Clinically Significant Drug-Drug Interactions Involving Medications Used for Symptom Control in Patients With Advanced Malignant Disease: A Systematic Review

Abstract As global health services respond to the coronavirus pandemic, many prescribers are turning to experimental drugs. This review aims to assess the risk of drug–drug interactions in the severely ill COVID-19 patient. Experimental therapies were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for ‘COVID-19’, ‘2019-nCoV’, ‘2019 novel coronavirus’ and ‘SARS-CoV-2’. The last search was performed on 30 June 2020. Herbal medicines, blood-derived products and in vitro studies were excluded. We identified comorbidities by searching PubMed for the MeSH terms ‘COVID-19’, ‘Comorbidity’ and ‘Epidemiological Factors’. Potential drug–drug interactions were evaluated according to known pharmacokinetics, overlapping toxicities and QT risk. Drug–drug interactions were graded GREEN and YELLOW: no clinically significant interaction; AMBER: caution; RED: serious risk. A total of 2378 records were retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov, which yielded 249 drugs that met inclusion criteria. Thirteen primary compounds were screened against 512 comedications. A full database of these interactions is available at www.covid19-druginteractions.org. Experimental therapies for COVID-19 present a risk of drug–drug interactions, with lopinavir/ritonavir (10% RED, 41% AMBER; mainly a perpetrator of pharmacokinetic interactions but also risk of QT prolongation particularly when given with concomitant drugs that can prolong QT), chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine (both 7% RED and 27% AMBER, victims of some interactions due to metabolic profile but also perpetrators of QT prolongation) posing the greatest risk. With management, these risks can be mitigated. We have published a drug–drug interaction resource to facilitate medication review for the critically ill patient.

Download Full-text

An International Consensus List of Potentially Clinically Significant Drug-Drug Interactions in Older People

Journal of the American Medical Directors Association ◽

10.1016/j.jamda.2021.03.019 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

P. Anrys ◽

A.-E. Petit ◽

S. Thevelin ◽

B. Sallevelt ◽

C. Drenth ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Older People ◽

Drug Interactions ◽

International Consensus ◽

Clinically Significant ◽

Potentially Clinically Significant

Download Full-text

Acute sore throat and Fusobacterium necrophorum in primary healthcare: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-042816 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e042816

Author(s):

Stefan Malmberg ◽

Susanna Petrén ◽

Ronny Gunnarsson ◽

Katarina Hedin ◽

Pär-Daniel Sundvall

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Sore Throat ◽

Primary Healthcare ◽

Malignant Disease ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Acute Infection ◽

Fusobacterium Necrophorum ◽

Secondary Outcome ◽

Case Control Studies ◽

Group A

PurposeThe main objective of this review was to describe and quantify the association between Fusobacterium necrophorum (FN) and acute sore throat in primary healthcare (PHC).MethodsIn this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Scopus and PubMed for case–control studies reporting the prevalence of FN in patients attending primary care for an uncomplicated acute sore throat as well as in healthy controls. Only studies published in English were considered. Publications were not included if they were case studies, or if they included patients prescribed antibiotics before the throat swab, patients with a concurrent malignant disease, on immunosuppression, having an HIV infection, or patients having another acute infection in addition to a sore throat. Inclusion criteria and methods were specified in advance and published in PROSPERO. The primary outcome was positive etiologic predictive value (P-EPV), quantifying the probability for an association between acute sore throat and findings of FN in the pharynx. For comparison, our secondary outcome was the corresponding P-EPV for group A Streptococcus (GAS).ResultsPubMed and Scopus yielded 258 and 232 studies, respectively. Removing duplicates and screening the abstracts resulted in 53 studies subsequently read in full text. For the four studies of medium to high quality included in the meta-analysis, the cumulative P-EPV regarding FN was 64% (95% CI 33% to 83%). GAS, based on data from the same publications and patients, yielded a positive EPV of 93% (95% CI 83% to 99%).ConclusionsThe results indicate that FN may play a role in PHC patients with an acute sore throat, but the association is much weaker compared with GAS.

Download Full-text

A Review of Evidence-Based Recommendations for Pericoronitis Management and a Systematic Review of Antibiotic Prescribing for Pericoronitis among Dentists: Inappropriate Pericoronitis Treatment Is a Critical Factor of Antibiotic Overuse in Dentistry

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18136796 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (13) ◽

pp. 6796

Author(s):

Jan Schmidt ◽

Martina Kunderova ◽

Nela Pilbauerova ◽

Martin Kapitan

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Local Therapy ◽

Critical Factor ◽

Antibiotic Use ◽

Narrative Review ◽

Antibiotic Prescribing ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Antibiotic Overuse ◽

Clinically Significant

This work provides a narrative review covering evidence-based recommendations for pericoronitis management (Part A) and a systematic review of antibiotic prescribing for pericoronitis from January 2000 to May 2021 (Part B). Part A presents the most recent, clinically significant, and evidence-based guidance for pericoronitis diagnosis and proper treatment recommending the local therapy over antibiotic prescribing, which should be reserved for severe conditions. The systematic review includes publications analyzing sets of patients treated for pericoronitis and questionnaires that identified dentists' therapeutic approaches to pericoronitis. Questionnaires among dentists revealed that almost 75% of them prescribed antibiotics for pericoronitis, and pericoronitis was among the top 4 in the frequency of antibiotic use within the surveyed diagnoses and situations. Studies involving patients showed that antibiotics were prescribed to more than half of the patients with pericoronitis, and pericoronitis was among the top 2 in the frequency of antibiotic use within the monitored diagnoses and situations. The most prescribed antibiotics for pericoronitis were amoxicillin and metronidazole. The systematic review results show abundant and unnecessary use of antibiotics for pericoronitis and are in strong contrast to evidence-based recommendations summarized in the narrative review. Adherence of dental professionals to the recommendations presented in this work can help rapidly reduce the duration of pericoronitis, prevent its complications, and reduce the use of antibiotics and thus reduce its impact on patients' quality of life, healthcare costs, and antimicrobial resistance development.

Download Full-text