Quantitative impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown on nuclear medicine in France: the CORALINE study.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reshaped the usual risk: benefit equilibrium that became a trade-off between the infection exposure risk for the patient (and for staff) and the risk associated with delaying or cancelling the nuclear medicine examination. This study aimed at quantifying the impact of the first COVID-19 lockdown in France on nuclear medicine examination volume together with volume of examination cancellation and non-attendance. METHODS: We retrospectively assessed the volume of planned examinations from 1 month before to 1 month after the first lockdown in French high-volume nuclear medicine departments (NMD) sharing the same information management system including both university hospitals, UH (n = 7), and cancer centres, CC (n = 2). RESULTS: The study enrolled 31,628 consecutive patients referred for a nuclear medicine examination performed or not (NMEP or NMEnP). The total volume of NMEP significantly dropped by 43.4% between the 4 weeks before and after the starting of the lockdown. The comparison of the percentage of NMEP and NMEnP between UH and CC is significantly different (p < 0.001). The percentage of NMEP during the study was 67.9% in UH vs 84.7% in CC. Percentages of NMEnP in UH and CC were due respectively to cancellation by the patient (14.9 vs 7.4%), cancellation by the NMD (9.5 vs 3.4%), cancellation by the referring physician (5.1 vs 4.4%) and non-attender patients (2.7 vs 0.2%). CONCLUSION: The study underlines the public health issue caused by COVID-19 above the pandemic itself and should be useful in preparing for potential resource utilisation and staffing requirements.

The value of population pharmacokinetics and simulation for postmarketing safety evaluation of dosing guidelines for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index: buflomedil as a case study.

Population pharmacokinetics and simulation techniques currently play an important role in new drug development. This paper illustrates the potential value of those methods in postmarketing safety assessment, using buflomedil in elderly patients as an example. We retrospectively assessed the risk of buflomedil overdosing associated with the latest dosing recommendations of the French Drug Agency (AFSSAPS). First, buflomedil concentrations measured in 24 elderly patients were analysed with a nonparametric population approach. Then, the pharmacokinetic model was used to perform a 1000-patient Monte Carlo simulation for the two recommended buflomedil dosage regimens. The maximum concentrations calculated after 10 days of therapy were compared with levels observed in reported cases of toxicity to assess the probability of overdosing. A three-compartment model best fit concentration data. Population predictions showed little bias (-0.14 mg/L) and good precision (8.73 mg(2) /L(2)). Overall results of the simulation study showed that the application of the two recommended dosage regimens of buflomedil was associated with overdosing (C(max) > 10 mg/L) and potential toxicity in 2.9% of geriatric patients. In patients with mild renal impairment, who may receive the higher-dosage regimen by therapeutic error, the probability of overdosing was 6.2%. Despite specific dosing recommendations in case of renal impairment, this study shows that the use of buflomedil could be associated with significant risk of overdosing in geriatric patients. Such results might have enhanced decision-making when buflomedil safety was reassessed by AFSSAPS in 2006. The retrospective case of buflomedil illustrates how these methods may be valuable in postmarketing safety evaluation of potentially toxic drugs.