Orally Bioavailable Macrocyclic Peptide That Inhibits Binding of PCSK9 to the Low Density Lipoprotein Receptor.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of PCSK9 (proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9)-low density lipoprotein receptor interaction with injectable monoclonal antibodies or small interfering RNA lowers plasma low density lipoprotein-cholesterol, but despite nearly 2 decades of effort, an oral inhibitor of PCSK9 is not available. Macrocyclic peptides represent a novel approach to target proteins traditionally considered intractable to small-molecule drug design. METHODS: Novel mRNA display screening technology was used to identify lead chemical matter, which was then optimized by applying structure-based drug design enabled by novel synthetic chemistry to identify macrocyclic peptide (MK-0616) with exquisite potency and selectivity for PCSK9. Following completion of nonclinical safety studies, MK-0616 was administered to healthy adult participants in a single rising-dose Phase 1 clinical trial designed to evaluate its safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. In a multiple-dose trial in participants taking statins, MK-0616 was administered once daily for 14 days to characterize the safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics (change in low density lipoprotein cholesterol). RESULTS: MK-0616 displayed high affinity (Ki = 5pM) for PCSK9 in vitro and sufficient safety and oral bioavailability preclinically to enable advancement into the clinic. In Phase 1 clinical studies in healthy adults, single oral doses of MK-0616 were associated with >93% geometric mean reduction (95% CI, 84-103) of free, unbound plasma PCSK9; in participants on statin therapy, multiple-oral-dose regimens provided a maximum 61% geometric mean reduction (95% CI, 43-85) in low density lipoprotein cholesterol from baseline after 14 days of once-daily dosing of 20 mg MK-0616. CONCLUSIONS: This work validates the use of mRNA display technology for identification of novel oral therapeutic agents, exemplified by the identification of an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, which has the potential to be a highly effective cholesterol lowering therapy for patients in need.

Evaluation of Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions of the Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir and Grazoprevir with Pitavastatin, Rosuvastatin, Pravastatin, and Atorvastatin in Healthy Adults.

BACKGROUND: Many people infected with hepatitis C virus have comorbidities, including hypercholesterolemia, that are treated with statins. In this study, we evaluated the drug-drug interaction potential of the hepatitis C virus inhibitors elbasvir (EBR) and grazoprevir (GZR) with statins. Pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, and atorvastatin are substrates of organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B, whereas rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are also breast cancer resistance protein substrates. METHODS: Three open-label, phase I clinical trials in healthy adults were conducted with multiple daily doses of oral GZR or EBR/GZR and single oral doses of statins. Trial 1: GZR 200 mg plus pitavastatin 10 mg. Trial 2: Part 1, GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg, then EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg; Part 2, EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus pravastatin 40 mg. Trial 3: EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg. RESULTS: Neither GZR nor EBR pharmacokinetics were meaningfully affected by statins. Coadministration of EBR/GZR did not result in clinically relevant changes in the exposure of pitavastatin or pravastatin. However, EBR/GZR increased exposure to rosuvastatin (126%) and atorvastatin (94%). Coadministration of statins plus GZR or EBR/GZR was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Although statins do not appreciably affect EBR or GZR pharmacokinetics, EBR/GZR can impact the pharmacokinetics of certain statins, likely via inhibition of breast cancer resistance protein but not organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B. Coadministration of EBR/GZR with pitavastatin or pravastatin does not require adjustment of either dose of statin, whereas the dose of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin should be decreased when coadministered with EBR/GZR.

A Phase 1 Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Assess the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody MK-1654 in Healthy Adults.

Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of acute lower respiratory tract infection and related morbidity and mortality in infants. Passive immunization with an RSV-neutralizing antibody can provide rapid protection to this vulnerable population. Proof-of-concept for this approach has been demonstrated by palivizumab; however, the use of this antibody is generally restricted to the highest-risk infants due to monthly dosing requirements and its cost. To address the large unmet medical need for most infants, we are evaluating MK-1654, a fully human RSV-neutralizing antibody with half-life extending mutations targeting site IV of the fusion protein. In this 2-part, placebo-controlled, double-blind, first-in-human study, 152 healthy adults were randomized 3:1 to receive a single dose of MK-1654 or placebo in 5 cohorts (100 or 300 mg as an intramuscular dose or 300, 1000, or 3000 mg as an intravenous dose). Safety, pharmacokinetics, antidrug antibodies, and RSV serum-neutralizing antibody titers were evaluated through 1 year. MK-1654 serum concentrations increased proportionally with dose and resulted in corresponding elevations in RSV serum-neutralizing antibody titers. The antibody displayed a half-life of 73 to 88 days and an estimated bioavailability of 69% at the 300-mg dose. The overall safety profile of MK-1654 was similar to placebo, and treatment-emergent antidrug antibodies were low (2.6%) with no associated adverse events. These data support the continued development of MK-1654 for the prevention of RSV disease in infants.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between the Fixed-Dose Combinations of Elvitegravir/Cobicistat/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine and Elbasvir/Grazoprevir in Healthy Adult Participants.

Treatment of individuals coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) requires careful consideration of potential drug-drug interactions. The pharmacokinetic interaction of the HCV fixed-dose combination treatment of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) when coadministered with the fixed-dose combination HIV treatment of elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EVG/COB/TDF/FTC) was evaluated in 22 healthy adults. In period 1, oral doses of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC (150 mg/150 mg/300 mg/200 mg) were administered once daily for 7 days. In period 2, oral doses of EBR/GZR (50 mg/100 mg) were administered once daily for 10 days. In period 3, oral doses of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC were coadministered with EBR/GZR once daily for 10 days. The pharmacokinetics of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC were not clinically meaningfully altered by concomitant EBR/GZR administration. Geometric mean ratios (90%CIs) for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours (AUC0-24 ) in the presence/absence of EBR/GZR were 1.1 (1.0, 1.2) for elvitegravir; 1.1 (1.0, 1.1) for emtricitabine; 1.2 (1.1, 1.2) for tenofovir; and 1.5 (1.4, 1.6) for cobicistat. In comparison, the AUC0-24 of elbasvir was ∼2 times higher and the AUC0-24 of grazoprevir was ∼5 times higher following concomitant administration of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC and EBR/GZR. Geometric mean ratios (90%CI) for AUC0-24 in the presence/absence of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC were 2.2 (2.0, 2.4) for elbasvir and 5.4 (4.5, 6.4) for grazoprevir. Coadministration of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC and EBR/GZR was generally well tolerated in healthy adults in this study. Nevertheless, because of the increased GZR exposure that occurs with coadministration of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC and EBR/GZR, coadministration of this combination is not recommended in those coinfected with HIV and HCV.

Investigation of Pharmacokinetic Interactions between Doravirine and Elbasvir-Grazoprevir and Ledipasvir-Sofosbuvir.

Doravirine is a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection. Due to the high prevalence of HIV-1 and hepatitis C virus (HCV) coinfection and coadministration of HIV-1 and HCV treatment, potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between doravirine and two HCV treatments were investigated in two phase 1 drug interaction trials in healthy participants. Trial 1 investigated the effect of multiple-dose doravirine and elbasvir + grazoprevir coadministration (N = 12), and trial 2 investigated the effect of single-dose doravirine and ledipasvir-sofosbuvir coadministration (N = 14). Doravirine had no clinically relevant effect on the pharmacokinetics of elbasvir, grazoprevir, ledipasvir, sofosbuvir, or the sofosbuvir metabolite GS-331007. Coadministration of elbasvir + grazoprevir with doravirine moderately increased doravirine area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0-24), maximal concentration (Cmax), and concentration 24 h postdose (C24), with geometric least-squares mean ratio (GMR) with 90% confidence intervals (CI) of 1.56 (1.45, 1.68), 1.41 (1.25, 1.58), and 1.61 (1.45, 1.79), respectively. Doravirine AUC0-∞, Cmax, and C24 values increased slightly following coadministration with ledipasvir-sofosbuvir (GMR [90% CI] of 1.15 [1.07, 1.24], 1.11 [0.97, 1.27], and 1.24 [1.13, 1.36], respectively). The modest increases in doravirine exposure are not clinically meaningful based on the therapeutic profile of doravirine. Effects are likely secondary to cytochrome P450 3A and P-glycoprotein inhibition by grazoprevir and ledipasvir, respectively. Coadministration of doravirine with elbasvir + grazoprevir or ledipasvir-sofosbuvir was generally well tolerated. Clinically relevant DDIs are not expected to occur between doravirine and elbasvir-grazoprevir or ledipasvir-sofosbuvir at the therapeutic doses.

No Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Elbasvir or Grazoprevir and Buprenorphine/Naloxone in Healthy Participants and Participants Receiving Stable Opioid Agonist Therapy.

The aims of these phase I trials were to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction between elbasvir (EBR) or grazoprevir (GZR) and buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NAL). Trial 1 was a single-dose trial in healthy participants. Trial 2 was a multiple-dose trial in participants on BUP/NAL maintenance therapy. Coadministration of EBR or GZR with BUP/NAL had minimal effect on the pharmacokinetics of BUP/NAL, EBR, and GZR. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs (90% CI)) for BUP, norbuprenorphine, and NAL AUC0-∞ were 0.98 (0.89-1.08), 0.97 (0.86-1.09), and 0.88 (0.78-1.00) in the presence/absence of EBR; 0.98 (0.81-1.19), 1.13 (0.97-1.32), and 1.10 (0.82-1.47) in the presence/absence of GZR. The GMRs (90% CI) for EBR and GZR AUC0-∞ in the absence/presence of BUP/NAL were 1.22 (0.98-1.52) and 0.86 (0.63-1.18). In conclusion, no dose adjustment for BUP/NAL, EBR, or GZR is required for patients with HCV infection receiving EBR/GZR and BUP/NAL maintenance therapy.

No Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Elbasvir or Grazoprevir and Methadone in Participants Receiving Maintenance Opioid Agonist Therapy.

We conducted two phase I trials to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interactions between elbasvir (EBR), grazoprevir (GZR), and methadone (MK-8742-P010 and MK-5172-P030) in non-hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected participants on methadone maintenance therapy. Coadministration of EBR or GZR with methadone had no clinically meaningful effect on EBR, GZR, or methadone pharmacokinetics. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for R- and S-methadone AUC0-24 were 1.03 (90% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-1.15) and 1.09 (90% CI, 0.94-1.26) in the presence/absence of EBR; and 1.09 (90% CI, 1.02-1.17) and 1.23 (90% CI, 1.12-1.35) in the presence/absence of GZR. The GMRs for EBR and GZR AUC0-24 in participants receiving methadone relative to a healthy historical cohort not receiving methadone were 1.20 (90% CI, 0.94-1.53) and 1.03 (90% CI, 0.76-1.41), respectively. These results indicate that no dose adjustment is required for individuals with HCV infection receiving stable methadone therapy and the EBR/GZR fixed-dose regimen.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and Immunosuppressant Drugs in Healthy Volunteers.

Elbasvir (EBR)/grazoprevir (GZR) may be coadministered with immunosuppressant drugs in posttransplant people who are infected with hepatitis C virus. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetic interactions between EBR and GZR and single doses of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisone. This was a 4-part, open-label study in 58 healthy volunteers. Participants received single doses of cyclosporine 400 mg, tacrolimus 2 mg, MMF 1 g, or prednisone 40 mg alone or in the presence of once-daily EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg. Multiple oral doses of EBR + GZR had no significant effect on cyclosporine. However, in the presence of cyclosporine, the 24-hour area under the concentration-time curve of GZR was increased by approximately 15-fold (geometric mean ratio [90%CI] 15.21 [12.83; 18.04]); the concentration of EBR was increased approximately 2-fold in the presence of cyclosporine. Coadministration of EBR/GZR and tacrolimus did not affect the pharmacokinetics of EBR or GZR, but resulted in an increase in tacrolimus AUC (geometric mean ratio [90%CI] 1.43 [1.24; 1.64]). There were no clinically relevant interactions between EBR/GZR and either MMF or prednisone. Data from the present study indicate that EBR/GZR may be coadministered in people receiving tacrolimus, MMF, and prednisolone. EBR/GZR is contraindicated in people receiving cyclosporine because the significantly higher concentrations of GZR may increase the risk of transaminase elevations.

Pharmacokinetics of sugammadex in subjects with moderate and severe renal impairment
.

AIMS: Sugammadex rapidly reverses moderate and deep rocuronium- or vecuronium-induced neuromuscular blockade at doses of 4 mg/kg and 2 mg/kg, respectively. Sugammadex is renally eliminated. This study evaluated the pharmacokinetics of sugammadex in subjects with renal impairment versus those with normal renal function. METHODS: This open-label, two-part, phase 1 study included adults with moderate (creatinine clearance (CLcr) 30 - < 50 mL/min) and severe (CLcr < 30 mL/min) renal impairment and healthy controls (CLcr ≥ 80 mL/min). A single intravenous (IV) bolus injection of sugammadex 4 mg/kg was administered into a peripheral vein over 10 seconds directly by straight needle in part 1 (n = 24; 8/group), and via an IV catheter followed by a saline flush in part 2 (n = 18; 6/group). Plasma concentrations of sugammadex were collected after drug administration. Due to dosing issues in part 1, pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for part 2 only. Safety was assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic data were obtained from 18 subjects. Mean sugammadex exposure (AUC0-∞) in subjects with moderate and severe renal impairment was 2.42- and 5.42-times, respectively, that of healthy controls. Clearance decreased and apparent terminal half-life was prolonged with increasing renal dysfunction. Similar Cmax values were observed in subjects with renal impairment and healthy controls. There were no serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Sugammadex exposure is increased in subjects with moderate and severe renal insufficiency due to progressively decreased clearance as a function of worsening renal function. Sugammadex 4 mg/kg was well tolerated in subjects with renal impairment, with a safety profile similar to that of healthy subjects. These results indicate that dose adjustment of sugammadex is not required in patients with moderate renal impairment; however, current safety experience is insufficient to support the use of sugammadex in patients with CLcr < 30 mL/min.
.

Next-day residual effects of gaboxadol and flurazepam administered at bedtime: a randomized double-blind study in healthy elderly subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the next-day residual effects of the novel hypnotic, gaboxadol, following bedtime dosing in healthy elderly subjects. METHODS: Healthy women (N = 15) and men (N = 10) aged 65-79 years received a single bedtime (22:00 h) dose of gaboxadol 10 mg, flurazepam 30 mg (positive control), and placebo in a randomized, double-blind, crossover study. Measures of information processing and psychomotor performance (choice reaction time, critical flicker fusion, digit symbol substitution, compensatory tracking, body sway), memory (immediate and delayed word recall), and daytime sleepiness (Multiple Sleep Latency Test), as well as subjective ratings (line analog rating scales, Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire), were obtained starting at 07:00 h the following morning. Adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: Gaboxadol did not show next-day impairments versus placebo on any pharmacodynamic measures whereas the positive control, flurazepam, did show impairments versus placebo on most measures. Gaboxadol showed improvements versus placebo on some measures including subjective rating of next-day alertness/clumsiness on the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. Gaboxadol was generally well-tolerated; there were no serious adverse experiences and no subjects discontinued due to an adverse experience. CONCLUSIONS: A single oral bedtime dose of gaboxadol 10 mg did not have next-day residual effects in healthy elderly subjects, as measured by a range of pharmacodynamic assessments, in contrast to the clear impairments produced by flurazepam 30 mg.