Search

Rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis are chronic progressive immune-mediated rheumatic diseases (IMRD) that can cause a progressive disability and joint deformation and thus can impact in healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs. The main outcome of the study was to assess the effect of non-persistence to treatment with subcutaneous tumor necrosis factor-alpha inhibitors (SC-TNFis) on HCRU costs in naïve patients with IMRD who started treatment with adalimumab, etanercept, golimumab or certolizumab pegol during 12 months after initiation of treatment. The impact of persistence and non-persistence of SC-TNFis on HCRU costs was compared between 12 months before and 12 months after initiating SC-TNFis. Persistence was defined as the duration of time from initiation to discontinuation of therapy. The study was conducted in an acute care teaching hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Data for the period between 2015 and 2018 were extracted from the hospital cost management control database. HCRU costs comprised outpatient care, outpatient specialized rheumatology care, in-patient care, emergency care, laboratory testing and other non-biological therapies. The study population included 110 naïve SC-TNFis patients, divided into the cohorts of persistent (n = 85) and non-persistent (n = 25) patients. Fifty-six percent of patients were women, with a mean (standard deviation) age of 47.6 (14.8) years. Baseline clinical features and HCRU costs over the 12 months before the index prescription were similar in the two study groups. Before-and-after differences in mean (standard deviation) HCRU costs were significantly higher in the non-persistence group as compared to the persistence group for outpatient rheumatology care (€110.90 [234.56] vs. €20.80 [129.59], p = 0.023), laboratory testing (−€193.99 [195.88] vs. −€241.3 [217.88], p = 0.025), other non-biological drugs (€3849.03 [4046.14] vs. −€10.90 [157.42], p < 0.001) and total costs (€3268.90 [4821.55] vs. −€334.67 (905.44), p < 0.001). Treatment persistence with SC-TNFis may be associated with HCRU cost savings in naïve IMRD patients. Prescribing SC-TNFis with the best long-term persistence is beneficial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Quimioterapia is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aspergillus may cause different types of lung infections: invasive, chronic pulmonary or allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. Pharmacological management with antifungals poses as a challenge. Patients diagnosed with pulmonary aspergillosis are complex, as well as the problems associated with antifungal agents. This article reviews the pharmacology of antifungal agents in development and currently used to treat pulmonary aspergillosis, including the mechanisms of action, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, dosing, therapeutic drug monitoring and safety. Recommendations to manage situations that arise in daily clinical practice are provided. A literature search of PubMed was conducted on November 15th, 2020 and updated on March 30th, 2021. Recent and relevant developments in the treatment of pulmonary aspergillosis have taken place. Novel antifungals with new mechanisms of action that extend antifungal spectrum and improve pharmacokinetic-related aspects, drug-drug interactions and safety are under current study. For those antifungals already marketed, new data related to pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, dose adjustments in special situations, therapeutic drug monitoring and safety are available. To maximize efficacy and reduce the risk of associated toxicities, it is essential to choose the most appropriate antifungal; optimize its dose, interval, route of administration and length of treatment; and prevent side effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel virus that causes coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Antiviral and immunomodulatory agents have been proposed as potential treatments. Azithromycin exhibits both properties and therefore may play a role. This article reviews the pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, and safety of azithromycin in viral infections, with emphasis on COVID-19. A literature search of PUBMED was conducted on May 30th and updated on July 28th. Azithromycin presents in vitro activity against SARS-CoV-2 and could act in different points of the viral cycle. Its immunomodulatory properties include the ability to downregulate cytokine production, maintain epithelial cell integrity or prevent lung fibrosis. Azithromycin use was associated with a reduction in mortality and ventilation days in other viral infections. These properties could be beneficial throughout the COVID-19. However, the evidence of its use is scarce and of low quality. Azithromycin has been assessed in retrospective observational studies mainly in combination with hydroxychloroquine, which has shown to provide no benefit. This macrolide presents a well-known safety profile. Upcoming clinical trials will determine the role of azithromycin in the COVID-19 (including the stage of the disease where it offers the greatest benefits and the effect of its combination with other drugs). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Byline: Olivia. Ferrández, Olatz. Urbina, Sònia. Luque, Mercè. Espona, Nuria. Berenguer, Santiago. Grau A 41-year-old woman presented in the Emergency Department with suspected compartment syndrome of lower left leg (creatine [...]

Background: Because of the high incidence of drug-related problems (DRPs) among hospitalized patients with cardiovascular diseases and their potential impact on morbidity and mortality, it is important to identify the most susceptible patients, who therefore require closer monitoring of drug therapy. Purpose: To identify the profile of patients at higher risk of developing at least one DRP during hospitalization in a cardiology ward. Method: We consecutively included all patients hospitalized in the cardiology ward of a teaching hospital in 2009. DRPs were identified through a computerized warning system designed by the pharmacy department and integrated into the electronic medical record. Results: A total of 964 admissions were included, and at least one DRP was detected in 29.8%. The variables associated with a higher risk of these events were polypharmacy (odds ratio [OR]=1.228; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.153-1.308), female sex (OR=1.496; 95% CI=1.026-2.180), and first admission (OR=1.494; 95% CI=1.005-2.221). Conclusion: Monitoring patients through a computerized warning system allowed the detection of at least one DRP in one-third of the patients. Knowledge of the risk factors for developing these problems in patients admitted to hospital for cardiovascular problems helps in identifying the most susceptible patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Quimioterapia is the property of Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Tedizolid phosphate (TR-701), a prodrug of tedizolid (TR-700), is a next-generation oxazolidinone that has shown favorable results in the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections in its first Phase III clinical trial. Tedizolid has high bioavailability, penetration, and tissue distribution when administered orally or intravenously. The activity of tedizolid was greater than linezolid against strains of Staphylococcus spp., Streptococcus spp., and Enterococcus spp. in vitro studies, including strains resistant to linezolid and those not susceptible to vancomycin or daptomycin. Its pharmacokinetic characteristics allow for a once-daily administration that leads to a more predictable efficacy and safety profile than those of linezolid. No hematological adverse effects have been reported associated with tedizolid when used at the therapeutic dose of 200 mg in Phase I, II, or III clinical trials of up to 3 weeks of tedizolid administration. Given that the clinical and microbiological efficacy are similar for the 200, 300, and 400 mg doses, the lowest effective dose of 200 mg once daily for 6 days was selected for Phase III studies in acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections, providing a safe dosing regimen with low potential for development of myelosuppression. Unlike linezolid, tedizolid does not inhibit monoamine oxidase in vivo, therefore interactions with adrenergic, dopaminergic, and serotonergic drugs are not to be expected. In conclusion, tedizolid is a novel antibiotic with potent activity against Gram-positive microorganisms responsible for skin and soft tissue infections, including strains resistant to vancomycin, linezolid, and daptomycin, thus answers a growing therapeutic need.