Hundreds of researchers are working to develop a vaccine and are evaluating drugs to mitigate the adverse health and economic consequences of COVID-19 (Coronavirus disease 19) worldwide. If novel compounds are found, geopolitical and economic variables will determine their introduction to communities. Therefore, finding low-cost and widely accessible drugs for prevention or treatment of COVID-19 would be ideal.A recent study found that ivermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug, has inhibitory effects on replication of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)1. Ivermectin has broad anti-viral activity through inhibition of viral proteins including importin α/β1 heterodimer and integrase protein2. Caly and colleagues reported that the addition of ivermectin at a concentration of 5 micromolar (μM) (twice the reported IC50) to Vero-hSLAM cells, 2 hours post infection with SARS-CoV-2, resulted in a reduction in the viral RNA load by 99.98% at 48 hours1. The authors suggested that this drug could reduce the viral load in infected patients, with potential effect on disease progression and spread.While the findings by Caly and colleagues provide some promise, there is no evidence that the 5 μM concentration of ivermectin used by Caly and colleagues in their in vitro SARS-CoV-2 experiment, can be achieved in vivo . The pharmacokinetics of ivermectin in humans is well described (Figure 1)3-5, and even with the highest reported dose of approximately 1700 µg/kg (i.e. 8.5 times the FDA-approved dose of 200 μg/kg), the maximum plasma concentration was only 0.28 µM5. This is 18 times lower than the concentration required to reduce viral replication of SARS-CoV-2in vitro . Ivermectin accumulation in tissues is mild and would not be sufficient to achieve the antiviral effect with conventional doses6. Although high doses of ivermectin in adults or children are well tolerated5,7, the clinical effects of ivermectin at a concentration of 5 μM range are unknown and may be associated with toxicity. Consequently, ivermectin has in vitroactivity against SARS-CoV-2 but this effect is unlikely to be observedin vivo using current dosing.Amidst fear of the pandemic, the public and some physicians are now using ivermectin off-label for prophylaxis or as adjuvant therapy for COVID-19. Because ivermectin is only commercially available as a 3 or 6 mg tablets or a 6 mg/ml oral suspension, in order to administer a high dose, some people may experiment with more concentrated veterinary formulations. These actions are not based on clinical trials and have motivated cautionary statements from institutions such as the FDA against the use of pharmaceutical formulations of ivermectin intended for animals as therapeutics in humans 8.Potential avenues for further investigation into repurposing ivermectin for SARS-CoV-2 may be to: (i) develop an inhaled formulation to efficiently deliver a high local concentration in the lung, whilst minimizing systemic exposure; and (ii) evaluate more potent ivermectin analogs (e.g. doramectin) which may also inhibit SARS-CoV-2. These are areas for research – clearly, further studies are needed before ivermectin can be used for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19. As recently discussed in BJCP, this highlights the critical need to consider pharmacological principles to guide in vitro testing when repurposing old drugs for therapeutic use against COVID-199.

Aim: Infantile haemangioma (IH) is the most common benign tumour in children. Since 2014, propranolol has become the first-choice therapy and currently Hemangiol® is the only approved drug for complicated haemangioma. This post-marketing study reported the use of Hemangiol® for IH in paediatric practice. Method and Results: From January 2014 to November 2018, 94 children (median age 4 [0;21] months; 75% female) treated with Hemangiol® for proliferative IH were enrolled in the study. The systematic paediatric cardiology consultation never contraindicated beta-blockers. Two Hemangiol® initiation protocols were used: a conventional ambulatory 3-week titration phase protocol (N=76, 80.9%), and a rapid initiation protocol with a 48-hour dose escalation in conventional hospitalization for severe proliferative IH (N=18, 19.1%). In both protocols, the haemodynamic tolerance was good. The mean maintenance dose of Hemangiol® was 2.7±0.8 mg/kg/day, with a median treatment duration of 7 [1.5;19] months. Adverse events (AEs) have been found in 25 (26,6%) patients including 8 (8.5%) patients with serious AEs (uncontrolled bronchial hyperreactivity, N=5; serious hypoglycaemia, N=3). Some patients had one or more AEs, a total of 24 non-serious AEs was reported in 19 patients (sleep disturbances, N=9; respiratory disorders, N=5; digestive disorders, N=6). No cardiac adverse event was reported. Conclusion: This post-marketing surveillance drug study supports the good tolerance of Hemangiol® in children with IH. A rapid initiation protocol is of interest when treatment is urgent. The pre-therapeutic paediatric cardiology consultation should not be systematic but only indicated on specific patients. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT 04105517.

Aims In the absence of a commonly agreed dosing protocol based on pharmacokinetic considerations, the dose and treatment duration for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) COVID-19 disease currently vary across national guidelines and clinical study protocols. We have used a model-based approach to explore the relative impact of alternative dosing regimens proposed in different dosing protocols for hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19. Methods We compared different PK exposures using Monte Carlo simulations based on a previously published population pharmacokinetic model in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, externally validated using both independent data in lupus erythematous patients and recent data in French COVID-19 patients. Clinical efficacy and safety information from COVID-19 patients treated with HCQ were used to contextualize and assess the actual clinical value of the model predictions. Results Literature and observed clinical data confirm the variability in clinical responses in COVID-19 when treated with the same fixed doses. Confounding factors were identified that should be taken into account for dose recommendation. For 80% of patients, doses higher than 800mg day on D1 followed by 600mg daily on following days might not be needed for being cured. Limited adverse drug reactions have been reported so far for this dosing regimen, most often confounded by co-medications, comorbidities or underlying COVID-19 disease effects. Conclusion Our results were clear indicating the unmet need for characterization of target PK exposures to inform HCQ dosing optimization in COVID-19. Dosing optimization for HCQ in COVID-19 is still an unmet need. Efforts in this sense are a prerequisite for best the benefit/risk balance.

The current drug safety landscape inadequately serves the millions of children prescribed medications every year. Randomized clinical trials are limited in detecting pediatric adverse drug effects due to low participant enrollment, complicated study design, and short trial duration. While the biology of human development and the pathology of childhood diseases are well studied research topics, current pharmacoepidemiology approaches do not use this knowledge when investigating drug safety in children. Here, we describe how adverse drug effects manifest as children develop from birth through the teenage years. We discuss the benefits of an empirical approach for evaluating clinical relevance and biological causality of identified adverse drug effects in children. We argue that a data-driven strategy that leverages observational data and biomedical knowledge is an ethical and effective methodology to improve pediatric drug safety.

Background: In Italy both the consumption of antibiotics and the prevalence of bacterial resistance are higher than in other European countries. In 2017, the first National Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance (PNCAR) was adopted in Italy. In response to the PNCAR two National Reports on Antibiotics’ use in the human setting have been published. The article’s aim is to describe the pattern of antibiotics consumption in the community setting in Italy from 2013 to 2018. Methods: In order to analyse the consumption for reimbursed antibiotics dispensed by community pharmacies different data sources were used. Consumption was measured in terms of Defined Daily Dose (DDD), prescriptions or prevalence of use. Results: In 2018, the consumption of antibiotics in Italy amounted to 16.1 DDD per 1,000 inhabitants per day. The rates of consumption by geographical area were: 12.7 DDD in the North, 16.9 in the Centre and 20.4 in the South. The use was greater in the extreme age groups than in the population aged from 20 to 64 years. The consumption was higher in winter season with high peaks in the incidence of flu syndromes. In the paediatric population, a utilization rate of 1,010 prescriptions per 1,000 children, with a prevalence of use of 40.8%, was found. Conclusion: The study provides useful information on geographical variability of antibiotics’ use in Italy to guide decision makers in the introduction of tailored interventions, as suggested by PNCAR, aimed at promoting a more rational use of antibiotics for humans and reducing antimicrobial resistance.

Aims: This study aimed to assess the impact of pharmacist-led medication therapy management (MTM) for ambulatory elderly patients with chronic diseases. Methods: Consecutive patients were enrolled from pharmacist outpatient clinics from January 2016 to June 2018. Eligible subjects were performed with MTM services by the pharmacists and had clinical data for at least 2 clinic visits within a consecutive 12-month period after the first MTM visit. The drug-related problems (DRPs) and recommendations were evaluated using The Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) Classification for Drug related problems V8.03. Results: A total of 525 DRPs were identified during the study period. Treatment effectiveness P1 (53.71%) was the most common problems of DRPs. The most frequently recommended intervention was changing the drug (48.76%). These interventions were accepted by the patients in 92.38% and were completely implemented in 90.48%. The number of drugs taken was the significant associated factor for DRPs. Post-intervention group showed lower levels in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) compared to the pre-intervention group. There were statistically significant changes in total cholesterol (TC), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and triglycerides (TG) between the pre- and post-intervention group. The average cost of medications per patient for every month decreased from 387.72 Ren Min Bi (RMB) to 355.17 RMB (P=0.009). Conclusion: We confirmed that pharmacists has a valuable role to perform MTM services for ambulatory elderly patients, not only in identifying and solving the DRPs, but also in improving clinical outcomes (BP and lipid level) and cost saving.

Purpose: The classical taxanes (paclitaxel, docetaxel), the newer taxane cabazitaxel and the nanoparticle-bound nab-paclitaxel are among the most widely used anticancer drugs. Still, the optimal use and the value of pharmacological personalization of the taxanes is still controversial. Methods: We give an overview on the pharmacological properties of the taxanes, including metabolism, pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamic relations and aspects in the clinical use of taxanes. The latter includes the ongoing debate on the most effective and safe regimen, the recommended initial dose, and pharmacological dosing individualization. Conclusions: The taxanes are among the most widely used anticancer drugs in patients with solid malignancies. Despite their longtime use in clinical routine, the optimal dosing strategy (weekly versus 3-weekly) or optimal average dose (cabazitaxel, nab-paclitaxel) has not been fully resolved, as it may differ per tumor entity and line of treatment. The value of pharmacological individualization of the taxanes (TDM, TCI) has partly been explored for 3-weekly paclitaxel and docetaxel, but remains mostly unexplored for cabazitaxel and nab-paclitaxel at present.

Aims: To determine if the combination of exercise and statin could normalize postprandial triglyceridemia (PPTG) in hypercholesteraemic individuals. Mehods: Eight hypercholesteraemic (blood cholesterol 182±38 mg·dL-1; LDL-c 102±32 mg·dL-1) overweight (BMI 30±4 kg·m-2) individuals with metabolic syndrome (i.e., Met Synd) were compared to a group of eight metabolically healthy controls (i.e., MetH, blood cholesterol 149±23 mg·dL-1; LDL-c 77±23 mg·dL-1, and BMI 23±2 kg·m-2). Each group underwent two PPTG tests, either 14-h after a bout of intense exercise (EXER) or without previous exercise (REST). Additionally, Met Synd individuals were tested 96 h after withdrawal of their habitual statin medication (PLAC trials) to study medication effects. Results: A bout of exercise before the test meal did not reduce PPTG in Met Synd (P=0.347), but reduced PPTG by 46% in MetH (224±142 to 413±267 mg·dL-1·for 5 h iAUC; P=0.02). In both trials (i.e., REST and EXER) statin withdrawal in Met Synd greatly increased PPTG (average 65%; P<0.01), mean LDL-c (average 25%; P<0.01), total cholesterol (average 16%; P<0.01) and Apo B48 (24%; P<0.01), without interference from exercise. However, Apo B100 was not affected by statin withdrawal. Conclusions: Hypercholesteraemic Met Synd individuals (compared to metabolically healthy controls) are resistant to the effects of exercise on reducing PPTG. However, chronic statin medication blunts the elevations in TG after a fat meal (i.e., iAUC of PPTG) reducing their cardiovascular risk associated to their atherogenic dyslipidemia. Statin decreases PPTG by reducing the secretion or accelerating the catabolism of intestinal Apo B48.

Personalization of oral small molecule anticancer drug doses based on individual patient blood drug levels, also known as therapeutic drug monitoring or TDM, has the potential to significantly improve the effectiveness of treatment by maximizing drug efficacy and minimize toxicity. However, this option has not yet been widely embraced by the oncology community. Some reasons for this include increased logistical complexity of dose individualization, the lack of clinical laboratories that measure small molecule drug concentrations in support of patient care, and the lack of reimbursement of costs. However, the main obstacle may be the lack of studies clearly demonstrating that monitoring of oral small molecule anticancer drug levels actually improves clinical outcomes. Without unequivocal evidence in support of TDM-guided dose individualization, especially demonstration of improved survival with TDM in randomized controlled trials, wide acceptance of this approach by oncologists and reimbursement by insurance companies is unlikely, and patients may continue to suffer as a result of receiving incorrect drug doses. This article reviews the current status of therapeutic drug monitoring of oral small molecule drugs in oncology and intends to provide strategic insights into the design of studies for evaluating the utility of TDM in this clinical context.

The deployment of artesunate for severe malaria and the artemisinin combination therapies (ACTs) for uncomplicated malaria has been a major advance in antimalarial therapeutics. These drugs have reduced treated mortality, accelerated recovery, and reduced treatment failure rates and transmission from the treated infection. These drugs remain highly effective against falciparum malaria in most malaria endemic areas but significant resistance has emerged in the Greater Mekong subregion of Southeast Asia. Resistance to artemisinin was followed by resistance in the ACT partner drugs, and fit multidrug resistant parasite lineages have now spread widely across the region. ACTs are highly effective against P. vivax and the other malaria species. Recent studies show that radical curative regimens of primaquine (to prevent relapse) can be shortened to seven days, and that the newly introduced single dose tafenoquine is an alternative, although the currently recommended dose is insufficient in Southeast Asia and Oceania. Targeted malaria elimination using focal mass treatments with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine have proved safe and effective malaria elimination accelerators, but progress overall towards malaria elimination is very slow. Indeed since 2015 overall malaria case numbers globally have risen.

There is an urgent need for targeted and effective COVID-19 treatment. A number of medications, including hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, lopinavir-ritonavir, fapiravir, and tocilizumab, have been identified as potential treatments for COVID-19. Bringing these repurposed medications to the public for COVID-19 will require robust and high-quality clinical trials. This article reviews translational science principles and strategies for conducting clinical trials in a pandemic and evaluates recent trials for each drug candidate. We hope that this knowledge will help focus efforts during this crisis and lead to the expedited development and approval of COVID-19 therapy.

Initiation of statin treatment is suggested to increase the international normalised ratio (INR) among warfarin users. However, available data is limited and conflicting. We conducted a register-based cohort study to evaluate the drug-drug interaction between warfarin and statins. By linking data on INR measurements and filled prescriptions, we identified warfarin users 2000-2015 initiating simvastatin (n=1,363), atorvastatin (n=165), or rosuvastatin (n=23). Simvastatin initiation led to an increase in mean INR from 2.40 to 2.71, with INRs peaking after 4 weeks, corresponding to a mean change of 0.32 (95%CI 0.25-0.38). High-dose and low-dose simvastatin led to comparable changes (mean change 0.33 vs 0.29). Initiation of atorvastatin and rosuvastatin lead to INR increases of 0.27 (95%CI 0.12-0.42) and 0.30 (95%CI -0.09-0.69). In conclusion, initiation of simvastatin, atorvastatin, or rosuvastatin among warfarin users led to a minor increase in INR. The magnitude of this change is for most patients likely of limited clinical relevance.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have revolutionized the management of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), and currently in patients with CML in chronic phase (CML-CP) the first-line treatment is based on BCR-ABL targeted therapy with TKIs [1]. Although generally well tolerated, all BCR-ABL TKIs can be associated with hematologic and non-hematologic toxicities [2]. Most of the patients with CML-CP continue receiving TKIs, unless there is lack of optimal response and/or serious toxicities.