Simeprevir increases rate of sustained virologic response among treatment-experienced patients with HCV genotype-1 infection: a phase IIb trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Simeprevir (TMC435) is an oral NS3/4 protease inhibitor in phase III trials for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We performed a phase IIb, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the combination of simeprevir, peginterferon-α2a (PegIFN), and ribavirin (RBV) in patients with HCV genotype-1 infection previously treated with PegIFN and RBV. METHODS: We analyzed data from patients who did not respond (null response), had a partial response, or relapsed after treatment with PegIFN and RBV, randomly assigned to receive simeprevir (100 or 150 mg, once daily) for 12, 24, or 48 weeks plus PegIFN and RBV for 48 weeks (n = 396), or placebo plus PegIFN and RBV for 48 weeks (n = 66). All patients were followed for 24 weeks after planned end of treatment; the primary end point was the proportion of patients with sustained virologic response (SVR; undetectable HCV RNA) at that time point. RESULTS: Overall, rates of SVR at 24 weeks were significantly higher in the groups given simeprevir than those given placebo (61%-80% vs 23%; P < .001), regardless of prior response to PegIFN and RBV (simeprevir vs placebo: prior null response, 38%-59% vs 19%; prior partial response, 48%-86% vs 9%; prior relapse, 77%-89% vs 37%). All groups had comparable numbers of adverse events; these led to discontinuation of simeprevir or placebo and/or PegIFN and RBV in 8.8% of patients given simeprevir and 4.5% of those given placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In treatment-experienced patients, 12, 24, or 48 weeks simeprevir (100 mg or 150 mg once daily) in combination with 48 weeks PegIFN and RBV significantly increased rates of SVR at 24 weeks compared with patients given placebo, PegIFN, and RBV and was generally well tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00980330.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir after administration of an oral suspension with low-dose ritonavir and with or without food.

This 2-part, phase 1, open-label, randomized, crossover study (NCT00752310) assessed ritonavir-boosted darunavir bioavailability (oral suspension vs. tablets), and steady-state darunavir pharmacokinetics (suspension). Part 1: 20 healthy adults randomly received 3 treatments with a ≥7-day washout between treatments; twice-daily ritonavir (100 mg, days 1-5) with darunavir (600 mg, day 3) as 2 × 300-mg tablets (fed, reference), or 6 mL of a 100-mg/mL suspension (fed or fasted, test). Part 2: 18 healthy volunteers received twice-daily darunavir (suspension, 600 mg days 1-6, one dose day 7) with twice-daily ritonavir (100 mg, days 1-9). Darunavir pharmacokinetics were evaluated (part 1 day 3; part 2 day 7). Safety/tolerability were assessed. In part 1, 90% confidence intervals for darunavir Cmax and AUC were all within 80-125% for suspension (fed or fasted) versus tablets (fed). Steady-state darunavir (suspension) pharmacokinetics in part 2 were similar to historic controls (tablets). No clinically relevant differences in adverse events or laboratory abnormalities occurred between treatments. Darunavir administered as an oral suspension or tablets (both with low-dose ritonavir) showed comparable bioavailability in healthy adults after a single dose. Steady-state darunavir pharmacokinetics (suspension, 600/100 mg twice daily) were consistent with historic controls; this formulation is considered suitable for pediatric use and for adults who cannot swallow tablets.

Once-daily simeprevir (TMC435) with pegylated interferon and ribavirin in treatment-naïve genotype 1 hepatitis C: the randomized PILLAR study.

UNLABELLED: The phase IIb, double-blind, placebo-controlled PILLAR trial investigated the efficacy and safety of two different simeprevir (SMV) doses administered once-daily (QD) with pegylated interferon (Peg-IFN)-α-2a and ribavirin (RBV) in treatment-naïve patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. Patients were randomized to one of five treatments: SMV (75 or 150 mg QD) for 12 or 24 weeks or placebo, plus Peg-IFN and RBV. Patients in the SMV arms stopped all treatment at week 24 if response-guided therapy (RGT) criteria were met; patients not meeting RGT continued with Peg-IFN and RBV until week 48, as did patients in the placebo control group. Sustained virologic response (SVR) rates measured 24 weeks after the planned end of treatment (SVR24) were 74.7%-86.1% in the SMV groups versus 64.9% in the control group (P < 0.05 for all comparisons [SMV versus placebo], except SMV 75 mg for 24 weeks). Rapid virologic response (HCV RNA <25 IU/mL undetectable at week 4) was achieved by 68.0%-75.6% of SMV-treated and 5.2% of placebo control patients. According to RGT criteria, 79.2%-86.1% of SMV-treated patients completed treatment by week 24; 85.2%-95.6% of these subsequently achieved SVR24. The adverse event profile was generally similar across the SMV and placebo control groups, with the exception of mild reversible hyperbilirubinemia, without serum aminotransferase abnormalities, associated with higher doses of SMV. CONCLUSION: SMV QD in combination with Peg-IFN and RBV significantly improves SVR rates, compared with Peg-IFN and RBV alone, and allows the majority of patients to shorten their therapy duration to 24 weeks.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir in Asian HIV-1-infected children aged ≥7 years.

BACKGROUND: The Asian population, in general, has higher antiretroviral concentrations than those who are not Asian, but there are limited pharmacokinetic data for darunavir/ritonavir in Asian children. METHODS: Thai children aged ≥7 years and with body weight (BW)≥20 kg who were on darunavir/ritonavir for ≥2 weeks underwent 12-h pharmacokinetics with blood sampling before and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h post-dosing. Darunavir/ritonavir doses were 375/100 mg twice daily (BW 20 to <30 kg, n=12), 450/100 mg twice daily (BW 30 to <40 kg, n=2) or 600/100 mg twice daily (BW ≥40 kg, n=5). Ritonavir 100 mg soft gel capsules were used instead of solution. RESULTS: Of the 19 children, 8 were female, median age was 13 years (range 7-16) and median BW was 29.4 kg. The median duration of darunavir/ritonavir treatment was 11 months. The geometric mean values for darunavir were 60.3 h×mg/l for the area under the concentration-time curve at 0-12 h (AUC(0-12)), 8.3 mg/l for the maximum concentration (C(max)) and 3.1 for the concentration prior to the next dose (C(12)) with no differences between dosing groups. All had C(12) above the protein binding adjusted 50% effective concentration (EC(50)) of protease inhibitor-resistant virus (0.55 mg/l). The darunavir pharmacokinetic parameters were similar to those in non-Asian individuals from the DELPHI study, in which 13 of 20 with BW<40 kg used 50 or 60 mg ritonavir boosting. CONCLUSIONS: Thai children aged ≥7 years who were on standard darunavir dosing with 100 mg ritonavir boosting had adequate and comparable darunavir AUC(0-12), C(max) and C(12) to non-Asian children who mainly used lower doses of ritonavir boosting. A ritonavir boosting dose of 100 mg can be used for children weighing ≥20 kg, particularly when lower dose formulations are unavailable or if intolerant to the solution.

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Darunavir and Etravirine in HIV-1-Infected, Treatment-Experienced Patients in the Gender, Race, and Clinical Experience (GRACE) Trial.

Objectives. Evaluation of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of darunavir and etravirine among HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced adults from GRACE, by sex and race. Methods. Patients received darunavir/ritonavir 600/100mg twice daily plus other antiretrovirals, which could include etravirine 200mg twice daily. Population pharmacokinetics for darunavir and etravirine were determined over 48 weeks and relationships assessed with virologic response and safety. Rich sampling for darunavir, etravirine, and ritonavir was collected in a substudy at weeks 4, 24, and 48. Results. Pharmacokinetics were estimated in 376 patients for darunavir and 190 patients for etravirine. Median darunavir AUC(12h) and C(0h) were 60,642ng·h/mL and 3624ng/mL, respectively; and for etravirine were 4183ng · h/mL and 280ng/mL, respectively. There were no differences in darunavir or etravirine AUC(12h) or C(0h) by sex or race. Age, body weight, or use of etravirine did not affect darunavir exposure. No relationships were seen between darunavir pharmacokinetics and efficacy or safety. Patients with etravirine exposure in the lowest quartile generally had lower response rates. Rich sampling showed no time-dependent relationship for darunavir, etravirine, or ritonavir exposure over 48 weeks. Conclusions. Population pharmacokinetics showed no relevant differences in darunavir or etravirine exposure by assessed covariates. Lower etravirine exposures were associated with lower response rates.

Antiviral activity of TMC435 monotherapy in patients infected with HCV genotypes 2-6: TMC435-C202, a phase IIa, open-label study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: TMC435 is an investigational, once-daily, oral NS3/4A protease inhibitor currently in phase III development for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Phase I and II studies in patients infected with HCV genotype 1 have demonstrated that TMC435 is generally well tolerated, has a pharmacokinetic profile that supports once daily dosing, and demonstrates potent antiviral activity. This phase IIa study (TMC435-C202; NCT00812331) was conducted to investigate the antiviral activity, safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of TMC435 in treatment-naїve patients infected with HCV genotypes 2-6. METHODS: The study consisted of 7 days of monotherapy with TMC435 (200mg once daily). Patients could begin treatment with pegylated interferon/ribavirin from day 8 with a follow-up period up to days 37-42. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled in Germany, Belgium and Thailand. For the primary end point at day 8, the mean (± standard error) change in plasma HCV ribonucleic acid (log(10)IU/ml) from baseline was the greatest for genotypes 6 (-4.35 ± 0.29) and 4 (-3.52 ± 0.43), followed by genotypes 2 (-2.73 ± 0.71) and 5 (-2.19 ± 0.39). No antiviral activity was evident for genotype 3. Viral breakthrough occurred in six patients during the monotherapy phase and in six additional patients during PegIFN/RBV-only period. All adverse events were mild or moderate and there were no discontinuations during the TMC435 monotherapy period. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this phase IIa proof-of-concept trial provide evidence that TMC435 has a spectrum of activity against multiple HCV genotypes, except for genotype 3. In this study, TMC435 was generally safe and well tolerated.

Rapid viral response of once-daily TMC435 plus pegylated interferon/ribavirin in hepatitis C genotype-1 patients: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiviral activity of TMC435, an oral, once-daily, HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor, was evaluated with pegylated interferon-α2a/ribavirin (P/R) in HCV genotype-1 patients. METHODS: Optimal Protease inhibitor Enhancement of Response to TherApy (OPERA-1; TMC435-C201; NCT00561353) is a Phase IIa, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Treatment-naive patients (n=74) received 25, 75 or 200 mg TMC435 once daily, or placebo for 7 days followed by 21 days of triple therapy with P/R, or triple therapy for 28 days. Treatment-experienced patients (n=37; 56.8% with cirrhosis) received 75, 150 or 200 mg TMC435 once daily, or placebo with P/R for 28 days. Patients continued P/R up to week 48. RESULTS: Treatment-naive patients who received initial monotherapy had a rapid decline in HCV RNA by day 3. At day 7, HCV RNA reductions were greatest for the 75 and 200 mg doses (0.02, -2.63, -3.43 and -4.13 log(10) IU/ml for placebo, and TMC435 25, 75 and 200 mg, respectively). At day 28, all patients who received triple therapy with TMC435 75 or 200 mg had HCV RNA<25 IU/ml versus 4/9 for placebo. In total, 18/28 treatment-experienced patients (9/9 prior relapsers, 9/19 non-responders) who received TMC435 had HCV RNA<25 IU/ml at day 28 versus 0/9 for placebo; similar results were observed for the 150 and 200 mg doses. Most adverse events were grade 1/2. No relevant changes in laboratory parameters occurred, except mild and reversible bilirubin elevations, mostly at the 200 mg dose. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily TMC435 with P/R showed potent, dose-dependent antiviral activity over 28 days, and had a favourable tolerability profile.

Pharmacokinetic interactions of maraviroc with darunavir-ritonavir, etravirine, and etravirine-darunavir-ritonavir in healthy volunteers: results of two drug interaction trials.

The effects of darunavir-ritonavir at 600 and 100 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) alone, 200 mg of etravirine b.i.d. alone, or 600 and 100 mg of darunavir-ritonavir b.i.d. with 200 mg etravirine b.i.d. at steady state on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of maraviroc, and vice versa, in healthy volunteers were investigated in two phase I, randomized, two-period crossover studies. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. Coadministration of 150 mg maraviroc b.i.d. with darunavir-ritonavir increased the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC12) for maraviroc 4.05-fold relative to 150 mg of maraviroc b.i.d. alone. Coadministration of 300 mg maraviroc b.i.d. with etravirine decreased the maraviroc AUC12 by 53% relative to 300 mg maraviroc b.i.d. alone. Coadministration of 150 mg maraviroc b.i.d. with etravirine-darunavir-ritonavir increased the maraviroc AUC12 3.10-fold relative to 150 mg maraviroc b.i.d. alone. Maraviroc did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of etravirine, darunavir, or ritonavir. Short-term coadministration of maraviroc with darunavir-ritonavir, etravirine, or both was generally well tolerated, with no safety issues reported in either trial. Maraviroc can be coadministered with darunavir-ritonavir, etravirine, or etravirine-darunavir-ritonavir. Maraviroc should be dosed at 600 mg b.i.d. with etravirine in the absence of a potent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) (i.e., a boosted protease inhibitor) or at 150 mg b.i.d. when coadministered with darunavir-ritonavir with or without etravirine.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir and rifabutin coadministered in HIV-negative healthy volunteers.

The drug-drug interaction between rifabutin (RFB) and darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) was examined in a randomized, three-way crossover study of HIV-negative healthy volunteers who received DRV/r 600/100 mg twice a day (BID) (treatment A), RFB 300 mg once a day (QD) (treatment B), and DRV/r 600/100 mg BID plus RFB 150 mg every other day (QOD) (treatment C). The sequence of treatments was randomized, and each treatment period lasted 12 days. Full pharmacokinetic profiles were determined for DRV, ritonavir, and RFB and its active metabolite, 25-O-desacetylrifabutin (desRFB), on day 13. The DRV and ritonavir areas under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to 12 h (AUC(12h)) increased by 57% and 66%, respectively, in the presence of RFB. The RFB exposure was comparable between treatment with RFB QD alone (treatment B) and treatment with DRV/r plus RFB QOD (treatment C); however, based on least-square means ratios, the minimum plasma concentration (C(min)) increased by 64% and the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) decreased by 28%, respectively. The exposure (AUC within the dosage interval and at steady state [AUC(τ)]) to desRFB was considerably increased (by 881%) following treatment with DRV/r/RFB. The exposure to the parent drug plus the metabolite increased 1.6-fold in the presence of DRV/r. Adverse events (AEs) were more commonly reported during combined treatment (83% versus 44% for RFB and 28% for DRV/r); similarly, grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 17% versus 11% and 0%, respectively, of volunteers. Eighteen of 27 volunteers (66.7%) prematurely discontinued the trial; all volunteers discontinuing for safety reasons (n = 9) did so during RFB treatment phases. These results suggest that DRV/r may be coadministered with RFB with a dose adjustment of RFB to 150 mg QOD and increased monitoring for RFB-related AEs. Based on the overall safety profile of DRV/r, no dose adjustment of DRV/r is considered to be warranted. Given the safety profile seen with the combination of RFB with a boosted protease inhibitor in this and other studies, it is not recommended to conduct further studies with this combination in healthy volunteers.

Suboptimal adherence to darunavir/ritonavir has minimal effect on efficacy compared with lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-infected patients: 96 week ARTEMIS data.

OBJECTIVES: To examine how treatment adherence differences in ARTEMIS (96 week analysis) affected clinical outcome, and to assess factors impacting adherence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ARTEMIS is a Phase III trial, in HIV-1-infected treatment-naive patients, comparing efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (800/100 mg) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (800/200 mg total daily dose), each with a fixed-dose background tenofovir and emtricitabine regimen. Self-reported treatment adherence was assessed using the Modified Medication Adherence Self-Report Inventory (M-MASRI). In post-hoc analyses, mean adherence from weeks 4-96 was used to assess overall adherence for each patient, and transformed into a binary variable (>95% , adherent; < or = 95% , suboptimally adherent). RESULTS: Overall adherence was high: 83% of darunavir/ritonavir-treated patients and 78% of lopinavir/ritonavir-treated patients were >95% adherent. The difference in virological response rate for adherent versus suboptimally adherent patients was smaller for darunavir/ritonavir (6% difference: 82% versus 76%, P = 0.3312) than for lopinavir/ritonavir (25% difference: 78% versus 53%, P < 0.0001). In suboptimally adherent patients, a higher virological response rate was seen with darunavir/ritonavir (76%) versus lopinavir/ritonavir (53%) (P < 0.01). Suboptimally adherent patients (both treatment groups) reported more adverse events (AEs), including gastrointestinal AEs, than adherent patients. Darunavir/ritonavir had a lower rate of AEs, including gastrointestinal AEs, than lopinavir/ritonavir, in adherent and suboptimally adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Suboptimal adherence had no significant effect on the virological response rate with once-daily darunavir/ritonavir treatment. In contrast, the lopinavir/ritonavir response rate was significantly reduced in suboptimally adherent patients compared with adherent patients. Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir resulted in a higher virological response rate in suboptimally adherent patients compared with lopinavir/ritonavir.

Pharmacokinetics of multiple-dose darunavir in combination with low-dose ritonavir in individuals with mild-to-moderate hepatic impairment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetics of some HIV protease inhibitors are altered in patients with hepatic impairment. The TMC114-C134 study assessed the pharmacokinetics and safety of darunavir/ritonavir 600 mg/100 mg twice daily in HIV-negative subjects with hepatic impairment (defined according to Child-Pugh classification A [mild] or B [moderate]) compared with matched, HIV-negative, healthy subjects. METHODS: All subjects received darunavir/ritonavir 600 mg/100 mg twice daily for 6 days with a morning dose on day 7. Pharmacokinetic profiles were obtained up to 72 hours post-dose for darunavir and 12 hours post-dose for ritonavir on day 7. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Darunavir pharmacokinetics in subjects with mild (n = 8) and moderate (n = 8) hepatic impairment were comparable to those in matched healthy control subjects (n = 16). In those with mild hepatic impairment, the least square mean ratios relative to healthy subjects for darunavir exposure (the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours) and for maximum and minimum plasma concentrations were 0.94 (90% CI 0.75, 1.17), 0.88 (90% CI 0.73, 1.07) and 0.83 (90% CI 0.63, 1.10), respectively. In those with moderate hepatic impairment, these values were 1.20 (90% CI 0.90, 1.60), 1.22 (90% CI 0.95, 1.56) and 1.27 (90% CI 0.87, 1.85), respectively. Ritonavir pharmacokinetics were comparable between healthy subjects and those with mild hepatic impairment, but mean exposure was 50% higher in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment. Darunavir/ritonavir was generally well tolerated, regardless of hepatic impairment. All adverse events were grade 1-2 in severity, except for a grade 3 increase in alanine aminotransferase reported in one subject with mild hepatic impairment. No adverse events led to discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that the pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir 600 mg/100 mg are not affected by mild or moderate hepatic impairment. Therefore, it is recommended that dose adjustments of darunavir/ritonavir are not required in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between indinavir and darunavir with low-dose ritonavir in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential for a pharmacokinetic interaction between darunavir (DRV, TMC114, Prezista), indinavir (IDV, Crixivan) and low-dose ritonavir (RTV, Norvir). METHODS: In three 7-day sessions, 17 HIV-negative healthy volunteers received treatment A (DRV/r 400/100 mg b.i.d.), treatment B (IDV/r 800/100 mg b.i.d.) and treatment C (DRV/r 400/100 mg b.i.d. + IDV 800 mg b.i.d.). On day 7, full pharmacokinetic profiles of DRV, IDV and RTV were determined. Safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Based on the least-squares means ratios, the steady-state exposure (area under the curve, AUC(12h)) and plasma concentrations (C(min) and C(max)) of IDV were increased by 23, 125 and 8%, respectively, when DRV was co-administered. The co-administration of IDV with DRV/r resulted in increases of 24, 44 and 11% for, respectively, DRV AUC(12h), C(min) and C(max), compared with administration of DRV/r alone. Eight volunteers discontinued due to an adverse event. Overall, adverse events and laboratory abnormalities were more commonly reported during treatments including IDV. CONCLUSIONS: When used in combination with DRV/r, dose adjustment of IDV from 800 mg b.i.d. to 600 mg b.i.d. may be warranted in cases of intolerance.

Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced children and adolescents.

OBJECTIVE: To assess pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) and optimized background regimen in treatment-experienced patients (6-17 years). DESIGN: Forty-eight-week, open-label, two-part, phase II study. METHODS: In part I, 44 patients were randomized (1: 1 ratio) to receive a body weight-adjusted, adult-equivalent dose (group A) or a 20-33% higher DRV/r twice daily (b.i.d.) dose (group B). Pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy were assessed following 2-week dosing (part I), which determined dosing for part II (evaluated 48-week safety and efficacy). RESULTS: In part I, both groups met the protocol-specified criteria for pharmacokinetics and showed favorable tolerability and efficacy. The following body-weight doses were selected: DRV/r 375/50 mg b.i.d. (20-<30 kg), 450/60 mg b.i.d. (30-<40 kg) and 600/100 mg b.i.d. (> or =40 kg); these gave an AUC24h, C0h and Cmax of 102, 114 and 112%, respectively, versus the corresponding mean adult pharmacokinetic parameter. In part II, 80 patients received DRV/r (median age: 14 years, mean baseline HIV-1 RNA: 4.64 log(10)copies/ml). One patient (1%) discontinued (treatment-unrelated grade 3 anxiety). An abnormal mean baseline triglyceride level was normalized at 48 weeks (P < 0.01). At week 48, 65% had at least 1.0 log(10)HIV-1 RNA reduction; 59 and 48% achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 400 and less than 50 copies/ml, respectively (time-to-loss-of-virologic response). Mean age-adjusted weight z-score increased by 0.2 (P = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In treatment-experienced children and adolescents, DRV/r showed comparable exposure to adults with appropriate dose selection, favorable safety and tolerability, improved body weight and significant virologic response. DRV/r is a valuable therapeutic option for this population.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between nevirapine and darunavir with low-dose ritonavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

AIM: To investigate the pharmacokinetic interaction between darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) and nevirapine (NVP) in 19 HIV-infected patients. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, crossover study. Patients received Treatment A [NVP 200 mg b.i.d. plus > or =2 nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)] and Treatment B [A plus DRV/r 300/100 mg b.i.d. (DRV oral solution)] or Treatment B2 [A plus DRV/r 400/100 mg b.i.d. (DRV tablet)] in two 14-day sessions. RESULTS: Mean NVP AUC(12h) increased by 27% [least square means ratio 1.27 (95% confidence interval 1.02, 1.58)]. Mean DRV and ritonavir exposures were similar to historical data. Co-administration was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: DRV/r and NVP have no clinically relevant interaction. No dose adjustments are required.

Once-daily darunavir/ritonavir vs. lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected patients: 96-week analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Present 96-week data from ongoing ARTEMIS (AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In Naive Subjects) trial. METHODS: Randomized, open-label, phase III trial of antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml (stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count) receiving darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) 800/100 mg once daily or lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) 800/200 mg total daily dose (twice daily or once daily) and fixed-dose tenofovir/emtricitabine. Primary outcome measure was noninferiority of DRV/r vs. LPV/r in virologic response (<50 copies/ml, time-to-loss of virologic response) at 96 weeks (secondary outcome: superiority). RESULTS: Six hundred eighty-nine patients were enrolled. At week 96, significantly more DRV/r (79%) than LPV/r patients (71%) had viral load less than 50 copies/ml, confirming statistical noninferiority (estimated difference: 8.4%; 95% confidence interval 1.9-14.8; P < 0.001; per-protocol) and superiority (P = 0.012; intent-to-treat) in virologic response. Median CD4 cell count increases from baseline were 171 and 188 cells/microl for DRV/r and LPV/r, respectively (P = 0.57; noncompleter=failure). Overall, 4% of DRV/r patients and 9% of LPV/r patients discontinued treatment due to adverse events. Lower rates of grade 2-4 treatment-related diarrhea were seen with DRV/r (4%) vs. LPV/r (11%; P < 0.001), whereas grade 2-4 treatment-related rash occurred infrequently in both arms (3 vs. 1%, respectively; P = 0.273). DRV/r patients had smaller median increases in triglycerides (0.1 and 0.6 mmol/l, respectively, P < 0.0001) and total cholesterol (0.6 and 0.9 mmol/l, respectively; P < 0.0001) than LPV/r patients; levels remained below National Cholesterol Education Program cut-offs for DRV/r. CONCLUSION: At week 96, once-daily DRV/r was both statistically noninferior and superior in virologic response to LPV/r, with a more favorable gastrointestinal and lipid profile, confirming DRV/r as an effective, well tolerated, and durable option for antiretroviral-naive patients.

Effect of ritonavir-boosted tipranavir or darunavir on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of elvitegravir.

OBJECTIVE: Elvitegravir (EVG) is in phase 3 development in combination with ritonavir (RTV)-boosted protease inhibitors in treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients. Two studies evaluated pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions among EVG and RTV-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r) or darunavir (DRV/r). METHODS: Healthy volunteers received EVG/r alone (study 1: 200/100 mg once daily; study 2: 125/100 mg once daily), TPV/r (500/200 mg twice daily) or DRV/r (600/100 mg twice daily) alone, and EVG (200 or 125 mg as applicable) added to TPV/r (500/200 mg twice daily) or DRV/r (600/100 mg twice daily) in a randomized crossover design, with assessment of steady-state PK for EVG, TPV, DRV, and RTV. Safety was assessed by clinical monitoring. Studies were powered to conclude lack of an interaction if the 90% confidence interval for the geometric mean ratios of the AUCtau and Cmax for EVG, TPV, and DRV were within predefined no-effect boundaries. Trough concentrations were also assessed. RESULTS: No subjects discontinued for adverse events during treatment with EVG/r alone. On coadministration, AUCtau and Cmax of EVG and TPV and EVG and DRV were within prespecified no-effect boundaries versus treatment alone; trough concentrations were also not substantially altered. CONCLUSIONS: The PK of EVG and TPV or DRV were not altered after coadministration of EVG with TPV/r or DRV/r. EVG PK was similar with varied RTV doses of 100 mg once daily, 100 mg twice daily, or 200 mg twice daily. EVG can be added to TPV/r or DRV/r regimens without dose adjustment.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between ethinyl estradiol, norethindrone and darunavir with low-dose ritonavir in healthy women.

BACKGROUND: An open-label, randomized, crossover study was performed to investigate the effect of multiple doses of darunavir co-administered with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of the oral contraceptives ethinyl estradiol (EE) and norethindrone (NE) (commercial name of the combined drug Ortho-Novum 1/35) in 19 HIV-negative healthy women. METHODS: In session 1, participants received 35 microg EE and 1.0 mg NE from days 1 to 21. In session 2, participants received the same oral contraceptive treatment as in session 1 on days 1 to 21 plus DRV/r (600 mg/100 mg twice daily) on days 1 to 14. Pharmacokinetic assessments were performed on day 14 for each session. RESULTS: Steady-state systemic exposure to EE and NE decreased when DRV/r was co-administered, based on the ratio of least square means of the minimum plasma concentration (Cmin), the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), and the area under the curve (AUC24h) of EE (which decreased by 62%, 32% and 44%, respectively) and NE (which decreased by 30%, 10% and 14%, respectively) compared with administration of EE and NE alone. Five participants discontinued the study due to grade 2 cutaneous events, as required per protocol, during treatment with EE and NE in combination with DRV/r. There were no clinically relevant findings for laboratory and cardiovascular parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetic interaction observed here is considered to be clinically relevant as EE concentrations are considerably reduced when DRV/r is co-administered with EE and NE. Alternative or additional contraceptive measures should be used when oestrogen-based contraceptives are co-administered with DRV/r.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir/ritonavir and ketoconazole following co-administration in HIV-healthy volunteers.

AIMS: To investigate the interaction between ketoconazole and darunavir (alone and in combination with low-dose ritonavir), in HIV-healthy volunteers. METHODS: Volunteers received darunavir 400 mg bid and darunavir 400 mg bid plus ketoconazole 200 mg bid, in two sessions (Panel 1), or darunavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg bid, ketoconazole 200 mg bid and darunavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg bid plus ketoconazole 200 mg bid, over three sessions (Panel 2). Treatments were administered with food for 6 days. Steady-state pharmacokinetics following the morning dose on day 7 were compared between treatments. Short-term safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Based on least square means ratios (90% confidence intervals), during darunavir and ketoconazole co-administration, darunavir area under the curve (AUC(12h)), maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and minimum plasma concentration (C(min)) increased by 155% (80, 261), 78% (28, 147) and 179% (58, 393), respectively, compared with treatment with darunavir alone. Darunavir AUC(12h), C(max) and C(min) increased by 42% (23, 65), 21% (4, 40) and 73% (39, 114), respectively, during darunavir/ritonavir and ketoconazole co-administration, relative to darunavir/ritonavir treatment. Ketoconazole pharmacokinetics was unchanged by co-administration with darunavir alone. Ketoconazole AUC(12h), C(max) and C(min) increased by 212% (165, 268), 111% (81, 144) and 868% (544, 1355), respectively, during co-administration with darunavir/ritonavir compared with ketoconazole alone. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in darunavir exposure by ketoconazole was lower than that observed previously with ritonavir. A maximum ketoconazole dose of 200 mg day(-1) is recommended if used concomitantly with darunavir/ritonavir, with no dose adjustments for darunavir/ritonavir.

Darunavir: pharmacokinetics and drug interactions.

Darunavir (TMC114) is a new HIV protease inhibitor that has demonstrated substantial antiretroviral activity against wild-type HIV-1 virus and multidrug-resistant strains. Darunavir inhibits and is primarily metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) isoenzymes and is coadministered with low-dose ritonavir (darunavir/r); ritonavir is an inhibitor of CYP3A isoenzymes and pharmacologically enhances darunavir, resulting in increased plasma concentrations and allowing for a lower daily dose. The t1/2 (terminal elimination half-life) of darunavir is 15 h in the presence of ritonavir. An extensive darunavir/r drug-drug interaction programme has been undertaken, covering a wide range of therapeutic areas. Studies conducted in HIV-negative healthy volunteers and in HIV-infected patients show that the potential for interactions is well characterized and the interactions are manageable. For most drugs investigated, no dose adjustments of darunavir/r or the co-administered drug are required. This article reviews all the pharmacokinetic and drug-drug interaction studies conducted to date for darunavir/r, providing guidance on how to co-administer darunavir/r with many other antiretroviral or non-antiretroviral medications commonly used in HIV-infected individuals.