Outcomes of Drug Interactions Between Antiretrovirals and Co-Medications, Including Over-the-Counter Drugs: A Real-World Study.

IntroductionThe objective was to characterize real-world outcomes of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between antiretrovirals (ARVs) and other drugs, including over-the-counter medications (OTC), and treatment outcomes in clinical practice.Methodswww.clinicalcasesDDIs.com is an open-access website for healthcare providers to consult and briefly describe real-world clinical cases on DDI with ARVs. We reviewed all the clinical cases reported to the website between March 2019 and May 2023.ResultsA total of 139 cases were reported, mostly involving ritonavir or cobicistat (boosters; 74 cases), unboosted integrase inhibitors (InSTI; 29 cases), and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTI; 23 cases). Central nervous system drugs (29 cases) and cardiovascular drugs (19 cases) were the most frequently described co-medications. Notably, OTC medications were implicated in 27 cases, including mineral supplements (11 cases), herbals (8 cases), weight loss drugs (4 cases), anabolic steroids (3 cases), and recreational drugs (1 case). OTC acted as the perpetrator drug in 21 cases, leading to loss of ARV efficacy in 17 instances (mineral supplements in 10 cases, weight loss drugs in 4 cases, herbals in 3 cases). Additionally, toxicity was reported in 4 out of 6 cases where OTC was considered the victim drug of the DDI (anabolic steroids in 3 cases, MDMA in 1 case).ConclusionsFrequent unwanted outcomes resulting from DDIs between ARVs and OTC medications underscore the importance of integrating non-prescription drugs into medication reconciliation. The real-world data available through www.clinicalcasesDDIs.com serves as a valuable resource for assessing the clinical relevance of DDIs

How Should we Use Multicolumn Spinal Cord Stimulation to Optimize Back Pain Spatial Neural Targeting? A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Trial (ESTIMET Study)

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have highlighted multicolumn spinal cord stimulation (SCS) efficacy, hypothesizing that optimized spatial neural targeting provided by new-generation SCS lead design or its multicolumn programming abilities could represent an opportunity to better address chronic back pain (BP). OBJECTIVE: To compare multicolumn vs. monocolumn programming on clinical outcomes of refractory postoperative chronic BP patients implanted with SCS using multicolumn surgical lead. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve centers included 115 patients in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. After randomization, leads were programmed using only one or several columns. The primary outcome was change in BP visual analogic scale (VAS) at six months. All patients were then programmed using the full potential of the lead up until 12-months follow-up. RESULTS: At six months, there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes whether the SCS was programmed using a mono or a multicolumn program. At 12 months, in all patients having been receiving multicolumn SCS for at least six months (n = 97), VAS decreases were significant for global pain (45.1%), leg pain (55.8%), and BP (41.5%) compared with baseline (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The ESTIMET study confirms the significant benefit experienced on chronic BP by patients implanted with multicolumn SCS, independently from multicolumn lead programming. These good clinical outcomes might result from the specific architecture of the multicolumn lead, giving the opportunity to select initially the best column on a multicolumn grid and to optimize neural targeting with low-energy requirements. However, involving more columns than one does not appear necessary, once initial spatial targeting of the "sweet spot" has been achieved. Our findings suggest that this spatial concept could also be transposed to cylindrical leads, which have drastically improved their capability to shape the electrical field, and might be combined with temporal resolution using SCS new modalities