .001), with a treatment difference observed as early as week 1. All ranked and other key secondary endpoints, including more stringent responses such as ACR50, ACR70 (≥50%/70% improvement in ACR criteria), and Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using C-reactive protein <2.6, were met for UPA 15 mg vs PBO. The incidence of serious infections (2.4% vs 0.6%) and herpes zoster (HZ: 1.8% vs 0.6%) was higher with UPA 15 mg vs PBO. There was one case of venous thromboembolism reported in the UPA group. CONCLUSION: UPA 15 mg in combination with csDMARDs demonstrated clinical and functional improvement and an acceptable safety profile over 12 weeks among patients from China, Brazil, and South Korea who had moderately to severely active RA and an IR to csDMARDs.

Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to MTX (MTX-IR). METHODS: PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and pain by visual analogue scale (VAS), the HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated. RESULTS: Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (P < 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (P < 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (P < 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and the SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (P < 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks. CONCLUSION: In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, http://clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02629159.

Upadacitinib in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Benefit-Risk Assessment Across a Phase III Program.

Treating to a target of clinical remission or low disease activity is an important principle for managing rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Despite the availability of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), a substantial proportion of patients with RA do not achieve these treatment targets. Upadacitinib is a once-daily, oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor with increased selectivity for JAK1 over JAK2, JAK3, and tyrosine kinase 2. The SELECT phase III upadacitinib clinical program comprised five pivotal trials of approximately 4400 patients with RA, including inadequate responders (IR) to conventional synthetic (cs)DMARDs or bDMARDs. This review aims to provide insights into the benefit-risk profile of upadacitinib in patients with RA. Upadacitinib 15 mg once daily, in combination with csDMARDs or as monotherapy, achieved all primary and ranked secondary endpoints in the five pivotal trials across csDMARD-naïve, csDMARD-IR, and bDMARD-IR populations. Upadacitinib 15 mg also demonstrated significantly higher rates of remission and low disease activity in all five pivotal trials, compared with placebo, methotrexate, or adalimumab. Labeled warnings of JAK inhibitors include serious infections, herpes zoster, malignancies, major cardiovascular events, and venous thromboembolic events. Short- and long-term integrated analyses showed that upadacitinib 15 mg was associated with increased risk of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase elevations compared with methotrexate and adalimumab but otherwise had comparable safety with these active comparators. This review suggests that upadacitinib 15 mg had a favorable benefit-risk profile. The safety of upadacitinib will continue to be monitored in long-term extensions and post-marketing studies.

Safety profile of upadacitinib in rheumatoid arthritis: integrated analysis from the SELECT phase III clinical programme.

OBJECTIVES: This integrated analysis presents the safety profile of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase inhibitor, at 15 mg and 30 mg once daily in patients with moderately to severely active rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and laboratory data from five randomised, placebo- or active-controlled phase III trials of upadacitinib for patients with RA were analysed and summarised. Exposure-adjusted event rates are shown for placebo (three trials; 12/14 weeks), methotrexate (two trials; mean exposure: 36 weeks), adalimumab (one trial; mean exposure: 42 weeks), upadacitinib 15 mg (five trials; mean exposure: 53 weeks) and upadacitinib 30 mg (four trials; mean exposure: 59 weeks). RESULTS: 3834 patients received one or more doses of upadacitinib 15 mg (n=2630) or 30 mg (n=1204), for a total of 4020.1 patient-years of exposure. Upper respiratory tract infection, nasopharyngitis and urinary tract infection were the most commonly reported TEAEs with upadacitinib. Rates of serious infection were similar between upadacitinib 15 mg and adalimumab but higher compared with methotrexate. Rates of herpes zoster and creatine phosphokinase (CPK) elevations were higher in both upadacitinib groups versus methotrexate and adalimumab, and rates of gastrointestinal perforations were higher with upadacitinib 30 mg. Rates of deaths, malignancies, adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) were similar across treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In the phase III clinical programme for RA, patients receiving upadacitinib had an increased risk of herpes zoster and CPK elevation versus adalimumab. Rates of malignancies, MACEs and VTEs were similar among patients receiving upadacitinib, methotrexate or adalimumab. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: SELECT-EARLY: NCT02706873; SELECT-NEXT: NCT02675426; SELECT-COMPARE: NCT02629159; SELECT-MONOTHERAPY: NCT02706951; SELECT-BEYOND: NCT02706847.

Characterization of the Effect of Upadacitinib on the Pharmacokinetics of Bupropion, a Sensitive Cytochrome P450 2B6 Probe Substrate.

This phase 1 study characterized the effect of multiple doses of upadacitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1 selective inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2B6 substrate bupropion. Healthy subjects (n = 22) received a single oral dose of bupropion 150 mg alone (study period 1) and on day 12 of a 16-day regimen of upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (study period 2). Serial blood samples for measurement of bupropion and hydroxybupropion plasma concentrations were collected in each study period. The central values (90% confidence intervals) for the ratios of change were 0.87 (0.79-0.96) for bupropion maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ), 0.92 (0.87-0.98) for bupropion area under the plasma-concentration time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUCinf ), 0.78 (0.72-0.85) for hydroxybupropion Cmax , and 0.72 (0.67-0.78) for hydroxybupropion AUCinf when administered with, relative to when administered without, upadacitinib. After multiple-dose administration of upadacitinib 30 mg once daily, upadacitinib mean ± SD AUC0-24 was 641 ± 177 ng·h/mL, and Cmax was 83.3 ± 30.7 ng/mL. These results confirm that upadacitinib has no relevant effect on pharmacokinetics of substrates metabolized by CYP2B6.

Switching between Janus kinase inhibitor upadacitinib and adalimumab following insufficient response: efficacy and safety in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate efficacy and safety of immediate switch from upadacitinib to adalimumab, or vice versa, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis with non-response or incomplete-response to the initial therapy. METHODS: SELECT-COMPARE randomised patients to upadacitinib 15 mg once daily (n=651), placebo (n=651) or adalimumab 40 mg every other week (n=327). A treat-to-target study design was implemented, with blinded rescue occurring prior to week 26 for patients who did not achieve at least 20% improvement in both tender and swollen joint counts ('non-responders') and at week 26 based on Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 ('incomplete-responders') without washout. RESULTS: A total of 39% (252/651) and 49% (159/327) of patients originally randomised to upadacitinib and adalimumab were rescued to the alternate therapy. In both switch groups (adalimumab to upadacitinib and vice versa) and in non-responders and incomplete-responders, improvements in disease activity were observed at 3 and 6 months following rescue. CDAI low disease activity was achieved by 36% and 47% of non-responders and 45% and 58% of incomplete-responders switched to adalimumab and upadacitinib, respectively, 6 months following switch. Overall, approximately 5% of rescued patients experienced worsening in disease activity at 6 months postswitch. The frequency of adverse events was similar between switch groups. CONCLUSIONS: These observations support a treat-to-target strategy, in which patients who fail to respond initially (or do not achieve sufficient response) are switched to a therapy with an alternate mechanism of action and experience improved outcomes. No new safety findings were observed despite immediate switch without washout.

Trial of Upadacitinib or Abatacept in Rheumatoid Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Upadacitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase inhibitor to treat rheumatoid arthritis. The efficacy and safety of upadacitinib as compared with abatacept, a T-cell costimulation modulator, in patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) are unclear. METHODS: In this 24-week, phase 3, double-blind, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive oral upadacitinib (15 mg once daily) or intravenous abatacept, each in combination with stable synthetic DMARDs. The primary end point was the change from baseline in the composite Disease Activity Score for 28 joints based on the C-reactive protein level (DAS28-CRP; range, 0 to 9.4, with higher scores indicating more disease activity) at week 12, assessed for noninferiority. Key secondary end points at week 12 were the superiority of upadacitinib over abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the percentage of patients having clinical remission according to a DAS28-CRP of less than 2.6. RESULTS: A total of 303 patients received upadacitinib, and 309 patients received abatacept. From baseline DAS28-CRP values of 5.70 in the upadacitinib group and 5.88 in the abatacept group, the mean change at week 12 was -2.52 and -2.00, respectively (difference, -0.52 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.69 to -0.35; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P<0.001 for superiority). The percentage of patients having remission was 30.0% with upadacitinib and 13.3% with abatacept (difference, 16.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 10.4 to 23.2; P<0.001 for superiority). During the treatment period, one death, one nonfatal stroke, and two venous thromboembolic events occurred in the upadacitinib group, and more patients in the upadacitinib group than in the abatacept group had elevated hepatic aminotransferase levels. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatoid arthritis refractory to biologic DMARDs, upadacitinib was superior to abatacept in the change from baseline in the DAS28-CRP and the achievement of remission at week 12 but was associated with more serious adverse events. Longer and larger trials are required in order to determine the effect and safety of upadacitinib in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. (Funded by AbbVie; SELECT-CHOICE Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT03086343.).

Efficacy of Upadacitinib in a Randomized Trial of Patients With Active Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of upadacitinib, an oral selective inhibitor of Janus kinase 1, as induction therapy for ulcerative colitis (UC). METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, phase 2b study of 250 adults with moderately to severely active UC and an inadequate response, loss of response, or intolerance to corticosteroids, immunosuppressive agents, and/or biologic therapies. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received placebo or induction therapy with upadacitinib (7.5 mg, 15 mg, 30 mg, or 45 mg, extended release), once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants who achieve clinical remission according to the adapted Mayo score at week 8. No multiplicity adjustments were applied. RESULTS: At week 8, 8.5%, 14.3%, 13.5%, and 19.6% of patients receiving 7.5 mg, 15 mg, 30 mg, or 45 mg upadacitinib, respectively, achieved clinical remission compared with none of the patients receiving placebo (P = .052, P = .013, P = .011, and P = .002 compared with placebo, respectively). Endoscopic improvement at week 8, defined as endoscopic subscore of ≤ 1, was achieved in 14.9%, 30.6%, 26.9%, and 35.7% of patients receiving upadacitinib 7.5 mg, 15 mg, 30 mg, or 45 mg, respectively, compared with 2.2% receiving placebo (P = .033, P < .001, P < .001, and P < .001 compared with placebo, respectively). One event of herpes zoster and 1 participant with pulmonary embolism and deep venous thrombosis (diagnosed 26 days after treatment discontinuation) were reported in the group that received upadacitinib 45 mg once daily. Increases in serum lipid levels and creatine phosphokinase with upadacitinib were observed. CONCLUSION: In a phase 2b trial, 8 weeks of treatment with upadacitinib was more effective than placebo for inducing remission in patients with moderately to severely active UC. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02819635).

Effects of Upadacitinib Coadministration on the Pharmacokinetics of Sensitive Cytochrome P450 Probe Substrates: A Study With the Modified Cooperstown 5+1 Cocktail.

The aim of this study was to characterize the effects of upadacitinib, a Janus kinase 1 inhibitor, on in vivo activity of different cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes using a cocktail approach. Healthy subjects (n = 20) received single oral doses of the modified Cooperstown 5+1 cocktail drugs (midazolam [CYP3A], caffeine [CYP1A2], warfarin + vitamin K [CYP2C9], omeprazole [CYP2C19], and dextromethorphan [CYP2D6]) without upadacitinib and on day 11 (midazolam) or 12 (all other probes) of a 15-day regimen of upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (extended-release formulation). Serial blood samples and 12-hour urine samples were collected for assays of the probe substrates and select metabolites. The ratio (90%CI) of area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUCinf ) central values when the cocktail drugs were administered with upadacitinib relative to when administered alone were 0.74 (0.68-0.80) for midazolam, 1.22 (1.15-1.29) for caffeine, 1.11 (1.07-1.15) for S-warfarin, 1.07 (0.95-1.22) for dextromethorphan, and 0.82 (0.72-0.94) for omeprazole. The ratio (90%CI) was 1.09 (1.00-1.19) for 5-hydroxy-omeprazole to omeprazole AUCinf ratio and 1.17 (0.97-1.41) for dextromethorphan to dextrorphan 12-hour molar urinary ratio. Upadacitinib 30 mg once daily (a dose that is twice the optimal dose in rheumatoid arthritis based on phase 3 results) has a limited effect on CYP3A activity (26% decrease in exposure of midazolam, a sensitive CYP3A substrate) and no relevant effects on CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, or CYP2D6 activity in vivo. No clinically relevant changes in plasma exposures are expected for drugs that are substrates for the evaluated CYP enzymes when coadministered with upadacitinib.

Safety and effectiveness of upadacitinib or adalimumab plus methotrexate in patients with rheumatoid arthritis over 48 weeks with switch to alternate therapy in patients with insufficient response.

BACKGROUND: In SELECT-COMPARE, a randomised double-blind study, upadacitinib 15 mg once daily was superior to placebo or adalimumab on background methotrexate (MTX) for treating rheumatoid arthritis signs and symptoms and inhibited radiographical progression versus placebo at 26 weeks. Here we report 48-week safety and efficacy in patients who continued their original medication or were rescued to the alternative medication for insufficient response. METHODS: Patients on MTX received upadacitinib 15 mg, placebo or adalimumab for 48 weeks. Rescue without washout, from placebo or adalimumab to upadacitinib or upadacitinib to adalimumab occurred if patients had <20% improvement in tender joint count (TJC) or swollen joint count (SJC) (weeks 14/18/22) or Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) >10 (week 26); remaining placebo patients were switched to upadacitinib at week 26. Efficacy was analysed by randomised group (non-responder imputation), as well as separately for rescued patients (as observed). Treatment-emergent adverse events per 100 patient-years were summarised. RESULTS: Consistent with responses through week 26, from weeks 26 to 48, responses by randomised group including low disease activity, clinical remission and improvements in pain and function remained superior for upadacitinib versus adalimumab; radiographical progression remained lower for upadacitinib versus placebo (linear extrapolation). Although both switch groups responded, a higher proportion of patients rescued to upadacitinib from adalimumab achieved CDAI ≤10 at 6 months postswitch versus patients rescued from upadacitinib to adalimumab. Safety at week 48 was comparable to week 26. CONCLUSION: Upadacitinib+MTX demonstrated superior clinical and functional responses versus adalimumab+MTX and maintained inhibition of structural damage versus placebo+MTX through week 48. Patients with an insufficient response to adalimumab or upadacitinib safely achieved clinically meaningful responses after switching to the alternative medication without washout.

Toward Accelerated Authorization and Access to New Medicines for Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis.

A meeting was organized to bring together multiple stakeholders involved in the testing and authorization of new medications for juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) to discuss current issues surrounding clinical trials and access to new medications for children and adolescents with JIA. The Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance invited representatives of regulatory agencies (Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency), and major pharmaceutical companies with JIA-approved products or products in development, patient and parent representatives, representatives of an advocacy organization (Arthritis Foundation), and pediatric rheumatology clinicians/investigators to a 1-day meeting in April 2018. The participants engaged in discussion regarding issues in clinical trials. As the pharmacologic options to treat inflammatory arthritis rapidly expand, registration trial designs to test medications in JIA patients must adapt. Many methodologies successfully used in the recent past are no longer feasible. The pool of patients meeting entry criteria who are willing to participate is shrinking while the number of medications to be tested is growing. Suggested solutions included proposing innovative clinical trial methods to regulatory agencies, as well as open discussions among stakeholders. Ensuring that new medications are authorized in a timely manner to meet the needs of JIA patients worldwide is critical. Approaches should include open dialog between regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and other stakeholders to develop and implement novel study designs, including patient and clinician perspectives to define meaningful trial outcomes, and changing existing study plans.

Ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir+dasabuvir+ribavirin for chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1b-infected cirrhotics (TURQUOISE-IV).

OBJECTIVE: An estimated 336 per 100 000 people in Russia are infected with hepatitis C virus, including up to 75% with genotype (GT) 1b. In the TURQUOISE-II/-III trials, a 12-week regimen of the direct-acting antiviral agents ombitasvir (OBV), paritaprevir (PTV), ritonavir, and dasabuvir (DSV) in GT1b-infected patients with compensated cirrhosis resulted in 12-week sustained virologic response (SVR) rates of 100%. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In TURQUOISE-IV, GT1b-infected patients (n=36) from Russia and Belarus with compensated cirrhosis, who were treatment naive or previously treated with pegylated interferon/ribavirin (RBV), received OBV/PTV/ritonavir+DSV+RBV for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was SVR at 12 weeks. Safety assessments included adverse event (AE) monitoring and laboratory testing. RESULTS: At baseline, patients had Child-Pugh scores of 5 (92%) or 6 (8%). Overall, 69% were treatment experienced (44% prior null responders, 32% relapsers, and 16% partial responders). All patients achieved SVR at 12 weeks (36/36; 100%). No patient experienced a serious AE or discontinued treatment prematurely. Treatment-emergent AEs possibly related to study drugs occurring in greater than or equal to 10% of patients were asthenia (19%), anemia (14%), cough (14%), and headache (11%); most events were mild in severity. Clinically significant laboratory abnormalities were infrequent. CONCLUSION: In Russian and Belarusian patients with hepatitis C GT1b infection and compensated cirrhosis, 100% achieved SVR at 12 weeks after 12 weeks' treatment with OBV/PTV/ritonavir+DSV+RBV. The treatment was well tolerated.

A 48-week randomized phase 2b study evaluating cenicriviroc versus efavirenz in treatment-naive HIV-infected adults with C-C chemokine receptor type 5-tropic virus.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and anti-inflammatory effects of cenicriviroc (CVC), an oral, once-daily C-C chemokine receptor types 5 and 2 antagonist, with those of efavirenz (EFV) in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults. DESIGN: A 48-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy phase 2b trial at 43 institutions (USA and Puerto Rico). METHODS: Study participants (HIV-1 RNA ≥1000 copies/ml, CD4 cell count ≥200 cells/µl, C-C chemokine receptor type 5-tropic virus) were randomized 2 : 2 : 1 to CVC 100 mg (CVC100), CVC 200 mg (CVC200), or EFV 600 mg, each administered with emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Key end points were virologic success (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/ml) at week 24 (primary) and week 48 (secondary), safety/tolerability at weeks 24 and 48. Study sites and patients remained blinded until week 48. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients were randomized (CVC100, n = 59; CVC200, n = 56; EFV, n = 28). Virologic success was obtained at week 24 in 76, 73, and 71% of study participants for CVC100, CVC200, and EFV, respectively (all P > 0.05 versus EFV), and at week 48 in 68, 64, and 50%, respectively (all P > 0.05 versus EFV). Resistance mutations emerged in five and zero CVC and EFV-treated study participants, respectively. Virologic nonresponse and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance decreased when CVC minimum plasma concentration was at least 47.8 ng/ml. Treatment-related adverse events of at least grade 2 and discontinuations because of adverse events were less frequent in CVC-treated study participants. Total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol decreased with CVC, but increased with EFV. C-C chemokine ligand type 2 (CCL2) (aka monocyte chemotactic protein-1) increased in a dose-dependent manner, whereas soluble CD14 levels decreased with CVC. CONCLUSION: CVC showed efficacy and favorable safety in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected study participants, supporting selection of CVC200 for phase 3 studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01338883.

A randomized, open-label study of the safety and efficacy of switching stavudine or zidovudine to tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in HIV-1-infected children with virologic suppression.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in HIV-1-infected children have not been evaluated in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Subjects (2 to <16 years) on a stavudine (d4T) or zidovudine (ZDV) containing regimen with HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL were randomized to either switch d4T or ZDV to TDF or continue d4T or ZDV. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA < 400 copies/mL at Week 48 with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 15%. After the 48-week randomized phase, eligible subjects were rolled over to an extension phase. RESULTS: Ninety-seven children (48 TDF vs. 49 d4T or ZDV) were randomized and treated. The percent of subjects who maintained virologic suppression in the TDF versus d4T or ZDV group at Week 24 were 93.8% versus 89.8% (difference 4.0%; 95% confidence interval:: -6.9% to 14.9%) and at Week 48 were 83.3% versus 91.8% (difference: -8.5%; 95% confidence interval: -21.5% to 4.5%; missing = failure, intent-to-treat analysis). No subjects discontinued study drug because of an adverse event in the 48 weeks of randomized phase. Four subjects discontinued TDF because of proximal renal tubulopathy in the extension phase. CONCLUSIONS: Our study did not demonstrate noninferiority of TDF versus d4T or ZDV at Week 48. Overall safety and tolerability of TDF in children were consistent with adults. TDF may be considered as an alternative to d4T or ZDV in HIV-infected children.

ABT-450, ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir achieves 97% and 100% sustained virologic response with or without ribavirin in treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 1b infection.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The interferon-free regimen of ABT-450 (a protease inhibitor), ritonavir, ombitasvir (an NS5A inhibitor), dasabuvir (a non-nucleoside polymerase inhibitor), and ribavirin has shown efficacy in patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1b infection-the most prevalent subgenotype worldwide. We evaluated whether ribavirin is necessary for ABT-450, ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir to produce high rates of sustained virologic response (SVR) in these patients. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, open-label, phase 3 trial of 179 patients with HCV genotype 1b infection, without cirrhosis, previously treated with peginterferon and ribavirin. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1) to groups given ABT-450, ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir, with ribavirin (group 1) or without (group 2) for 12 weeks. The primary end point was SVR 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12). We assessed the noninferiority of this regimen to the rate of response reported (64%) for a similar population treated with telaprevir, peginterferon, and ribavirin. RESULTS: Groups 1 and 2 each had high rates of SVR12, which were noninferior to the reported rate of response to the combination of telaprevir, peginterferon, and ribavirin (group 1: 96.6%; 95% confidence interval, 92.8%-100%; and group 2: 100%; 95% confidence interval, 95.9%-100%). The rate of response in group 2 was noninferior to that of group 1. No virologic failure occurred during the study. Two patients (1.1%) discontinued the study owing to adverse events, both in group 1. The most common adverse events in groups 1 and 2 were fatigue (31.9% vs 15.8%) and headache (24.2% vs 23.2%), respectively. Decreases in hemoglobin level to less than the lower limit of normal were more frequent in group 1 (42.0% vs 5.5% in group 2; P < .001), although only 2 patients had hemoglobin levels less than 10 g/dL. CONCLUSIONS: The interferon-free regimen of ABT-450, ritonavir, ombitasvir, and dasabuvir, with or without ribavirin, produces a high rate of SVR12 in treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype 1b infection. Both regimens are well tolerated, as shown by the low rate of discontinuations and generally mild adverse events. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01674725.

A randomized study of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in treatment-experienced HIV-1 infected adolescents.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on the safety and antiviral activity of tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) in HIV-1 infected adolescents. METHODS: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study was conducted. Ninety adolescents (12 to <18 years) who were viremic while receiving antiretroviral treatment were randomized to receive TDF 300 mg (mean, 216.8 mg/m(2)) or placebo in combination with an optimized background regimen (OBR) for 48 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was time-weighted average change in plasma HIV-1 RNA from baseline at week 24 RESULTS: Eighty-seven subjects (45 TDF, 42 placebo) received the study drug. Through week 24, the median time-weighted average change in plasma HIV-1 RNA was not different between the TDF and placebo groups (-1.6 versus -1.6 log(10)copies/mL, P = 0.55). The percentages of subjects who achieved HIV-1 RNA <400 copies/mL were similar at week 24 (40.9 versus 41.5%). One fourth of subjects in the TDF and placebo groups (24.4 versus 28.6%) had at least 3 active agents in the OBR. Many subjects in both groups had baseline genotypic resistance to TDF (48.9 versus 33.3%). TDF was generally safe and well tolerated. There were no statistically significant differences in changes of renal function and bone mineral density between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: This study of TDF in combination with an OBR in antiretroviral-experienced adolescents did not meet its primary or secondary efficacy endpoints. The effectiveness of the OBR and baseline genotypic resistance to TDF in both groups may have confounded the efficacy findings. No clinically relevant TDF-related renal or bone toxicities were observed in this adolescent population.

Activity of elvitegravir, a once-daily integrase inhibitor, against resistant HIV Type 1: results of a phase 2, randomized, controlled, dose-ranging clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: This phase 2, randomized, active-controlled, 48-week study assessed the noninferiority of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) integrase inhibitor elvitegravir to comparator ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor (CPI/r) in treatment-experienced subjects. METHODS: Subjects had HIV RNA levels 1000 copies/mL and 1 protease resistance mutation. Subjects received nucleoside or nucleotide reverse-transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) with or without T-20 and either CPI/r or once-daily elvitegravir at a dose of 20 mg, 50 mg, or 125 mg (blinded to dose) with ritonavir. After week 8, the independent data monitoring committee stopped the elvitegravir 20 mg arm and allowed subjects in the elvitegravir 50 mg and 125 mg arms to add protease inhibitors. The primary end point was the time-weighted average change from baseline in HIV RNA level through week 24 (DAVG(24)). RESULTS: A total of 278 subjects with a median of 11 protease and 3 thymidine analog mutations were randomized and treated. One-half of subjects received NRTIs without expected antiviral activity. Compared with the DAVG(24) for the CPI/r arm (-1.19 log(10) copies/mL), the elvitegravir 50 mg arm was noninferior (-1.44 log(10) copies/mL), and the elvitegravir 125 mg arm was superior (-1.66 log(10) copies/mL; P = .021). Efficacy was impacted by activity of background agents. There was no relationship between elvitegravir dosage and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Elvitegravir was well-tolerated and produced rapid virologic suppression that was durable with active background therapy. Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier number: NCT00298350.

Pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus co-administered with adefovir dipivoxil to liver transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Adefovir dipivoxil has activity against wild-type and lamivudine-resistant hepatitis B virus (HBV) and is frequently used to manage HBV infection in transplant recipients. Calcineurin inhibitors are a central component of immunosuppressive therapy. AIMS: Study GS-02-531 was an open-label, multicentre drug interaction trial to examine potential drug interactions between adefovir and tacrolimus in stable post-transplant recipients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixteen non-HBV-infected post-transplant recipients with median age 45.5 years (69% male, 44% Caucasian, 50% Hispanic and 6% Black) and stable hepatic and renal function on a stable daily dose of tacrolimus (2-10 mg total daily dose) were studied before (tacrolimus alone) and after co-administration of adefovir 10 mg daily for 14 days (Days 1-14). Pharmacokinetic (PK) analyses utilized non-compartmental methods. RESULTS: The median elimination half-life of tacrolimus was 14.47 and 12.59 h for Day 0 and Day 14 respectively. The geometric mean ratios for tacrolimus on Day 14 vs Day 0 were 105.2% [90% confidence interval (90% CI): 89.8-123%] for C(max) and 106.4% (90% CI: 92.9-122%) for AUC(tau). Both 90% CIs for the ratios were contained within the predefined lack of interaction bounds of 80 and 125% (i.e. within the bounds for the equivalence assessment), indicating that these PK parameters of tacrolimus are not significantly altered by co-administration of adefovir. Similarly, the observed adefovir PK parameters after 14 days of co-administration with tacrolimus were comparable to historical data in non-transplant patients receiving adefovir alone. Serum creatinine values were stable during the study period. CONCLUSION: There is no significant PK interaction between tacrolimus and adefovir co-administered to liver transplant recipients for 14 days.