Safety, efficacy, and tolerability of efgartigimod in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis (ADAPT): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for treatment options for generalised myasthenia gravis that are effective, targeted, well tolerated, and can be used in a broad population of patients. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of efgartigimod (ARGX-113), a human IgG1 antibody Fc fragment engineered to reduce pathogenic IgG autoantibody levels, in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis. METHODS: ADAPT was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 56 neuromuscular academic and community centres in 15 countries in North America, Europe, and Japan. Patients aged at least 18 years with generalised myasthenia gravis were eligible to participate in the study, regardless of anti-acetylcholine receptor antibody status, if they had a Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) score of at least 5 (>50% non-ocular), and were on a stable dose of at least one treatment for generalised myasthenia gravis. Patients were randomly assigned by interactive response technology (1:1) to efgartigimod (10 mg/kg) or matching placebo, administered as four infusions per cycle (one infusion per week), repeated as needed depending on clinical response no sooner than 8 weeks after initiation of the previous cycle. Patients, investigators, and clinical site staff were all masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was proportion of acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive patients who were MG-ADL responders (≥2-point MG-ADL improvement sustained for ≥4 weeks) in the first treatment cycle. The primary analysis was done in the modified intention-to-treat population of all acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive patients who had a valid baseline MG-ADL assessment and at least one post-baseline MG-ADL assessment. The safety analysis included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose or part dose of efgartigimod or placebo. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03669588); an open-label extension is ongoing (ADAPT+, NCT03770403). FINDINGS: Between Sept 5, 2018, and Nov 26, 2019, 167 patients (84 in the efgartigimod group and 83 in the placebo group) were enrolled, randomly assigned, and treated. 129 (77%) were acetylcholine receptor antibody-positive. Of these patients, more of those in the efgartigimod group were MG-ADL responders (44 [68%] of 65) in cycle 1 than in the placebo group (19 [30%] of 64), with an odds ratio of 4·95 (95% CI 2·21-11·53, p<0·0001). 65 (77%) of 84 patients in the efgartigimod group and 70 (84%) of 83 in the placebo group had treatment-emergent adverse events, with the most frequent being headache (efgartigimod 24 [29%] vs placebo 23 [28%]) and nasopharyngitis (efgartigimod ten [12%] vs placebo 15 [18%]). Four (5%) efgartigimod-treated patients and seven (8%) patients in the placebo group had a serious adverse event. Three patients in each treatment group (4%) discontinued treatment during the study. There were no deaths. INTERPRETATION: Efgartigimod was well tolerated and efficacious in patients with generalised myasthenia gravis. The individualised dosing based on clinical response was a unique feature of ADAPT, and translation to clinical practice with longer term safety and efficacy data will be further informed by the ongoing open-label extension. FUNDING: argenx.

Safety and Efficacy of a Dapivirine Vaginal Ring for HIV Prevention in Women.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection remains high among women in sub-Saharan Africa. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of extended use of a vaginal ring containing dapivirine for the prevention of HIV infection in 1959 healthy, sexually active women, 18 to 45 years of age, from seven communities in South Africa and Uganda. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned participants in a 2:1 ratio to receive vaginal rings containing either 25 mg of dapivirine or placebo. Participants inserted the rings themselves every 4 weeks for up to 24 months. The primary efficacy end point was the rate of HIV type 1 (HIV-1) seroconversion. RESULTS: A total of 77 participants in the dapivirine group underwent HIV-1 seroconversion during 1888 person-years of follow-up (4.1 seroconversions per 100 person-years), as compared with 56 in the placebo group who underwent HIV-1 seroconversion during 917 person-years of follow-up (6.1 seroconversions per 100 person-years). The incidence of HIV-1 infection was 31% lower in the dapivirine group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.99; P=0.04). There was no significant difference in efficacy of the dapivirine ring among women older than 21 years of age (hazard ratio for infection, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.97) and those 21 years of age or younger (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.45 to 1.60; P=0.43 for treatment-by-age interaction). Among participants with HIV-1 infection, nonnucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor resistance mutations were detected in 14 of 77 participants in the dapivirine group (18.2%) and in 9 of 56 (16.1%) in the placebo group. Serious adverse events occurred more often in the dapivirine group (in 38 participants [2.9%]) than in the placebo group (in 6 [0.9%]). However, no clear pattern was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Among women in sub-Saharan Africa, the dapivirine ring was not associated with any safety concerns and was associated with a rate of acquisition of HIV-1 infection that was lower than the rate with placebo. (Funded by the International Partnership for Microbicides; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01539226 .).

Simulation-guided phase 3 trial design to evaluate vaccine effectiveness to prevent Ebola virus disease infection: Statistical considerations, design rationale, and challenges.

Starting in December 2013, West Africa was overwhelmed with the deadliest outbreak of Ebola virus known to date, resulting in more than 27,500 cases and 11,000 deaths. In response to the epidemic, development of a heterologous prime-boost vaccine regimen was accelerated and involved preparation of a phase 3 effectiveness study. While individually randomized controlled trials are widely acknowledged as the gold standard for demonstrating the efficacy of a candidate vaccine, there was considerable debate on the ethical appropriateness of these designs in the context of an epidemic. A suitable phase 3 trial must convincingly ensure unbiased evaluation with sufficient statistical power. In addition, efficient evaluation of a vaccine candidate is required so that an effective vaccine can be immediately disseminated. This manuscript aims to present the statistical and modeling considerations, design rationale and challenges encountered due to the emergent, epidemic setting that led to the selection of a cluster-randomized phase 3 study design under field conditions.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of boosted once-daily darunavir.

The ability to dose antiretroviral agents once daily simplifies the often complex therapeutic regimens required for the successful treatment of HIV infection. Thus, once-daily dosing can lead to improved patient adherence to medication and, consequently, sustained virological suppression and reduction in the risk of emergence of drug resistance. Several trials have evaluated once-daily darunavir/ritonavir in combination with other antiretrovirals (ARTEMIS and ODIN trials) or as monotherapy (MONET, MONOI and PROTEA trials) in HIV-1-infected adults. Data from ARTEMIS and ODIN demonstrate non-inferiority of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir against a comparator and, together with pharmacokinetic data, have established the suitability of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir for treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients with no darunavir resistance-associated mutations. The findings of ARTEMIS and ODIN have led to recent updates to treatment guidelines, whereby once-daily darunavir/ritonavir, given with other antiretrovirals, is now a preferred treatment option for antiretroviral-naive adult patients and a simplified treatment option for antiretroviral-experienced adults who have no darunavir resistance-associated mutations. Once-daily dosing with darunavir/ritonavir is an option for treatment-naive and for treatment-experienced paediatric patients with no darunavir resistance-associated mutations based on the findings of the DIONE trial and ARIEL substudy. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety and tolerability of once-daily boosted darunavir. The feasibility of darunavir/ritonavir monotherapy as a treatment approach for some patients is also discussed. Finally, data on a fixed-dose combination of 800/150 mg of darunavir/cobicistat once daily are presented, showing comparable darunavir bioavailability to that obtained with 800/100 mg of darunavir/ritonavir once daily.

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.

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.

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.

A unified approach to multi-item reliability.

The reliability of multi-item scales has received a lot of attention in the psychometric literature, where a myriad of measures like the Cronbach's α or the Spearman-Brown formula have been proposed. Most of these measures, however, are based on very restrictive models that apply only to unidimensional instruments. In this article, we introduce two measures to quantify the reliability of multi-item scales based on a more general model. We show that they capture two different aspects of the reliability problem and satisfy a minimum set of intuitive properties. The relevance and complementary value of the measures is studied and earlier approaches are placed in a broader theoretical framework. Finally, we apply them to investigate the reliability of the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, a rating scale for the assessment of the severity of schizophrenia.

Efficacy and safety of darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced HIV type-1 patients in the POWER 1, 2 and 3 trials at week 96.

BACKGROUND: Long-term (96-week) efficacy and safety of the protease inhibitor (PI) darunavir coadministered with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) was evaluated in HIV type-1 (HIV-1)-infected patients with extensive prior treatment experience in the POWER 1, 2 and 3 trials. METHODS: Patients with HIV-1 RNA>or=1,000 copies/ml and >or=1 primary PI mutation were randomized to receive either DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily plus an optimized background regimen (OBR), or an investigator-selected control PI (CPI) plus OBR (POWER 3 was a DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily single-arm study). The proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml at week 96 was assessed (intent-to-treat [ITT], time-to-loss of virological response algorithm). RESULTS: In total, 467 patients received DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily; 124 patients received CPI(s). At week 96, 39% of DRV/r patients in POWER 1 and 2 (pooled analysis) versus 9% of CPI patients achieved HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml (ITT, time-to-loss of virological response algorithm; P<0.001). A similar proportion of DRV/r patients (42%) in POWER 3 achieved HIV-1 RNA<50 copies/ml at week 96. Mean absolute CD4(+) T-cell count increase for DRV/r at 96 weeks was 133 cells/mm(3) in POWER 1 and 2 and 103 cells/mm(3) in POWER 3. Grade 2-4 treatment-emergent adverse events at least possibly related to DRV/r (>or=2% incidence, excluding laboratory abnormalities) were diarrhoea (3%), vomiting (3%), nausea (2%) and headache (2%). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily was well tolerated and led to sustained virological and immunological responses in treatment-experienced HIV-1-infected patients over 96 weeks.

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.

Characterization of virologic failure patients on darunavir/ritonavir in treatment-experienced patients.

OBJECTIVE: Characterization of resistance development in virologic failure patients on the protease inhibitor darunavir administered with low-dose ritonavir (DRV/r) in the 48-week analysis of TMC114/r In Treatment-experienced pAtients Naive to lopinavir (TITAN). DESIGN: TITAN is a randomized, controlled, open-label, phase III, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy and safety of DRV/r with that of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in HIV-1-infected, treatment-experienced, LPV-naive patients. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies/ml at week 48. METHODS: Patients received DRV/r 600/100 mg twice daily (n = 298) or LPV/r 400/100 mg twice daily (n = 297), and an optimized background regimen. Patients who lost or never achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 400 copies/ml after week 16 were considered virologic failure patients. Genotyping and phenotyping were performed. RESULTS: The virologic failure rate in the DRV/r arm (10%, n = 31) was lower than in the LPV/r arm (22%, n = 65). Furthermore, fewer virologic failure patients in the DRV/r arm than in the LPV/r arm developed primary protease inhibitor mutations (6 vs. 20) or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations (4 vs. 15). In addition, fewer virologic failure patients on DRV/r than on LPV/r lost susceptibility to the protease inhibitor (3 vs. 13) or nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor(s) (3 vs. 14) used in the treatment regimen or to other protease inhibitors. Most DRV/r-treated virologic failure patients retained susceptibility to all protease inhibitors. CONCLUSION: In treatment-experienced, LPV-naive patients, the overall virologic failure rate in the DRV/r arm was low and was associated with limited resistance development. These findings showed that the use of DRV/r in earlier lines of treatment was less likely to lead to cross-resistance to other protease inhibitors compared with LPV/r.

Using longitudinal data from a clinical trial in depression to assess the reliability of its outcome scales.

Longitudinal studies are permeating clinical trials in psychiatry. Additionally, in the same field, rating scales are frequently used to evaluate the status of the patients and the efficacy of new therapeutic procedures. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to study the psychometric properties of these instruments within a longitudinal framework. In the area of depression, the Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD) is regularly used for antidepressant treatment evaluation. However, the use of HAMD has not been exempted from criticism what has lead to the development of new scales that are expected to be more sensitive for change, such as the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS). In general, the reliability of these scales has been extensively studied by using classical methods for reliability estimation, developed for specifically designed reliability studies. Unfortunately, the settings customarily considered in these reliability studies are usually far from the practical conditions in which these scales are applied in clinical trials and practice. In the present paper, we assess the reliability of these instruments in a more realistic scenario thereby using longitudinal data coming from clinical studies. Nowadays, newly developed methodology based on an extended concept of reliability, allows us to use longitudinal data for reliability estimation. This new approach not only enables to avoid bias by offering a better control of disturbing factors but it also produces more precise estimates by taking advantage of the large sample taking sizes available in clinical trials. Further, it offers practical guidelines for an optimal use of a rating scale in order to achieve a particular level of reliability. The merits of this new approach are illustrated by applying it on two clinical trials in depression to assess the reliability of the three outcome scales, HAMD, MADRS, and the Hamilton anxiety rating scale (HAMA).

Efficacy of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in HIV-infected, treatment-experienced patients with no baseline resistance-associated mutations to darunavir.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the potential of once-daily dosing with darunavir/ritonavir 800/100 mg in a HIV-infected, treatment-experienced patient population with no baseline darunavir resistance-associated mutations (RAMs). METHODS: Patients in the randomized controlled POWER 1 and 2 trials were treatment experienced, with > or =1 International AIDS Society-USA primary protease inhibitor (PI) mutation. The virological and immunological responses in patients with no baseline darunavir RAMs receiving darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily (n = 23), darunavir/r 600/100 mg twice daily (n = 29), or currently available PI(s) (n = 28) plus an optimized background regimen were compared. RESULTS: The proportion of patients achieving HIV RNA <50 copies per milliliter at week 24 was 67% for the group receiving darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily and 62% for the group receiving darunavir/r 600/100 mg twice daily (P = 0.774); both were superior to control PI(s) (11%; P < 0.0001). Mean HIV RNA change from baseline was 22.39 and 22.35 log10 copies per milliliter for the group receiving darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily and for the group receiving 600/100 mg twice daily, respectively (P = 0.895); mean CD4 increases were 88 and 111 cells per milliliter, respectively (P = 0.526). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-experienced, HIV-infected patients with no baseline darunavir RAMs achieved similar high responses with darunavir/r 800/100 mg once daily and 600/100 mg twice daily. This suggests that once-daily darunavir/r 800/100 mg therapy, which has been shown effective in treatment-naive patients and is currently being studied in treatment-experienced patients, shows potential in patients with no darunavir RAMs.

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.

Generalizability in nongaussian longitudinal clinical trial data based on generalized linear mixed models.

This work investigates how generalizability, an extension of reliability, can be defined and estimated based on longitudinal data sequences resulting from, for example, clinical studies. Useful and intuitive approximate expressions are derived based on generalized linear mixed models. Data from four double-blind, randomized clinical trials into schizophrenia motivate the research and are used to estimate generalizability for a binary response parameter.

Efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir versus lopinavir/ritonavir in treatment-naive HIV-1-infected patients at week 48.

BACKGROUND: The present primary analysis of AntiRetroviral Therapy with TMC114 ExaMined In naive Subjects (ARTEMIS) compares the efficacy and safety of once-daily darunavir/ritonavir (DRV/r) with that of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in treatment-naive patients. METHODS: Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 5000 copies/ml were stratified by HIV-1 RNA and CD4 cell count in a phase III, open-label trial, and randomized to receive DRV/r 800/100 mg qd or LPV/r 800/200 mg total daily dose (bid or qd) plus fixed-dose tenofovir and emtricitabine for 192 weeks. The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r in HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response at 48 weeks. RESULTS: Six hundred and eighty-nine patients were randomized and treated; mean baseline HIV-1 RNA: 4.85 log10 copies/ml and median CD4 count: 225 cells/microl. At 48 weeks, 84% of DRV/r and 78% of LPV/r patients achieved HIV-1 RNA less than 50 copies/ml (estimated difference = 5.6 [95% confidence interval -0.1-11]%), demonstrating non-inferiority of DRV/r as compared with LPV/r (P < 0.001; per-protocol time-to-loss of virologic response). Patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml had a significantly higher response rate with DRV/r (79%) versus LPV/r (67%; P < 0.05). Median CD4 cell count increases (non-completer = failure; cells/mul) were 137 for DRV/r and 141 for LPV/r. DRV/r had a lower incidence of possibly treatment-related grade 2-4 gastrointestinal-related adverse events (7 versus 14%) and treatment-related moderate-to-severe diarrhea (4 versus 10%) than LPV/r. Adverse events leading to discontinuation were DRV/r: 3% and LPV/r: 7%. CONCLUSION: DRV/r 800/100 mg qd was non-inferior to LPV/r 800/200 mg at 48 weeks, with a more favorable safety profile. Significantly higher response rates were observed with DRV/r in patients with HIV-1 RNA at least 100 000 copies/ml. DRV/r 800/100 mg offers a new effective and well tolerated once-daily, first-line treatment option for treatment-naive patients.

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.

Resistance profile of darunavir: combined 24-week results from the POWER trials.

The resistance profile of darunavir (TMC114) in treatment-experienced patients was explored using pooled week 24 data from POWER 1, 2, and 3 at the recommended dose of darunavir with low-dose ritonavir (darunavir/r, 600/100 mg bid, N = 458). Baseline darunavir fold change in EC(50) was a strong predictor of virological response at week 24. Preliminary phenotypic clinical cut-offs of 10 and 40 were established. Virological response to darunavir/r was maintained in the presence at baseline of a high number of IAS-USA PI resistance-associated mutations (IAS-USA PI RAMS); a diminished response occurred with >or=14. Eleven protease mutations associated with diminished darunavir/r virological response were identified (V11I, V32I, L33F, I47V, I50V, I54L/M, G73S, L76V, I84V, and L89V). These darunavir resistance-associated mutations (DRV RAMS) occurred in the presence of a high number of IAS-USA PI RAMS. Virological response was diminished with three or more DRV RAMS in the background of a high number of IAS-USA PI RAMS. Incremental numbers of DRV RAMS were more predictive of outcome than were IAS-USA PI RAMS. Mutations developing during darunavir/r virological failure (V32I, L33F, I47V, I54L, and L89V) were also featured in the DRV RAMS list. Site-directed mutants carrying these five mutations, or any one of these mutations either alone or together with one or two IAS-USA PI RAMS, showed no reduced darunavir susceptibility, suggesting that a high number of additional background mutations is required for darunavir resistance. In this population of treatment-experienced patients, darunavir/r demonstrated significantly greater efficacy than investigator-selected control PIs of trials POWER 1 and 2, regardless of baseline viral genotype or phenotype, while exhibiting a high genetic barrier to the development of resistance.

Darunavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetics following coadministration with clarithromycin in healthy volunteers.

This study investigated the steady-state pharmacokinetic interaction between the HIV protease inhibitor, darunavir (TMC114), administered with low-dose ritonavir (darunavir/ritonavir), and clarithromycin in HIV-negative healthy volunteers. In a 3-way crossover study, 18 individuals received darunavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg bid, clarithromycin 500 mg bid, and darunavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg bid plus clarithromycin 500 mg bid in 3 separate sessions for 7 days, with a washout period of at least 7 days between treatments. Pharmacokinetic assessment was performed on day 7. Safety and tolerability of the study medication were monitored throughout. Coadministration of darunavir/ritonavir with clarithromycin resulted in a reduction in darunavir maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve from administration until 12 hours postdose (AUC12 h) of 17% and 13%, respectively. Ritonavir Cmax and AUC12 h were unchanged. During coadministration with darunavir/ritonavir, clarithromycin Cmax and AUC12 h increased by 26% and 57%, respectively; 14-hydroxy-clarithromycin plasma concentrations were reduced to below the lower limit of quantification (<50 ng/mL). The study medication was generally well tolerated. Based on these pharmacokinetic findings, neither clarithromycin nor darunavir/ritonavir dose adjustments are necessary when clarithromycin is coadministered with darunavir/ritonavir.