Search

Tim M Jenkins, Trevor S Smart, Frances Hackman, Carol Cooke, Keith KC TanClinical Research, Pfizer Worldwide Research and Development, Sandwich, Kent, UKBackground: Detecting the efficacy of novel analgesic agents in neuropathic pain is challenging. There is a critical need for study designs with the desirable characteristics of assay sensitivity, low placebo response, reliable pain recordings, low cost, short duration of exposure to test drug and placebo, and relevant and recruitable population.Methods: We designed a proof-of-concept, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study in patients with post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain (PTNP) to evaluate whether such a study design had the potential to detect efficacious agents. Pregabalin, known to be efficacious in neuropathic pain, was used as the active analgesic. We also assessed physical activity throughout the study.Results: Twenty-five adults (20–70 years of age) with PTNP for ≥3 months entered a screening week and were then randomized to one of the two following treatment sequences: (1) pregabalin followed by placebo or (2) placebo followed by pregabalin. These 2-week treatment periods were separated by a 2-week washout period. Patients on pregabalin treatment received escalating doses to a final dosage of 300 mg/day (days 5–15). In an attempt to minimize placebo response, patients received placebo treatment during the screening week and the 2-week washout period. Average daily pain scores (primary endpoint) were significantly reduced for pregabalin versus placebo, with a mean treatment difference of -0.81 (95% confidence interval: -1.45 to -0.17; P = 0.015).Conclusion: The efficacy of pregabalin was similar to that identified in a large, parallel group trial in PTNP. Therefore, this efficient crossover study design has potential utility for future proof-of-concept studies in neuropathic pain.Keywords: pregabalin, post-traumatic peripheral neuropathic pain, randomized crossover trial, placebo response, actigraphy

Background: An urgent need remains for antiviral therapies to treat patients hospitalized with COVID-19. PF-07304814-the prodrug (lufotrelvir) and its active moiety (PF-00835231)-is a potent inhibitor of the SARS-CoV-2 3CL protease., Method: Eligible participants were 18 to 79 years old and hospitalized with confirmed COVID-19. This first-in-human phase 1b study was designed with 2 groups: single ascending dose (SAD) and multiple ascending dose (MAD). Participants could receive local standard-of-care therapy. In SAD, participants were randomized to receive a 24-hour infusion of lufotrelvir/placebo. In MAD, participants were randomized to receive a 120-hour infusion of lufotrelvir/placebo. The primary endpoint was to assess the safety and tolerability of lufotrelvir. The secondary endpoint was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of lufotrelvir and PF-00835231., Results: In SAD, participants were randomized to receive 250 mg lufotrelvir (n = 2), 500 mg lufotrelvir (n = 2), or placebo (n = 4) by continuous 24-hour infusion. In MAD, participants were randomized to receive 250 mg lufotrelvir (n = 7), 500 mg lufotrelvir (n = 6), or placebo (n = 4) by continuous 120-hour infusion. No adverse events or serious adverse events were considered related to lufotrelvir. At doses of 250 and 500 mg, concentrations for the prodrug lufotrelvir and active moiety PF-00835231 increased in a dose-related manner. Unbound concentrations of the lufotrelvir active metabolite reached steady state approximately 2- and 4-fold that of in vitro EC 90 following 250- and 500-mg doses, respectively., Conclusions: These safety and pharmacokinetic findings support the continued evaluation of lufotrelvir in clinical studies. Clinical Trials Registration. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04535167., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. S. A., A. S. A., M. L. B., A. B., M. B., F. H., S. M., G. N., J. G. S., H. S., S. S. T., L. U., M. W., and T. Z. are employees of Pfizer and may hold stock or stock options. M. G. H.-M. is an advisor and has received research grants from Gilead Sciences, ViiV Healthcare, and Janssen. M. D. has received research funding from Novartis and Eli Lilly; consulting fees from Tillotts Pharma, ORIC Pharmaceuticals, Partner Therapeutics, SQZ Biotech, AzurRx, Eli Lilly, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, and Moderna; and honoraria from WebMD, Experts at Your Fingertips, Sandoz Academy, and UpToDate. M. D. is also a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Neoleukin Therapeutics. P. L. was an employee of Pfizer at the time of the study and holds stock in Pfizer. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Typically human absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME) studies are executed using radiolabeled (e.g., carbon-14) material, the synthesis of which is a time-consuming activity. In this study, we were able to assess the metabolism and excretion of unlabeled nirmatrelvir (PF-07321332) within the first-in-human study via a novel application of quantitative fluorine ( 19 F) nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy in place of a standard radiolabel ADME study. Six healthy participants received a single 300-mg oral dose of nirmatrelvir (in combination with ritonavir), and excreta were collected up to 10 days. Virtually all drug-related material was recovered within 5 days, and mass balance was achieved with 84.9 ± 8.9% (range = 70.7-95.5%) of the administered dose recovered in urine and feces. The excretion of fluorine-containing material in urine and feces was 47.0% and 33.7%, respectively. Unchanged nirmatrelvir represented 82.5% of the normalized drug-related material with a carboxylic acid metabolite M5, derived from hydrolysis of the P2 amide bond, present at 12.1% of dose. Nirmatrelvir was the only drug-related entity observed in plasma. Approximately 4.2% of the dose was excreted as metabolite M8 (measured by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry), which was 19 F NMR silent due to hydrolysis of the trifluoroacetamide moiety. Hydrolysis of nirmatrelvir to M5 and M8 was shown to occur in cultures of human gut microflora. This successful demonstration of quantitative 19 F NMR spectroscopy to establish the mass-balance, excretion, and metabolic profile of nirmatrelvir offers an advantageous means to execute human ADME studies for fluorine-containing compounds early in drug development., (© 2022 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2022 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Studies on targeted antivirals for treatment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the cause of the ongoing pandemic, are limited. PF-07304814 (lufotrelvir) is the phosphate prodrug of PF-00835231, a protease inhibitor targeting the 3C-like protease of SARS-CoV-2. This phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PK) of single ascending intravenous doses of lufotrelvir (continuous 24-hour infusion of 50, 150, 500, or 700 mg) versus placebo in healthy volunteers (2 interleaving cohorts: 1, n = 8; 2, n = 7). Each dosing period was separated by a washout interval (≥5 days). Treatment-emergent adverse events, PK, and biomarker concentrations were estimated from plasma/urine samples. Lufotrelvir was administered to 15 volunteers (mean [SD] age 39.7 [11.8] years). No serious adverse events, discontinuations, or deaths were reported. Mean maximum observed concentration of PF-00835231 (active moiety; 97.0 ng/mL to 1288 ng/mL) were observed between median time to maximum concentration of 14 to 16 hours after the start of the lufotrelvir infusion. Near-maximum plasma concentrations of PF-00835231 were observed ≈6 hours after infusion start and sustained until infusion end. PF-00835231 plasma concentrations declined rapidly after infusion end (mean terminal half-life: 500 mg, 2.0 hours; 700 mg, 1.7 hours). Approximately 9%-11% of the dose was recovered in urine as PF-00835231 across doses. A continuous, single-dose, 24-hour infusion of lufotrelvir (50-700 mg) was rapidly converted to PF-00835231 (active moiety), with dose-proportional PK exposures and no significant safety concerns. A daily, 24-hour continuous infusion of 270 to 350 mg is expected to maintain PF-00835231 concentration at steady state/above effective antiviral concentrations. Further studies exploring lufotrelvir efficacy in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 are ongoing., (© 2022, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a continued leading cause of hospitalization and death. Safe, efficacious COVID-19 antivirals are needed urgently. Nirmatrelvir (PF-07321332), the first orally bioavailable, severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) M pro inhibitor against the coronaviridae family, has demonstrated potent preclinical antiviral activity and benign safety profile. We report safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic data of nirmatrelvir with and without ritonavir as a pharmacokinetic enhancer, from an accelerated randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I study. Two interleaving single-ascending dose (SAD) cohorts were evaluated in a three-period crossover. Multiple-ascending dose (MAD) with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir twice daily (b.i.d.) dosing was evaluated over 10 days in five parallel cohorts. Safety was assessed, including in a supratherapeutic exposure cohort. Dose and dosing regimen for clinical efficacy evaluation in phase II/III clinical trials were supported by integrating modeling and simulations of SAD/MAD data with nonclinical data and a quantitative systems pharmacology model (QSP). In SAD, MAD, and supratherapeutic exposure cohorts, nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was safe and well-tolerated. Nirmatrelvir exposure and half-life were considerably increased by ritonavir, enabling selection of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir dose and regimen for phase II/III trials (300/100 mg b.i.d.), to achieve concentrations continuously above those required for 90% inhibition of viral replication in vitro. The QSP model suggested that a 5-day regimen would significantly decrease viral load in SARS-CoV-2-infected patients which may prevent development of severe disease, hospitalization, and death. In conclusion, an innovative and seamless trial design expedited establishment of phase I safety and pharmacokinetics of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, enabling high confidence in phase II/III dose selection and accelerated pivotal trials' initiation (NCT04756531)., (© 2022 Pfizer Inc. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Current blood biomarkers are suboptimal in detecting drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and predicting its outcome. We sought to characterize the natural variabilty and performance characteristics of 14 promising DILI biomarker candidates. Serum or plasma from multiple cohorts of healthy volunteers (n = 192 and n = 81), subjects who safely took potentially hepatotoxic drugs without adverse effects (n = 55 and n = 92) and DILI patients (n = 98, n = 28, and n = 143) were assayed for microRNA-122 (miR-122), glutamate dehydrogenase (GLDH), total cytokeratin 18 (K18), caspase cleaved K18, glutathione S-transferase α, alpha-fetoprotein, arginase-1, osteopontin (OPN), sorbitol dehydrogenase, fatty acid binding protein, cadherin-5, macrophage colony-stimulating factor receptor (MCSFR), paraoxonase 1 (normalized to prothrombin protein), and leukocyte cell-derived chemotaxin-2. Most candidate biomarkers were significantly altered in DILI cases compared with healthy volunteers. GLDH correlated more closely with gold standard alanine aminotransferase than miR-122, and there was a surprisingly wide inter- and intra-individual variability of miR-122 levels among healthy volunteers. Serum K18, OPN, and MCSFR levels were most strongly associated with liver-related death or transplantation within 6 months of DILI onset. Prediction of prognosis among DILI patients using the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease was improved by incorporation of K18 and MCSFR levels. Conclusion: GLDH appears to be more useful than miR-122 in identifying DILI patients, and K18, OPN, and MCSFR are promising candidates for prediction of prognosis during an acute DILI event. Serial assessment of these biomarkers in large prospective studies will help further delineate their role in DILI diagnosis and management., (© 2018 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Oral antihistamines that target the histamine receptor-1, such as fexofenadine, offer suboptimal relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal congestion. Combinations with oral sympathomimetics, such as pseudoephedrine, relieve congestion but produce side effects. Previous animal and human studies with histamine receptor-3 antagonists, such as PF-03654764, demonstrate promise., Methods: Herein we employ the Environmental Exposure Unit (EEU) to conduct the first randomized controlled trial of PF-03654764 in allergic rhinitis. 64 participants were randomized in a double-blind, placebo-controlled 4-period crossover study. Participants were exposed to ragweed pollen for 6 hours post-dose in the EEU. The primary objective was to compare the effect of PF-03654764 + fexofenadine to pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine on the subjective measures of congestion and Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS). The objectives of our post-hoc analyses were to compare all treatments to placebo and determine the onset of action (OA). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01033396)., Results: PF-03654764 + fexofenadine was not superior to pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine. In post-hoc analyses, PF-03654764 + fexofenadine significantly reduced TNSS, relative to placebo, and OA was 60 minutes. Pseudoephedrine + fexofenadine significantly reduced congestion and TNSS, relative to placebo, with OA of 60 and 30 minutes, respectively. Although this study was not powered for a statistical analysis of safety, it was noted that all PF-03654764-treated groups experienced an elevated incidence of adverse events., Conclusions: PF-03654764 + fexofenadine failed to provide superior relief of allergic rhinitis-associated nasal symptoms upon exposure to ragweed pollen compared to fexofenadine + pseudoephedrine. However, in post-hoc analyses, PF-03654764 + fexofenadine improved TNSS compared to placebo. Side effects in the PF-03654764-treated groups were clinically significant compared to the controls.

Background: Nasal H(3) receptors might have a role in mediating the effects of histamine in patients with allergic rhinitis., Objective: This study explored the effect of the potent oral H(3) receptor antagonist PF-03654746 in combination with an oral H(1) receptor antagonist on the objective (acoustic rhinometry) and subjective (symptoms) responses to nasal allergen challenge., Methods: Twenty patients with out-of-season allergic rhinitis displaying a 30% or greater decrease in minimum nasal cross-sectional area (A(min)) after bolus (ragweed) complete nasal allergen challenge at screening were studied by using a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 4-way crossover design. Treatments included 10 mg of PF-03654746 plus 60 mg of fexofenadine (group 1), 1 mg of PF-03654746 plus 60 mg of fexofenadine (group 2), 60 mg of fexofenadine/120 mg of pseudoephedrine (group 3), and placebo (group 4). After dosing, subjects underwent complete nasal allergen challenge. Nasal symptom scores (no. of sneezes and 0- to 5-point scores for severity of congestion, itching, and rhinorrhea), A(min) (in square centimeters), and nasal volume (in cubic centimeters) were recorded 15, 30, 45, and 60 minutes after allergen. There was a minimum 10-day washout between periods., Results: The following symptom scores were significantly (P ≤ .05) reduced by active treatments versus placebo: group 1, congestion of -0.7 (SE, 0.3), itching of -1.0 (SE, 0.3), rhinorrhea of -1.3 (SE, 0.3), and sneeze of -8.8 (SE, 1.5); group 2, itching of -0.6 (SE, 0.3), rhinorrhea of -0.8 (SE, 0.3), and sneeze of -9.1 (SE, 1.5); and group 3, rhinorrhea of -0.7 (SE, 0.3) and sneeze of -7.0 (SE, 1.5). There was no significant effect of any treatment on mean A(min) proportion or nasal volume proportion after nasal allergen challenge., Conclusions: In combination with fexofenadine, single doses of PF-03654746 caused a reduction in allergen-induced nasal symptoms. H(3) receptor antagonism might be a novel therapeutic strategy to further explore in patients with allergic rhinitis., (Copyright © 2011 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lersivirine is a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor undergoing clinical development for the treatment of HIV-1., Objective: The goal of this study was to investigate the safety and tolerability of multiple oral doses of lersivirine administered to healthy male subjects to assist in the planning of longer term studies., Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, multicenter, Phase I clinical study in fasting, healthy male volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned in a ratio of 7:7:4:4 to receive lersivirine 500 mg BID, lersivirine 750 mg once daily, efavirenz 600 mg once daily, or placebo once daily for 28 days. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study by continuous collection of adverse events (AEs), including adverse drug reactions, illnesses with onset during the study, exacerbation of previous illnesses, and clinically significant changes in physical examination findings. Vital sign measurements and ECGs were performed at screening; on day 1 (predose and 2, 3, and 4 hours postdose); on days 7, 14, 21, and 28 (predose); at discharge; and at follow-up. Safety laboratory tests (including hematology, chemistry, and urinalysis) were performed at screening; days 0, 7, 14, 21, and 27; and at follow-up., Results: Of the 66 healthy male subjects enrolled (age range, 21-51 years; body mass index, 18.1-29.9 kg/m(2)), 40 were white, 22 were Asian, 3 were black, and 1 was of mixed race. There were no clinically significant laboratory abnormalities, including changes in lipid profile, liver or renal function test results, or ECG findings. Overall, 86% (18/21) of subjects in the lersivirine 500-mg BID group, 81% (17/21) in the lersivirine 750-mg once-daily group, 92% (11/12) in the efavirenz 600-mg once-daily group, and 92% (11/12) in the placebo group experienced at least one treatment-related AE. Eight subjects were permanently discontinued from the study; 4 subjects in the efavirenz group (3 of whom participated in the trial at the Brussels study center) were permanently discontinued due to AEs considered to be treatment related. No subjects receiving lersivirine permanently discontinued the study due to treatment-related AEs, although one subject temporarily discontinued treatment. In addition, 4 subjects withdrew consent (2 subjects [1 of whom was at the Brussels study center] receiving lersivirine 750 mg once daily and 2 subjects [1 of whom was at the Brussels study center] receiving efavirenz). There were no deaths or serious AEs in any of the study groups., Conclusion: Lersivirine appeared to be well tolerated after 28 days of continuous dosing in this small, selected group of young, healthy male volunteers., (Copyright © 2010 Excerpta Medica Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The MERIT (Maraviroc versus Efavirenz in Treatment-Naive Patients) study compared maraviroc and efavirenz, both with zidovudine-lamivudine, in antiretroviral-naive patients with R5 human immunodeficiency virus type 1 (HIV-1) infection., Methods: Patients screened for R5 HIV-1 were randomized to receive efavirenz (600 mg once daily) or maraviroc (300 mg once or twice daily) with zidovudine-lamivudine. Coprimary end points were proportions of patients with a viral load <400 and <50 copies/mL at week 48; the noninferiority of maraviroc was assessed., Results: The once-daily maraviroc arm was discontinued for not meeting prespecified noninferiority criteria. In the primary 48-week analysis (n = 721), maraviroc was noninferior for <400 copies/mL (70.6% for maraviroc vs 73.1% for efavirenz) but not for <50 copies/mL (65.3% vs 69.3%) at a threshold of -10%. More maraviroc patients discontinued for lack of efficacy (11.9% vs 4.2%), but fewer discontinued for adverse events (4.2% vs 13.6%). In a post hoc reanalysis excluding 107 patients (15%) with non-R5 screening virus by the current, more sensitive tropism assay, the lower bound of the 1-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the difference between treatment groups was above -10% for each end point., Conclusions: Twice-daily maraviroc was not noninferior to efavirenz at <50 copies/mL in the primary analysis. However, 15% of patients would have been ineligible for inclusion by a more sensitive screening assay. Their retrospective exclusion resulted in similar response rates in both arms Trial registration. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: (NCT00098293) .

Objective: To investigate the effects on viral load and assess dose-response relationships, pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of lersivirine (UK-453,061), a next-generation nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, in asymptomatic HIV-1-infected patients., Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, multicenter phase IIa clinical study., Methods: Forty-eight HIV-1-infected patients were enrolled for the study of once-daily or twice-daily lersivirine at total daily doses ranging from 20 to 1000 mg. The primary endpoint was the change in log10 plasma HIV-1 RNA viral load from baseline to day 8. Secondary endpoints related to pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability and potential development of viral resistance and genotyping patterns., Results: Patients treated with lersivirine achieved day 8 mean viral load reductions of 0.3, 0.8, 1.3 and 1.6 log10 after receiving 10, 30, 100 and 500 mg twice daily, respectively, and 0.9, 1.7 and 1.8 log10 after receiving 100, 500 and 750 mg once daily, respectively. Mean changes from baseline to day 8 were small in patients receiving placebo. For all dose regimens, plasma exposure increased approximately in line with lersivirine dose. Median plasma concentrations of lersivirine at steady state were above the IC90 for lersivirine at once-daily doses of at least 500 mg and twice-daily doses of at least 100 mg. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were headache, fatigue and nausea., Conclusion: Seven-day monotherapy with lersivirine achieved mean viral load reductions up to 1.8 log10. Lersivirine was safe and well tolerated. Further studies of lersivirine in combination with other antiretroviral drugs to assess long-term durability of antiviral response, safety and tolerability are warranted.

Aims: To assess the effect of a single dose of maraviroc on the QTc interval in healthy subjects and to evaluate the QTc interval-concentration relationship., Methods: A single-dose, placebo- and active-controlled, five-way crossover study was conducted to investigate the effects of maraviroc (100, 300, 900 mg) on QTc in healthy subjects. Moxifloxacin (400 mg) was used as the active comparator. The study was double-blind with respect to maraviroc/placebo and open label for moxifloxacin. There was a 7-day wash-out period between each dose. QT interval measurements obtained directly from the electrocardiogram (ECG) recorder were corrected for heart rate using Fridericia's correction (QTcF). A placebo run-in day was conducted before period 3, when ECGs were collected at intervals while subjects were resting or during exercise. These ECGs plus other predose ECGs were used to evaluate the QT/RR relationship for each subject to enable calculation of an individual's heart rate correction for their QT measurements (QTcI). ECGs were taken at various intervals pre- and postdose in each study period. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for each maraviroc dose. The end-points that were evaluated were QTcF at median time to maximum concentration (T(max)) based on the machine readings and QTcI at median T(max) based on manual over-reads of the QT/RR data. A separate analysis of variance was used for each of the pair-wise comparisons for each end-point. The relationship between QTc interval and plasma concentration was also investigated using a mixed-effects modelling approach, as implemented by the NONMEM software system. A one-stage model was employed in which the relationship between QT and RR and the effects of maraviroc plasma concentration on QT were estimated simultaneously., Results: The mean difference from placebo in machine-read QTcF at median T(max) for maraviroc 900 mg was 3.6 ms [90% confidence interval (CI) 1.5, 5.8]. For the active comparator, moxifloxacin, the mean difference from placebo in machine-read QTcF was 13.7 ms. The changes from placebo for each of the end-points were similar for men and women. No subjects receiving maraviroc or placebo had a QTcF > or = 450 ms (men) or QTcF > or = 470 ms (women), nor did any subject experience a QTcF increase > or = 60 ms from baseline at any time point. Analysis based on the QTcI data obtained from the manual over-readings of the ECGs gave numerically very similar results. The QT:RR relationship was similar pre- and postdose and was not related to maraviroc concentration. The population estimate of the QT:RR correction factor was 0.324 (95% CI 0.309, 0.338). The population estimate of the slope describing the QT-concentration relationship was 0.97 micros ml ng(-1) (95% CI -0.571, 2.48), equivalent to an increase of 0.97 ms in QT per 1000 ng maraviroc plasma concentration. Most adverse events were mild to moderate in severity., Conclusions: Single doses of maraviroc, up to and including 900 mg, had no clinically relevant effect on QTcF or QTcI. At all maraviroc doses and for both end-points, the mean difference from placebo for QTc was < 4 ms. There was no apparent relationship between QT interval and maraviroc plasma concentration up to 2363 ng ml(-1). This conclusion held in both male and female subjects, and there was no evidence of a change in the QT/RR relationship with concentration.