Safety, Immunogenicity, and Regimen Selection of Ad26.RSV.preF-Based Vaccine Combinations: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 1/2a Study.

BACKGROUND: Ad26.RSV.preF is an adenovirus serotype 26 vector-based respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine encoding a prefusion conformation-stabilized RSV fusion protein (preF) that demonstrated robust humoral and cellular immunogenicity and showed promising efficacy in a human challenge study in younger adults. Addition of recombinant RSV preF protein might enhance RSV-specific humoral immune responses, especially in older populations. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2a study compared the safety and immunogenicity of Ad26.RSV.preF alone and varying doses of Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein combinations in adults aged ≥60 years. This report includes data from cohort 1 (initial safety, n = 64) and cohort 2 (regimen selection, n = 288). Primary immunogenicity and safety analyses were performed 28 days postvaccination (cohort 2) for regimen selection. RESULTS: All vaccine regimens were well tolerated, with similar reactogenicity profiles among them. Combination regimens induced greater humoral immune responses (virus-neutralizing and preF-specific binding antibodies) and similar cellular ones (RSV-F-specific T cells) as compared with Ad26.RSV.preF alone. Vaccine-induced immune responses remained above baseline up to 1.5 years postvaccination. CONCLUSIONS: All Ad26.RSV.preF-based regimens were well tolerated. A combination regimen comprising Ad26.RSV.preF, which elicits strong humoral and cellular responses, and RSV preF protein, which increases humoral responses, was selected for further development. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT03502707.

Concomitant Administration of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF Protein Vaccine and High-dose Influenza Vaccine in Adults 65 Years and Older: a Noninferiority Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since influenza and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) carry significant burden in older adults with overlapping seasonality, vaccines for both pathogens would ideally be coadministered in this population. Here we evaluate the immunogenicity and safety of concomitant administration of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and high-dose seasonal influenza vaccine (Fluzone-HD®) in adults ≥65 years old. METHODS: Participants were randomized 1:1 to the Coadministration or Control group. The Coadministration group received concomitant Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and Fluzone-HD® on Day 1 and placebo on Day 29, while the Control group received Fluzone-HD® and placebo at Day 1 and Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein on Day 29. Influenza hemagglutination-inhibiting and RSV preF-binding antibody titers were measured postvaccination and tested for noninferiority between both groups. Safety data were collected throughout the study and analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Coadministered Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and Fluzone-HD® vaccines induced noninferior immune responses compared to each vaccine administered alone. Seroconversion and seroprotection rates against influenza were similar between groups. Both vaccines remained well tolerated upon concomitant administration. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein and Fluzone-HD® showed an acceptable safety profile and did not hamper the immunogenicity of either vaccine, thus supporting that both vaccines can be concomitantly administered in adults ≥65 years old.

Vaccine-induced antibody Fc-effector functions in humans immunized with a combination Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine.

IMPORTANCE: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause serious illness in older adults (i.e., those aged ≥60 years). Because options for RSV prophylaxis and treatment are limited, the prevention of RSV-mediated illness in older adults remains an important unmet medical need. Data from prior studies suggest that Fc-effector functions are important for protection against RSV infection. In this work, we show that the investigational Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine induced Fc-effector functional immune responses in adults aged ≥60 years who were enrolled in a phase 1/2a regimen selection study of Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein. These results demonstrate the breadth of the immune responses induced by the Ad26.RSV.preF/RSV preF protein vaccine.

Evaluation of symptoms in respiratory syncytial virus infection in adults: psychometric evaluation of the Respiratory Infection Intensity and Impact Questionnaire™ symptom scores.

BACKGROUND: The Respiratory Infection Intensity and Impact Questionnaire (RiiQ™) is a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess symptoms and impacts of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. This study evaluated the construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the RiiQ™ Respiratory and Systemic Symptoms Scale scores. METHODS: Prospective data were analyzed from a total of 1795 participants, including from non-hospitalized patients with acute respiratory infection (ARI) and no coinfections enrolled in a Phase 2b RSV vaccine study (RSV-positive: n = 60; RSV-negative: n = 1615), and two observational studies of patients hospitalized with RSV (n = 20; n = 100). Descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), construct validity correlations (between a clinician-assessed clinical questionnaire and the RiiQ™ symptoms scale), known-groups validity, and responsiveness (correlations of change scores) were evaluated. RESULTS: Mean patient age ranged from 66.5 to 71.5 years and the majority of patients were female. Initial assessments in the vaccine trial (ARI Day 1) were suggestive of less severe illness than in the observational studies with hospitalized patients. CFA loadings (> 0.40) supported summary scores. ICCs exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.70 supported test-retest reliability for Respiratory and Systemic Symptoms, except in the small observational study. At the scale level, correlations were moderate to strong (|r| ≥ 0.3) and positive between the Respiratory Symptoms Scale and the related clinical questionnaire scores, reflecting measurement of similar symptoms in support of convergent validity. Correlations with change in Patient Global Impression of Severity > 0.30 supported responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Psychometric tests applied to the RiiQ™ Symptoms scales provide evidence of its reliability, construct validity, discriminating ability, and responsiveness for use in clinical studies to assess the onset and severity of RSV symptoms.

Efficacy and Safety of an Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF Protein Vaccine in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) can cause serious lower respiratory tract disease in older adults, but no licensed RSV vaccine currently exists. An adenovirus serotype 26 RSV vector encoding a prefusion F (preF) protein (Ad26.RSV.preF) in combination with RSV preF protein was previously shown to elicit humoral and cellular immunogenicity. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2b, proof-of-concept trial to evaluate the efficacy, immunogenicity, and safety of an Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine. Adults who were 65 years of age or older were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive vaccine or placebo. The primary end point was the first occurrence of RSV-mediated lower respiratory tract disease that met one of three case definitions: three or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection (definition 1), two or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection (definition 2), and either two or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection or one or more symptoms of lower respiratory tract infection plus at least one systemic symptom (definition 3). RESULTS: Overall, 5782 participants were enrolled and received an injection. RSV-mediated lower respiratory tract disease meeting case definitions 1, 2, and 3 occurred in 6, 10, and 13 vaccine recipients and in 30, 40, and 43 placebo recipients, respectively. Vaccine efficacy was 80.0% (94.2% confidence interval [CI], 52.2 to 92.9), 75.0% (94.2% CI, 50.1 to 88.5), and 69.8% (94.2% CI, 43.7 to 84.7) for case definitions 1, 2, and 3, respectively. After vaccination, RSV A2 neutralizing antibody titers increased by a factor of 12.1 from baseline to day 15, a finding consistent with other immunogenicity measures. Percentages of participants with solicited local and systemic adverse events were higher in the vaccine group than in the placebo group (local, 37.9% vs. 8.4%; systemic, 41.4% vs. 16.4%); most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity. The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine group and the placebo group (4.6% and 4.7%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In adults 65 years of age or older, Ad26.RSV.preF-RSV preF protein vaccine was immunogenic and prevented RSV-mediated lower respiratory tract disease. (Funded by Janssen Vaccines and Prevention; CYPRESS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03982199.).

Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Infection in Healthy Adults by a Single Immunization of Ad26.RSV.preF in a Human Challenge Study.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is a significant cause of severe lower respiratory tract disease in children and older adults, but has no approved vaccine. This study assessed the potential of Ad26.RSV.preF to protect against RSV infection and disease in an RSV human challenge model. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, healthy adults aged 18-50 years were randomized 1:1 to receive 1 × 1011 vp Ad26.RSV.preF or placebo intramuscularly. Twenty-eight days postimmunization, volunteers were challenged intranasally with RSV-A (Memphis 37b). Assessments included viral load (VL), RSV infections, clinical symptom score (CSS), safety, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: Postchallenge, VL, RSV infections, and disease severity were lower in Ad26.RSV.preF (n = 27) vs placebo (n = 26) recipients: median VL area under the curve (AUC) quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction: 0.0 vs 236.0 (P = .012; predefined primary endpoint); median VL-AUC quantitative culture: 0.0 vs 109; RSV infections 11 (40.7%) vs 17 (65.4%); median RSV AUC-CSS 35 vs 167, respectively. From baseline to 28 days postimmunization, geometric mean fold increases in RSV A2 neutralizing antibody titers of 5.8 and 0.9 were observed in Ad26.RSV.preF and placebo, respectively. Ad26.RSV.preF was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Ad26.RSV.preF demonstrated protection from RSV infection through immunization in a human challenge model, and therefore could potentially protect against natural RSV infection and disease. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03334695; CR108398, 2017-003194-33 (EudraCT); VAC18193RSV2002.

Safety and Immunogenicity of the Ad26.RSV.preF Investigational Vaccine Coadministered With an Influenza Vaccine in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and influenza cause significant disease burden in older adults. Overlapping RSV and influenza seasonality presents the opportunity to coadminister vaccines for both infections. This study assessed coadministration of the investigational vaccine, Ad26.RSV.preF, an adenovirus serotype 26 (Ad26) vector encoding RSV F protein stabilized in its prefusion conformation (pre-F), with a seasonal influenza vaccine in older adults. METHODS: In this phase 2a, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 180 adults aged ≥60 years received Ad26.RSV.preF plus Fluarix on day 1 and placebo on day 29, or placebo plus Fluarix on day 1 and Ad26.RSV.preF on day 29 (control). RESULTS: The coadministration regimen had an acceptable tolerability profile. Reactogenicity was generally higher after Ad26.RSV.preF versus Fluarix, but symptoms were generally transient and mild or moderate. At 28 days after the first vaccination, the upper confidence intervals of the hemagglutination inhibition antibody geometric mean ratio (control/coadministration) for all influenza strains were <2, demonstrating noninferiority. Robust neutralizing and binding antibody responses to RSV A2 were observed in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of Fluarix with Ad26.RSV.preF vaccine had an acceptable safety profile and showed no evidence of interference in immune response. The results are compatible with simultaneous seasonal vaccination with both vaccines. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03339713.

Phase 1 Safety and Immunogenicity Study of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccine With an Adenovirus 26 Vector Encoding Prefusion F (Ad26.RSV.preF) in Adults Aged ≥60 Years.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high disease burden of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) in older adults, there is no approved vaccine. We evaluated the experimental RSV vaccine, Ad26.RSV.preF, a replication-incompetent adenovirus 26 vector encoding the F protein stabilized in prefusion conformation. METHODS: This phase 1 clinical trial was performed in healthy adults aged ≥60 years. Seventy-two participants received 1 or 2 intramuscular injections of low-dose (LD; 5 × 1010 vector particles) or high-dose (HD; 1 × 1011 vector particles) Ad26.RSV.preF vaccine or placebo, with approximately 12 months between doses and 2-year follow-up for safety and immunogenicity outcomes. RESULTS: Solicited adverse events were reported by 44% of vaccine recipients and were transient and mild or moderate in intensity. No serious adverse events were related to vaccination. After the first vaccination, geometric mean titers for RSV-A2 neutralization increased from baseline (432 for LD and 512 for HD vaccine) to day 29 (1031 for LD and 1617 for HD). Pre-F-specific antibody geometric mean titers and median frequencies of F-specific interferon γ-secreting T cells also increased substantially from baseline. These immune responses were still maintained above baseline levels 2 years after immunization and could be boosted with a second immunization at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Ad26.RSV.preF (LD and HD) had an acceptable safety profile and elicited sustained humoral and cellular immune responses after a single immunization in older adults.

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis and culture conversion with bedaquiline.

BACKGROUND: Bedaquiline (Sirturo, TMC207), a diarylquinoline that inhibits mycobacterial ATP synthase, has been associated with accelerated sputum-culture conversion in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, when added to a preferred background regimen for 8 weeks. METHODS: In this phase 2b trial, we randomly assigned 160 patients with newly diagnosed, smear-positive, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis to receive either 400 mg of bedaquiline once daily for 2 weeks, followed by 200 mg three times a week for 22 weeks, or placebo, both in combination with a preferred background regimen. The primary efficacy end point was the time to sputum-culture conversion in liquid broth. Patients were followed for 120 weeks from baseline. RESULTS: Bedaquiline reduced the median time to culture conversion, as compared with placebo, from 125 days to 83 days (hazard ratio in the bedaquiline group, 2.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.57 to 3.80; P<0.001 by Cox regression analysis) and increased the rate of culture conversion at 24 weeks (79% vs. 58%, P=0.008) and at 120 weeks (62% vs. 44%, P=0.04). On the basis of World Health Organization outcome definitions for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, cure rates at 120 weeks were 58% in the bedaquiline group and 32% in the placebo group (P=0.003). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. There were 10 deaths in the bedaquiline group and 2 in the placebo group, with no causal pattern evident. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bedaquiline to a preferred background regimen for 24 weeks resulted in faster culture conversion and significantly more culture conversions at 120 weeks, as compared with placebo. There were more deaths in the bedaquiline group than in the placebo group. (Funded by Janssen Pharmaceuticals; TMC207-C208 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00449644.).

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.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between telaprevir and methadone.

Hepatitis C virus (HCV) antibody is present in most patients enrolled in methadone maintenance programs. Therefore, interactions between the HCV protease inhibitor telaprevir and methadone were investigated. The pharmacokinetics of R- and S-methadone were measured after administration of methadone alone and after 7 days of telaprevir (750 mg every 8 h [q8h]) coadministration in HCV-negative subjects on stable, individualized methadone therapy. Unbound R-methadone was measured in predose plasma samples before and during telaprevir coadministration. Safety and symptoms of opioid withdrawal were evaluated throughout the study. In total, 18 subjects were enrolled; 2 discontinued prior to receiving telaprevir. The minimum plasma concentration in the dosing interval (C(min)), the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), and the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from h 0 (time of administration) to 24 h postdose (AUC(0-24)) for R-methadone were reduced by 31%, 29%, and 29%, respectively, in the presence of telaprevir. The AUC0-24 ratio of S-methadone/R-methadone was not altered. The median unbound percentage of R-methadone increased by 26% in the presence of telaprevir. The R-methadone median (absolute) unbound C(min) values in the absence (10.63 ng/ml) and presence (10.45 ng/ml) of telaprevir were similar. There were no symptoms of opioid withdrawal and no discontinuations due to adverse events. In summary, exposure to total R-methadone was reduced by approximately 30% in the presence of telaprevir, while the exposure to unbound R-methadone was unchanged. No symptoms of opioid withdrawal were observed. These results suggest that dose adjustment of methadone is not required when initiating telaprevir treatment. (This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under registration no. NCT00933283.).

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Pharmacokinetics of darunavir (TMC114) and atazanavir during coadministration in HIV-negative, healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between the protease inhibitors darunavir (DRV, TMC114) coadministered with low-dose ritonavir (darunavir/r), and atazanavir in HIV-negative, healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomised, three-period, crossover study. Darunavir/r (400/100mg twice daily), atazanavir/r (300/100mg once daily) or darunavir/r (400/100mg twice daily) plus atazanavir (300mg once daily) were administered in three separate sessions, with a washout period of at least 7 days between regimens. The follow-up lasted 30 days. Twenty-three healthy volunteers participated. Pharmacokinetic assessments were performed at steady-state on day 7. Plasma drug concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and pharmacokinetic parameters were compared between treatments. The safety and tolerability of the study medications were monitored throughout. RESULTS: Darunavir pharmacokinetics were unaffected by atazanavir. No change in overall exposure to atazanavir was observed during coadministration with darunavir/r. However, there was a 52% increase in minimum atazanavir plasma concentration (least squares mean ratio [90% CI 0.99, 2.34]). Mean systemic exposure to ritonavir was increased by 65% and 106%, respectively, with the combination treatment compared with darunavir/r alone or atazanavir/r alone. There were no apparent differences in mean changes in lipids between the darunavir/r, atazanavir/r or darunavir/r plus atazanavir regimens. Hyperbilirubinaemia and ocular icterus were reported with atazanavir-containing regimens. CONCLUSION: Atazanavir at a dose of 300mg once daily can be coadministered with a darunavir/r twice-daily regimen without any dose adjustment if there is a clinical need to combine darunavir/r and atazanavir in HIV-1-infected patients.

The effect of different meal types on the pharmacokinetics of darunavir (TMC114)/ritonavir in HIV-negative healthy volunteers.

This open-label, randomized, crossover study investigated the bioavailability, short-term safety, and tolerability of darunavir (TMC114) coadministered with low-dose ritonavir under fasted conditions and after different meal types in HIV-negative healthy volunteers. All volunteers received ritonavir 100 mg twice daily on days 1 to 5, with a single darunavir 400-mg tablet given on day 3 (darunavir/rtv). Pharmacokinetic parameters for darunavir and ritonavir were determined under fasted conditions and following a standard breakfast, a high-fat breakfast, a nutritional protein-rich drink, or a croissant with coffee. Administration of darunavir/rtv in a fasting state resulted in a decrease in darunavir C(max) and AUC(last) of approximately 30% compared with administration after a standard meal. No significant differences in darunavir plasma concentrations were observed between different fed states. Darunavir/rtv should therefore be administered with food, but exposure to darunavir is not affected by the type of meal.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between darunavir boosted with ritonavir and omeprazole or ranitidine in human immunodeficiency virus-negative healthy volunteers.

Darunavir (DRV; TMC114; Prezista) is a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) protease inhibitor used in combination with low-dose ritonavir (RTV) (DRV/r) as a pharmacokinetic enhancer. Protease inhibitor absorption may be decreased during coadministration of drugs that limit stomach acid secretion and increase gastric pH. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of ranitidine and omeprazole on the plasma pharmacokinetics of DRV and RTV in HIV-negative healthy volunteers. Sixteen volunteers completed the study and received DRV/r, DRV/r plus ranitidine, and DRV/r plus omeprazole, in three separate sessions. Treatment was given for 4 days with an additional morning dose on day 5, and regimens were separated by a washout period of 7 days. Samples were taken over a 12-h period on day 5 for the assessment of DRV and RTV plasma concentrations. Pharmacokinetic parameters assessed included DRV area under the curve, maximum plasma concentration, and trough plasma concentration. The least-squares mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals are reported with treatment of DRV/r alone as a reference. Compared with DRV/r alone, no significant changes in DRV pharmacokinetic parameters were observed during coadministration of DRV/r and either ranitidine or omeprazole. Treatment regimens were generally well tolerated, and no serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, coadministration of DRV/r and ranitidine or omeprazole was well tolerated by the volunteers. Ranitidine and omeprazole did not have a significant influence on DRV pharmacokinetics. No dose adjustments are required when DRV/r is coadministered with omeprazole or ranitidine.