Marita Stevens

Prucalopride is effective in patients with severe chronic constipation in whom laxatives fail to provide adequate relief. Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

Background: Chronic constipation (CC) is common and there is a need for more effective and better-tolerated agents that normalize bowel function without affecting secretion. Prucalopride is a novel, selective serotonin4 receptor agonist with enterokinetic properties. Aims: Pilot study to compare the efficacy and tolerability of prucalopride and placebo in patients with severe CC referred to a tertiary centre. Methods: After 4-weeks’ run in, patients were randomized to 4 weeks’ once daily, double-blind treatment with either prucalopride 4 mg (n = 27) or placebo (n = 26). A 50% dose reduction after 2 weeks’ treatment was possible for patients with an excessive gastrointestinal response to the study medication (severe cramps, abdominal pain, and diarrhea). Patients assessed efficacy using a visual analogue scale (VAS) and recorded bowel function in daily diaries. The investigator assessed efficacy and total gut transit time (marker study). Results: Patient VAS assessment demonstrated that prucalopride was significantly more effective than placebo in softening stools, and decreasing straining and time to first stool. Prucalopride also had a positive effect on stool frequency, feeling of complete evacuation and total gut transit time, although these differences were not statistically significant compared with placebo. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal symptoms and headache; most were mild to moderate. There were no clinically relevant effects on cardiovascular or laboratory parameters. Conclusions: Once-daily prucalopride 4 mg for 4 weeks is effective and well tolerated in patients with severe CC. It improves whole gut transit, reducing straining, softening stools and reducing time to first bowel movement.

Effects of prucalopride on colonic transit, anorectal function and bowel habits in patients with chronic constipation

There is a need for better tolerated drugs to normalize bowel function in chronic constipation. Prucalopride is a highly selective, specific, serotonin4 receptor agonist with enterokinetic properties.

Rilpivirine versus efavirenz in HIV-1-infected subjects receiving emtricitabine/tenofovir DF: pooled 96-week data from ECHO and THRIVE Studies.

Abstract Objectives: Week 96 efficacy and safety of the non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) rilpivirine (RPV) was compared to efavirenz (EFV) in subset of 1,096 subjects who received emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (FTC/TDF) in pooled data from 2 phase 3 studies. Methods: ECHO and THRIVE are double-blind, double-dummy, randomized, active-controlled, non-inferiority phase 3 studies of RPV versus EFV plus 2 NRTIs in antiretroviral-naïve adult subjects. The primary and secondary endpoints were the proportion of subjects with HIV-1 RNA <50 copies/mL using an intent-to-treat, time to loss of virologic response (ITT-TLOVR) analysis at weeks 48 and 96, respectively. Safety, tolerability, immunologic response, adherence level, and other measures were also evaluated. Results: At week 48, noninferior efficacy of RPV+FTC/TDF over EFV+FTC/TDF was established, and at week 96 RPV+FTC/TDF remained noninferior (77% overall response rate in both groups). Through week 96, rates of virologic failure were higher in the RPV+FTC/TDF group, with low and similar rates of virologic failure and resistance mutations occurring during the second year of follow-up. Treatment with RPV+FTC/TDF was associated with a lower rate of discontinuation due to adverse events and grade 2–4 adverse events including dizziness, abnormal dreams/nightmares, rash, and lipid abnormalities. Conclusions: The pooled ECHO and THRIVE studies demonstrated noninferiority of RPV+FTC/TDF in achieving virologic response with safety and tolerability advantages over EFV+FTC/TDF through 96 weeks. Higher rates of virologic failure in the RPV+FTC/TDF group were balanced with higher rates of discontinuations due to adverse events in the EFV+FTC/TDF group.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability with repeat doses of GSK1265744 and rilpivirine (TMC278) long-acting nanosuspensions in healthy adults.

Objective:Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of GSK1265744 (744) and rilpivirine (RPV) (TMC278) were assessed after repeat dosing of long-acting (LA) injectable formulations in healthy subjects. Methods:Subjects received a 14-day lead-in of oral 744 (30 mg/d) to assess safety and tolerability before injectable administration. Subjects were randomized into 4 cohorts: 800 mg of 744 LA intramuscularly (IM) followed by 3 monthly doses of (1) 200 mg subcutaneously, (2) 200 mg IM, (3) 400 mg IM, or (4) a second injection of 800 mg IM after 12 weeks. Cohorts 2 and 3 also received IM doses of RPV LA at months 3 (1200 mg) and 4 (900 or 600 mg). Pharmacokinetics and safety were assessed throughout the trial. Results:Forty-seven subjects enrolled; 40 received ≥1 LA injection with 37 completing all planned injections. Seven subjects discontinued 744 oral (non–drug-related, n = 6; dizziness, n = 1). The 744 LA and RPV LA injections were generally well tolerated, with grade 1 injection site reactions most commonly reported. Three subjects discontinued during injection phase (consent withdrawn, n = 2; self-limited rash, n = 1). There were no grade 3 or 4 adverse events and no clinically significant trends in laboratory abnormalities, electrocardiograms, or vital signs. All dose cohorts achieved therapeutically relevant plasma concentrations of each drug within 3 days with prolonged exposure over the dosing interval. Plasma concentrations of 744 exceeded the protein-adjusted IC90 and RPV plasma concentrations and were comparable to steady-state oral RPV 25 mg/d. Conclusions:These data support the potential application of dual-therapy 744 LA and RPV LA for treatment of HIV-1 infection.

Impact of food and different meal types on the pharmacokinetics of rilpivirine.

The objective of the study was to determine the impact of food and different meal types on the pharmacokinetics of rilpivirine, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor. In this open‐label, randomized, crossover study, healthy volunteers received a single, oral 75 mg dose of rilpivirine either with a normal‐fat breakfast (reference), under fasting conditions, with a high‐fat breakfast, or with a protein‐rich nutritional drink. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by non‐compartmental methods and analyzed using a linear mixed‐effects model. Safety was assessed throughout. The least‐squares mean ratio for area under the plasma concentration–time curve to last timepoint was 0.57 (90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46–0.72) under fasting conditions compared to dosing with a normal‐fat breakfast. With a high‐fat breakfast or only a protein‐rich nutritional drink, the corresponding values were 0.92 (90% CI: 0.80–1.07) and 0.50 (90% CI: 0.41–0.61), respectively, compared to dosing with a normal‐fat breakfast. Under all conditions, rilpivirine was generally safe and well tolerated. Administration of rilpivirine under fasting conditions or with only a protein‐rich nutritional drink substantially lowered the oral bioavailability when compared to administration with a normal‐fat breakfast. Rilpivirine bioavailability was similar when administered with a high‐fat or normal‐fat breakfast. Rilpivirine should always be taken with a meal to ensure adequate bioavailability.

96-Week resistance analyses of rilpivirine in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults from the ECHO and THRIVE Phase III trials.

BACKGROUND In the ECHO/THRIVE 96-week efficacy analysis, the response rate was 78% with rilpivirine (RPV) and efavirenz (EFV) plus two nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors. METHODS For resistance analyses, virological failures (VFs) were genotyped and/or phenotyped at baseline and failure. RESULTS In the overall 96-week resistance analyses, the proportion of VFs was higher with RPV (96/686, 14%) versus EFV (52/682, 8%), but similar within weeks 48-96 (22/686, 3% versus 16/682, 2%). In genotyped VFs, treatment-emergent non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) were as common with RPV (46/86, 53%) versus EFV (20/42, 48%), but nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitor RAMs were more common with RPV (48/86, 56%) than EFV (11/42, 26%). In RPV VFs, E138K+M184I remained the most frequent combination. Among RPV VFs with phenotypic RPV resistance, cross-resistance was observed with nevirapine (16/35, 46%), EFV (30/35, 86%) and etravirine (32/35, 91%). Among patients with baseline viral load (VL)≤100,000 copies/ml, there were fewer VFs (RPV: 28/368, 8%; EFV: 20/329, 6%), fewer VFs with treatment-emergent NNRTI RAMs (RPV: 10/27, 37%; EFV: 6/17, 35%), and less phenotypic resistance to RPV and other NNRTIs, than in patients with baseline VL>100,000 copies/ml (VFs: 68/318, 21% [RPV], 32/353, 9% [EFV]; NNRTI RAMs: 36/59, 61% [RPV], 14/32, 56% [EFV]). Among RPV VFs with baseline VL≤100,000 copies/ml observed within weeks 48-96, only 1/7 had phenotypic resistance to RPV. CONCLUSIONS During the second year of treatment in ECHO/THRIVE, few VFs with emerging NNRTI RAMs (no new RPV RAMs) occurred.

Lipid Levels and Changes in Body Fat Distribution in Treatment-Naive, HIV-1–Infected Adults Treated With Rilpivirine or Efavirenz for 96 Weeks in the ECHO and THRIVE Trials

BACKGROUND Pooled ECHO/THRIVE lipid and body fat data are presented from the ECHO (Efficacy Comparison in Treatment-Naïve, HIV-Infected Subjects of TMC278 and Efavirenz) and THRIVE (TMC278 Against HIV, in a Once-Daily Regimen Versus Efavirenz) trials. METHODS We assessed the 96-week effects on lipids, adverse events (AEs), and body fat distribution (dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry) of rilpivirine (RPV) and EFV plus 2 nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (N[t]RTIs) in treatment-naive adults infected with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1). RESULTS Rilpivirine produced minimal changes in total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), and triglycerides. Compared with RPV, EFV significantly (P < .001) increased lipid levels. Decreases in the TC/HDL-C ratio were similar with RPV and EFV. Background N[t]RTI affected RPV-induced lipid changes; all levels increased with zidovudine/lamivudine (3TC) and abacavir/3TC (except triglycerides, which were unchanged). With emtricitabine/tenofovir, levels of HDL-C were increased, TC and LDL-C were unchanged, and triglycerides were decreased. With EFV, lipid levels increased in each N[t]RTI subgroup (except triglycerides were unchanged with abacavir/3TC). Fewer (P < .001) RPV-treated patients than EFV-treated patients had TC, LDL-C, and triglyceride levels above National Cholesterol Education Program cutoffs. More RPV- than EFV-treated patients had HDL-C values below these cutoffs (P = .02). Dyslipidemia AEs were less common with RPV than with EFV. Similar proportions of patients had a ≥10% decrease in limb fat (16% with RPV and 17% with EFV). Limb fat was significantly (P < .001) increased to a similar extent (by 12% with RPV and 11% with EFV). At week 96, patients receiving zidovudine/3TC had lost limb fat, and those receiving emtricitabine/tenofovir had gained it. CONCLUSIONS Over the course of 96 weeks, RPV-based therapy was associated with lower increases in lipid parameters and fewer dyslipidemia AEs than EFV-based treatment. Body fat distribution changes were similar between treatments. The N[t]RTI regimen affected lipid and body fat distribution changes.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between etravirine or rilpivirine and telaprevir in healthy volunteers: A randomized, two‐way crossover trial

Coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) may require treatment with an HIV non‐nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), for example, rilpivirine or etravirine, and an HCV direct‐acting antiviral drug such as telaprevir. In a two‐panel, two‐way, crossover study, healthy volunteers were randomized to receive etravirine 200 mg twice daily ± telaprevir 750 mg every 8 hours or rilpivirine 25 mg once daily ± telaprevir 750 mg every 8 hours. Pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted for each drug at steady‐state when given alone and when coadministered; statistical analyses were least‐square means with 90% confidence intervals. Telaprevir minimum plasma concentration (Cmin), maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), and area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) decreased 25%, 10%, and 16%, respectively, when coadministered with etravirine and 11%, 3%, and 5%, respectively, when coadministered with rilpivirine. Telaprevir did not affect etravirine pharmacokinetics, but increased rilpivirine Cmin, Cmax, and AUC by 93%, 49%, and 78%, respectively. Both combinations were generally well tolerated. The small decrease in telaprevir exposure when coadministered with etravirine is unlikely to be clinically relevant. The interaction between telaprevir and rilpivirine is not likely to be clinically relevant under most circumstances. No dose adjustments are deemed necessary when they are coadministered.

Neurological and psychiatric tolerability of rilpivirine (TMC278) vs. efavirenz in treatment-naïve, HIV-1-infected patients at 48 weeks.

The aim of the study was to compare the neuropsychiatric safety and tolerability of rilpivirine (TMC278) vs. efavirenz in a preplanned pooled analysis of data from the ECHO and THRIVE studies which compared the safety and efficacy of the two drugs in HIV‐1 infected treatment naïve adults.

Rilpivirine vs. efavirenz in HIV-1 patients with baseline viral load 100,000 copies/ml or less: week 48 phase III analysis.

Objectives:To compare efficacy, resistance development, and safety between rilpivirine and efavirenz in treatment-naive, HIV-1-infected adults with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less in the pooled 48-week dataset of the ECHO (Efficacy Comparison in treatment-naive HIV-infected subjects Of TMC278 and EFV) and THRIVE (TMC278 against HIV, in a once-daily RegImen Vs. Efavirenz) trials. Design:Phase III, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trials. Methods:Patients received rilpivirine 25 mg once daily (q.d.) or efavirenz 600 mg q.d. with two nucleoside/tide reverse transcriptase inhibitors [N(t)RTIs]. This analysis considers the subpopulation of 368 rilpivirine and 330 efavirenz patients with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less. Results:Significantly higher 48-week response rates (viral load <50 copies/ml, intent-to-treat-time-to-loss-of-virological response) were observed with rilpivirine vs. efavirenz [90 vs. 84%, respectively; difference 6.6% (95% confidence interval 1.6–11.5%)]. The proportion of patients experiencing virological failure (VFres) was 5% in each treatment group. A comparable proportion of VFres patients in each group developed nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor resistance-associated mutations (RAMs) [rilpivirine: 6/16 (38%) vs. efavirenz: 5/12 (42%)]. A numerically higher proportion of rilpivirine VFres patients developed N(t)RTI RAMs [7/16 (44%)] vs. efavirenz [2/12 (17%)]; P = 0.2232. A significantly lower incidence for rilpivirine vs. efavirenz was observed for the following events: treatment-related grade 2–4 overall adverse events (17 vs. 30%; P <0.0001), rash (any type; 2 vs. 12%; P <0.0001), and neurological adverse events (19 vs. 40%; P <0.0001), including dizziness (10 vs. 29%; P <0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups in the total cholesterol/high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. Conclusion:In treatment-naive patients with baseline viral load 100 000 copies/ml or less, rilpivirine along with two N(t)RTIs achieved a high response, with a comparable frequency of VFres and more favorable tolerability than efavirenz.