Dataset Information

A Phase 1 Randomized, Open Label, Rectal Safety, Acceptability, Pharmacokinetic, and Pharmacodynamic Study of Three Formulations of Tenofovir 1% Gel (the CHARM-01 Study).

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

The CHARM-01 study characterized the safety, acceptability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of three tenofovir (TFV) gels for rectal application. The vaginal formulation (VF) gel was previously used in the CAPRISA 004 and VOICE vaginal microbicide Phase 2B trials and the RMP-02/MTN-006 Phase 1 rectal safety study. The reduced glycerin VF (RGVF) gel was used in the MTN-007 Phase 1 rectal microbicide trial and is currently being evaluated in the MTN-017 Phase 2 rectal microbicide trial. A third rectal specific formulation (RF) gel was also evaluated in the CHARM-01 study.

Methods

Participants received 4 mL of the three TFV gels in a blinded, crossover design: seven daily doses of RGVF, seven daily doses of RF, and six daily doses of placebo followed by one dose of VF, in a randomized sequence. Safety, acceptability, compartmental PK, and explant PD were monitored throughout the trial.

Results

All three gels were found to be safe and acceptable. RF and RGVF PK were not significantly different. Median mucosal mononuclear cell (MMC) TFV-DP trended toward higher values for RF compared to RGVF (1136 and 320 fmol/106 cells respectively). Use of each gel in vivo was associated with significant inhibition of ex vivo colorectal tissue HIV infection. There was also a significant negative correlation between the tissue levels of TFV, tissue TFV-DP, MMC TFV-DP, rectal fluid TFV, and explant HIV-1 infection.

Conclusions

All three formulations were found to be safe and acceptable. However, the safety profile of the VF gel was only based on exposure to one dose whereas participants received seven doses of the RGVF and RF gels. There was a trend towards higher tissue MMC levels of TFV-DP associated with use of the RF gel. Use of all gels was associated with significant inhibition of ex vivo tissue HIV infection.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01575405.

SUBMITTER: Mcgowan I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4420274 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:CHARM-02 is a crossover, double-blind, randomized trial to compare the safety and pharmacokinetics of three rectally applied tenofovir 1% gel candidate rectal microbicides of varying osmolalities: vaginal formulation (VF) (3111?mOsmol/kg), the reduced glycerin vaginal formulation (RGVF) (836?mOsmol/kg), and an isoosmolal rectal-specific formulation (RF) (479?mOsmol/kg). Participants (n?=?9) received a single, 4?ml, radiolabeled dose of each gel twice, once with and once without simulated unprotected receptive anal intercourse (RAI). The safety, plasma tenofovir pharmacokinetics, colonic small molecule permeability, and SPECT/CT imaging of lower gastrointestinal distribution of drug and virus surrogate were assessed. There were no Grade 3 or 4 adverse events reported for any of the products. Overall, there were more Grade 2 adverse events in the VF group compared to RF (p?=?0.006) and RGVF (p?=?0.048). In the absence of simulated unprotected RAI, VF had up to 3.8-fold greater systemic tenofovir exposure, 26- to 234-fold higher colonic permeability of the drug surrogate, and 1.5- to 2-fold greater proximal migration in the colonic lumen, when compared to RF and RGVF. Similar trends were observed with simulated unprotected RAI, but most did not reach statistical significance. SPECT analysis showed 86% (standard deviation 19%) of the drug surrogate colocalized with the virus surrogate in the colonic lumen. There were no significant differences between the RGVF and RF formulation, with the exception of a higher plasma tenofovir concentration of RGVF in the absence of simulated unprotected RAI. VF had the most adverse events, highest plasma tenofovir concentrations, greater mucosal permeability of the drug surrogate, and most proximal colonic luminal migration compared to RF and RGVF formulations. There were no major differences between RF and RGVF formulations. Simultaneous assessment of toxicity, systemic and luminal pharmacokinetics, and colocalization of drug and viral surrogates substantially informs rectal microbicide product development.