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.

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.

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.

Pitavastatin is a more sensitive and selective organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B clinical probe than rosuvastatin

AIMS

Rosuvastatin and pitavastatin have been proposed as probe substrates for the organic anion-transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B, but clinical data on their relative sensitivity and selectivity to OATP1B inhibitors are lacking. A clinical study was therefore conducted to determine their relative suitability as OATP1B probes using single oral (PO) and intravenous (IV) doses of the OATP1B inhibitor rifampicin, accompanied by a comprehensive in vitro assessment of rifampicin inhibitory potential on statin transporters.

METHODS

The clinical study comprised of two separate panels of eight healthy subjects. In each panel, subjects were randomized to receive a single oral dose of rosuvastatin (5 mg) or pitavastatin (1 mg) administered alone, concomitantly with rifampicin (600 mg) PO or IV. The in vitro transporter studies were performed using hepatocytes and recombinant expression systems.

RESULTS

Rifampicin markedly increased exposures of both statins, with greater differential increases after PO vs. IV rifampicin only for rosuvastatin. The magnitudes of the increases in area under the plasma concentration-time curve were 5.7- and 7.6-fold for pitavastatin and 4.4- and 3.3-fold for rosuvastatin, after PO and IV rifampicin, respectively. In vitro studies showed that rifampicin was an inhibitor of OATP1B1 and OATP1B3, breast cancer resistance protein and multidrug resistance protein 2, but not of organic anion transporter 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The results indicate that pitavastatin is a more sensitive and selective and thus preferred clinical OATP1B probe substrate than rosuvastatin, and that a single IV dose of rifampicin is a more selective OATP1B inhibitor than a PO dose.

Bioequivalence of an ezetimibe/simvastatin combination tablet and coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin as separate tablets in healthy subjects

OBJECTIVE

To assess the bioequivalence of an ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) combination tablet compared to the coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin as separate tablets (EZE + SIMVA).

METHODS

In this open-label, randomized, 2-part, 2-period crossover study, 96 healthy subjects were randomly assigned to participate in each part of the study (Part I or II), with each part consisting of 2 single-dose treatment periods separated by a 14-day washout. Part I consisted of Treatments A (EZE 10 mg + SIMVA 10 mg) and B (EZE/SIMVA 10/10 mg/mg) and Part II consisted of Treatments C (EZE 10 mg + SIMVA 80 mg) and D (EZE/SIMVA 10/80 mg/mg). Blood samples were collected up to 96 hours post-dose for determination of ezetimibe, total ezetimibe (ezetimibe + ezetimibe glucuronide), simvastatin and simvastatin acid (the most prevalent active metabolite of simvastatin) concentrations. Ezetimibe and simvastatin acid AUC(0-last) were predefined as primary endpoints and ezetimibe and simvastatin acid Cmax were secondary endpoints. Bioequivalence was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the geometric mean ratios (GMR) (single tablet/coadministration) of AUC(0-last) and Cmax fell within prespecified bounds of (0.80, 1.25).

RESULTS

The GMRs of the AUC(0-last) and Cmax for ezetimibe and simvastatin acid fell within the bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25). EZE/ SIMVA and EZE + SIMVA were generally well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

The lowest and highest dosage strengths of EZE/SIMVA tablet were bioequivalent to the individual drug components administered together. Given the exact weight multiples of the EZE/SIMVA tablet and linear pharmacokinetics of simvastatin across the marketed dose range, bioequivalence of the intermediate tablet strengths (EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg/mg and EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg/mg) was inferred, although these dosages were not tested directly. These results indicate that the safety and efficacy profile of EZE + SIMVA coadministration therapy can be applied to treatment with the EZE/SIMVA tablet across the clinical dose range.

Simvastatin does not have a clinically significant pharmacokinetic interaction with fenofibrate in humans

Simvastatin and fenofibrate are both commonly used lipid-regulating agents with distinct mechanisms of action, and their coadministration may be an attractive treatment for some patients with dyslipidemia. A 2-period, randomized, open-label, crossover study was conducted in 12 subjects to determine if fenofibrate and simvastatin are subject to a clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction at steady state. In treatment A, subjects received an 80-mg simvastatin tablet in the morning for 7 days. In treatment B, subjects received a 160-mg micronized fenofibrate capsule in the morning for 7 days, followed by a 160-mg micronized fenofibrate capsule dosed together with an 80-mg simvastatin tablet on days 8 to 14. Because food increases the bioavailability of fenofibrate, each dose was administered with food to maximize the exposure of fenofibric acid. The steady-state pharmacokinetics (AUC(0-24h), C(max), and t(max)) of active and total HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, simvastatin acid, and simvastatin were determined following simvastatin administration with and without fenofibrate. Also, fenofibric acid steady-state pharmacokinetics were evaluated with and without simvastatin. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for AUC(0-24h) (80 mg simvastatin [SV] + 160 mg fenofibrate)/(80 mg simvastatin alone) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.88 (0.80, 0.95) and 0.92 (0.82, 1.03) for active and total HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The GMRs and 90% CIs for fenofibric acid (80 mg SV + 160 mg fenofibrate/160 mg fenofibrate alone) AUC(0-24h) and C(max) were 0.95 (0.88, 1.04) and 0.89 (0.77, 1.02), respectively. Because both the active inhibitor and fenofibric acid AUC GMR 90% confidence intervals fell within the prespecified bounds of (0.70, 1.43), no clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction between fenofibrate and simvastatin was concluded in humans. The coadministration of simvastatin and fenofibrate in this study was well tolerated.