Lack of effect of oral cabotegravir on the pharmacokinetics of a levonorgestrel/ethinyl oestradiol‐containing oral contraceptive in healthy adult women. (14th February 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Trezza, Christine; Ford, Susan L.; Gould, Elizabeth; Lou, Yu; Huang, Chuyun; Ritter, James M.; Buchanan, Ann M.; Spreen, William; Patel, Parul
• Is Part Of: British journal of clinical pharmacology. Volume 83:Number 7(2017)
• Page Start: 1499
• Page End: 1505
• Publication Date: 2017-02-14
• Subjects: cabotegravir -- contraceptive -- ethinyl oestradiol -- levonorgestrel -- pharmacokinetics; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Drugs -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13236
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-5251

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: This study aimed to investigate whether cabotegravir (CAB), an integrase inhibitor in development for treatment and prevention of human immunodeficiency virus‐1, influences the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a levonorgestrel (LNG) and ethinyl oestradiol (EO)–containing oral contraceptive (OC) in healthy women. Methods: In this open‐label, fixed‐sequence crossover study, healthy female subjects received LNG 0.15 mg/EO 0.03 mg tablet once daily Days 1–10 alone and with oral CAB 30 mg once daily Days 11–21. At the end of each treatment period, subjects underwent predose sampling for concentrations of follicle‐stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, and progesterone and serial PK sampling for plasma LNG, EO, and CAB concentrations. Results: Twenty women were enrolled, and 19 completed the study. One subject was withdrawn due to an adverse event unrelated to study medications. Geometric least squares mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of LNG + CAB vs . LNG alone for LNG area under the plasma concentration–time curve over the dosing interval of duration τ and maximum observed plasma concentration were 1.12 (1.07–1.18) and 1.05 (0.96–1.15), respectively. Geometric least squares mean ratio (90% confidence interval) of EO + CAB vs . EO alone for EO area under the plasma concentration–time curve over the dosing interval of duration τ and maximum observed plasma concentration were 1.02 (0.97–1.08) and 0.92 (0.83–1.03), respectively. Steady‐state CAB PK parameters were comparable to historical values. There was no apparent difference in mean luteinizing hormone, follicle‐stimulating hormone, and progesterone concentrations between periods. No clinically significant trends in laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiography values were observed. Conclusions: Repeat doses of oral CAB had no significant effect on LNG/EO PK or pharmacodynamics, which supports CAB coadministration with LNG/EO OCs in clinical practice.