Search

Nowadays, the pharmacological management of visceral hypersensitivity associated with colitis is ineffective. In this context, targeting purinergic P2X4 receptor (P2X4R), which can modulate visceral pain transmission, could represent a promising therapeutic strategy. Herein, we tested the pain-relieving effect of two novel and selective P2X4R antagonists (NC-2600 and NP-1815-PX) in a murine model of DNBS-induced colitis and investigated the mechanisms underlying their effect. Tested drugs and dexamethasone (DEX) were administered orally, two days after colitis induction. Treatment with tested drugs and DEX improved tissue inflammatory parameters (body weight, spleen weight, macroscopic damage, TNF and IL-1β levels) in DNBS-rats. In addition, NC-2600 and NP-1815-PX attenuated visceral pain better than DEX and prevented the reduction of occludin expression. In in vitro studies, treatment of CaCo2 cells with supernatant from THP-1 cells, previously treated with LPS plus ATP, reduced the expression of tight junctions protein. By contrast, CaCo2 cells treated with supernatant from THP-1 cells, previously incubated with tested drugs, counteracted the reduction of tight junctions due to the inhibition of P2X4R/NLRP3/IL-1β axis. In conclusion, these results suggest that the direct and selective inhibition of P2X4R represents a viable approach for the management of visceral pain associated with colitis via NLRP3/IL-1β axis inhibition.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic stimulated the development of several therapeutic tools with several degrees of success. Ensitrelvir, a protease inhibitor that blocks the replication of SARS-CoV-2, can reduce the viral load and the severity of symptoms in infected patients and become available for emergency use in Japan. Clinical trials showed a good tolerability profile although the potential for interactions with substrates, inhibitors, and inducers of CYP3A must be considered. The occurrence of resistance is also a matter of investigation., Areas Covered: In this article, the authors describe the development of ensitrelvir starting from the identification of the molecule to the pre-clinical and clinical trials up to the post-authorization phase., Expert Opinion: Ensitrelvir was developed in a late phase of the pandemic when the availability of patients that can be candidate to enter the clinical trial was limited with consequences for the possibility of assessing certain outcomes and for the robustness of results. Although the evidence about the benefits of ensitrelvir in COVID-19 is not questionable, the problems of interactions with other drugs, emerging resistant variants, the availability of alternative therapeutic options, costs, and accessibility will concur to its probable limited clinical use in the future.

Introduction: The disease activity associated with the drug-utilization patterns of biologic Disease Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs) is poorly investigated in real-world studies on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients. To investigate the relationship between biologic DMARD initiation/discontinuations in RA patients identified in the healthcare administrative databases of Tuscany and the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) reported in the medical charts. Methods: This retrospective population-based study included RA's first-ever biologic DMARD users of the Pisa University Hospital from 2014 to 2016. Patients were followed up until 31 December 2019. We evaluated the DAS28 recorded before (T0) and after (T1) the biologic DMARD initiation and before (TD0) and after (TD1) discontinuations. Patients were classified as "off-target" (DAS28 > 3.2) or "in-target" (DAS28 ≤ 3.2). We described the disease activity trends at initiation and discontinuation. Results: Ninety-five users were included (73 women, mean age 59.6). Among 70 patients (74%) with at least three DAS28 measures, 28 (40.0%) were off-target at T0 and 38 (54.3%) in-target at T1. Thirty-three (47%) patients had at least one discontinuation, among those with at least three DAS28 assessments. In the disease activity trend, disease stability or improvement was observed in 28 out of 37 (75.7%) patients at initiation and in 24 out of 37 (64.9%) at discontinuation. Discussion: Biologic DMARD discontinuations identified in the healthcare administrative databasese of Tuscany are frequently observed in situations of controlled RA disease. Further studies are warranted to confirm that these events can be used in studies using healthcare administrative databases as proxies of treatment effectiveness., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Convertino, Cazzato, Tillati, Giometto, Gini, Valdiserra, Cappello, Ferraro, Bonaso, Bartolini, Paoletti, Lorenzoni, Trieste, Filippi, Turchetti, Cristofano, Blandizzi, Mosca, Lucenteforte and Tuccori.)

This study is aimed at describing tofacitinib and baricitinib users by characterizing their prescription and healthcare histories, drug and healthcare utilization patterns, and direct costs from a healthcare system perspective. This retrospective cohort study was performed using Tuscan administrative healthcare databases, which selected two groups of Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi) incident users (index date) from 1st January 2018 to 31 December 2019 and from 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2019. We included patients ≥18 years old, at least 10 years of data, and six months of follow-up. In the first analysis, we describe mean time, standard deviation (SD), from the first-ever disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) to the JAKi, and costs of healthcare facilities and drugs in the 5 years preceding the index date. In the second analysis, we assessed Emergency Department (ED) accesses and hospitalizations for any causes, visits, and costs in the follow-up. In the first analysis, 363 incident JAKi users were included (mean age 61.5, SD 13.6; females 80.7%, baricitinib 78.5%, tofacitinib 21.5%). The time to the first JAKi was 7.2 years (SD 3.3). The mean costs from the fifth to the second year before JAKi increased from 4325 € (0; 24,265) to 5259 € (0; 41,630) per patient/year, driven by hospitalizations. We included 221 incident JAKi users in the second analysis. We observed 109 ED accesses, 39 hospitalizations, and 64 visits. Injury and poisoning (18.3%) and skin (13.8%) caused ED accesses, and cardiovascular (69.2%) and musculoskeletal (64.1%) caused hospitalizations. The mean costs were 4819 € (607.5; 50,493) per patient, mostly due to JAKi. In conclusion, the JAKi introduction in therapy occurred in compliance with RA guidelines and the increase in costs observed could be due to a possible selective prescription., Competing Interests: M.T., C.B., E.L., V.L., G.T., R.G. are involved as investigators of this observational study funded by Galapagos in compliance with the ENCEPP code of conduct. R.G., C.B., O.P. are employed by ARS, a public health agency that conducts or participates in pharmacoepidemiology studies compliant with the ENCePP Code of Conduct. The budget of ARS is partially sustained by such studies. I.C., S.B., S.F., G.V., E.C., E.F., M.B. have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Introduction: Direct-acting SARS-CoV-2 antiviral monoclonal antibodies have been an integral part of therapeutic strategies against COVID-19 pandemic. The monoclonal strategy was jeopardized by the emergence of new variants and resistant strains, making many monoclonal antibodies quickly obsolete. Nevertheless, a possible strategy consists in the use of antibody cocktails and the development of the cilgavimab + tixagevimab in combination is placed in this context., Areas Covered: In this review, we describe the development of the cilgavimab + tixagevimab cocktail, from pre-clinical to real-world evidence., Expert Opinion: The pre-clinical and clinical development of cilgavimab + tixagevimab followed a similar path to that of the antibodies developed in the earlier stages of the pandemic. Both antibodies have been developed from convalescent plasma and have been shown to be effective in clinical trials in prophylaxis and in early therapy. This cocktail has found its position in therapy especially in immunocompromised subjects for whom vaccine prevention is not feasible. The cocktail strategy, together with a more stable pandemic situation, could ensure a certain longevity to the drug against resistance, especially when compared with that of other antibodies. Recently emerged Omicron sub-lineages have demonstrated the ability to escape this cocktail's activity and so the future of this treatment could be compromised.

Acquired hemophilia A (AHA), a rare but life-threatening disorder, most commonly occurs in older people and during pregnancy. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination campaign, an unexpected number of newly diagnosed AHA patients have been identified in clinical practice that were temporally related to COVID-19 vaccination. We present the result of a signal detection analysis aimed at exploring a possible association between COVID-19 immunization and occurrence of AHA. A disproportionality analysis on the World Health Organization (WHO) database was performed to investigate the presence of a signal of risk for AHA associated with COVID-19 vaccines. Reports of AHA associated with any COVID-19 vaccine included in the WHO database were then integrated with those available on the Food and Drug Administration Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and those published in the medical literature. The WHO database included 146 reports of AHA. The information component (IC) was significant for the association of AHA with all COVID-19 vaccines (IC025: 1.1) and with the vaccine product BNT162b2 (IC025: 1.6). After duplicate exclusion, 96 unique cases of AHA following COVID-19 vaccines have been reviewed. Median time to diagnosis was 18 days and 40% of cases documented the occurrence after the second dose. Overall, in 57% of the investigated cases, a preexisting condition predisposing to AHA was excluded. About 22% of cases occurred in subjects with age ≤65 years and there was no case associated with pregnancy. Mortality was 11%. Although we cannot exclude that the unexpected frequency of AHA diagnosis can be explained by a detection bias, the signal for COVID-19 vaccine-related AHA is robust and deserves further investigations., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) targeting the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 have been widely used in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper, we review the properties of mAbs and their effect as therapeutics in the pandemic, including structural classification, outcomes in clinical trials that led to the authorisation of mAbs, and baseline and treatment-emergent immune escape. We show how the omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern has reset treatment strategies so far, discuss future developments that could lead to improved outcomes, and report the intrinsic limitations of using mAbs as therapeutic agents., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AC is the Chair of the US National COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma Project and reports being part of the scientific advisory board of SAB Therapeutics, a company developing cow polyclonal antibodies. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The ongoing COVID19 pandemic represents an unprecedented opportunity to test the feasibility of monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies against respiratory viruses. While many hurdles were easily predictable (e.g. time to develop, scalability, and economic sustainability), mAb cocktails (i.e. the combination of two mAbs) were finally deployed in 2021, one year after the beginning of the pandemic. Of them, the REGN-COV-2 cocktail was likely the most successful experience and contributed at saving lives at the time of the wave sustained by the Delta variant of concern (VOC)., Areas Covered: Herein, the authors review the preclinical and clinical history of the casirivimab + imdevimab cocktail for the treatment of novel coronavirus infection. The authors furthermore provide the reader with their perspectives on this cocktail including its current place in the treatment armamentarium., Expert Opinion: Unfortunately, results from clinical trials highlighted a very limited efficacy in inpatients; furthermore, the current evidence with regards to its lack of effectiveness against the current dominant VOC (omicron) suggests a very limited use of these drugs in the future. In the authors' opinion, this story reminds us of the limitations of mAb therapies in pandemic settings, and of the inferiority of monoclonal versus polyclonal antibody-based therapeutics in such scenarios.

Scanty information on clustering longitudinal real-world data is available in the medical literature about the adherence implementation phase in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). To identify and characterize trajectories by analyzing the implementation phase of adherence to biologic Disease-Modifying Anti-Rheumatic Drugs (DMARDs), we conducted a retrospective cohort drug-utilization study using Tuscan administrative databases. RA patients were identified by a validated algorithm, including the first biologic DMARD supply from 2010 to 2015, RA specialist visit in the year before or after the first supply date and RA diagnosis in the five years before or in the year after the first supply date. We observed users for three years or until death, neoplasia, or pregnancy. We evaluated adherence quarterly through the Medication Possession Ratio. Firstly, we identified adherence trajectories and described the baseline characteristics; then, we focused on the trajectory most populated to distinguish the related sub-trajectories. We identified 952 first ever-biologic DMARD users in RA (712 females, mean age 52.7 years old, standard deviation 18.8). The biologic DMARD mostly supplied was etanercept (387 users) followed by adalimumab (233). Among 935 users with at least 3 adherence values, we identified 49 fully-adherent users, 829 continuous users, and 57 early-discontinuing users. Significant differences were observed among the index drugs. After focusing on the continuous users, three sub-trajectories were identified: continuous-steady users (556), continuous-alternate users (207), and continuous-declining users (66). No relevant differences emerged at the baseline. The majority of first ever-biologic DMARD users showed a continuous adherence behavior in RA. The role of adherence potential predictors and the association with effectiveness and safety outcomes should be explored by further studies.

Introduction : In the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, research has been oriented toward the development of therapies that could cure critically ill patients and treatments that can reduce the number of hospitalized patients, in order to ease the pressure on health-care systems. Bamlanivimab, developed from human convalescent plasma, was the first monoclonal antibody to become available for emergency use in several countries. Expectations related to its use in COVID-19 patients as a single agent have been largely disregarded, especially against E484K-carrying SARS-CoV-2 variants. Areas covered : In this drug discovery case history, the development of the drug is described starting from the identification and selection of the antibody, from the pre-clinical and clinical trials up to the post-authorization phase. Expert opinion : Bamlanivimab has shown some efficacy in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19. Initially approved as a monotherapy, due to poor efficacy it is currently only usable in combination with etesevimab. Pharmacokinetic limitations and mainly the onset of SARS-CoV-2 variants are the main reasons for this limited clinical use. The use in preventing hospitalization also has ethical limits related to the sustainability of care, especially if, considering similar effectiveness, bamlanivimab is compared with convalescent plasma.

Validation of algorithms for selecting patients from healthcare administrative databases (HAD) is recommended. This PATHFINDER study section is aimed at testing algorithms to select rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients from Tuscan HAD (THAD) and assessing RA diagnosis time interval between the medical chart date and that of THAD. A population was extracted from THAD. The information of the medical charts at the Rheumatology Unit of Pisa University Hospital represented the reference. We included first ever users of biologic disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) between 2014 and 2016 (index date) with at least a specialist visit at the Rheumatology Unit of the Pisa University Hospital recorded from 2013 to the index date. Out of these, we tested four index tests (algorithms): (1) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions (ICD-9 code, 714*); (2) RA according to exemption code from co-payment (006); (3) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions AND RA according to exemption code from co-payment; (4) RA according to hospital discharge records or emergency department admissions OR RA according to exemption code from co-payment. We estimated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predicted values (PPV and NPV) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) and the RA diagnosis median time interval (interquartile range, IQR). Two sensitivity analyses were performed. Among 277 reference patients, 103 had RA. The fourth algorithm identified 96 true RA patients, PPV 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.85), sensitivity 0.93 (95% CI 0.86-0.97), specificity 0.84 (95% CI 0.78-0.90), and NPV 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.98). The sensitivity analyses confirmed performance. The time measured between the actual RA diagnosis date recorded in medical charts and that assumed in THAD was 2.2 years (IQR 0.5-8.4). In conclusion, this validation showed the fourth algorithm as the best. The time interval elapsed between the actual RA diagnosis date in medical charts and that extrapolated from THAD has to be considered in the design of future studies., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Elderly patients are the main users of drugs and they differ from younger patients. They are a heterogeneous population that cannot be defined only by age but should rather be stratified based on their frailty. The elderly have distinctive pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, are frequently polymorbid, and are therefore treated with multiple drugs. They may experience adverse reactions that are difficult to recognize, since some of them present non-specific symptoms easily mistaken for geriatric conditions. Paradoxically, the elderly are underrepresented in clinical trials, especially the frail individuals whose pharmacological response and expected treatment outcome can be different from those of non-frail patients. This means that the benefit-risk balance of drugs used in frail elderly patients is frequently unknown. We present some proposals to overcome the barriers preventing the enrollment of frail elderly patients in clinical trials, and strategies for monitoring their therapy to minimize the risk of adverse reactions. Automated alerts for drug and drug-disease interactions could help appropriate prescribing but should flag only clinically relevant interactions. Pharmaceutical forms should be designed to allow easy dose adjustment and, together with packaging and labeling, should account for the physical and cognitive limitations of frail elderly patients. Aggregate pharmacovigilance reports should summarize the safety profile in the elderly, but rather than presenting the results by age they should focus on patients' frailty, perhaps using the number of comorbidities as a proxy when information on frailty is not available.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic that hit the world in 2020 triggered a massive dissemination of information (an "infodemic") about the disease that was channeled through the print, broadcast, web, and social media. This infodemic also included sensational and distorted information about drugs that likely first influenced opinion leaders and people particularly active on social media and then other people, thus affecting choices by individual patients everywhere. In particular, information has spread about some drugs approved for other indications (chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor antagonists, favipiravir, and umifenovir) that could have led to inappropriate and therefore hazardous use. In this article, we analyze the rationale behind the claims for use of these drugs in COVID-19, the communication about their effects on the disease, the consequences of this communication on people's behavior, and the responses of some influential regulatory authorities in an attempt to minimize the actual or potential risks arising from this behavior. Finally, we discuss the role of pharmacovigilance stakeholders in emergency management and possible strategies to deal with other similar crises in the future.

Sars-CoV-2 complications include pneumonia and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which require intensive care unit admission. These conditions have rapidly overwhelmed healthcare systems, with detrimental effects on the quality of care and increased mortality. Social isolation strategies have been implemented worldwide with the aim of reducing hospital pressure. Among therapeutic strategies, the use of immunomodulating drugs, to improve prognosis, seems promising. Particularly, since pneumonia and ARDS are associated with a cytokine storm, drugs belonging to therapeutic classes as anti-IL-6, anti-TNF, and JAK inhibitors are currently studied. In this article, we discuss the potential advantages of the most promising pharmacological approaches.

Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapy has been previously exploited for viral infections, such as respiratory syncytial virus pneumonia and Ebolavirus disease. In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, early signals of efficacy from convalescent plasma therapy have encouraged research and development of anti-SARS-CoV-2 mAbs. While many candidates are in preclinical development, we focus here on anti-SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing mAbs (or mAb cocktails) that represent the late-stage clinical pipeline, i.e., those currently in Phase 2 or Phase 3 clinical trials. We describe the structure, mechanism of action, and ongoing trials for VIR-7831, LY-CoV555, LY-CoV016, BGB-DXP593, REGN-COV2, and CT-P59. We speculate also on the next generation of these mAbs.