Influence of Genetic Polymorphisms on the Response to Tramadol, Ibuprofen, and the Combination in Patients With Moderate to Severe Pain After Dental Surgery.

PURPOSE: We aimed to elucidate the influence on analgesic effect of genetic polymorphisms in enzymes responsible for biotransformation of tramadol and ibuprofen or other possible genes involved in their mechanism of action. METHODS: The study population comprised 118 patients from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III clinical trial that assessed the analgesic efficacy and tolerability of a single dose of ibuprofen (arginine)/tramadol 400/37.5 mg compared with ibuprofen arginine 400 mg alone, tramadol 50 mg alone, and placebo in patients with moderate to severe pain after dental surgery. We analyzed 32 polymorphisms in the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes COMT, ABCB1, SLC22A1, OPRM1, and SLC22A1. FINDINGS: We did not find any statistically significant difference among CYP2C9 phenotypes related to ibuprofen response, although CYP2C9 poor metabolizers had a longer effect (higher pain relief at 6 hours). Likewise, we did not find any statistically significant difference among PTGS2 genotypes, contradicting previously publications. IMPLICATIONS: There was not a clear effect of CYP2D6 phenotype on tramadol response, although CYP2D6 poor metabolizers had a slower analgesic effect. Concerning the transport of CYP2D6, we observed a better response in individuals carrying ABCB1 mutated alleles, which might correlate with higher tramadol plasma levels. Finally, we found a statistically significant better response in patients carrying the OPRM1 A118G G allele, which contradicts the previous reports. Measuring the active metabolite O-desmethyl-tramadol formation would be of great importance to better evaluate this association because O-desmethyl-tramadol has a higher µ-opioid receptor affinity compared with the parent drug. EudraCT.ema.europa.eu identifier: 2013-004637-33.

Use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors and risk of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital: a case-population study.

BACKGROUND: Concerns have been raised about the possibility that inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system (RAAS) could predispose individuals to severe COVID-19; however, epidemiological evidence is lacking. We report the results of a case-population study done in Madrid, Spain, since the outbreak of COVID-19. METHODS: In this case-population study, we consecutively selected patients aged 18 years or older with a PCR-confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital from seven hospitals in Madrid, who had been admitted between March 1 and March 24, 2020. As a reference group, we randomly sampled ten patients per case, individually matched for age, sex, region (ie, Madrid), and date of admission to hospital (month and day; index date), from Base de datos para la Investigación Farmacoepidemiológica en Atención Primaria (BIFAP), a Spanish primary health-care database, in its last available year (2018). We extracted information on comorbidities and prescriptions up to the month before index date (ie, current use) from electronic clinical records of both cases and controls. The outcome of interest was admission to hospital of patients with COVID-19. To minimise confounding by indication, the main analysis focused on assessing the association between COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital and use of RAAS inhibitors compared with use of other antihypertensive drugs. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, adjusted for age, sex, and cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors, using conditional logistic regression. The protocol of the study was registered in the EU electronic Register of Post-Authorisation Studies, EUPAS34437. FINDINGS: We collected data for 1139 cases and 11 390 population controls. Among cases, 444 (39·0%) were female and the mean age was 69·1 years (SD 15·4), and despite being matched on sex and age, a significantly higher proportion of cases had pre-existing cardiovascular disease (OR 1·98, 95% CI 1·62-2·41) and risk factors (1·46, 1·23-1·73) than did controls. Compared with users of other antihypertensive drugs, users of RAAS inhibitors had an adjusted OR for COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital of 0·94 (95% CI 0·77-1·15). No increased risk was observed with either angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (adjusted OR 0·80, 0·64-1·00) or angiotensin-receptor blockers (1·10, 0·88-1·37). Sex, age, and background cardiovascular risk did not modify the adjusted OR between use of RAAS inhibitors and COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital, whereas a decreased risk of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital was found among patients with diabetes who were users of RAAS inhibitors (adjusted OR 0·53, 95% CI 0·34-0·80). The adjusted ORs were similar across severity degrees of COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: RAAS inhibitors do not increase the risk of COVID-19 requiring admission to hospital, including fatal cases and those admitted to intensive care units, and should not be discontinued to prevent a severe case of COVID-19. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III.

A new high-absorption-rate Paracetamol 500-mg formulation: a comparative bioavailability study in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol is often the analgesic or antipyretic of choice, especially for patients for whom salicylates or other nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs are contraindicated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the absorption rate of a new tablet formulation of paracetamol (500 mg) with a reference formulation of paracetamol at the same dose. METHODS: This was a single-center, Phase I, open-label, randomized, 2-period, crossover, single-dose, comparative bioavailability clinical trial. During both study periods, healthy volunteers were given a single oral dose of a more hydrophilic test formulation of paracetamol, or a reference formulation. Fifteen plasma samples were obtained to determine paracetamol concentrations and to calculate kinetic parameters. RESULTS: The study participants comprised 24 healthy volunteers (12 men, 12 women; mean [SD] age, 22.8 [1.5] years). The pharmacokinetic parameters calculated for the test versus the reference formulation were as follows: median time to maximum concentration (Tmax), 0.42 versus 0.75 hour; mean (SD) maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax), 9.85 (2.40) µg/mL versus 8.33 (2.22) µg/mL; and mean (SD) area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC0-∞), 30.16 (8.87) µg·h/mL versus 28.49 (8.57) µg · h/mL. The 90% CIs of the ratios were as follows: base e logarithm (Ln)-transformed Cmax, 105.08% to 137.59%; Ln-AUC0-∞, 102.02% to 110.43%; and the difference in Tmax, -0.375 to -0.085 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The speed of release and absorption was statistically significantly higher with the test formulation compared with the reference one (evaluated using Tmax, Cmax, and Cmax/AUC parameters). This speed is especially important for a rapid analgesic or antipyretic effect.