The relationship between cholesterol crystals, foamy macrophages and haemosiderin in odontogenic cysts

Item does not contain fulltex

Prioritising the most needed paediatric antiretroviral formulations: the PADO4 list

Despite considerable progress in paediatric HIV treatment and timely revision of global policies recommending the use of more effective and tolerable antiretroviral regimens, optimal antiretroviral formulations for infants, children, and adolescents remain limited. The Paediatric Antiretroviral Drug Optimization group reviews medium-term and long-term priorities for antiretroviral drug development to guide industry and other stakeholders on formulations most needed for low-income and middle-income countries. The group convened in December, 2018, to assess progress since the previous meeting and update the list of priority formulations. Issues relating to drug optimisation for neonatal prophylaxis and paediatric treatment, and those relating to the investigation of novel antiretrovirals in adolescents and pregnant and lactating women were also discussed. Continued focus on identifying, prioritising, and providing access to optimal antiretroviral formulations suitable for infants, children, and adolescents is key to ensuring that global HIV treatment targets can be met

Drug dosing during pregnancy—opportunities for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models

Drugs can have harmful effects on the embryo or the fetus at any point during pregnancy. Not all the damaging effects of intrauterine exposure to drugs are obvious at birth, some may only manifest later in life. Thus, drugs should be prescribed in pregnancy only if the expected benefit to the mother is thought to be greater than the risk to the fetus. Dosing of drugs during pregnancy is often empirically determined and based upon evidence from studies of non-pregnant subjects, which may lead to suboptimal dosing, particularly during the third trimester. This review collates examples of drugs with known recommendations for dose adjustment during pregnancy, in addition to providing an example of the potential use of PBPK models in dose adjustment recommendation during pregnancy within the context of drug-drug interactions. For many drugs, such as antidepressants and antiretroviral drugs, dose adjustment has been recommended based on pharmacokinetic studies demonstrating a reduction in drug concentrations. However, there is relatively limited (and sometimes inconsistent) information regarding the clinical impact of these pharmacokinetic changes during pregnancy and the effect of subsequent dose adjustments. Examples of using pregnancy PBPK models to predict feto-maternal drug exposures and their applications to facilitate and guide dose assessment throughout gestation are discussed

Lack of a clinically significant drug-drug interaction in healthy volunteers between the HCV protease inhibitor boceprevir and the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole

Contains fulltext : 118714.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVES: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can limit the solubility of concomitant drugs, which can lead to decreased absorption and exposure. Reduced efficacy can be a consequence and in the case of an antimicrobial agent this may contribute to development of resistance. Patients chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus can be treated with a boceprevir-containing regimen and it is relevant to know if interactions between PPIs and boceprevir exist. This study was designed to investigate the influence of a frequently used PPI, omeprazole, on the pharmacokinetics of boceprevir and vice versa. METHODS: In this open-label, three-period, randomized, cross-over, Phase I study, healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 40 mg of omeprazole once daily for 5 days, 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days and 40 mg of omeprazole once daily + 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days, or the same treatment in a different order. Every treatment was followed by a wash-out period. At day 5 of every treatment pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed for 8 h after medication intake. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01470690. RESULTS: All 24 subjects (15 males) completed the study and no serious adverse events were reported. Geometric mean ratios (90% CI) of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 8 h (AUC0-8) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of boceprevir with omeprazole versus boceprevir alone were 0.92 (0.87-0.97) and 0.94 (0.86-1.02), respectively. For omeprazole these values were 1.06 (0.90-1.25) for AUC0-8 and 1.03 (0.85-1.26) for Cmax for the combination versus omeprazole alone. CONCLUSIONS: Omeprazole did not have a clinically significant effect on boceprevir exposure, and boceprevir did not affect omeprazole exposure

Comparison of different insulin regimens in elderly patients with NIDDM

OBJECTIVE: To compare the metabolic effects of three different frequently used regimens of insulin administration on blood glucose control and serum lipids, and the costs associated with this treatment, in subjects with NIDDM, who were poorly controlled with oral antihyperglycemic agents. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We studied 95 elderly patients with NIDDM (age 68 +/- 9 years, BMI 26.0 +/- 4.6 kg/m2, and median time since diagnosis of diabetes 9 years [range 1-37]; 37 men, 58 women), who were poorly controlled, despite diet and maximal doses of oral antihyperglycemic agents. Three insulin administration regimens were compared during a 6-month period: patients were randomized for treatment with a two-injection scheme (regimen A) or a combination of glibenclamide with one injection of NPH insulin, administered either at bedtime (regimen B) or before breakfast (regimen C), and insulin treatment was mainly instituted in an outpatient setting. RESULTS: After 6 months of insulin treatment, fasting blood glucose of the total patient population had decreased from an average of 14.1 +/- 2.2 to 8.3 +/- 2.0 mmol/L (P < 0.001), and HbA1c fell from 11.0 +/- 1.3 to 8.3 +/- 1.2% (P < 0.001); 34 patients reached HbA1c levels below 8.0%, 25 of them even below 7.5%. With two insulin injections daily, HbA1c decreased from 11.2 +/- 1.3 to 8.2 +/- 1.2%, while during combined treatment, HbA1c fell from 10.5 +/- 1.2 to 8.1 +/- 1.1% (regimen B) and from 11.1 +/- 1.3 to 8.5 +/- 1.1% (regimen C). Comparable improvement of the other measures of glycemic control, lipids and lipoproteins, was observed in the different treatment regimens. Body weight increase was moderate (mean +/- 4.0 kg) and similar in all patient groups. One-third of patients starting with one insulin injection daily needed a second injection to control glycemia. One episode of severe hypoglycemia was observed. Combined insulin-sulfonylurea treatment was almost 20% more expensive than twice-daily administration of insulin alone. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin treatment can safely be instituted in elderly patients with NIDDM. However, it is difficult to obtain optimal glycemic control. Insulin has moderate beneficial effects on serum lipoproteins. Although on the basis of glycemic control and weight gain, no preference for any treatment regimen can be discerned, twice-daily insulin administration is the most simple and cost-effective regimen

Factors associated with daily tenofovir exposure in Thai subjects taking combination antiretroviral therapy

Contains fulltext : 155259.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)Tenofovir (TFV) exposure is associated with antiretroviral efficacy and risk of kidney disease. There is evidence of high interindividual variability of the pharmacokinetics of TFV. The effect of several clinical conditions on the pharmacokinetics of TFV has been observed and may partly explain its variability. We assessed factors influencing the pharmacokinetics of TFV in Thai patients. Thirty participants (50% female) taking efavirenz- or ritonavir-boosted protease inhibitor-based regimens were investigated. Intensive pharmacokinetic sampling was performed over 24 h. Multivariate geometric mean regression models adjusted for covariates with p</=0.2 in univariate analysis were developed. The median age was 41 years. Five participants [three taking a protease inhibitor (PI) and two taking efavirenz (EFV)] had mild renal dysfunction [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) 60-90 ml/min/1.73 m(2); range 72-89]. TFV AUC0-24 was 23% (95% CI 1-49%; p=0.04) higher in those taking PI vs. EFV, 39% (95% CI 5-84%; p=0.02) higher in those with mild renal dysfunction, and reduced by 16% (95% CI 5-26%; p=0.008) with each 10 kg body weight increase, after adjusting for sex and duration of TFV exposure. In PI-treated subjects TFV AUC0-24 increased by 3% (0.3-6%; p=0.03) for each mg.h/liter increase in ritonavir (RTV) AUC0-24 after adjusting for sex, weight, mild renal impairment, and proximal renal tubular dysfunction. Significantly higher TFV exposures were independently associated with PI regimens, mild renal impairment, lower body weight, and increasing RTV AUC0-24. Clinicians should be aware of the effect of these factors on TFV exposure when this drug is prescribed

CYP2C19 Genotype-Dependent Pharmacokinetic Drug Interaction Between Voriconazole and Ritonavir-Boosted Atazanavir in Healthy Subjects

Voriconazole, a broad-spectrum triazole antifungal agent, is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 and, to a lesser extent, by CYP3A. Genetic polymorphism of CYP2C19 not only plays a prominent role in its disposition but may also influence potential drug interactions with CYP450 modulators such as ritonavir. This study assessed 2-way drug interactions of voriconazole added on to ritonavir-boosted atazanavir in both CYP2C19 extensive-metabolizer (EM) and poor-metabolizer (PM) healthy subjects. Each subject received voriconazole alone on days 1-3, followed by a 7-day washout. Atazanavir/ritonavir 300/100 mg once daily was given on days 11-30 and voriconazole on days 21-30. Voriconazole doses were 200 mg (400 mg on days 1 and 21) twice daily and 50 mg (100 mg on days 1 and 21) twice daily for CYP2C19 EM and PM subjects, respectively. On coadministration, voriconazole AUC and Cmin decreased by 33% (90%CI, 22%-42%) and 39% (90%CI, 28%-49%), respectively, in CYP2C19 EMs, whereas voriconazole Cmax and AUC increased 4.4-fold (90%CI, 3.6-fold to 5.4-fold) and 5.6-fold (90%CI, 4.5-fold to 7.0-fold), respectively, in PMs. Adding voriconazole resulted in a 20%-30% decrease in atazanavir Cmin in both EMs and PMs. Ritonavir exposure was generally unchanged in either population. The safety and tolerability profiles of the combination were comparable with atazanavir/ritonavir and voriconazole administered alone. The most frequent adverse events with voriconazole were visual disturbance and headache. Coadministration of voriconazole and atazanavir/ritonavir is not recommended unless the benefit/risk to the patient justifies the use of the combination