Doravirine dose selection and 96-week safety and efficacy versus efavirenz in antiretroviral therapy-naive adults with HIV-1 infection in a Phase IIb trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of doravirine were compared with that of efavirenz as initial treatment of adults living with HIV-1 infection (NCT01632345). METHODS: A Phase IIb double-blind trial with participants stratified by screening HIV-1 RNA (≤ or >100,000 copies/ml) and randomized 1:1:1:1:1 to receive once-daily doravirine (25, 50, 100 or 200 mg) or efavirenz 600 mg (Part I) for up to 96 weeks, with open-label tenofovir disoproxil fumarate 300 mg/emtricitabine 200 mg (TDF/FTC). After dose selection at week 24, doravirine 100 mg was provided to participants receiving the other doses of doravirine and additional participants were randomized 1:1 to receive once-daily doravirine 100 mg or efavirenz 600 mg for 96 weeks with TDF/FTC (Part II). Primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/ml at week 24, and central nervous system (CNS) adverse events (AEs) by weeks 8 and 24 (Parts I+II combined). RESULTS: 210 and 132 participants were randomized in Parts I and II, respectively, and 216 (108 on doravirine 100 mg, 108 on efavirenz) were evaluable for Parts I+II combined. At week 24, the proportion of participants with HIV-1 RNA <40 copies/ml was 72.9% for doravirine 100 mg and 73.1% for efavirenz (difference -0.5 [95% CI -12.3, 11.2]). In addition, CNS AEs were reported by 26.9% and 47.2% of doravirine and efavirenz recipients, respectively (difference -20.4 [95% CI -32.6, -7.5]; P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Doravirine 100 mg with TDF/FTC demonstrated similar antiretroviral activity and superior CNS safety compared with efavirenz 600 mg with TDF/FTC.

Short-term safety and pharmacokinetic profile of asenapine in older patients with psychosis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the short-term tolerability of two titration schedules of sublingual asenapine in older patients with psychosis, not associated with organic brain disease, and to compare asenapine pharmacokinetics in older patients versus younger adults with schizophrenia. METHODS: Patients ≥ 65 years with psychosis without dementia were randomized for 6 weeks to two dose-escalation regimens: 2 days at 2 mg twice daily (BID), 2 days at 5 mg BID, and 10 mg BID thereafter (slow escalation); or 4 days at 5 mg BID and 10 mg BID thereafter (rapid escalation). Clinical and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed in each group. RESULTS: Of 122 randomized patients, 76 (62.3%) completed the trial. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) was comparable (72.1%) with both regimens. The most frequently reported AEs were hypertension, headache, and somnolence; incidence of extrapyramidal symptom-related AEs was 5.7%. Mean end point weight change was 0.4 kg. For asenapine 5 and 10 mg BID, median times to maximum concentration were 1.00 and 1.06 h, respectively; maximum concentrations (C(max) ) were 4.73 and 7.93 ng/mL; areas under the concentration versus time curve (0-12 h; AUC(0-12) ) were 32.1 and 56.3 ng∙h/mL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite 12-30% increases in asenapine C(max) and AUC(0-12) in older patients compared with previously published findings in younger schizophrenia patients, possibly as a result of slower drug clearance, asenapine was generally well tolerated during both dose-escalation schedules. No dose adjustment appears to be necessary in older patients.