A phase 1 study in healthy volunteers to investigate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of VIR-2482: a monoclonal antibody for the prevention of severe influenza A illness

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and immunogenicity of VIR-2482 in healthy adult subjects. A phase 1, first-in-human, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose-escalation study was conducted. One hundred participants were allocated to four cohorts (60 mg, 300 mg, 1,200 mg, and 1,800 mg). In each cohort, participants were randomized in a 4:1 ratio (active:placebo) to receive either VIR-2482 or volume-matched placebo by gluteal intramuscular injection. Participants remained at the investigative site under observation for 48 h, and adverse events (AEs) were collected for 56 days. PK and immunogenicity were measured up to 52 weeks post-dose. VIR-2482 was well tolerated at all doses studied. The overall incidence of AEs was comparable between VIR-2482 (68.8%) and placebo (85.0%). Nineteen VIR-2482 (23.8%) and six placebo (30.0%) recipients had Grade 1 or 2 AEs that were considered to be related to the study intervention. There were no treatment-related serious AEs. Injection-site reactions (ISRs) were reported in six (7.5%) VIR-2482 recipients, while no such reactions were reported among the placebo recipients. All ISRs were Grade 1, and there was no relationship with the dose. Median VIR-2482 serum elimination half-life ranged from 56.7 to 70.6 days across cohorts. The serum area under the curve and Cmax were dose-proportional. Nasopharyngeal VIR-2482 concentrations were approximately 2%-5% of serum levels and were less than dose-proportional. The incidence of immunogenicity across all cohorts was 1.3%. Overall, the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profile of VIR-2482 at doses up to 1,800 mg supported its further investigation as a long-acting antibody for the prevention of influenza A illness. This study has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under identifier NCT04033406.

Effect of Bamlanivimab as Monotherapy or in Combination with Etesevimab or Sotrovimab on Persistently High Viral Load in Patients with Mild-to-Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized, Phase 2 BLAZE-4 Trial

INTRODUCTION

Treatment with monoclonal antibodies provides rapid, passive immunity and may stop COVID-19 disease progression. The study evaluated the effect of bamlanivimab (BAM) or BAM + etesevimab (ETE)/sotrovimab compared to placebo on SARS-CoV-2 viral load in patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

The phase 2, randomized, single-dose study included patients aged between ≥ 18 and < 65 years, not hospitalized at the time of randomization, and had ≥ 1 mild or moderate COVID-19 symptoms. Study included arms 1-6 (placebo, BAM 175 mg + ETE 350 mg, BAM 700 mg + ETE 1400 mg, BAM 2800 mg + ETE 2800 mg, BAM 700 mg alone, and BAM 350 mg + ETE 700 mg, respectively), BAM 700 mg + ETE 700 mg unintentional dosing; and arms 7 and 8 (BAM 700 mg + sotrovimab 500 mg and placebo, respectively). The primary endpoint was proportion of patients with SARS-CoV-2 log viral load > 5.27 on day 7 (persistently high viral load [PHVL]) who received BAM or BAM + (ETE or sotrovimab).

RESULTS

A total of 725 patients, mean age 39.6 years (range 18-75 years), 50.2% male were randomized and infused with study drug in arms 1-6; and a total 202 patients, mean age 38 years (range 18-63 years), 53.5% female were randomized and infused with study drug in arms 7 and 8. A significantly lower proportion of patients in arms 2-6 and arm 7 experienced PHVL on day 7 compared to placebo. On day 7, patients in arms 2, 3, and 6 consistently experienced significantly greater reduction in viral load than placebo. Significant improvement was observed in time to viral load clearance and time to symptom improvement by day 29 in some arms compared to placebo. No new safety concerns were observed with drug combinations.

CONCLUSION

The study demonstrated that a significantly lower proportion of patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 treated with BAM or BAM + (ETE or sotrovimab) experienced a PHVL at day 7.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04634409.

Intramuscular vs Intravenous SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab for Treatment of COVID-19 (COMET-TAIL): A Randomized Noninferiority Clinical Trial

Background

Convenient administration of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment in community settings is desirable. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus dual-action monoclonal antibody formulated for intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) administration for early treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19.

Method

This multicenter phase 3 study based on a randomized open-label design tested the noninferiority of IM to IV administration according to an absolute noninferiority margin of 3.5%. From June to August 2021, patients aged ≥12 years with COVID-19, who were neither hospitalized nor receiving supplemental oxygen but were at high risk for progression, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive sotrovimab as a single 500-mg IV infusion or a 500- or 250-mg IM injection. The primary composite endpoint was progression to (1) all-cause hospitalization for >24 hours for acute management of illness or (2) all-cause death through day 29.

Results

Sotrovimab 500 mg IM was noninferior to 500 mg IV: 10 (2.7%) of 376 participants vs 5 (1.3%) of 378 met the primary endpoint, respectively (absolute adjusted risk difference, 1.06%; 95% CI, -1.15% to 3.26%). The 95% CI upper limit was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.5%. The 250-mg IM group was discontinued early because of the greater proportion of hospitalizations vs the 500-mg groups. Serious adverse events occurred in <1% to 2% of participants across groups. Four participants experienced serious disease-related events and died (500 mg IM, 2/393, <1%; 250 mg IM, 2/195, 1%).

Conclusions

Sotrovimab 500-mg IM injection was well tolerated and noninferior to IV administration. IM administration could expand outpatient treatment access for COVID-19.

Clinical Trials Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04913675.

Population pharmacokinetics and exposure-response analysis of a single dose of sotrovimab in the early treatment of patients with mild to moderate COVID-19

Sotrovimab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody that has been shown to prevent progression to hospitalization or death in non-hospitalized high-risk patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 following either intravenous (IV) or intramuscular (IM) administration. Population pharmacokinetic (popPK) and exposure-response (ER) analyses were performed to characterize single dose sotrovimab PK and the relationship between exposure and response (probability of progression), as well as covariates that may contribute to between-participant variability in sotrovimab PK and efficacy following IV or IM administration. Sotrovimab PK was described by a two-compartment model with linear elimination; IM absorption was characterized by a sigmoid absorption model. PopPK covariate analysis led to the addition of the effect of body weight on systemic clearance and peripheral volume of distribution, sex on IM bioavailability and first-order absorption rate (KA), and body mass index on KA. However, the magnitude of covariate effect was not pronounced and was therefore not expected to be clinically relevant based on available data to date. For ER analysis, sotrovimab exposure measures were predicted using the final popPK model. An ER model was developed using the exposure measure of sotrovimab concentration at 168 hours that described the relationship between exposure and probability of progression within the ER dataset for COMET-TAIL. The number of risk factors (≤1 vs >1) was incorporated as an additive shift on the model-estimated placebo response but had no impact on overall drug response. Limitations in the ER model may prevent generalization of these results to describe the sotrovimab exposure-progression relationship across SARS-COV-2 variants.

Antibody therapy reverses biological signatures of COVID-19 progression

Understanding who is at risk of progression to severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is key to clinical decision making and effective treatment. We study correlates of disease severity in the COMET-ICE clinical trial that randomized 1:1 to placebo or to sotrovimab, a monoclonal antibody for the treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection (ClinicalTrials.gov04545060). Laboratory parameters identify study participants at greater risk of severe disease, including a high neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), a negative SARS-CoV-2 serologic test, and whole-blood transcriptome profiles. Sotrovimab treatment is associated with normalization of NLR and the transcriptomic profile and with a decrease of viral RNA in nasopharyngeal samples. Transcriptomics provides the most sensitive detection of participants who would go on to be hospitalized or die. To facilitate timely measurement, we identify a 10-gene signature with similar predictive accuracy. We identify markers of risk for disease progression and demonstrate that normalization of these parameters occurs with antibody treatment of established infection.

Effect of Sotrovimab on Hospitalization or Death Among High-risk Patients With Mild to Moderate COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Older patients and those with comorbidities who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 may be at increased risk of hospitalization and death. Sotrovimab is a neutralizing antibody for the treatment of high-risk patients to prevent COVID-19 progression.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events of sotrovimab in preventing progression of mild to moderate COVID-19 to severe disease.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial including 1057 nonhospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild to moderate COVID-19 and at least 1 risk factor for progression conducted at 57 sites in Brazil, Canada, Peru, Spain, and the US from August 27, 2020, through March 11, 2021; follow-up data were collected through April 8, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized (1:1) to an intravenous infusion with 500 mg of sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with COVID-19 progression through day 29 (all-cause hospitalization lasting >24 hours for acute illness management or death); 5 secondary outcomes were tested in hierarchal order, including a composite of all-cause emergency department (ED) visit, hospitalization of any duration for acute illness management, or death through day 29 and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen or mechanical ventilation.

RESULTS

Enrollment was stopped early for efficacy at the prespecified interim analysis. Among 1057 patients randomized (median age, 53 years [IQR, 42-62], 20% were ≥65 years of age, and 65% Latinx), the median duration of follow-up was 103 days for sotrovimab and 102 days for placebo. All-cause hospitalization lasting longer than 24 hours or death was significantly reduced with sotrovimab (6/528 [1%]) vs placebo (30/529 [6%]) (adjusted relative risk [RR], 0.21 [95% CI, 0.09 to 0.50]; absolute difference, -4.53% [95% CI, -6.70% to -2.37%]; P < .001). Four of the 5 secondary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of sotrovimab, including reduced ED visit, hospitalization, or death (13/528 [2%] for sotrovimab vs 39/529 [7%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.63]; absolute difference, -4.91% [95% CI, -7.50% to -2.32%]; P < .001) and progression to severe or critical respiratory COVID-19 (7/528 [1%] for sotrovimab vs 28/529 [5%] for placebo; adjusted RR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.12 to 0.59]; absolute difference, -3.97% [95% CI, -6.11% to -1.82%]; P = .002). Adverse events were infrequent and similar between treatment groups (22% for sotrovimab vs 23% for placebo); the most common events were diarrhea with sotrovimab (n = 8; 2%) and COVID-19 pneumonia with placebo (n = 22; 4%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among nonhospitalized patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 and at risk of disease progression, a single intravenous dose of sotrovimab, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of a composite end point of all-cause hospitalization or death through day 29. The findings support sotrovimab as a treatment option for nonhospitalized, high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, although efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 variants that have emerged since the study was completed is unknown.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04545060.

502. Early COVID-19 Treatment with SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Antibody Sotrovimab

Background

COVID-19 disproportionately results in hospitalization and death in older patients and those with underlying comorbidities. Sotrovimab is a pan-sarbecovirus monoclonal antibody that binds a highly conserved epitope of the SARS-CoV-2 receptor binding domain and has an Fc modification that increases half-life. Sotrovimab retains activity against UK, S. Africa, Brazil, India, New York and California variants in vitro.

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment with sotrovimab in high-risk, non-hospitalized patients with mild/moderate COVID-19, as part of the COMET-ICE clinical trial.

Methods

Multicenter, double-blind, phase 3 trial in non-hospitalized patients with symptomatic COVID-19 and ≥1 risk factor for disease progression were randomized 1:1 to an IV infusion of sotrovimab 500 mg or placebo. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients with COVID-19 progression, defined as hospitalization > 24 hours or death, due to any cause, ≤29 days of randomization.

Results

The study met the pre-defined primary efficacy endpoint in a preplanned interim analysis: the risk of COVID-19 progression was significantly reduced by 85% (97.24% CI, 44% to 96%; P = 0.002) in 583 patients. In the final intention-to-treat analysis (N = 1057), the adjusted relative risk reduction was 79% (95% CI, 50% to 91%; p< 0.001) through Day 29 in recipients of sotrovimab (n=528) vs. placebo (n=529). Treatment with sotrovimab (ITT) resulted in a numerical reduction in the need for ER visits for illness management, hospitalization for acute illness management (any duration) or death (any cause) compared to placebo. No participants on sotrovimab required ICU admission, compared to 9 participants on placebo, of whom 4 participants required mechanical ventilation. No participants who received sotrovimab died, compared to 4 participants on placebo. The incidence of adverse events was similar between treatment arms and SAEs were numerically more common in the placebo arm.

Conclusion

Treatment with sotrovimab 500 mg IV resulted in a clinically and statistically significant reduction in progression of COVID-19 to hospitalization or death in patients with mild/moderate disease and was well-tolerated.

Study funding

GSK & VIR; NCT04545060

Disclosures

Jaynier Moya, MD, VIR Biotechnology (Other Financial or Material Support, Jaynier Moya received non-financial support for serving as a clinical trial investigator for Vir Biotechnology) Diego Rodrigues Falci, MD, MSc, PhD, Gilead Sciences (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Speaker's Bureau)GSK (Grant/Research Support, Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member)MSD (Speaker's Bureau)Pfizer (Speaker's Bureau)United Medical (Speaker's Bureau, Other Financial or Material Support) Joel Solis, MD, VIR Biotechnology (Other Financial or Material Support, Joel Solis received non-financial support for serving as a clinical trial investigator for Vir Biotechnology) Hanzhe Zheng, PhD, VIR Biotechnology (Employee) Nicola Scott, MSc, GlaxoSmithKline (Employee, Shareholder) Andrea L. Cathcart, PhD, Gilead (Shareholder)VIR (Employee, Shareholder) Christy Hebner, PhD, Vir Biotechnology (Employee, Shareholder) Jennifer Sager, PhD, GSK (Other Financial or Material Support)Vir Biotechnology (Employee, Shareholder) Erik Mogalian, PharmD, PhD, Vir Biotechnology (Employee, Shareholder) Daren Austin, PhD, GlaxoSmithKline (Employee, Shareholder) Amanda Peppercorn, MD, GlaxoSmithKline (Employee) Elizabeth L. Alexander, MD, MSc, GlaxoSmithKline (Grant/Research Support, Other Financial or Material Support)VIR Biotechnology (Employee, Shareholder, GSK pharmaceuticals) Wendy W. Yeh, MD, Vir Biotechnology (Employee) Almena Free, MD, Amgen (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Astra Zeneca (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Cardurian (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Coherus (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Freenome (Scientific Research Study Investigator)GlaxoSmithKline/Vir (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Ionis (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Kowa (Scientific Research Study Investigator)New Amsterdam (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Regenacy (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Romark (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Scynexis (Scientific Research Study Investigator) Cynthia Brinson, MD, Abbvie (Scientific Research Study Investigator)BI (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Gilead Sciences Inc. (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker's Bureau, Personal fees)GSK (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Novo Nordisk (Scientific Research Study Investigator)ViiV Healthcare (Scientific Research Study Investigator, Advisor or Review Panel member, Speaker's Bureau) Melissa Aldinger, PharmD, VIR Biotechnology (Employee) Adrienne Shapiro, MD, PhD, Vir Biotechnology (Scientific Research Study Investigator)

Evaluation of Pharmacokinetic Drug Interactions of the Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir and Grazoprevir with Pitavastatin, Rosuvastatin, Pravastatin, and Atorvastatin in Healthy Adults

BACKGROUND

Many people infected with hepatitis C virus have comorbidities, including hypercholesterolemia, that are treated with statins. In this study, we evaluated the drug-drug interaction potential of the hepatitis C virus inhibitors elbasvir (EBR) and grazoprevir (GZR) with statins. Pitavastatin, rosuvastatin, pravastatin, and atorvastatin are substrates of organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B, whereas rosuvastatin and atorvastatin are also breast cancer resistance protein substrates.

METHODS

Three open-label, phase I clinical trials in healthy adults were conducted with multiple daily doses of oral GZR or EBR/GZR and single oral doses of statins. Trial 1: GZR 200 mg plus pitavastatin 10 mg. Trial 2: Part 1, GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg, then EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus rosuvastatin 10 mg; Part 2, EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus pravastatin 40 mg. Trial 3: EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg plus atorvastatin 10 mg.

RESULTS

Neither GZR nor EBR pharmacokinetics were meaningfully affected by statins. Coadministration of EBR/GZR did not result in clinically relevant changes in the exposure of pitavastatin or pravastatin. However, EBR/GZR increased exposure to rosuvastatin (126%) and atorvastatin (94%). Coadministration of statins plus GZR or EBR/GZR was generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Although statins do not appreciably affect EBR or GZR pharmacokinetics, EBR/GZR can impact the pharmacokinetics of certain statins, likely via inhibition of breast cancer resistance protein but not organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B. Coadministration of EBR/GZR with pitavastatin or pravastatin does not require adjustment of either dose of statin, whereas the dose of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin should be decreased when coadministered with EBR/GZR.

Assessment of drug interaction potential between the HCV direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir/grazoprevir and the HIV integrase inhibitors raltegravir and dolutegravir

BACKGROUND

Elbasvir/grazoprevir is a once-daily fixed-dose combination therapy for the treatment of chronic HCV infection, including HCV/HIV coinfection.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction of elbasvir and grazoprevir with raltegravir or dolutegravir.

METHODS

Three open-label trials in healthy adult participants were conducted. In the raltegravir trials, participants received a single dose of raltegravir 400 mg, a single dose of elbasvir 50 mg or grazoprevir 200 mg, and raltegravir with either elbasvir or grazoprevir. In the dolutegravir trial, participants received a single dose of dolutegravir 50 mg alone or co-administered with once-daily elbasvir 50 mg and grazoprevir 200 mg.

RESULTS

The raltegravir AUC0-∞ geometric mean ratio (GMR) (90% CI) was 1.02 (0.81-1.27) with elbasvir and 1.43 (0.89-2.30) with grazoprevir. Dolutegravir AUC0-∞ GMR (90% CI) was 1.16 (1.00-1.34) with elbasvir and grazoprevir. The elbasvir AUC0-∞ GMR (90% CI) was 0.81 (0.57-1.17) with raltegravir and 0.98 (0.93-1.04) with dolutegravir. The grazoprevir AUC0-24 GMR (90% CI) was 0.89 (0.72-1.09) with raltegravir and 0.81 (0.67-0.97) with dolutegravir.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbasvir or grazoprevir co-administered with raltegravir or dolutegravir resulted in no clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions and was generally well tolerated. These results support the assertion that no dose adjustments for elbasvir, grazoprevir, raltegravir or dolutegravir are needed for co-administration in HCV/HIV-coinfected people.

Outcomes of patients with detectable CMV DNA at randomization in the phase III trial of letermovir for the prevention of CMV infection in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation

Letermovir, a cytomegalovirus (CMV) terminase-complex inhibitor, is indicated for prophylaxis of CMV infection and disease in adult CMV-seropositive recipients of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). In a phase III, double-blind, randomized trial, letermovir significantly reduced the risk of clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi) vs placebo through Week 24 post-HCT. This analysis investigated outcomes in participants with detectable CMV DNA at randomization, who were excluded from the primary efficacy analysis. In total, 70 of 565 randomized participants had detectable CMV DNA at randomization (letermovir 48; placebo 22). Study treatment completion rates were greater in letermovir-treated participants compared with placebo (52.1% vs 9.1%). The incidence of CS-CMVi or imputed primary endpoint events through Week 24 were 64.6% and 90.9% in the letermovir and placebo groups, respectively (treatment difference -26.1%; P = .010). Kaplan-Meier event rates for CS-CMVi onset through Week 14 (end-of-treatment period) were 33.1% for letermovir and 86.6% for placebo (P < .001). Median viral loads at the CS-CMVi events was similar in both treatment arms. All-cause mortality through Week 24 posttransplant was 15.0% for letermovir and 18.2% for placebo; through Week 48, mortality rates were 26.5% and 40.9%, respectively (P = .268). Overall, clinical outcomes were similar to those reported for participants with undetectable CMV DNA at randomization.

Efficacy and safety of a two-drug direct-acting antiviral agent regimen ruzasvir 180 mg and uprifosbuvir 450 mg for 12 weeks in adults with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6

Ruzasvir (MK-8408, an NS5A inhibitor) and uprifosbuvir (MK-3682, a nonstructural protein 5B nucleotide inhibitor) are highly potent direct-acting antiviral agents for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. A phase III clinical trial evaluating the two-drug combination of ruzasvir 60 mg plus  uprifosbuvir 450 mg suggested suboptimal efficacy in certain HCV genotypes (C-BREEZE 1; NCT02759315). The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ruzasvir in combination with uprifosbuvir administered at a higher dose than that assessed in the earlier study (C-BREEZE 2: NCT02956629/Merck protocol PN041). Treatment-naïve or interferon (with or without ribavirin)-experienced participants with or without compensated cirrhosis were enrolled. All participants received ruzasvir 180 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg once daily for 12 weeks. The primary objectives were the proportion of participants with HCV RNA <15 lU/mL at 12 weeks after the end of study therapy (SVR12), and safety and tolerability of the study drug. Overall, 282 participants were enrolled. SVR12 (n/N) was 91.3% (42/46) in participants infected with HCV genotype (GT) 1a; GT1b, 96.7% (29/30); GT2, 91.5% (43/47); GT3, 73.8% (45/61); GT4, 98.2% (55/56); GT5, 100.0% (18/18); and GT6, 90.9% (20/22). Adverse events (AEs) were reported by 61.3% of participants; drug-related AEs were reported by 33.3%. The most frequent (≥5% of participants) drug-related AEs in all participants were fatigue (7.8%) and headache (7.4%). In conclusion, the two-drug combination of ruzasvir 180 mg plus uprifosbuvir 450 mg for 12 weeks was highly effective and well tolerated in participants infected with HCV GT1, GT2, GT4, GT5 and GT6, with a lower efficacy in GT3-infected persons.

Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between the Fixed-Dose Combinations of Elvitegravir/Cobicistat/Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine and Elbasvir/Grazoprevir in Healthy Adult Participants

Treatment of individuals coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) requires careful consideration of potential drug-drug interactions. The pharmacokinetic interaction of the HCV fixed-dose combination treatment of elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) when coadministered with the fixed-dose combination HIV treatment of elvitegravir/cobicistat/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (EVG/COB/TDF/FTC) was evaluated in 22 healthy adults. In period 1, oral doses of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC (150 mg/150 mg/300 mg/200 mg) were administered once daily for 7 days. In period 2, oral doses of EBR/GZR (50 mg/100 mg) were administered once daily for 10 days. In period 3, oral doses of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC were coadministered with EBR/GZR once daily for 10 days. The pharmacokinetics of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC were not clinically meaningfully altered by concomitant EBR/GZR administration. Geometric mean ratios (90%CIs) for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours (AUC_0-24 ) in the presence/absence of EBR/GZR were 1.1 (1.0, 1.2) for elvitegravir; 1.1 (1.0, 1.1) for emtricitabine; 1.2 (1.1, 1.2) for tenofovir; and 1.5 (1.4, 1.6) for cobicistat. In comparison, the AUC_0-24 of elbasvir was ∼2 times higher and the AUC_0-24 of grazoprevir was ∼5 times higher following concomitant administration of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC and EBR/GZR. Geometric mean ratios (90%CI) for AUC_0-24 in the presence/absence of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC were 2.2 (2.0, 2.4) for elbasvir and 5.4 (4.5, 6.4) for grazoprevir. Coadministration of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC and EBR/GZR was generally well tolerated in healthy adults in this study. Nevertheless, because of the increased GZR exposure that occurs with coadministration of EVG/COB/TDF/FTC and EBR/GZR, coadministration of this combination is not recommended in those coinfected with HIV and HCV.

Assessment of Drug Interaction Potential Between the Hepatitis C Virus Direct-Acting Antiviral Agents Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and the Nucleotide Analog Reverse-Transcriptase Inhibitor Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate

Treatment of individuals coinfected with hepatitis C virus (HCV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) requires careful consideration of potential drug-drug interactions. We evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction of the direct-acting antiviral agents elbasvir and grazoprevir coadministered with the nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF). Three open-label, multidose studies in healthy adults were conducted. In the first study (N = 10), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, elbasvir 50 mg once daily, and elbasvir coadministered with TDF. In the second study (N = 12), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily, grazoprevir 200 mg once daily, and grazoprevir coadministered with TDF. In the third study (N = 14), participants received TDF 300 mg once daily and TDF 300 mg coadministered with coformulated elbasvir/grazoprevir 50 mg/100 mg once daily. Pharmacokinetics and safety were evaluated. Following coadministration, the tenofovir area under the plasma concentration-time curve to 24 hours and maximum plasma concentration geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for tenofovir and coadministered drug(s) versus tenofovir were 1.3 (1.2, 1.5) and 1.5 (1.3, 1.6), respectively, when coadministered with elbasvir; 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.2), respectively, when coadministered with grazoprevir; and 1.3 (1.2, 1.4) and 1.1 (1.0, 1.4), respectively, when coadministered with the elbasvir/grazoprevir coformulation. TDF had minimal effect on elbasvir and grazoprevir pharmacokinetics. Elbasvir and/or grazoprevir coadministered with TDF resulted in no clinically meaningful tenofovir exposure increases and was generally well tolerated, with no deaths, serious adverse events (AEs), discontinuations due to AEs, or laboratory AEs reported. No dose adjustments for elbasvir/grazoprevir or TDF are needed for coadministration in HCV/HIV-coinfected people.

Efficacy and safety of ruzasvir 60 mg and uprifosbuvir 450 mg for 12 weeks in adults with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, 3, 4 or 6 infection

In clinical trials, the three-drug regimen of ruzasvir (RZR) 60 mg, uprifosbuvir (UPR) 450 mg and grazoprevir 100 mg, with or without ribavirin, has demonstrated promising efficacy and excellent tolerability across a wide range of hepatitis C virus (HCV)-infected individuals. The present study assessed the efficacy and safety of the two-drug combination of RZR 60 mg plus UPR 450 mg administered for 12 weeks in participants with HCV genotype (GT) 1-6 infection. In this open-label clinical trial, treatment-naive or -experienced and cirrhotic or noncirrhotic participants with chronic HCV GT1-6 infection received RZR 60 mg plus UPR 450 mg orally once daily for 12 weeks (NCT02759315/protocol PN035). The primary efficacy endpoint was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy (SVR12). One hundred and sixty participants were enrolled. SVR12 rates were 96% (52 of 54) in participants with GT1a infection; 100% (15 of 15) in those with GT1b infection; 97% (28 of 29) in those with GT2 infection; 77% (30 of 39) in those with GT3 infection; 90% (18 of 20) in those with GT4 infection; and 67% (2 of 3) in those with GT6 infection. Drug-related adverse events (AEs) reported by >5% of participants were fatigue (n = 10, 6.3%) and diarrhoea (n = 9, 5.6%). Five participants reported a total of 11 serious AEs, none considered drug-related. One participant experienced on-treatment alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase elevations that resolved without intervention. Data from the present study indicate that the combination of RZR 60 mg plus UPR 450 mg once daily for 12 weeks was well tolerated overall but was effective only for certain genotypes.

1730. Outcomes of Patients With Detectable Cytomegalovirus (CMV) DNA at Randomization in the Double-blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trial of Letermovir (LET) Prophylaxis for CMV-Seropositive Allogeneic Hematopoietic-Cell Transplantation (HCT) Recipients

Background

LET prophylaxis through HCT Week 14 was highly effective in preventing clinically significant CMV infection (CS-CMVi), had a good safety profile, and was associated with lower all-cause mortality by HCT Week 24 compared with placebo (PBO). Patients with detectable CMV DNA at randomization were excluded from the trial’s efficacy analyses (NCT02137772). Here we report the outcomes of these patients.

Methods

We compared patients randomized 2:1 and treated with LET or PBO who had detectable CMV DNA at randomization (n = 70) to those with undetectable CMV DNA (n = 495; primary efficacy population, PEP). CS-CMVi was defined as CMV viremia requiring antiviral preemptive therapy (PET) or CMV disease; patients with missing data were imputed as events. PET was prescribed blinded to study drug. We analyzed CS-CMVi incidence, CMV viral load (VL) kinetics, and mortality using post study vital status. Detectable, nonquantifiable CMV VL (<151 c/mL) was imputed as 150 c/mL.

Results

Of 70 patients with detectable CMV DNA at randomization (48 LET, 22 PBO), CMV VL was 150 c/mL in 63 patients (range, 150–716). All patients had undetectable CMV VL ≤5 days before randomization. Baseline characteristics were similar to the PEP, except for more patients with myeloablative conditioning (62.9% vs. 48.3%) and longer median days post-HCT to start of study drug (15 days vs. 8 days). Median study drug exposure was 70 days (range, 1–113) in LET group and 14 days (range, 7–99) in PBO group. By HCT Week 14, CS-CMVi occurred in 15 (31.3%) LET-treated patients and 17 (77.3%) PBO patients; CS-CMVi with imputed events were 22 (45.8%) in LET group and 20 (90.9%) in PBO group (difference –44.8%; 95% CI, –64.7% to –24.8%; P < 0.0001). Median CMV VL at time of PET was 413 c/mL (range, 150–31,847) and was similar between groups. Eight patients had quantifiable CMV VL (range, 171–1,728 c/mL) 1 week after starting study drug: 6 did not receive PET (5 LET [10.4%], 1 PBO [4.5%]). CMV VL was undetectable subsequently; other 2 withdrew from study. One (2.1%) LET-treated patient developed breakthrough CMV viremia with a UL56 C325W mutation. HCT Week 48 all-cause mortality was 26.5% in LET and 40.9% in PBO (figure).

Conclusion

LET prevented CS-CMVi compared with PBO among patients with detectable CMV DNA at randomization.

Disclosures

F. M. Marty, Merck: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee, Research support and Speaker honorarium. Astellas: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. Chimerix: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. Fate Therapeutics: Consultant, Consulting fee. GlaxoSmithKline: Consultant, Consulting fee. LFB: Consultant, Consulting fee. Roche Molecular Diagnostics: Consultant, Consulting fee. Shire: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. Cidara: Investigator, Research support. Ansun: Investigator, Research support. Gilead: Investigator, Research support. WHISCON: Investigator, Research support. P. Ljungman, Merck: Investigator, Research support. AiCuris: Consultant, Consulting fee. Astellas: Investigator, Research support. Oxford Immunotec: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. R. F. Chemaly, Merck: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. Chimerix: Consultant and Investigator, Consulting fee and Research support. Astellas: Consultant, Consulting fee. Novartis: Investigator, Research support. Oxford Immunotec: Consultant, Consulting fee. H. Wan, Merck: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. V. L. Teal, Merck: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. J. Butterton, Merck: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. W. W. Yeh, Merck: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. R. Y. Leavitt, Merck: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. C. Badshah, Merck: Employee and Shareholder, Salary.

No Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Elbasvir or Grazoprevir and Buprenorphine/Naloxone in Healthy Participants and Participants Receiving Stable Opioid Agonist Therapy

The aims of these phase I trials were to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction between elbasvir (EBR) or grazoprevir (GZR) and buprenorphine/naloxone (BUP/NAL). Trial 1 was a single-dose trial in healthy participants. Trial 2 was a multiple-dose trial in participants on BUP/NAL maintenance therapy. Coadministration of EBR or GZR with BUP/NAL had minimal effect on the pharmacokinetics of BUP/NAL, EBR, and GZR. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs (90% CI)) for BUP, norbuprenorphine, and NAL AUC0-∞ were 0.98 (0.89-1.08), 0.97 (0.86-1.09), and 0.88 (0.78-1.00) in the presence/absence of EBR; 0.98 (0.81-1.19), 1.13 (0.97-1.32), and 1.10 (0.82-1.47) in the presence/absence of GZR. The GMRs (90% CI) for EBR and GZR AUC0-∞ in the absence/presence of BUP/NAL were 1.22 (0.98-1.52) and 0.86 (0.63-1.18). In conclusion, no dose adjustment for BUP/NAL, EBR, or GZR is required for patients with HCV infection receiving EBR/GZR and BUP/NAL maintenance therapy.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Single-Dose Elbasvir in Participants with Hepatic Impairment

BACKGROUND

The combination of elbasvir and grazoprevir is approved for the treatment of hepatitis C virus genotype 1 or 4 infection.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of single-dose elbasvir 50 mg in participants with hepatic impairment.

METHODS

Participants with mild, moderate, or severe hepatic impairment and age-, sex-, and weight-matched healthy controls were enrolled in a 3-part, open-label, sequential-panel, single-dose pharmacokinetic study. Blood samples were collected to assess pharmacokinetics. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study.

RESULTS

Thirty-four participants were enrolled: eight with mild hepatic impairment, 11 with moderate hepatic impairment, seven with severe hepatic impairment, and eight healthy matched controls. Participants with mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment demonstrated a numeric, but not statistically significant, decrease in elbasvir exposure compared with controls, with a mean 39, 28, and 12% decrease in area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity, as well as a 42, 31, and 42% decrease in maximum plasma concentration (C _max), respectively. The observed median time to C _max was similar in participants with hepatic impairment and controls. Single-dose administration of elbasvir was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The pharmacokinetics of elbasvir after a single, oral 50-mg dose were not clinically meaningfully altered in non-HCV-infected participants with mild, moderate, or severe hepatic dysfunction. However, since elbasvir is currently available only as part of a fixed-dose combination with grazoprevir, the fixed-dose combination should not be administered to patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment, due to the significantly increased plasma grazoprevir exposures in those populations.

No Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Elbasvir or Grazoprevir and Methadone in Participants Receiving Maintenance Opioid Agonist Therapy

We conducted two phase I trials to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interactions between elbasvir (EBR), grazoprevir (GZR), and methadone (MK‐8742‐P010 and MK‐5172‐P030) in non‐hepatitis C virus (HCV)‐infected participants on methadone maintenance therapy. Coadministration of EBR or GZR with methadone had no clinically meaningful effect on EBR, GZR, or methadone pharmacokinetics. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for R‐ and S‐methadone AUC_0‐24 were 1.03 (90% confidence interval (CI), 0.92–1.15) and 1.09 (90% CI, 0.94–1.26) in the presence/absence of EBR; and 1.09 (90% CI, 1.02–1.17) and 1.23 (90% CI, 1.12–1.35) in the presence/absence of GZR. The GMRs for EBR and GZR AUC_0‐24 in participants receiving methadone relative to a healthy historical cohort not receiving methadone were 1.20 (90% CI, 0.94–1.53) and 1.03 (90% CI, 0.76–1.41), respectively. These results indicate that no dose adjustment is required for individuals with HCV infection receiving stable methadone therapy and the EBR/GZR fixed‐dose regimen.

A Phase I, Single- and Multiple-dose Study to Evaluate the Pharmacokinetics of Elbasvir and Grazoprevir in Healthy Chinese Participants

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetic (PK) variables of elbasvir and grazoprevir in healthy Chinese individuals.

METHODS

This study was a 2-part, parallel-arm, open-label trial. In part 1, single-dose PK variables of elbasvir 10/50/100 mg and grazoprevir 50/100/200 mg were evaluated in 10 participants per drug. In part 2, 10-day multiple-dose PK variables of elbasvir 50 mg and grazoprevir 100 mg administered once daily alone and in combination were evaluated in 12 participants. Summary and inferential statistics of the PK parameters are reported. Elbasvir and grazoprevir PK parameters were also compared between Chinese participants and historical data from white participants.

FINDINGS

Single-dose elbasvir and grazoprevir median T_max were 2.9 to 4.0 and 1.9 to 3.0 hours after administration, respectively. Elbasvir AUC_0-∞ and C_max increased in a dose-proportional manner (slope estimate [90% CI], 0.92 [0.84-1.01] and 0.98 [0.86-1.09], respectively), whereas grazoprevir AUC_0-∞ and C_max increased in a greater-than-dose-proportional manner (slope estimate [90% CI], 1.42 [1.27-1.57] and 1.96 [1.64-2.29]). After repeated administration, the accumulation ratios for AUC_0-24, 24-hour concentration, and C_max were 1.55, 1.57, and 1.38 for elbasvir and 2.03, 1.23, and 2.51 for grazoprevir. Co-administration of elbasvir 50 mg and grazoprevir 100 mg once daily did not have a clinically relevant effect on the PK variables of either drug. Median T_max after co-administration versus alone was 3.0 hours versus 3.0 hours for elbasvir and 3.1 hours versus 3.0 hours for grazoprevir. Geometric mean ratios (90% CI) for elbasvir and grazoprevir AUC_0-24 (Chinese/white participants) were 1.58 (1.03-2.42) and 1.21 (0.76-1.92). Elbasvir and grazoprevir, administered alone or concomitantly, were well tolerated.

IMPLICATIONS

In healthy Chinese individuals, administration of elbasvir and grazoprevir, alone or concomitantly, was generally well tolerated, with a thoroughly characterized PK profile. Elbasvir and grazoprevir exposures may trend higher in Chinese healthy participants relative to white healthy participants. Protocol number MK-8742 PN022.

Concomitant proton pump inhibitor use does not reduce the efficacy of elbasvir/grazoprevir: A pooled analysis of 1,322 patients with hepatitis C infection

Concomitant proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use reduces plasma concentrations of certain nonstructural protein 5A inhibitors, which are key components of modern hepatitis C infection (HCV) treatments. These reduced concentrations may decrease efficacy, leading to challenging treatment failures due to the development of resistance‐associated substitutions. This post‐hoc analysis assessed 12‐week sustained viral response (SVR12) and pharmacokinetics of fixed‐dose combination elbasvir/grazoprevir (EBR/GZR) in patients with HCV infection and self‐reported PPI use. Data were derived from six phase 3 EBR/GZR trials with treatment‐naive or treatment‐experienced genotype 1‐ or 4‐infected patients, with or without compensated cirrhosis. Baseline PPI use was defined as ≥7 consecutive days of use between study days –7 and 7. Bivariate analyses assessed PPI use and factors associated with SVR12 with sex, age (continuous and dichotomous), cirrhosis status, prior treatment status, baseline HCV RNA (continuous and dichotomous), HCV genotype, and baseline resistance‐associated substitutions as variables in the models. Overall, 12% (162/1,322) of EBR/GZR‐treated patients reported baseline PPI use. Of those, 96% achieved SVR12. In patients without PPI use, 97% achieved SVR12. PPI use was not a predictive factor in achieving SVR12 based on a univariate analysis (P = 0.188). In the bivariate models, none of the interaction terms involving PPI use were statistically significant. There was no significant effect of PPI usage, regardless of adjustment for considered factors. The estimated area under the curve and maximum concentration values for EBR were comparable among patients with and without reported PPI use. Conclusion: These results demonstrate that PPI use with EBR/GZR had no clinically significant effect on SVR12 rates in genotype 1/4‐infected patients with or without compensated cirrhosis. (clinicaltrials.gov identifiers: NCT02092350, NCT02105467, NCT02105662, NCT02105688, NCT02105701, NCT02358044) (Hepatology Communications 2017;1:757–764)

Safety and efficacy of a fixed-dose combination regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin in participants with and without cirrhosis with chronic hepatitis C virus genotype 1, 2, or 3 infection (C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2, part B): two randomised, phase 2, open-label trials

BACKGROUND

There is a need for hepatitis C virus (HCV) therapies with excellent efficacy across genotypes and in diverse populations. Part A of the C-CREST-1 and C-CREST-2 trials led to the selection of a three-drug regimen of grazoprevir (MK-5172; an HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor; 100 mg/day) plus ruzasvir (MK-8408; an NS5A inhibitor; 60 mg/day) plus uprifosbuvir (MK-3682; an HCV NS5B polymerase inhibitor; 450 mg/day). Part B of the studies tested this combination as a single formulation in different treatment durations in a broader population.

METHODS

Part B of these randomised, phase 2, open-label clinical trials enrolled individuals from 15 countries who were chronically infected with HCV genotypes 1-6 (HCV RNA ≥10 000 IU/mL) with or without compensated cirrhosis. Those with genotype 1, genotype 2, genotype 4, or genotype 6 were treatment-naive; those with genotype 3 could be treatment-naive or treatment-experienced with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. Randomisation occurred centrally using an interactive voice response system and integrated web response system. Participants were randomly assigned to receive treatment for 8, 12, or 16 weeks with a fixed-dose combination of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with or without ribavirin. The primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving sustained virological response 12 weeks after the end of all study therapy (SVR12), defined as HCV RNA less than the lower limit of quantification (either target detected unquantifiable or target not detected [<15 IU/mL]). The trials are registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT02332707 and NCT02332720.

FINDINGS

676 participants were randomly assigned between Feb 18, 2015, and Aug 16, 2016. In all 675 participants who received at least one dose of study drug (full analysis set), SVR12 for the 8-week regimen of grazoprevir, ruzasvir, and uprifosbuvir with and without ribavirin was achieved in 39 (93% [95% CI 81-99]) of 42 participants with genotype 1a, 45 (98% [88-100]) of 46 with genotype 1b, 54 (86% [75-93]) of 63 with genotype 2, 98 (95% [89-98]) of 103 with genotype 3, and seven (100% [59-100]) of seven participants with genotype 4. SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 87 (99% [95% CI 94-100]) of 88 participants with genotype 1, 61 (98% [91-100]) of 62 with genotype 2, and four (100% [40-100]) of four with genotype 6. Among participants with cirrhosis who were infected with genotype 3, SVR12 for the 12-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 28 (97% [95% CI 82-100]) of 29 of those who were treatment-naive and 29 (100% [88-100]) of 29 who were treatment-experienced. SVR12 for the 16-week regimen with and without ribavirin was achieved in 26 (100% [95% CI 87-100]) of 26 participants with genotype 2 infection and 72 (96% [89-99]) of 75 participants with genotype 3 infection. The most common adverse events were headache (143 [22%] of 664), fatigue (129 [19%] of 664), and nausea (83 [13%] of 664). 16 (2%) of 664 participants had serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

The combined regimen of grazoprevir (100 mg/day), ruzasvir (60 mg/day), and uprifosbuvir (450 mg/day) has the potential to provide a simplified treatment for HCV that is effective and well tolerated in most individuals infected with HCV, as well as a shorter duration of treatment in many individuals.

FUNDING

Merck & Co, Inc.

No Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between the Hepatitis C Virus Inhibitors Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and Famotidine or Pantoprazole

Use of agents to suppress gastric acid secretion is common among patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. The aims of this open‐label, three‐period, fixed‐sequence study were to evaluate the effect of famotidine and pantoprazole on the pharmacokinetics and safety of elbasvir/grazoprevir fixed‐dose combination (FDC) in 16 healthy subjects. Elbasvir and grazoprevir each exhibited similar pharmacokinetics following single‐dose administration of elbasvir/grazoprevir with or without famotidine or pantoprazole. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of grazoprevir AUC(0,∞), C_max, and C₂₄ (elbasvir/grazoprevir + famotidine or elbasvir/grazoprevir + pantoprazole vs. elbasvir/grazoprevir) ranged from 0.89–1.17. Similarly, GMRs of elbasvir AUC(0,∞), C_max, and C₂₄ (elbasvir/grazoprevir + famotidine or elbasvir/grazoprevir + pantoprazole vs. elbasvir/grazoprevir) ranged from 1.02–1.11. These results indicate that gastric acid‐reducing agents do not modify the pharmacokinetics of elbasvir or grazoprevir in a clinically relevant manner and may be coadministered with elbasvir/grazoprevir in HCV‐infected patients without restriction.

Invasive Mycoleptodiscus fungal cellulitis and myositis

We report progressive necrotizing fungal cellulitis and myositis in the leg of a patient with glioblastoma multiforme treated with temozolomide and corticosteroids. While the morphologic appearance of the isolate and its ability to grow at temperatures greater than 32°C were suggestive of Mycoleptodiscus indicus, some of the conidia were atypical for this species in that they had single septa and occasional lateral appendages. Furthermore, the isolate was different from M. indicus based on the sequencing analysis of two rDNA regions. This is the first case of Mycoleptodiscus invasive fungal disease in which the causative agent could not be resolved at the species level because of inconsistencies between morphological and molecular data.

Immune and Genetic Correlates of Vaccine Protection Against Mucosal Infection by SIV in Monkeys

The RV144 vaccine trial in Thailand demonstrated that an HIV vaccine could prevent infection in humans and highlights the importance of understanding protective immunity against HIV. We used a nonhuman primate model to define immune and genetic mechanisms of protection against mucosal infection by the simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV). A plasmid DNA prime/recombinant adenovirus serotype 5 (rAd5) boost vaccine regimen was evaluated for its ability to protect monkeys from infection by SIVmac251 or SIVsmE660 isolates after repeat intrarectal challenges. Although this prime-boost vaccine regimen failed to protect against SIVmac251 infection, 50% of vaccinated monkeys were protected from infection with SIVsmE660. Among SIVsmE660-infected animals, there was about a one-log reduction in peak plasma virus RNA in monkeys expressing the major histocompatibility complex class I allele Mamu-A*01, implicating cytotoxic T lymphocytes in the control of SIV replication once infection is established. Among Mamu-A*01-negative monkeys challenged with SIVsmE660, no CD8(+) T cell response or innate immune response was associated with protection against virus acquisition. However, low levels of neutralizing antibodies and an envelope-specific CD4(+) T cell response were associated with vaccine protection in these monkeys. Moreover, monkeys that expressed two TRIM5 alleles that restrict SIV replication were more likely to be protected from infection than monkeys that expressed at least one permissive TRIM5 allele. This study begins to elucidate the mechanisms of vaccine protection against immunodeficiency viruses and highlights the need to analyze these immune and genetic correlates of protection in future trials of HIV vaccine strategies.

Low-dose rectal inoculation of rhesus macaques by SIVsmE660 or SIVmac251 recapitulates human mucosal infection by HIV-1

We recently developed a novel strategy to identify transmitted HIV-1 genomes in acutely infected humans using single-genome amplification and a model of random virus evolution. Here, we used this approach to determine the molecular features of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) transmission in 18 experimentally infected Indian rhesus macaques. Animals were inoculated intrarectally (i.r.) or intravenously (i.v.) with stocks of SIVmac251 or SIVsmE660 that exhibited sequence diversity typical of early-chronic HIV-1 infection. 987 full-length SIV env sequences (median of 48 per animal) were determined from plasma virion RNA 1–5 wk after infection. i.r. inoculation was followed by productive infection by one or a few viruses (median 1; range 1–5) that diversified randomly with near starlike phylogeny and a Poisson distribution of mutations. Consensus viral sequences from ramp-up and peak viremia were identical to viruses found in the inocula or differed from them by only one or a few nucleotides, providing direct evidence that early plasma viral sequences coalesce to transmitted/founder viruses. i.v. infection was >2,000-fold more efficient than i.r. infection, and viruses transmitted by either route represented the full genetic spectra of the inocula. These findings identify key similarities in mucosal transmission and early diversification between SIV and HIV-1, and thus validate the SIV–macaque mucosal infection model for HIV-1 vaccine and microbicide research.

Compensatory substitutions restore normal core assembly in simian immunodeficiency virus isolates with Gag epitope cytotoxic T-lymphocyte escape mutations

The evolution of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) and simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) as they replicate in infected individuals reflects a balance between the pressure on the virus to mutate away from recognition by dominant epitope-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) and the structural constraints on the virus' ability to mutate. To gain a further understanding of the strategies employed by these viruses to maintain replication competency in the face of the intense selection pressure exerted by CTL, we have examined the replication fitness and morphological ramifications of a dominant epitope mutation and associated flanking amino acid substitutions on the capsid protein (CA) of SIV/simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV). We show that a residue 2 mutation in the immunodominant p11C, C-M epitope (T47I) of SIV/SHIV not only decreased CA protein expression and viral replication, but it also blocked CA assembly in vitro and virion core condensation in vivo. However, these defects were restored by the introduction of upstream I26V and/or downstream I71V substitutions in CA. These findings demonstrate how flanking compensatory amino acid substitutions can facilitate viral escape from a dominant epitope-specific CTL response through the effects of these associated mutations on the structural integrity of SIV/SHIV.

Emergence of a clinical daptomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolate during treatment of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia and osteomyelitis

The emergence of a clinically daptomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolate occurred during treatment of methicillin-resistant S. aureus bacteremia and probable vertebral osteomyelitis. The breakthrough isolate was indistinguishable from pretreatment daptomycin-susceptible isolates by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis. Daptomycin nonsusceptibility was confirmed by MIC and time-kill curve analyses.

Simian-human immunodeficiency virus escape from cytotoxic T-lymphocyte recognition at a structurally constrained epitope

Virus-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) exert intense selection pressure on replicating simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) and human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) in infected individuals. The immunodominant Mamu-A(*)01-restricted Gag p11C, C-M epitope is highly conserved among all sequenced isolates of SIV and therefore likely is structurally constrained. The strategies used by virus isolates to mutate away from an immunodominant epitope-specific CTL response are not well defined. Here we demonstrate that the emergence of a position 2 p11C, C-M epitope substitution (T47I) in a simian-human immunodeficiency virus (SHIV) strain 89.6P-infected Mamu-A(*)01(+) monkey is temporally correlated with the emergence of a flanking isoleucine-to-valine substitution at position 71 (I71V) of the capsid protein. An analysis of the SIV and HIV-2 sequences from the Los Alamos HIV Sequence Database revealed a significant association between any position 2 p11C, C-M epitope mutation and the I71V mutation. The T47I mutation alone is associated with significant decreases in viral protein expression, infectivity, and replication, and these deficiencies are restored to wild-type levels with the introduction of the flanking I71V mutation. Together, these data suggest that a compensatory mutation is selected for in SHIV strain 89.6P to facilitate the escape of that virus from CTL recognition of the dominant p11C, C-M epitope.

The vaccinia virus A9L gene encodes a membrane protein required for an early step in virion morphogenesis

The A9L open reading frame of vaccinia virus was predicted to encode a membrane-associated protein. A transcriptional analysis of the A9L gene indicated that it was expressed at late times in vaccinia virus-infected cells. Late expression, as well as virion membrane association, was demonstrated by the construction and use of a recombinant vaccinia virus encoding an A9L protein with a C-terminal epitope tag. Immunoelectron microscopy revealed that the A9L protein was associated with both immature and mature virus particles and was oriented in the membrane with its C terminus exposed on the virion surface. To determine whether the A9L protein functions in viral assembly or infectivity, we made a conditional-lethal inducible recombinant vaccinia virus. In the absence of inducer, A9L expression and virus replication were undetectable. Under nonpermissive conditions, viral late protein synthesis occurred, but maturational proteolytic processing was inhibited, and there was an accumulation of membrane-coated electron-dense bodies, crescents, and immature virus particles, many of which appeared abnormal. We concluded that the product of the A9L gene is a viral membrane-associated protein and functions at an early stage in virion morphogenesis.