Patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) experience recurrent, severe pain events due to vaso-occlusion. Eliminating these acute pain events is a key outcome in SCD clinical trials; however, the definition of a vaso-occlusive crisis (VOC) or a vaso-occlusive event (VOE) has not been consistently applied, hampering comparisons of treatment efficacy between different therapeutic approaches. We have examined the degree to which differing definitions of vaso-occlusion in clinical trial endpoints impact efficacy outcomes. Descriptions of clinical endpoints related to vaso-occlusion and pain events were reviewed from trials of exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel), lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel), renizgamglogene autogedtemcel (reni-cel), hydroxyurea, l-glutamine, voxelotor, and crizanlizumab. Patient-level data from the published exa-cel Phase 3 pivotal trial (CLIMB SCD-121; data cut 14 Jun 2023) was used to evaluate efficacy outcomes based on differing endpoint definitions of vaso-occlusion. In the seven clinical trials reviewed, definitions of vaso-occlusion and/or pain events varied by care setting, duration of care, treatments used, and associated complications, with the frequency and duration of medical facility visits for acute pain events being most dissimilar between trials. Definitions of severe VOCs (exa-cel), VOC (voxelotor), and sickle cell-related pain crises (SCPCs; crizanlizumab and l-glutamine) included pain events requiring a medical facility visit of any duration, whereas the definition of painful crises (hydroxyurea) required a medical facility visit of > 4 h and the definition of severe vaso-occlusive events (VOEs; lovo-cel and reni-cel) required a hospital or emergency room (ER) observation unit visit lasting ≥ 24 h or ≥ 2 visits to a day unit or ER over a 72-h period. Based on the definition of severe VOCs, 29/30 patients [96.7

Background In two pivotal phase 3 trials, up to 24 weeks of treatment with elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) was efficacious and safe in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) ≥12 years of age who have at least one F508del allele. The aim of this study is to assess long-term safety and efficacy of ELX/TEZ/IVA in these patients. Methods In this phase 3, open-label, single-arm extension study, participants with F508del –minimal function (from a 24-week parent study; n=399) or F508del – F508del (from a 4-week parent study; n=107) genotypes receive ELX/TEZ/IVA at the same dose (ELX 200 mg once daily, TEZ 100 mg once daily and IVA 150 mg every 12 h). The primary end-point is safety and tolerability. A prespecified interim analysis was conducted when the last participant reached the Week 144 visit. Results At the Week 144 interim analysis, mean duration of exposure to ELX/TEZ/IVA in the extension study was 151.1 weeks. Exposure-adjusted rates of adverse events (AEs) (586.6 events per 100 participant-years) and serious AEs (22.4 events per 100 participant-years) were lower than in the ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment group in the 24-week parent study (1096.0 and 36.9 events per 100 participant-years, respectively); most participants had AEs classified as mild (16.4% of participants) or moderate (60.3% of participants) in severity. 14 participants (2.8%) had AEs that led to treatment discontinuation. Following initiation of ELX/TEZ/IVA, participants had increases in forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV 1 ) percentage predicted, Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory domain score and body mass index, and had decreases in sweat chloride concentration and pulmonary exacerbation rates that were maintained over the interim analysis period. The mean annualised rate of change in FEV 1 % pred was +0.07 (95% CI −0.12–0.26) percentage points among the participants. Conclusions ELX/TEZ/IVA was generally safe and well tolerated, with a safety profile consistent with the 24-week parent study. Participants had sustained improvements in lung function, respiratory symptoms, CF transmembrane conductance regulator function, pulmonary exacerbation rates and nutritional status. These results support the favourable safety profile and durable, disease-modifying clinical benefits of ELX/TEZ/IVA.

Topic: 26. Sickle cell disease Background: Frequent episodes of vaso-occlusion are a clinical hallmark of sickle cell disease (SCD). Vaso-occlusion results from blood flow blockages that deprive tissues and organs of adequate oxygen and nutrients, resulting in severe pain and contributing to progressive organ dysfunction and failure. A variety of therapeutic options are aimed at reducing or eliminating these episodes; however, the definition of vaso-occlusion is not consistent across different clinical trials. As the SCD treatment landscape evolves, and includes the promise of potentially curative therapies, it is important to understand differing definitions for vaso-occlusion episodes to understand efficacy outcome data. Aims: To compare definitions of episodes of vaso-occlusion as endpoints in clinical trials for various therapies, including genetic therapies. Methods: This study reviewed recently completed and currently ongoing clinical trial protocols and published articles that included endpoints assessing reductions or elimination in episodes of vaso-occlusion. Clinical trials included those on: (i) exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, CRISPR/Cas-9 based genome editing treatment), (ii) lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel, gene addition therapy), (iii) L-glutamine, (iv) voxelotor, (v) hydroxyurea and (vi) crizanlizumab. Outcomes related to vaso-occlusion were compared across several variables including setting of care, duration of care, treatments, and complications. Results: We found differing terminology for endpoints associated with episodes of vaso-occlusion: vaso-occlusive crises (VOC, voxelotor), painful crises (hydroxyurea) and sickle-cell related pain crises (SCPC, crizanlizumab, L-glutamine), severe vaso-occlusive crises (severe VOCs, exa-cel), and severe vaso-occlusive events (VOEs, lovo-cel). The most substantial differences in endpoint definitions were associated with duration of medical facility visits and complications. The definitions of severe VOC, SCPC, and VOC include events with medical facility visits of any duration (severe VOC and SCPC) or medical records of a patient being seen or contacting a physician within 1 business day of event (VOC), whereas the definition of severe VOE requires a ≥ 24-hour hospital or emergency room (ER) observation unit visit or ≥2 visits to a day unit or ER over 72 hours and the definition of painful crisis requires a facility visit of ≥4 hours duration. All endpoints include acute chest syndrome and priapism; however, the definition of severe VOE requires ≥4 visits to a medical facility for priapism to meet criterion while others require only a single visit. Conclusions: The definitions of episodes of vaso-occlusion in clinical trial endpoints vary across studies, especially with respect to medical facility visit requirements. For genetic therapies that offer the potential of eliminating episodes of vaso-occlusion, it is important that the definition for these endpoints be broad and inclusive. We found that the definitions of health care facility visits for severe VOC (exa-cel), VOC, and SCPC were more broadly inclusive and included events that would not be counted in the definitions of severe VOE (lovo-cel) or painful crisis, creating the potential for episodes of vaso-occlusion to be undercounted by these latter endpoints. Overall, these differences in definitions for endpoints of vaso-occlusion in clinical trials have the potential to significantly impact assessments of efficacy across therapies for SCD. Keywords: Vasoocclusive crisis, Gene therapy, Clinical outcome, Sickle cell disease

Background: Phase 3 clinical trials showed elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) was safe and efficacious in people with cystic fibrosis (CF) with & GE;1 F508del-CFTR allele. To assess long-term effects of ELX/TEZ/IVA under real-world conditions of use, a 5-year observational registry-based study is being conducted. We report interim results from the first 2 years of follow-up. Methods: The study included people with CF in the US Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry (CFFPR) who initiated ELX/TEZ/IVA between October 2019 and December 2020. Pulmonary exacerbations (PEx), percent predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (ppFEV 1 ), hospitalizations, bacterial pathogens, body mass index (BMI), CF complications and comorbidities, and liver function tests (LFTs) after treatment initiation were compared with the 5-year pre-treatment period. Death and lung transplantation were assessed relative to 2019 CFFPR data. Results: 16,116 people with CF were included (mean treatment duration 20.4 months). Among those with 5 years of pre-treatment data, mean PEx/patient/year declined to 0.18 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.19) in Years 1 and 2 post-treatment from 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83, 0.88) in the baseline year (79% reduction), after a continued increase observed pre-treatment. Similarly, a decline in mean hospitalizations/patient/year was observed in Year 1 that was sustained in Year 2 (74% reduction from baseline year). The mean absolute change in ppFEV 1 from baseline was + 8.2 percentage points (95% CI: 8.0, 8.4) in Year 1 and + 8.9 percentage points (95% CI: 8.7, 9.1) in Year 2, after a continued decline observed pre-treatment. Positive bacterial cultures decreased for all evaluated pathogens, and mean BMI increased by 1.6 kg/m 2 (95% CI: 1.5, 1.6) by Year 2. No new safety concerns were identified based on evaluation of CF complications, comorbidities, and LFTs. The annualized rates of death (0.47% [95% CI: 0.39, 0.551) and lung transplantation (0.16% [95% CI: 0.12, 0.221) were considerably lower than reported in 2019 (1.65% and 1.08%, respectively). Conclusions: ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment was associated with sustained improvements in lung function, reduced frequency of PEx and all-cause hospitalization, increased BMI, and lower prevalence of positive bacterial cultures. Additionally, there was a 72% lower rate of death and 85% lower rate of lung transplantation relative to the year before ELX/TEZ/IVA availability. These results, from the largest cohort of ELX/TEZ/IVA-treated people to date, extend our understanding of the broad clinical benefits of ELX/TEZ/IVA. & COPY; 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Cystic Fibrosis Society. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ )

Background: Frequent episodes of vaso-occlusion are the hallmark of sickle cell disease (SCD), but the definition of what constitutes a vaso-occlusive episode is not consistently applied across clinical trials, creating challenges in evaluating and comparing efficacy results among different therapies. Here, we compare vaso-occlusion endpoint definitions from clinical trials for various therapies, including genetic therapies, and use clinical trial data to demonstrate the potential for outcomes differences based on differing definitions of vaso-occlusive episodes. Methods: We reviewed completed and ongoing clinical trials and published articles using endpoints assessing the reduction or elimination of vaso-occlusive crisis/events, including trials of (i) exagamglogene autotemcel (exa-cel, CRISPR/Cas-9 based genome editing treatment), (ii) lovotibeglogene autotemcel (lovo-cel, gene addition therapy), (iii) L-glutamine, (iv) voxelotor, (v) hydroxyurea (HU) and (vi) crizanlizumab. Outcomes related to vaso-occlusion were compared across variables including care setting, care duration, treatments, and complications. Data from the CLIMB SCD-121 trial of exa-cel in patients aged 12 to 35 years with severe SCD (data cut as of 10 Feb 2023) were evaluated using different published definitions of vaso-occlusion. Results: The most substantial differences in vaso-occlusion endpoint definitions were associated with frequency and duration of visits to medical facilities for acute pain and inclusion of specific SCD specific complications. Definitions of vaso-occlusions for acute pain related events differed across studies. The definitions of severe vaso-occlusive crises for exa-cel (severe VOC; exa-cel), sickle cell pain-related crises (SCPC; crizanlizumab and L-glutamine), and VOC (VOC; voxelotor) include events with medical facility visits of any duration (severe VOC and SCPC) or medical records of a patient being seen or contacting a physician within 1 business day of an event (VOC), whereas the definition of severe vaso-occlusive events (severe VOE; lovo-cel) requires a ≥ 24-hour hospital or emergency room (ER) observation unit visit or ≥2 visits to a day unit or ER over 72 hours. Vaso-occlusion definition for HU (painful crisis) required a facility visit of ≥4 hours duration. All endpoints include acute chest syndrome and priapism; however, the definition of severe VOE requires ≥4 visits to a medical facility for priapism to meet criterion, while others require only a single visit. The exa-cel phase 3 trial in SCD employs a broad and inclusive definition for severe VOC which counts each individual medical facility visit, regardless of frequency or duration of hospitalization. Based on this, 19 out of 20 patients (95%) met the primary endpoint of freedom from severe VOCs for at least 12 consecutive months (95% CI, 75.1%, 99.9%; P<0.0001). However, when the primary endpoint was analyzed using the severe VOE definition, all patients (20/20; 100.0%) were free from severe VOEs for at least 12 consecutive months (95% CI: 83.2%, 100.0%; P<0.0001). Conclusions: Requirements for health care facility visits in the definitions of severe VOC (exa-cel), VOC, and SCPC were more broadly inclusive and include events that would not be counted in the definitions of severe VOE (lovo-cel) or painful crisis. Clinically, support for this observation comes from our analysis of exa-cel SCD pivotal clinical trial data using these different definitions, which showed the number of patients free from vaso-occlusive episodes changed depending on the definition of vaso-occlusion employed. These results show differences in vaso-occlusion definitions have the potential to impact assessments of treatment efficacy across different SCD therapies.

Rationale: Elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor (ELX/TEZ/IVA) was shown to be efficacious and safe in patients >= 12 years of age with cystic fibrosis and at least one F508del-CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) allele, but it has not been evaluated in children <12 years of age. Objectives: To assess the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of ELX/TEVIVA in children 6 through 11 years of age with F508del-minimal function or F508del-F508del genotypes. Methods: In this 24-week open-label phase 3 study, children (N = 66) weighing <30 kg received 50% of the ELX/TEZ/IVA adult daily dose (ELX 100 mg once daily, TEZ 50 mg once daily, and WA 75 mg every 12 h) whereas children weighing >= 30 kg received the full adult daily dose (ELX 200 mg once daily, TEZ 100 mg once daily, and IVA 150 mg every 12 h). Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. The safety and pharmacokinetic profiles ELX/TEZ/IVA were generally consistent with those observed in older patients. The most commonly reported adverse events induded cough, headache, and pyrexia; in most of the children who had adverse events, these were mild or moderate in severity. Through Week 24, ELX/TEZ/IVA treatment improved the percentage of predicted FEV1 (10.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.9 to 12.6), Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory domain score (7.0 points; 95% CI, 4.7 to 9.2), lung clearance index 2 . 5 (-1.71 units; 95% CI, - 2.11 to -1.30), and sweat chloride (-60.9 mmol/L; 95% CI, - 63.7 to -58.2); body mass index-for-age z-score increased over the 24-week treatment period when compared with the pretreatment baseline. Conclusions: Our results show ELX/TEZ/IVA is safe and efficacious in children 6 through 11 years of age with at least one F508del-CFTR allele, supporting its use in this patient population.

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by mutations in the CF transmembrane conductance regulator gene (CFTR) that result in diminished quantity and/or function of the CFTR anion channel. F508del-CFTR, the most common CF-causing mutation (found in ∼90% of patients), causes severe processing and trafficking defects, resulting in decreased CFTR quantity and function. CFTR modulators are medications that increase the amount of mature CFTR protein (correctors) or enhance channel function (potentiators) at the cell surface. Combinations of CFTR correctors and potentiators (i.e. lumacaftor/ivacaftor, tezacaftor/ivacaftor) have demonstrated clinical benefit in subsets of patients. However, none are approved for patients with CF heterozygous for F508del-CFTR and a minimal function mutation, i.e. a mutation that produces either no protein or protein that is unresponsive to currently approved CFTR modulators. Next-generation CFTR correctors VX-659 and VX-445, each in triple combination with tezacaftor and ivacaftor, improve CFTR processing, trafficking and function in vitro and have demonstrated clinical improvements in phase 2 studies in patients with CF with one or two F508del-CFTR alleles. Here, we present the rationale and design of four randomised phase 3 studies, and their open-label extensions, evaluating VX-659 (ECLIPSE) or VX-445 (AURORA) plus tezacaftor and ivacaftor in patients with one or two F508del-CFTR alleles.

Background Cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulators correct the basic defect caused by CFTR mutations. Improvements in health outcomes have been achieved with the combination of a CFTR corrector and potentiator in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation. The addition of elexacaftor (VX-445), a next-generation CFTR corrector, to tezacaftor plus ivacaftor further improved F508del-CFTR function and clinical outcomes in a phase 2 study in people with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation. Methods This phase 3, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, active-controlled trial of elexacaftor in combination with tezacaftor plus ivacaftor was done at 44 sites in four countries. Eligible participants were those with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the F508del mutation, aged 12 years or older with stable disease, and with a percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 s (ppFEV(1)) of 40-90%, inclusive. After a 4-week tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in period, participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to 4 weeks of elexacaftor 200 mg orally once daily plus tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h versus tezacaftor 100 mg orally once daily plus ivacaftor 150 mg orally every 12 h alone. The primary outcome was the absolute change from baseline (measured at the end of the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor run-in) in ppFEV(1) at week 4. Key secondary outcomes were absolute change in sweat chloride and Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised respiratory domain (CFQ-R RD) score. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03525548. Findings Between Aug 3 and Dec 28, 2018, 113 participants were enrolled. Following the run-in, 107 participants were randomly assigned (55 in the elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group and 52 in the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group) and completed the 4-week treatment period. The elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group had improvements in the primary outcome of ppFEV(1) (least squares mean [LSM] treatment difference of 10.0 percentage points [95% CI 7.4 to 12.6], p<0.0001) and the key secondary outcomes of sweat chloride concentration (LSM treatment difference -45.1 mmol/L [95% CI -50.1 to -40.1], p<0.0001), and CFQ-R RD score (LSM treatment difference 17.4 points [95% CI 11.8 to 23.0], p<0.0001) compared with the tezacaftor plus ivacaftor group. The triple combination regimen was well tolerated, with no discontinuations. Most adverse events were mild or moderate; serious adverse events occurred in two (4%) participants receiving elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor and in one (2%) receiving tezacaftor plus ivacaftor. Interpretation Elexacaftor plus tezacaftor plus ivacaftor provided clinically robust benefit compared with tezacaftor plus ivacaftor alone, with a favourable safety profile, and shows the potential to lead to transformative improvements in the lives of people with cystic fibrosis who are homozygous for the F508del mutation. Copyright (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND:VX-445 is a next-generation cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) corrector designed to restore Phe508del CFTR protein function in patients with cystic fibrosis when administered with tezacaftor and ivacaftor (VX-445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor). METHODS:We evaluated the effects of VX-445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor on Phe508del CFTR protein processing, trafficking, and chloride transport in human bronchial epithelial cells. On the basis of in vitro activity, a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging, phase 2 trial was conducted to evaluate oral VX-445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor in patients heterozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation and a minimal-function mutation (Phe508del-MF) and in patients homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation (Phe508del-Phe508del) after tezacaftor-ivacaftor run-in. Primary end points were safety and absolute change in percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) from baseline. RESULTS:In vitro, VX-445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor significantly improved Phe508del CFTR protein processing, trafficking, and chloride transport to a greater extent than any two of these agents in dual combination. In patients with cystic fibrosis, VX-445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor had an acceptable safety and side-effect profile. Most adverse events were mild or moderate. The treatment also resulted in an increased percentage of predicted FEV1 of up to 13.8 points in the Phe508del-MF group (P<0.001). In patients in the Phe508del-Phe508del group, who were already receiving tezacaftor-ivacaftor, the addition of VX-445 resulted in an 11.0-point increase in the percentage of predicted FEV1 (P<0.001). In both groups, there was a decrease in sweat chloride concentrations and improvement in the respiratory domain score on the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised. CONCLUSIONS:The use of VX-445-tezacaftor-ivacaftor to target Phe508del CFTR protein resulted in increased CFTR function in vitro and translated to improvements in patients with cystic fibrosis with one or two Phe508del alleles. This approach has the potential to treat the underlying cause of cystic fibrosis in approximately 90% of patients. (Funded by Vertex Pharmaceuticals; VX16-445-001 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03227471 ; and EudraCT number, 2017-000797-11 .).

1038 Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) is the basis of first-line (1L) treatment for HR+ ABC. However, ET resistance are almost universal. At the first interim analysis (IA) of MONALEESA-2 (NCT01958021), ribociclib (RIB; cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor) + letrozole (LET) significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (PBO) + LET in patients (pts) with HR+, HER2– ABC.1 Here we report updated efficacy and safety data from MONALEESA-2 with a further ~11 months of follow-up. Methods: Postmenopausal women with no prior therapy for ABC were randomized 1:1 toRIB (600 mg/day, 3-weeks-on/1-week-off) + LET(2.5 mg/day, continuous) vs PBO + LET. The primary endpoint was locally assessed PFS. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS; key) and safety. OS significance was defined by a p-value threshold of 3.15 x 10-5. Tumor assessments were performed every 8 weeks for the first 18 months, and every 12 weeks, thereafter. Results: 668 pts were enrolled (334 in each arm). At the second IA for OS (data cut-off Jan 2, 2017), the median duration of follow-up was 26.4 months; 116 deaths and 345 PFS events had occurred. OS data remain immature, with 15.0% vs 19.8% of pt deaths in the RIB + LET vs PBO + LET arm (HR = 0.746; 95% CI: 0.517–1.078; p= 0.059). Updated PFS analyses confirmed continued treatment benefit in the RIB + LET vs PBO + LET arm. The 24-month PFS rates (RIB + LET vs PBO + LET) were 54.7% vs 35.9%. Treatment benefit was consistent across pt subgroups. The most common Grade 3/4 laboratory abnormalities (≥10% of pts; RIB + LET vs PBO + LET) were decreased neutrophils (62.6% vs 1.5%), decreased leukocytes (36.8% vs 1.5%), decreased lymphocytes (16.2% vs 3.9%), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (11.4% vs 1.2%). Conclusion: After 26+ months of follow-up, treatment benefit with 1LRIB + LET persists in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2– ABC. The study remains immature for OS analysis. The safety profile of RIB + LET remains manageable. 1. Hortobagyi G, et al. N Engl J Med 2016;375:1738–48. Clinical trial information: NCT01958021.

In a randomized, double-blind (vorapaxar and placebo), placebo- and positive-controlled (moxifloxacin 400 mg) parallel group study, the effect of single-dose vorapaxar 120 mg on QT/QTc interval was assessed in 120 adults 18-50 years. Twelve-lead digital ECGs were obtained in triplicate using Mortara H12+ Holter monitors at 9 timepoints over 24 hours. If the largest upper bound of the 95% one-sided CI for the mean difference in QTcF between vorapaxar and placebo was <10 milliseconds, vorapaxar was considered to have no potential for QT/QTc prolongation of regulatory concern. Vorapaxar was well-tolerated. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in QTcF between moxifloxacin and placebo was >5 milliseconds, confirming study sensitivity. Vorapaxar had no significant effect on QTcF. At all timepoints the upper 95% CI for the mean difference between placebo and vorapaxar was ≤3.8 milliseconds (mean difference ≤1.0 milliseconds). Vorapaxar does not prolong the QT/QTc interval in healthy subjects.

This randomized, open‐label, parallel group study examined the effects of food, antacid, and age on the pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar. In total, 101 subjects were enrolled including 83 young adults (18–45 years) and 18 elderly subjects (>65 years). Subjects received single‐dose vorapaxar 40 mg after a 10‐hour fast (young and elderly) or with extra‐strength antacid, food, or 1 or 2 hours after food (young only). Vorapaxar 40 mg was rapidly absorbed after a fast (median Tmax: 1 hour). Administration with food or 1 or 2 hours post‐meal modestly increased vorapaxar mean area under the curve (AUC) and Cmax and prolonged median Tmax by 1 hour. Concomitant food modestly increased vorapaxar AUC from time zero to infinity [AUC(I)] and Cmax 43% and 31%, respectively. Antacid modestly decreased vorapaxar AUC(I) by 15% and Cmax by 38%, and increased median Tmax by 1 hour. Vorapaxar AUC(I) and Cmax were 41% and 29% higher, respectively, in elderly versus young subjects. Concomitant food and older age were associated with modest increases, and antacid was associated with a small decrease in vorapaxar exposure, which are not expected to affect the drug's safety or efficacy.

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study evaluated the effects of multiple-dose ketoconazole or rifampin on the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar. Healthy subjects randomly received one of the following three treatments (N = 12/group): (1) ketoconazole 400 mg once daily (QD) for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28); (2) rifampin 600 mg QD for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28); and (3) placebo QD for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28). Ketoconazole increased the steady-state vorapaxar AUC(0-24 h) and C(max) by approximately twofold (GMR [90% CI]: 196% [173,222]; 193% [166,223], respectively), while rifampin decreased vorapaxar AUC(0-24 h) and C(max) by approximately 50% (GMR [90% CI]: 45.5% [40,52]; 61.4% [52,72], respectively) versus vorapaxar alone. Potent CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers may cause moderate increases or decreases in vorapaxar exposure, respectively, which may have safety and/or efficacy implications; therefore, their concomitant use with vorapaxar is not recommended.

BACKGROUNDBoceprevir represents a new treatment option for hepatitis C (HCV)-infected patients, including those with HCV/human immunodeficiency virus coinfection; however, little is known about pharmacokinetic interactions between boceprevir and antiretroviral drugs.METHODSA randomized, open-label study to assess the pharmacokinetic interactions between boceprevir and ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitors (PI/r) was conducted in 39 healthy adults. Subjects received boceprevir (800 mg, 3 times daily) for 6 days and then received PI/r as follows: atazanavir (ATV) 300 mg once daily, lopinavir (LPV) 400 mg twice daily, or darunavir (DRV) 600 mg twice daily, each with ritonavir (RTV) 100 mg on days 10-31, plus concomitant boceprevir on days 25-31.RESULTSBoceprevir decreased the exposure of all PI/r, with area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] from time 0 to the time of the last measurable sample geometric mean ratios of 0.65 (90% confidence interval [CI], .55-.78) for ATV/r; 0.66 (90% CI, .60-.72) for LPV/r, and 0.56 (90% CI, .51-.61) for DRV/r. Coadministration with boceprevir decreased RTV AUC during a dosing interval τ (AUC(τ)) by 22%-36%. ATV/r did not significantly affect boceprevir exposure, but boceprevir AUC(τ) was reduced by 45% and 32% when coadministered with LPV/r and DRV/r, respectively. Overall, treatments were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events.CONCLUSIONSConcomitant administration of boceprevir with PI/r resulted in reduced exposures of PI and boceprevir. These drug-drug interactions may reduce the effectiveness of PI/r and/or boceprevir when coadministered.

Background Coadministration of mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) produces additive effects for improving symptoms and lung function and reduces exacerbations in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The present study assessed the relative systemic exposure to MF and characterized the pharmacokinetics of MF and formoterol in patients with COPD. Methods This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-period, three-treatment crossover study. The following three treatments were self-administered by patients (n = 14) with moderate-to-severe COPD: MF 400 μg/F 10 μg via a metered-dose inhaler (MF/F MDI; DULERA®/ZENHALE®) without a spacer device, MF/F MDI with a spacer, or MF 400 μg via a dry-powder inhaler (DPI; ASMANEX® TWISTHALER®) twice daily for 5 days. Plasma samples for MF and formoterol assay were obtained predose and at prespecified time points after the last (morning) dose on day 5 of each period of the crossover. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) as a percent and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for treatment comparisons. Results Systemic MF exposure was lower (GMR 77%; 90% CI 58, 102) following administration by MF/F MDI compared to MF DPI. Additionally, least squares geometric mean systemic exposures of MF and formoterol were lower (GMR 72%; 90% CI 61, 84) and (GMR 62%; 90% CI 52, 74), respectively, following administration by MF/F MDI in conjunction with a spacer compared to MF/F MDI without a spacer. MF/F MDI had a similar adverse experience profile as that seen with MF DPI. All adverse experiences were either mild or moderate in severity; no serious adverse experience was reported. Conclusion Systemic MF exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI compared with MF DPI. Additionally, systemic MF and formoterol exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI with a spacer versus without a spacer. The magnitude of these differences with respect to systemic exposure was not clinically relevant.