Safety and Outcomes in Infants Born to Mothers Participating in Retosiban Treatment Trials: ARIOS Follow-up Study.

OBJECTIVE: Retosiban, an oxytocin receptor antagonist, was developed for treating spontaneous preterm labor (sPTL) in women with intact membranes. This ARIOS follow-up study aimed to characterize clinical safety, morbidity, and mortality of infants exposed to retosiban or comparator over 2 years. STUDY DESIGN: ARIOS prospectively assessed outcomes in infants whose mothers received at least one dose of retosiban or comparator (placebo/atosiban) in two Phase 3 sPTL trials. Both trials were terminated prematurely owing to poor enrolment. Infants could be enrolled into ARIOS from 28 days after estimated due date until hospital discharge or up to 9 months (corrected age). An internally developed questionnaire detailing medical conditions, mortality and resource use (Child Health Inventory; CHI), Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (ASQ-3), Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers-Revised with Follow-Up, and Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 1.5 to 5 were completed remotely by parents or legal guardians at prespecified intervals. Serious adverse events (SAEs) were primarily captured via CHI. No comparative statistical analysis was conducted between treatment arms. RESULTS: A total of 49 (86%) infants who had received retosiban and 49 (78%) infants who had received a comparator were enrolled in ARIOS. No deaths occurred during the study. Nine infants experienced SAEs: 6/49 (12.2%) infants in the comparators group and 3/49 (6.1%) in the retosiban group. Of the nine SAEs, seven were due to infections, three, and four in the retosiban and comparators groups, respectively. Based on ASQ-3 score, the incidence of neurodevelopmental delay at 18 and 24 months were 0/18 (0%) and 2/25 (8%) with retosiban and 7/22 (31.8%) and 3/21 (14.3%) with comparator, respectively. CONCLUSION: The current study showed no unexpected adverse outcome or impairment with retosiban based on safety monitoring and neurodevelopment assessments. No further follow-up is intended owing to the discontinuation of clinical development of retosiban. KEY POINTS: · There is a need for an effective and safe treatment for sPTL.. · ARIOS was a follow-up study of two Phase 3 trials in sPTL.. · There were no safety concerns with retosiban treatment.. · Slow recruitment led to termination of the Phase 3 trials..

Randomized Trials of Retosiban Versus Placebo or Atosiban in Spontaneous Preterm Labor.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of retosiban in spontaneous preterm labor (sPTL). STUDY DESIGN: Two multicenter, randomized, and double-blind trials compared retosiban with placebo and retosiban with atosiban in women with a singleton pregnancy and intact membranes in sPTL at 24 to 336/7 weeks' gestation. Coprimary endpoints in the placebo-controlled trial were time to delivery (TTD) or treatment failure (whichever occurred first) and neonatal composite morbidity and mortality. The primary endpoint of the atosiban comparator trial was TTD. RESULTS: The trials were terminated early because of slow recruitment. The placebo-controlled trial enrolled 23 participants (February 2016-July 2017; 2.6% of target);the atosiban-comparator trial enrolled 97 (March 2015-August 2017; 29% of target). Baseline participant characteristics were similar between treatments. In the placebo-controlled trial, mean gestational ages at randomization were 30.8 (retosiban, n = 10) and 30.5 weeks (placebo, n = 13), and mean times to delivery/treatment failure were 18.9 days (retosiban) and 11.1 days (placebo). Two and four neonates in the retosiban and placebo groups, respectively, had ≥1 component of the neonatal composite endpoint. In the atosiban-comparator trial, mean gestational age at randomization was 31.5 weeks (for both retosiban, n = 47, and atosiban, n = 50), and adjusted mean TTDs were 32.51 days (retosiban) and 33.71 days (atosiban; p > 0.05). Adverse events were no more common with retosiban than placebo or atosiban. CONCLUSION: Despite considerable efforts to conduct two adequate and well-controlled studies in patients with sPTL, both studies were unable to recruit effectively and consequently terminated prematurely. Key factors negatively affecting participation were patient and physician resistance to use of a placebo comparator, lack of investigator consensus on diagnostic criteria and acceptance of protocol procedures, and ethics committee decisions. Meaningful cooperation between pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, and the obstetric community is essential for future development of drugs to treat sPTL.

Treatment of spontaneous preterm labour with retosiban: a phase II pilot dose-ranging study.

AIMS: The aims of the present study were to investigate the maternal, fetal and neonatal safety and tolerability, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of intravenous (IV) retosiban in pregnant women with spontaneous preterm labour (PTL) between 340/7 and 356/7  weeks' gestation. METHODS: In parts A and B of a three-part, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study, women were randomized 3:1 (Part A) or 2:1 (Part B) to either 12-h IV retosiban followed by a single dose of oral placebo (R-P) or 12-h IV placebo followed by single-dose oral retosiban (P-R). RESULTS: A total of 29 women were randomized; 20 to R-P and nine to P-R. An integrated analysis found that adverse events were infrequent in mothers/newborns and consistent with events expected in the population under study or associated with confounding factors. Retosiban was rapidly absorbed after oral administration, with an observed half-life of 1.45 h. Efficacy analyses included 19 women. While not statistically significant, those receiving R-P more frequently achieved uterine quiescence in 6 h (R-P, 63%; 95% credible interval [CrI]: 38, 84; P-R, 43%; 95% CrI: 12, 78) and more achieved a reduction of ≥50% in uterine contractions in 6 h (R-P, 63%; 95% CrI: 38, 84; P-R, 29%; 95% CrI: 4, 64). The number of days to delivery was increased in women receiving R-P (median 26 days for R-P vs. 13 days for P-R). CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous retosiban has a favourable safety and tolerability profile and might prolong pregnancies in women with PTL. The study provides the rationale and dosing strategy for further evaluation of the efficacy of retosiban in the treatment of PTL.

Treatment of spontaneous preterm labour with retosiban: a phase 2 proof-of-concept study.

AIM: The aim was to investigate the efficacy and safety of intravenous retosiban in women with spontaneous preterm labour. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Retosiban was administered intravenously for 48 h to women in spontaneous preterm labour between 30(0/7) and 35(6/7) weeks' gestation with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy in an in-patient obstetric unit. Outcome measures were uterine quiescence (primary endpoint), days to delivery, preterm delivery and safety. RESULTS: Uterine quiescence was achieved in 62% of women who received retosiban (n = 30) compared with 41% who received placebo (n = 34). The relative risk (RR) was 1.53 (95% credible interval [CrI] 0.98, 2.48; NS). Retosiban resulted in a significant increase in time to delivery compared with placebo (mean difference 8.2 days, 95% CrI 2.7, 13.74). This difference was consistent across all gestational ages. The proportion of preterm births in the retosiban and placebo groups was 18.7% (95% CrI 7.4%, 33.7%) and 47.2% (95% CrI 31.4%, 63.4%), respectively. The RR of preterm birth in women treated with retosiban was 0.38 (95% CrI 0.15, 0.81). There were no deliveries within 7 days in the retosiban group, but there were six (17.6%) births in the placebo group. The maternal, fetal and neonatal adverse events were comparable in the retosiban and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous administration of retosiban in women with spontaneous preterm labour was associated with a greater than 1 week increase in time to delivery compared with placebo, a significant reduction in preterm deliveries, a non-significant increase in uterine quiescence and a favourable safety profile.

A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (Study SB-767905/012) of alvimopan for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in patients with non-cancer pain.

UNLABELLED: Gastrointestinal (GI) side effects are common with opioid medication, and constipation affects ∼40% of patients. Such symptoms considerably impair patients' quality of life. Alvimopan is an orally administered, systemically available, peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist approved in the US for short-term, in-hospital management of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing bowel resection. This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted as part of a recently discontinued clinical program, in which alvimopan was being developed for opioid-induced constipation (OIC). Patients (N = 518) receiving opioids for non-cancer pain were randomized to receive alvimopan .5 mg once daily, alvimopan .5 mg twice daily, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing ≥ 3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs; bowel movements with no laxative use in the previous 24 hours) per week over the treatment period and an average increase from baseline of ≥ 1 SBM per week. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the alvimopan .5 mg twice-daily group met the primary endpoint compared with placebo (72% versus 48%, P < .001). Treatment with alvimopan twice daily improved a number of other symptoms compared with placebo and reduced the requirement for rescue laxative use. The opioid-induced bowel dysfunction Symptoms Improvement Scale (SIS) responder rate was 40.4% in the alvimopan .5 mg twice daily group, versus 18.6% with placebo (P < .001). In general, alvimopan .5 mg once daily produced qualitatively similar but numerically smaller responses than twice-daily treatment. Active treatment did not increase the requirement for opioid medication or increase average pain intensity scores. Over the 12-week treatment period, alvimopan appeared to be well tolerated. PERSPECTIVE: These results demonstrate the potential for a PAM-OR antagonist to improve the symptoms of OIC without antagonizing opioid analgesia.

A randomized, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial (Study SB-767905/013) of alvimopan for opioid-induced bowel dysfunction in patients with non-cancer pain.

UNLABELLED: The balance between the pain relief provided by opioid analgesics and the side effects caused by such agents is of particular significance to patients who take opioids for the long-term relief of non-cancer pain. The spectrum of signs and symptoms affecting the gastrointestinal (GI) tract associated with opioid use is known as opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. Alvimopan is an orally administered, systemically available, peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist, approved in the US for the management of postoperative ileus in patients undergoing bowel resection (short-term, in-hospital use only). Alvimopan was under clinical development for long-term treatment of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) but this program has been discontinued. This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, part of the former OIC development program, enrolled patients (N = 485) receiving opioids for non-cancer pain. Patients were randomized to receive alvimopan .5 mg once daily, alvimopan .5 mg twice daily, or placebo, for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced ≥ 3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs; bowel movements with no laxative use in the previous 24 hours) per week over the treatment period, and an average increase from baseline of ≥ 1 SBM per week. There were greater proportions of SBM responders in both alvimopan treatment groups (63% in both groups) compared with placebo (56%), although these differences were not statistically significant. Secondary efficacy analyses indicated that alvimopan was numerically superior to placebo in improving opioid-induced bowel dysfunction symptoms and patients' global assessment of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction, and reduced the requirement for rescue laxatives. Active treatment was well tolerated and alvimopan did not antagonize opioid analgesia. PERSPECTIVE: Although the primary endpoint was not met in this study, the magnitude of alvimopan-induced improvements versus baseline, together with previous study results, suggest that a PAM-OR antagonist has the potential to improve OIC.

Alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist for the treatment of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction: results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-finding study in subjects taking opioids for chronic non-cancer pain.

Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of alvimopan, a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor (PAM-OR) antagonist, in subjects with non-cancer pain and opioid-induced bowel dysfunction (OBD), and to identify at least one treatment regimen that improves OBD. Following a 2-week baseline period, 522 subjects reporting <3 spontaneous bowel movements (SBMs)/week (with >or=25% accompanied by a sensation of incomplete evacuation, straining, or lumpy hard stools), requiring analgesia equivalent to >or=30 mg oral morphine/day were randomized to alvimopan 0.5mg twice daily (BID), 1mg once daily (QD), 1mg BID, or placebo for 6 weeks. Compared with placebo, there was a statistically and clinically significant increase in mean weekly SBM frequency over the initial 3 weeks of treatment (primary endpoint) with alvimopan 0.5mg BID (+1.71 mean SBMs/week), alvimopan 1mg QD (+1.64) and alvimopan 1mg BID (+2.52); P<0.001 for all comparisons. Increased SBM frequency and additional treatment effects, including improvements in symptoms such as straining, stool consistency, incomplete evacuation, abdominal bloating/discomfort, and decreased appetite, were sustained over 6 weeks. The most frequently reported adverse events were abdominal pain, nausea, and diarrhea, occurring more frequently in the higher dosage groups. The alvimopan 0.5mg BID regimen demonstrated the best benefit-to-risk profile for managing OBD with alvimopan in this study population, with a side effect profile similar to that of placebo. There was no evidence of opioid analgesia antagonism. Competitive peripheral antagonism of opioids with alvimopan can restore GI function and relieve OBD without compromising analgesia.

Abacavir, efavirenz, didanosine, with or without hydroxyurea, in HIV-infected adults failing initial nucleoside/protease inhibitor-containing regimens.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyurea (HU) is an immunomodulatory agent that has been documented to enhance the antiretroviral activity of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, such as abacavir (ABC) and didanosine (ddI), and would be expected to improve virologic efficacy. METHODS: A 48-week, phase IV, multicenter, open-label, proof-of-concept clinical trial was conducted to evaluate second-line, protease inhibitor (PI)-sparing therapy with ABC/efavirenz (EFV)/ddI plus HU or without HU in HIV-infected subjects failing to achieve HIV-1 RNA < or = 400 copies/mL after > or = 16 weeks of treatment with lamivudine/zidovudine or lamivudine/stavudine, plus 1 or 2 PIs. Subjects were assigned to ABC (300 mg twice daily)/ EFV (600 mg once daily)/ ddI (400 mg once daily) plus HU (500 mg twice daily) (n = 30) or this regimen without HU (n = 24). RESULTS: Baseline mean HIV-1 RNA was 3.86 log10 copies/mL and CD4+ cell count was 345 cells/mm3. A similar percentage of subjects in the non-HU arm (58%) and HU arm (53%) completed the study. Intent-to-treat: missing = failure analysis showed no differences in proportions of subjects in the non-HU and HU arms achieving undetectable plasma HIV-1 RNA levels at week 24 (< 400 copies/mL: 58% [14/24] vs 57% [17/30], P = 0.899; < 50 copies/mL (50% [12/24] vs 47% [14/30], P = 0.780). Median change from baseline in CD4+ cell count in the non-HU and HU arms at week 48 was +114 cells/mm3 and -63 cells/mm3 (P = 0.007), respectively. Both regimens were generally well tolerated, although more subjects in the HU arm withdrew prematurely from the study due to adverse events (23% vs 4%). Four cases of possible ABC-related hypersensitivity were observed. CONCLUSION: ABC/EFV/ddI was an effective and well-tolerated second-line regimen for nucleoside/PI-experienced HIV-infected subjects. The addition of HU blunted the CD4+ cell response, did not appear to enhance antiviral activity, and resulted in more treatment-limiting adverse events.

Substituting abacavir for hyperlipidemia-associated protease inhibitors in HAART regimens improves fasting lipid profiles, maintains virologic suppression, and simplifies treatment.

BACKGROUND: Hyperlipidemia secondary to protease inhibitors (PI) may abate by switching to anti-HIV medications without lipid effects. METHOD: An open-label, randomized pilot study compared changes in fasting lipids and HIV-1 RNA in 104 HIV-infected adults with PI-associated hyperlipidemia (fasting serum total cholesterol >200 mg/dL) who were randomized either to a regimen in which their PI was replaced by abacavir 300 mg twice daily (n = 52) or a regimen in which their PI was continued (n = 52) for 28 weeks. All patients had undetectable viral loads (HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL) at baseline and were naive to abacavir and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean total cholesterol was 243 mg/dL, low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol 149 mg/dL, high density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol 41 mg/dL, and triglycerides 310 mg/dL. Mean CD4+ cell counts were 551 and 531 cells/mm3 in the abacavir-switch and PI-continuation arms, respectively. At week 28, the abacavir-switch arm had significantly greater least square mean reduction from baseline in total cholesterol (-42 vs -10 mg/dL, P < 0.001), LDL-cholesterol (-14 vs +5 mg/dL, P = 0.016), and triglycerides (-134 vs -36 mg/dL, P = 0.019) than the PI-continuation arm, with no differences in HDL-cholesterol (+0.2 vs +1.3 mg/dL, P = 0.583). A higher proportion of patients in the abacavir-switch arm had decreases in protocol-defined total cholesterol and triglyceride toxicity grades, whereas a smaller proportion had increases in these toxicity grades. At week 28, an intent-to treat: missing = failure analysis showed that the abacavir-switch and PI-continuation arms did not differ significantly with respect to proportion of patients maintaining HIV-1 RNA <400 or <50 copies/mL or adjusted mean change from baseline in CD4+ cell count. Two possible abacavir-related hypersensitivity reactions were reported. No significant changes in glucose, insulin, insulin resistance, C-peptide, or waist-to-hip ratios were observed in either treatment arm, nor were differences in these parameters noted between treatments. CONCLUSION: In hyperlipidemic, antiretroviral-experienced patients with HIV-1 RNA levels <50 copies/mL and CD4+ cell counts >500 cells/mm3, substituting abacavir for hyperlipidemia-associated PIs in combination antiretroviral regimens improves lipid profiles and maintains virologic suppression over a 28-week period, and it simplifies treatment.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of methadone enantiomers after coadministration with amprenavir in opioid-dependent subjects.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics of methadone enantiomers when coadministered with amprenavir. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, within-subject pharmacokinetic study. SETTING: University research center. SUBJECTS: Nineteen opioid-dependent, methadone-maintained, healthy individuals were enrolled. INTERVENTION: On study day 1, subjects received their usual once-daily dose of methadone alone. On study days 2-11, they received the same once-daily methadone dose plus amprenavir 1200 mg twice/day. Serial blood samples were collected over 24 hours on study days 1 and 11 for measurement of plasma R- and S-methadone, and over 12 hours on day 11 for serum amprenavir concentrations. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Standard pharmacokinetic parameters were determined from the concentrations and compared between the two treatments (methadone alone vs methadone with amprenavir). Subjects served as their own control for methadone comparisons, and amprenavir comparisons were made by using a historic control group (38 healthy men). Opioid-effect measures were assessed throughout the study. Coadministration of amprenavir with methadone resulted in a 3-4-hour delay in plasma R- and S-methadone enantiomer peak concentrations at steady state (Cmax-ss). The active R-methadone enantiomer area under the plasma concentration-time curve during a dosing interval (AUCt-ss, Cmax-ss, and the minimum plasma concentration at steady state (Cmin-ss) were decreased by 13%, 25%, and 21%, respectively, after coadministration of methadone and amprenavir. The inactive S-enantiomer AUCt-ss, Cmax-ss, and Cmin-ss were decreased by 40%, 48%, and 52%, respectively. No clinically significant changes were noted in opioid pharmacodynamic effects, and there was no evidence of opioid withdrawal. No methadone dosage was changed in any subject. CONCLUSION: No a priori adjustment in methadone dosage is required during coadministration with amprenavir as there is only a small effect on R-methadone exposure and no evidence of opioid withdrawal.

The pharmacokinetics of methadone following co-administration with a lamivudine/zidovudine combination tablet in opiate-dependent subjects.

Methadone pharmacokinetics were determined in an open-label, within subject study in 16 methadone-maintained, non-HIV-infected subjects prior to and following administration of one lamivudine 150-mg/zidovudine 300-mg combination tablet to determine whether this antiretroviral therapy alters methadone serum concentrations. No significant differences in the mean area under the serum concentration-time curve (AUC(0-24h); 8,753 +/- 4,280 vs. 8,641 +/- 4,431 microg-h/L),oralclearance(CL/F;9.9 +/- 4.9vs. 10.3 +/- 5.5 L/h),oral volume of distribution (Vd/F; 647 +/- 465 vs. 481 +/- 305 L), maximum serum concentration (Cmax; 514 +/- 223 vs. 5,510 +/- 237 microg/L), or terminal elimination half-life (t 1/2; 55.3 +/- 61.0 vs. 35.0 +/- 17.5 h) were detected. These results suggest that methadone dose change is not likely to be necessary for patients treated with lamivudine/zidovudine combination pharmacotherapy.