Efficacy and safety of sulbactam-durlobactam versus colistin for the treatment of patients with serious infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex: a multicentre, randomised, active-controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority clinical trial (ATTACK).

BACKGROUND: An urgent need exists for antibiotics to treat infections caused by carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex (ABC). Sulbactam-durlobactam is a ß-lactam-ß-lactamase inhibitor combination with activity against Acinetobacter, including multidrug-resistant strains. In a phase 3, pathogen-specific, randomised controlled trial, we compared the efficacy and safety of sulbactam-durlobactam versus colistin, both in combination with imipenem-cilastatin as background therapy, in patients with serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant ABC. METHODS: The ATTACK trial was done at 59 clinical sites in 16 countries. Adults aged 18 years or older with ABC-confirmed hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, ventilated pneumonia, or bloodstream infections were randomised 1:1 using a block size of four to sulbactam-durlobactam (1·0 g of each drug in combination over 3 h every 6 h) or colistin (2·5 mg/kg over 30 min every 12 h) for 7-14 days. All patients received imipenem-cilastatin (1·0 g of each drug in combination over 1 h every 6 h) as background therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with laboratory-confirmed carbapenem-resistant ABC (the carbapenem-resistant ABC microbiologically modified intention-to-treat population). Non-inferiority was concluded if the upper bound of the 95% CI for the treatment difference was less than +20%. The primary safety endpoint was incidence of nephrotoxicity assessed using modified Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage renal disease criteria measured by creatinine level or glomerular filtration rate through day 42. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03894046. FINDINGS: Between Sep 5, 2019, and July 26, 2021, 181 patients were randomly assigned to sulbactam-durlobactam or colistin (176 hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia, ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia, or ventilated pneumonia; and five bloodstream infections); 125 patients with laboratory-confirmed carbapenem-resistant ABC isolates were included in the primary efficacy analysis. 28-day all-cause mortality was 12 (19%) of 63 in the sulbactam-durlobactam group and 20 (32%) of 62 in the colistin group, a difference of -13·2% (95% CI -30·0 to 3·5), which met criteria for non-inferiority. Incidence of nephrotoxicity was significantly (p<0·001) lower with sulbactam-durlobactam than colistin (12 [13%] of 91 vs 32 [38%] of 85). Serious adverse events were reported in 36 (40%) of 91 patients in the sulbactam-durlobactam group and 42 (49%) of 86 patients in the colistin group. Treatment-related adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation were reported in ten (11%) of 91 patients in the sulbactam-durlobactam group and 14 (16%) of 86 patients in the colistin group. INTERPRETATION: Our data show that sulbactam-durlobactam was non-inferior to colistin, both agents given in combination with imipenem-cilastatin, for the primary endpoint of 28-day all-cause mortality. Sulbactam-durlobactam was well tolerated and could be an effective intervention to reduce mortality from serious infections caused by carbapenem-resistant ABC, including multidrug-resistant strains. FUNDING: Entasis Therapeutics and Zai Lab.

Pathogen-Targeted Clinical Development to Address Unmet Medical Need: Design, Safety, and Efficacy of the ATTACK Trial.

There is a crucial need for novel antibiotics to stem the tide of antimicrobial resistance, particularly against difficult to treat gram-negative pathogens like Acinetobacter baumannii-calcoaceticus complex (ABC). An innovative approach to addressing antimicrobial resistance may be pathogen-targeted development programs. Sulbactam-durlobactam (SUL-DUR) is a ß-lactam/ß-lactamase inhibitor combination antibiotic that is being developed to specifically target drug-resistant ABC. The development of SUL-DUR culminated with the Acinetobacter Treatment Trial Against Colistin (ATTACK) trial, a global, randomized, active-controlled phase 3 clinical trial that compared SUL-DUR with colistin for treating serious infections due to carbapenem-resistant ABC. SUL-DUR met the primary noninferiority endpoint of 28-day all-cause mortality. Furthermore, SUL-DUR had a favorable safety profile with a statistically significant lower incidence of nephrotoxicity compared with colistin. If approved, SUL-DUR could be an important treatment option for infections caused by ABC, including carbapenem-resistant and multidrug-resistant strains. The development program and the ATTACK trial highlight the potential for pathogen-targeted development programs to address the challenge of antimicrobial resistance.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and positive-controlled crossover study of the effects of durlobactam on cardiac repolarization in healthy subjects.

Durlobactam (formerly ETX2514) is a diazabicyclooctane ß-lactamase inhibitor that inhibits class A, C, and D ß-lactamases. Sulbactam combined with durlobactam has in vitro and in vivo activity against Acinetobacter baumannii including carbapenem- and colistin-resistant isolates and is being developed for treating serious infections due to A. baumannii. The effect of a single supratherapeutic dose of durlobactam on the heart rate corrected QT interval (QTc) was evaluated in healthy subjects in a placebo- and active-controlled, single-infusion, three-way crossover study. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 6 sequences that included a single 3-h i.v. infusion of durlobactam 4 g (supratherapeutic dose), a single 3-h i.v. infusion of placebo, and a single 3-h i.v. infusion of placebo plus a single oral dose of moxifloxacin 400 mg given open-label at the end of the i.v. infusion. In each treatment period, Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) measurements were obtained from predose through 24 h post-start of infusion. For the primary ECG end point, placebo-corrected change-from-baseline corrected QT Fridericia's formula (ΔΔQTcF), no significant change was observed with durlobactam. A concentration-QT analysis demonstrated no significant effect of durlobactam on ECG parameters, including QT interval prolongation. Thus, durlobactam has a low risk for prolonging the QT interval and is unlikely to produce any proarrhythmic effects.

Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Drug-Drug Interaction Potential of Intravenous Durlobactam, a ß-Lactamase Inhibitor, in Healthy Subjects.

Durlobactam (DUR; also known as ETX2514) is a novel ß-lactamase inhibitor with broad activity against Ambler class A, C, and D ß-lactamases. Addition of DUR to sulbactam (SUL) in vitro restores SUL activity against clinical isolates of Acinetobacter baumannii The safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of DUR alone and with SUL and/or imipenem-cilastatin (IMI-CIL) were evaluated in healthy subjects. This was a randomized, placebo-controlled study. In part A, subjects, including a cohort of elderly subjects (which received DUR at 1 g), received single ascending doses of DUR ranging from 0.25 to 8 g. In part B, multiple ascending doses of DUR ranging from 0.25 to 2 g were administered every 6 h (q6h) for 29 doses. In parts C and D, the drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential, including the safety, of DUR (1 g) with SUL (1 g) and/or IMI-CIL (0.5/0.5 g) was investigated after single and multiple doses. Plasma and urine concentrations of DUR, SUL, and IMI-CIL were determined. Among 124 subjects, DUR was generally safe and well tolerated when it was administered either alone or in combination with SUL and/or IMI-CIL. After single and multiple doses, DUR demonstrated linear dose-proportional exposure across the studied dose ranges. Renal excretion was a predominant clearance mechanism. No drug-drug interaction potential between DUR and SUL and/or IMI-CIL was identified. SUL-DUR at 1 g (of each component) administered q6h with a 3-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion is under development for the treatment of serious infections due to A. baumannii (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT02971423.).

Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of Intravenous Sulbactam-Durlobactam with Imipenem-Cilastatin in Hospitalized Adults with Complicated Urinary Tract Infections, Including Acute Pyelonephritis.

Durlobactam (DUR; ETX2514) is a novel ß-lactamase inhibitor with broad-spectrum activity against Ambler class A, C, and D ß-lactamases. Durlobactam restores the in vitro activity of sulbactam (SUL) against members of the Acinetobacter baumannii-A. calcoaceticus complex (ABC). Sulbactam (SUL)-durlobactam (SUL-DUR) is under development for the treatment of ABC infections. Eighty patients with complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI), including acute pyelonephritis (AP), were randomized 2:1 to receive SUL-DUR at 1 g/1 g intravenously (i.v.) or placebo every 6 h (q6h) for 7 days and background therapy with imipenem-cilastatin (IMI) at 500 mg i.v. q6h to evaluate the tolerability of SUL-DUR in hospitalized patients. Patients with bacteremia could receive up to 14 days of therapy. SUL-DUR tolerability and the values of various pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were determined. Efficacy was recorded at the test-of-cure (TOC) visit. SUL-DUR was well tolerated, with no serious adverse events (AEs) being reported. Headache (5.7%), nausea (3.8%), diarrhea (3.8%), and vascular pain (3.8%) were the most common drug-related AEs with SUL-DUR and were mostly of mild or moderate severity. The PK profile of DUR and SUL in hospitalized patients was consistent with observations in healthy volunteers. Overall success in the microbiological modified intent-to-treat (m-MITT) population was similar between the groups, as would be expected with IMI background therapy in all patients (overall success at the TOC visit, 76.6% [n = 36] with SUL-DUR and 81.0% [n = 17] with placebo). SUL-DUR in combination with IMI was well tolerated in patients with cUTIs. The pharmacokinetics of SUL-DUR observed in hospitalized patients was similar to that observed in healthy volunteers. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT03445195.).

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Intravenous Durlobactam and Sulbactam in Subjects with Renal Impairment and Healthy Matched Control Subjects.

Sulbactam-durlobactam is being developed for the treatment of infections caused by Acinetobacter baumannii, including those caused by multidrug- and carbapenem-resistant isolates. This was a phase 1 study to evaluate the effects of various degrees of renal impairment, including subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis (HD), on the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of durlobactam (also known as ETX2514) and sulbactam after single intravenous (i.v.) dose administration. For healthy subjects and those with mild or moderate renal impairment (RI), single 1,000-mg doses each of durlobactam and sulbactam via a 3-h i.v. infusion were administered, and for severe renal impairment, 500-mg doses were administered. For subjects with ESRD and HD, 500-mg i.v. doses each of durlobactam and sulbactam were administered post-HD and pre-HD, with a 1-week washout between doses. Among 34 subjects, decreasing renal function increased systemic exposure (peak plasma concentration [Cmax] and area under the concentration-time curve [AUC]) to durlobactam and sulbactam in a generally linear manner. In healthy subjects and in those with mild or moderate renal impairment, the majority of durlobactam and sulbactam was excreted in the urine, while approximately 40% or less was excreted in urine in subjects with severe renal impairment or ESRD. In subjects with ESRD, hemodialysis was effective at removing both durlobactam and sulbactam from plasma. Renal impairment had no effect of the safety/tolerability profile of durlobactam and sulbactam. In summary, RI and ESRD had a predictable effect on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of durlobactam and sulbactam with no adverse effects on the safety/tolerability profile. Durlobactam and sulbactam are cleared to a similar extent by renal elimination and are impacted similarly by renal impairment. The results from this study have been used with population PK modeling and nonclinically derived PK/PD (pharmacodynamic) exposure targets to establish dosage recommendations for durlobactam and sulbactam in patients with various degrees of RI. The dosing regimen of durlobactam-sulbactam will require adjustment in patients with severe renal insufficiency and in those with ESRD.

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

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

Raltegravir once daily or twice daily in previously untreated patients with HIV-1: a randomised, active-controlled, phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Twice-daily raltegravir with once-daily tenofovir-emtricitabine is an effective initial antiretroviral regimen for patients with HIV-1. On the basis of pharmacokinetic data suggesting efficacy of once-daily raltegravir and because adherence is often improved with once-daily dosing, we aimed to compare these dosing schedules. METHODS: In our international, double-blind, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority study, we enrolled antiretroviral-naive patients with HIV RNA loads of more than 5000 copies per mL and no baseline resistance to tenofovir or emtricitabine at 83 centres worldwide. We randomly allocated patients (1:1) by use of a computer-generated sequence to receive raltegravir once daily (two 400 mg tablets taken together every 24 h), or twice daily (one 400 mg tablet every 12 h), both in combination with once-daily co-formulated tenofovir 300 mg plus emtricitabine 150 mg. The primary outcome was virological response at 48 weeks (viral RNA loads <50 copies per mL) in patients who received at least one dose of study drug, counting non-completers as failure. We assessed non-inferiority in terms of the proportion of patients in both treatment groups who achieved the primary outcome, with a non-inferiority margin of -10%. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00745823. FINDINGS: From Oct 15, 2008, to Nov 2, 2009, we randomly allocated 775 patients, of whom 382 (99%) of 386 patients in the once-daily group and 388 (99%) of 389 in the twice-daily group received at least one dose of study drug. At baseline, 304 (39%) of 770 treated patients had viral loads of more than 100,000 copies per mL and 188 (24%) had CD4 cell counts of fewer than 200 cells per µL. 318 (83%) of 382 patients in the once-daily group had virological response compared with 343 (89%) of 386 in the twice-daily group (difference -5·7%, 95% CI -10·7 to -0·83; p=0·044). Serious adverse events were reported in 26 (7%) of 382 once-daily recipients and 40 (10%) of 388 twice-daily recipients, and adverse events leading to discontinuation occurred in four (1%) patients in each group. INTERPRETATION: Despite high response rates with both regimens, once-daily raltegravir cannot be recommended in place of twice-daily dosing. FUNDING: Merck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Effects of omeprazole on plasma levels of raltegravir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antiretroviral activity, pharmacokinetics, and tolerability of MK-0518, a novel inhibitor of HIV-1 integrase, dosed as monotherapy for 10 days in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected individuals.

BACKGROUND: MK-0518 is a novel HIV-1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor with potent in vitro activity against HIV-1 (95% inhibitory concentration [IC95] = 33 nM in 50% human serum) and good bioavailability in uninfected subjects. This study explored the antiretroviral activity and safety of MK-0518 versus placebo for 10 days as monotherapy in antiretroviral therapy-naive HIV-1-infected patients with plasma HIV-1 RNA levels of at least 5000 copies/mL and CD4 T-cell counts of at least 100 cells/mm. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled 2-part study, with the first part using MK-0518 in 1 of 4 doses (100, 200, 400, and 600 mg) versus placebo (randomized 1:1:1:1:1) given twice daily for 10 days of monotherapy. Patients were monitored for safety, pharmacokinetic parameters, and antiretroviral effect. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were enrolled (6-8 patients per treatment group) and completed 10 days of therapy; the mean baseline log10 HIV RNA level ranged from 4.5 to 5.0 copies/mL in each group. On day 10, the mean decrease from baseline in the log10 HIV RNA level was -0.2 copies/mL for the placebo group and -1.9, -2.0, -1.7 and -2.2 log10 copies/mL for the MK-0518 100-, 200-, 400-, and 600-mg treatment groups, respectively. All dose groups had superior antiretroviral activity compared with placebo (P < 0.001 for comparison of each dose with placebo). At least 50% of patients in each MK-0518 dose group achieved an HIV RNA level <400 copies/mL by day 10. Mean trough MK-0518 concentrations at each dose exceeded the IC95 of 33 nM. Study therapy was generally well tolerated. The most common adverse experiences were headache and dizziness; these were similar between active and control groups. There were no discontinuations because of adverse experiences and no serious adverse experiences. CONCLUSIONS: MK-0518 showed potent antiretroviral activity as short-term monotherapy and was generally well tolerated at all doses. Based on these results, part 2 of the study, a dose-ranging 48-week trial of MK-0518 versus efavirenz in a combination regimen, has been initiated.

Ertapenem versus ceftriaxone for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia in adults: combined analysis of two multicentre randomized, double-blind studies.

The efficacy and safety of ertapenem, 1 g once a day, for the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring parenteral therapy were compared with those of ceftriaxone, 1 g once a day, in 866 hospitalized adults randomized in two prospective, double-blind, multicentre studies. Patients were stratified according to Pneumonia Severity Index (< or = 3 or >3) or age (< or = 65 or >65 years). After > or = 3 days of parenteral antimicrobial therapy, patients who had clinically improved could be switched to oral co-amoxiclav. The median durations of parenteral, oral and total therapy in the 658 clinically evaluable patients, of whom 88% were switched to oral therapy, were 4, 7 and 12 days, respectively, in both treatment groups. The most common pathogen was Streptococcus pneumoniae, of which 79% (143/181) were penicillin susceptible and 3.3% (6/181; three in each treatment group) were penicillin resistant. Cure rates for the two treatments were equivalent: 91.9% for ertapenem and 92.0% for ceftriaxone (95% confidence interval for the difference, adjusted for strata: -4.5 to 4.4). Cure rates in the different severity and age strata and bacterial eradication rates for both treatment groups were also similar. The most common drug-related adverse events in both treatment groups were diarrhoea and mild-to-moderate elevations in aminotransferase levels. The results of these studies demonstrate that ertapenem, 1 g once a day, was highly effective therapy for CAP in hospitalized adults with moderate-to-severe disease.