RESUMEN
Background: Viral SARS-CoV-2 rebound (viral RNA rebound) is challenging to characterize in large cohorts due to the logistics of collecting frequent and regular diagnostic test results. Pharmacy-based testing data provide an opportunity to study the phenomenon in a large population, also enabling subgroup analyses. The current real-world evidence approach complements approaches focused on smaller, prospective study designs. Methods: We linked real-time reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction test data from national pharmacy-based testing to health care claims data via tokenization to calculate the cumulative incidence of viral RNA rebound within 28 days following positive test results in nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (NMV-r)-treated and untreated individuals during the Omicron era (December 2021-November 2022) and prior to the Omicron era (October 2020-November 2021). Results: Among 30 646 patients, the rate of viral RNA rebound was 3.5% (95% CI, 2.0%-5.7%) in NMV-r-treated infections as compared with 1.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.7%) in untreated infections during the Omicron era and 1.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-2.1%) prior to the Omicron era. Viral RNA rebound in patients who were vaccinated (n = 8151), high risk (n = 4411), or older (≥65 years, n = 4411) occurred at comparable rates to the overall cohort (range, 1.1%-4.8%). Viral rebounds to high RNA levels in NMV-r-treated infections occurred in 8% of viral rebounds as compared with 5% to 11% in untreated infections. Rates of hospitalization were comparable between patients with NMV-r-treated infections with viral RNA rebound (0%) and untreated patients with viral RNA rebound (0%-1.2%). Conclusions: Our findings suggest viral RNA rebound is rare (< 5%), with rates that were consistent with those from the EPIC-HR trial (Evaluation of Protease Inhibition for COVID-19 in High-Risk Patients). Most occurrences of viral RNA rebound were associated with low viral RNA levels, and viral RNA rebound progression to severe disease was not observed.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Selective estrogen receptor (ER) modulators (SERMs) are a class of nonsteroidal compounds that interact with ERs, each with a distinct tissue-specific profile. Depending upon the degree of ER agonism/antagonism at the target tissue, SERMs show efficacy for various indications including osteoporosis, dyspareunia, and breast cancer, and are associated with safety risks. AREAS COVERED: This review describes the safety profile of SERMs (tamoxifen, raloxifene, toremifene, bazedoxifene, lasofoxifene, and ospemifene) and fulvestrant (a pure ER antagonist) from Phase III trials, long-term extension studies, and active comparator studies. Tamoxifen, a first-generation SERM, is indicated for breast cancer prevention and treatment but is associated with serious safety concerns including endometrial cancer, venous thromboembolic events (VTE), and stroke. Toremifene, raloxifene, bazedoxifene, lasofoxifene, and ospemifene present generally improved, though distinctly different, safety profiles compared with tamoxifen, especially with endometrial cancer and stroke. However, the risk of VTE remains a concern for most SERMs. EXPERT OPINION: Each SERM presents a unique risk/benefit profile based on varying indications and tissue-specific ER agonist and antagonist effects, making careful patient selection and ongoing patient monitoring crucial aspects of treatment. Future research may focus on identifying new SERMs for endocrine-resistant and endocrine-responsive cancers and post-menopausal symptoms.