Safety and Pharmacokinetics of Lopinavir/Ritonavir Oral Solution in Preterm and Term Infants Starting Before 3 Months of Age.

BACKGROUND: Study of liquid lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in young infants has been limited by concerns for its safety in neonates. METHODS: International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network P1106 was a phase IV, prospective, trial evaluating the safety and pharmacokinetics of antiretroviral medications administered according to local guidelines to South African preterm and term infants <3 months of age. Safety evaluation through 24-week follow-up included clinical, cardiac and laboratory assessments. Pharmacokinetic data from P1106 were combined with data from International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials Network studies P1030 and P1083 in a population pharmacokinetics model used to simulate LPV exposures with a weight-band dosing regimen in infants through age 6 months. RESULTS: Safety and pharmacokinetics results were similar in 13/28 (46%) infants initiating LPV/r <42 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) and in those starting ≥42 weeks PMA. LPV/r was started at a median (range) age of 47 (13-121) days. No grade 3 or higher adverse events were considered treatment related. Modeling and simulation predicted that for infants with gestational age ≥27 weeks who receive the weight-band dosing regimen, 82.6% will achieve LPV trough concentration above the target trough concentration of 1.0 µg/mL and 56.6% would exceed the observed adult lower limit of LPV exposure of 55.9 µg·h/mL through age 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: LPV/r oral solution was safely initiated in a relatively small sample size of infants ≥34 weeks PMA and >2 weeks of life. No serious drug-related safety signal was observed; however, adrenal function assessments were not performed. Weight-band dosing regimen in infants with gestational age ≥27 weeks is predicted to result in LPV exposures equivalent to those observed in other pediatric studies.

Pharmacovigilance follow-up of patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In the context of COVID-19 pandemic, a national pharmacovigilance survey was set up in March 2020. The purpose of this survey was to ensure continuous monitoring of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients with COVID-19, not only related to the drugs used in this indication but also related to all drugs administered to these patients or suspected of having promoted the infection. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This descriptive study was based on data extracted from the French Pharmacovigilance Database from 1 January 2020 to 30 September 2021. Misuse was also analysed through the MESANGE project. The ADRs were classified according to three groups: "drugs used to treat COVID-19", "other drugs administered to COVID-19 positive patients" and "drugs suspected of having promoted COVID-19". The data were also presented according to 2 periods (period one was from January to June 2020 and period two from July 2020 onwards). RESULTS: Among 2189 included cases, 67.1% were serious. Cases were mainly related to "other drugs administrated to COVID-19 positive patients" (58.5%) followed by "drugs used to treat COVID-19" (33.7%) and "drugs suspected of having promoted COVID-19" (7.8%). Drugs used to treat COVID-19 and their main safety profile were different depending on the period: mostly hydroxychloroquine (51%) with heart injury and lopinavir/ritonavir (42%) with liver injury for the first period, and dexamethasone (46%) with hyperglycemia and tocilizumab (28%) with liver injury for the second period. The drugs suspected of worsening COVID-19 differed in both periods especially for non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs mainly reported in period 1 (41.5% versus 8.2% in period 2). Other immunosuppressive drugs were in the majority in the second period (85.7%), with mainly methotrexate (15.3%), anti-CD20 (15.3%) and anti-TNF alpha (10.5%). No confirmed safety signal was identified among other drugs administered to patients with COVID-19. The profile of ADRs and suspected drugs was similar between the 2 periods. The study of misuse in outpatient settings identified in both periods mainly hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, ivermectin and zinc±vitamin C. DISCUSSION: This survey, based on real-time pharmacological and medical assessment of ADRs and weekly meetings in a specific national committee, made it possible to identify relevant safety signals which contribute to patient care with no delay. The main safety signal highlighted was serious cardiac damage under hydroxychloroquine, alone or combined with azithromycin and also with lopinavir/ritonavir. This signal has contributed to the evolution of the recommendations for these 2 drugs. The methodology of this survey has been taken over and is still going on for the pharmacovigilance monitoring of vaccines against COVID-19, for monoclonal antibodies used against COVID-19 and also for Paxlovid® (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir) which benefit from dedicated surveys.

Drug-drug interactions of ritonavir-boosted SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitors in solid organ transplant recipients: experience from the initial use of lopinavir-ritonavir.

OBJECTIVES: To review the drug-drug interactions between tacrolimus and lopinavir/ritonavir in 23 patients who received solid organ transplant during the first wave of COVID-19 and to determine the efficacy as well as safety of prednisone monotherapy. METHODS: Observational study performed between March and June 2020 in solid organ transplant recipients admitted with an established diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received lopinavir/ritonavir (≥2 doses). Once lopinavir/ritonavir therapy was initiated, calcineurin inhibitor treatment was temporarily switched to prednisone monotherapy (15-20 mg/d) to avoid drug-drug interactions and toxicity. After lopinavir/ritonavir treatment completion, immunosuppressive treatment was restarted with reduced doses of prednisone-tacrolimus (target minimum blood concentration -C0- approximately 5 ng/mL). Patients were observed for 3 months to confirm the absence of rejection. RESULTS: The median time from discontinuation of tacrolimus to initiation of lopinavir/ritonavir was 14 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 12-15) and from discontinuation of lopinavir/ritonavir to resumption of tacrolimus 58 hours (IQR, 47-81). The duration of lopinavir/ritonavir treatment was 7 days (IQR, 5-7). Nine of the 21 (42.8%) patients on tacrolimus treatment had C0 above the cutoff point after lopinavir/ritonavir initiation, despite having been substituted with prednisone before lopinavir/ritonavir initiation. Three patients had very high concentrations (>40 ng/mL) and developed toxicity. No episodes of acute rejection were diagnosed. DISCUSSION: We did not observe toxicity in patients for whom tacrolimus was discontinued 24 hours before starting lopinavir/ritonavir and reintroduced at half dose 48 to 72 hours after lopinavir/ritonavir discontinuation. Prednisone monotherapy during lopinavir/ritonavir therapy was safe with no episodes of acute rejection. Experience with lopinavir/ritonavir may be applicable to the use of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, but larger multicentre studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Leveraging physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling to optimize dosing for lopinavir/ritonavir with rifampin in pediatric patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Treatment of HIV and tuberculosis co-infection leads to significant mortality in pediatric patients, and treatment can be challenging due to the clinically significant drug-drug interaction (DDI) between lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/RTV) and rifampin. Doubling LPV/RTV results in insufficient lopinavir trough concentrations in pediatric patients. The objective of this study was to leverage physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to optimize the adjusted doses of LPV/RTV in children receiving the WHO-revised doses of rifampin (15 mg/kg daily). DESIGN: Adult and pediatric PBPK models for LPV/RTV with rifampin were developed, including CYP3A and P-glycoprotein inhibition and induction. SETTING (OR DATA SOURCE): Data for LPV/RTV model development and evaluation were available from the pediatric AIDS Clinical Trials Group. PATIENTS: Dosing simulations were next performed to optimize dosing in children (2 months to 8 years of age). INTERVENTION: Exposure following super-boosted LPV/RTV with 10 and 15 mg/kg PO daily rifampin was simulated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Simulated parameters were within twofold observations for LPV, RTV, and rifampin in adults and children ≥2 weeks old. The model predicted that, in healthy adults receiving 400/100 mg oral LPV/RTV twice daily (BID), co-treatment with 600 mg oral rifampin daily decreased the steady-state area under the concentration vs. time curve of LPV by 79%, in line with the observed change of 75%. Simulated and observed concentration profiles were comparable for LPV/RTV (230/57.5 mg/m2 ) PO BID without rifampin and 230/230 mg/m2 LPV/RTV PO BID with 10 mg/kg PO daily rifampin in pediatric patients. Sixteen mg/kg of super-boosted LPV (LPV/RTV 1:1) PO BID with 15 mg/kg PO daily rifampin achieved simulated LPV troughs >1 mg/L in ≥93% of virtual children weighing 3.0-24.9 kg, which was comparable with 10 mg/kg PO daily rifampin. CONCLUSIONS: Super-boosted LPV/RTV with 15 mg/kg rifampin achieves therapeutic LPV troughs in HIV/TB-infected simulated children.

Electronic monitoring of potential adverse drug events related to lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine during the first wave of COVID-19.

During Switzerland's first wave of COVID-19, clinical pharmacy activities during medical rounds in Geneva University Hospitals were replaced by targeted remote interventions. We describe using the electronic PharmaCheck system to screen high-risk situations of adverse drug events (ADEs), particularly targeting prescriptions of lopinavir/ritonavir (LPVr) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the presence of contraindications or prescriptions outside institutional guidelines. Of 416 patients receiving LPVr and/or HCQ, 182 alerts were triggered for 164 (39.4%) patients. The main associated risk factors of ADEs were drug-drug interactions, QTc interval prolongation, electrolyte disorder and inadequate LPVr dosage. Therapeutic optimisation recommended by a pharmacist or proposals for additional monitoring were accepted in 80% (n=36) of cases. Combined with pharmacist contextualisation to the clinical context, PharmaCheck made it possible to successfully adapt clinical pharmacist activities by switching from a global to a targeted analysis mode in an emergency context.

The investigation of the complex population-drug-drug interaction between ritonavir-boosted lopinavir and chloroquine or ivermectin using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling.

OBJECTIVES: Therapy failure caused by complex population-drug-drug (PDDI) interactions including CYP3A4 can be predicted using mechanistic physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. A synergy between ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPVr), ivermectin, and chloroquine was suggested to improve COVID-19 treatment. This work aimed to study the PDDI of the two CYP3A4 substrates (ivermectin and chloroquine) with LPVr in mild-to-moderate COVID-19 adults, geriatrics, and pregnancy populations. METHODS: The PDDI of LPVr with ivermectin or chloroquine was investigated. Pearson's correlations between plasma, saliva, and lung interstitial fluid (ISF) levels were evaluated. Target site (lung epithelial lining fluid [ELF]) levels of ivermectin and chloroquine were estimated. RESULTS: Upon LPVr coadministration, while the chloroquine plasma levels were reduced by 30, 40, and 20%, the ivermectin plasma levels were increased by a minimum of 425, 234, and 453% in adults, geriatrics, and pregnancy populations, respectively. The established correlation equations can be useful in therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) and dosing regimen optimization. CONCLUSIONS: Neither chloroquine nor ivermectin reached therapeutic ELF levels in the presence of LPVr despite reaching toxic ivermectin plasma levels. PBPK modeling, guided with TDM in saliva, can be advantageous to evaluate the probability of reaching therapeutic ELF levels in the presence of PDDI, especially in home-treated patients.

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis for comparative safety assessment of favipiravir interventions in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 is a coronavirus-based infectious illness that was first detected at the end of 2019 in Wuhan, China. The novel virus induces severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) and has spread globally, resulting in an ongoing pandemic. There is still a lack of evidence for direct comparison of favipiravir therapy. Network meta-analysis (NMA), may incorporate direct and indirect comparisons in a pooled computation while depending on strong assumptions and premises. This study provides evidence-based recommendations on the safety of currently used clinical pharmacological treatments compared to favipiravir for COVID-19 patients. METHODOLOGY: We conducted a systematic review and Bayesian NMA. We searched the primary databases and clinical trials center for reports of short-term, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of favipiravir for COVID-19 treatment. The primary endpoints here considered were any adverse events observed or reported during the treatment cycle with estimates of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI), until November 6, 2021. RESULTS: Between January 2020 and July 2021, 908 individuals were randomly assigned to one of the seven active prescription medication regimens or placebo in this study, generating seven direct comparisons on 12 data points. The safety of favipiravir over the four clinically efficacious monotherapies or combinations including tocilizumab, arbidol, lopinavir + ritonavir, and chloroquine remained unknown due to the lack of a significant difference and the limited sample size. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, comparative rankings could assist doctors and guideline developers in decision-making. We have also concluded that the safety of favipiravir requires further attention.

Comparison of the Ivermectin and Lopinavir/Ritonavir Treatment Outcomes among COVID-19 Mild to Moderate Cases in Kaduna State.

BACKGROUND: Ivermectin has been a popular anti-parasitic drug since the late 1970s. The promising result of in-vitro studies on the antiviral activity of the drug has led clinicians in many countries to use this drug to treat COVID-19 patients. This study determined and compared the mean number of days at clinical recovery for mild to moderate cases of COVID -19 treated with Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Alluvia) and Ivermectin at the Kaduna State Infectious Disease Control Centres. METHODS: This was a comparative cross-sectional study conducted among 300 mild to moderate COVID- 19 cases enrolled for the study. The outcome variables were the time required for the resolution of symptoms from the onset and at commencement of the treatment regimens. Data were collected from patient folders using a questionnaire. Data were analysed with the IBM SPSS Version 25.0 and STATA/SE 13. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: The mean recovery time (MRT) from symptom onset was significantly lower for Covid-19 patients treated with ivermectin (7.15±4.18 days) compared to lopinavir/ritonavir (9.7±5.3 days), 95%CI=7.37-9.62. Multivariate logistic regression showed that there was no significant relationship between the patients age (AOR=0.36, 95%CI=0.09-1.49), sex (AOR=0.34,95%CI=0.54-5.93), educational status (AOR=1.04, 95%CI=0.3-3.57), marital status (AOR=0.55,95%CI=0.14-2.11) place of treatment (AOR=1.66, 95%CI=0.54-5.11) and MRT. There was also no significant relationship between patients' comorbid chronic illness (AOR=0.83, 95%CI=0.27-2.61) and MRT. CONCLUSION: The mean recovery time for COVID-19 patients managed with ivermectin was slightly lower than for the lopinavir/ ritonavir regimen. RECOMMENDATION: Clinical trials to further prove the efficacy of Ivermectin as a supportive therapy in clinical management of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19 in this setting should be carried out.

CONTEXTE: L'ivermectine a été un médicament antiparasitaire populaire depuis la fin des années 1970. Le résultat prometteur d'études in vitro sur l'activité antivirale du médicament a conduit les cliniciens de nombreux pays à utiliser ce médicament pour traiter les patients atteints de COVID-19. Cette étude a déterminé et comparé le nombre moyen de jours de récupération clinique pour les jours légers à cas modérés de COVID-19 traités par Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Alluvions) et ivermectine à la maladie infectieuse de l'État de Kaduna Centres de contrôle. MÉTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude comparative transversale menée auprès de 300 cas légers à modérés de COVID-19 inscrits pour l'étude. Les variables de résultat étaient le temps requis pour la résolution des symptômes dès le début et au début de la schémas thérapeutiques. Les données ont été recueillies à partir des dossiers des patients à l'aide d'un questionnaire. Les données ont été analysées avec version 25.0 du IBM SPSS et STATA/SE 13. La signification statistique a été fixée à p<0.05. RÉSULTATS: Le temps moyen de récupération (TRM) à partir de l'apparition des symptômes était significativement plus faible chez les patients Covid-19 traités par l'ivermectine(7.15±4.18 jours) par rapport au lopinavir/ritonavir (9.7±5.3 jours), IC à 95 % = 7.37 à 9.62. La régression logistique multivariée a montré qu'iln'avait pas de relation significative entre l'âge des patients (AOR = 0.36, IC à 95 % = 0.09 à 1.49), sexe (AOR = 0.34, 95 % IC = 0.54 à 5.93), education statut (AOR =1.04, IC à 95 % = 0.3­3.57), état matrimonial(AOR = 0.55, 95% IC = 0.14­2.11) lieu de traitement (AOR = 1.66, IC à 95 % = 0.54 à 5.11) et TRM. Il n'y avait pas non plus de relation entre la maladie chronique comorbide des patients (AOR = 0.83, IC à 95 % = 0.27 à 2.61) et TRM. CONCLUSION: Le temps de récupération moyen pour les patients atteints de COVID-19 gérés avec de l'ivermectine était légèrement inférieur à celui du lopinavir/régime de ritonavir. RECOMMANDATION: Essais cliniques pour prouver l'efficacité de l'ivermectine comme traitement de soutien dans la prise en charge clinique des cas lègers à modérés de COVID-19 dans ce contexte devraient être effectués. Mot-clés: Ivermectine, Alluvie, Traitement, MRT, Essai clinique, COVID-19.

Adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir when used for COVID-19: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: To summarise specific adverse effects of remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched 32 databases through 27 October 2020. We included randomised trials comparing any of the drugs of interest to placebo or standard care, or against each other. We conducted fixed-effects pairwise meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of evidence using the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation approach. RESULTS: We included 16 randomised trials which enrolled 8152 patients. For most interventions and outcomes the certainty of the evidence was very low to low except for gastrointestinal adverse effects from hydroxychloroquine, which was moderate certainty. Compared with standard care or placebo, low certainty evidence suggests that remdesivir may not have an important effect on acute kidney injury (risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 27 fewer to 21 more) or cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 12 fewer to 19 more). Low certainty evidence suggests that hydroxychloroquine may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity (RD 10 more per 1000, 95% CI 0 more to 30 more) and cognitive dysfunction/delirium (RD 33 more per 1000, 95% CI 18 fewer to 84 more), whereas moderate certainty evidence suggests hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea (RD 106 more per 1000, 95% CI 48 more to 175 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 62 more per 1000, 95% CI 23 more to 110 more) compared with standard care or placebo. Low certainty evidence suggests lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea (RD 168 more per 1000, 95% CI 58 more to 330 more) and nausea and/or vomiting (RD 160 more per 1000, 95% CI 100 more to 210 more) compared with standard care or placebo. DISCUSSION: Hydroxychloroquine probably increases the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting and may increase the risk of cardiac toxicity and cognitive dysfunction/delirium. Lopinavir/ritonavir may increase the risk of diarrhoea and nausea and/or vomiting. Remdesivir may have no important effect on risk of acute kidney injury or cognitive dysfunction/delirium. These findings provide important information to support the development of evidence-based management strategies for patients with COVID-19.

Safety profile of COVID-19 drugs in a real clinical setting.

PURPOSE: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has affected millions all over the world and has been declared pandemic, as of 11 March 2020. In addition to the ongoing research and development of vaccines, there is still a dire need for safe and effective drugs for the control and treatment against the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection. Numerous repurposed drugs are under clinical investigations whose reported adverse events can raise worries about their safety. The aim of this review is to illuminate the associated adverse events related to the drugs used in a real COVID-19 setting along with their relevant mechanism(s). METHOD: Through a literature search conducted on PubMed and Google Scholar database, various adverse events suspected to be induced by eight drugs, including dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, remdesivir, favipiravir, lopinavir/ritonavir, ivermectin, and tocilizumab, administered in COVID-19 patients in clinical practice and studies were identified in 30 case reports, 3 case series, and 10 randomized clinical trials. RESULTS: Mild, moderate, or severe adverse events of numerous repurposed and investigational drugs caused by various factors and mechanisms were observed. Gastrointestinal side effects such as nausea, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting were the most frequently followed by cardiovascular, cutaneous, and hepatic adverse events. Few other rare adverse drug reactions were also observed. CONCLUSION: In light of their ineffectiveness against COVID-19 as evident in large clinical studies, drugs including hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, and ivermectin should neither be used routinely nor in clinical studies. While lack of sufficient data, it creates doubt regarding the reliability of chloroquine and favipiravir use in COVID-19 patients. Hence, these two drugs can only be used in clinical studies. In contrast, ample well-conducted studies have approved the use of remdesivir, tocilizumab, and dexamethasone under certain conditions in COVID-19 patients. Consequently, it is significant to establish a strong surveillance system in order to monitor the proper safety and toxicity profile of the potential anti-COVID-19 drugs with good clinical outcomes.

Repurposing of drugs for COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the data currently available regarding the repurposing of different drugs for COVID-19 treatment. Participants with suspected or diagnosed COVID-19 were included in this study. The interventions that have been considered were repurposed drugs and comparators that included standard of care treatment or placebo. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched Ovid-MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, clinical trial registration site in the UK(NIHR), Europe (clinicaltrialsregister.eu), US (ClinicalTrials.gov) and internationally (isrctn.com), and reviewed the reference lists of articles for eligible articles published up to April 22, 2020. All studies in English that evaluated the efficacy of the listed drugs were included. Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tool were used to assess study quality. This systematic review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines. The protocol is available at PROSPERO (CRD42020180915). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: From 708 identified studies or clinical trials, 16 studies and 16 case reports met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 6 were randomized controlled trials (763 patients), 7 cohort studies (321 patients) and 3 case series (191 patients). Chloroquine (CQ) had a 100% discharge rate compared to 50% with lopinavir-ritonavir at day 14, however a trial has recommended against a high dosage due to cardiotoxic events. Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown no significant improvement in negative seroconversion rate which is also seen in our meta-analysis (P=0.68). Adverse events with HCQ have a significant difference compared to the control group (P=0.001). Lopinavir-ritonavir has shown no improvement in time to clinical improvement which is seen in our meta-analyses (P=0.1). Remdesivir has shown no significant improvement in time to clinical improvement but this trial had insufficient power. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the paucity in evidence, it is difficult to establish the efficacy of these drugs in the treatment of COVID-19 as currently there is no significant clinical effectiveness of the repurposed drugs. Further large clinical trials are required to achieve more reliable findings. A risk-benefit analysis is required on an individual basis to weigh out the potential improvement in clinical outcome and viral load reduction compared to the risks of the adverse events.

Potential interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients with Covid-19 are exposed to treatment combinations that can potentially result in interactions that adversely affect patient outcomes. This study aimed to identify potential drug-drug interactions between antineoplastic agents and medicines used to treat Covid-19. METHODS: We conducted a search for potential interactions between 201 antineoplastic agents and 26 medicines used to treat Covid-19 on the Lexicomp® and Micromedex® databases. The following data were extracted: interaction severity ("major" and "contraindicated") and interaction effects (pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic). We also sought to identify the therapeutic indication of the antineoplastic drugs involved in the potential drug-drug interactions. RESULTS: A total of 388 "major" or "contraindicated" drug-drug interactions were detected. Eight drugs or combinations (baricitinib, lopinavir/ritonavir, atazanavir, darunavir, azithromycin, chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and sirolimus) accounted for 91.5% of these interactions. The class of antineoplastic agents with the greatest potential for interaction was tyrosine kinase inhibitors (accounting for 46.4% of all interactions). The findings show that atazanavir, baricitinib, and lopinavir/ritonavir can affect the treatment of all common types of cancer. The most common pharmacokinetic effect of the potential drug-drug interactions was increased plasma concentration of the antineoplastic medicine (39.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Covid-19 is a recent disease and pharmacological interventions are undergoing constant modification. This study identified a considerable number of potential drug-drug interactions. In view of the vulnerability of patients with cancer, it is vital that health professionals carefully assess the risks and benefits of drug combinations.

Protease inhibitor-based antiretroviral therapy in pregnancy: effects on hormones, placenta, and decidua.

The use of antiretroviral therapy (ART) in pregnancy is important for maternal health, and has been successful in reducing vertical transmission rates to almost zero in those taking effective ART regimens with good adherence. However, there are reports of higher rates of low birthweight and preterm births in women with HIV, which can be further exacerbated by ART usage in pregnancy. Protease inhibitors, and ritonavir-boosted lopinavir in particular, might directly contribute to placental and uteroplacental pathology in part by altering plasma concentrations of the essential steroid hormones of pregnancy, progesterone and oestradiol. In this Review, we collate the increasing evidence of dysregulated maternal endocrinology, reproductive physiology, and placental compromise associated with protease inhibitors. Based on findings of placental and decidual effects, we recommend that ritonavir-boosted lopinavir should be avoided in pregnancy, in line with US and European guidelines. Long-term follow-up of children exposed to protease inhibitors in utero is also recommended.

Meta-analysis of arbidol versus lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir (LPV/r) in the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using a meta-analysis method. METHODS: The China Knowledge Network, VIP database, WanFang database PubMed database, Embase database, and Cochrane Library were searched for a collection of comparative studies on arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Arbidol and lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review indicated that Arbidol had a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) nucleic acid on Day 7 (p = 0.03), a higher positive-to-negative conversion rate of SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid on Day 14 (p = 0.006), a higher improvement rate of chest computed tomography on Day 14 (p = 0.02), a lower incidence of adverse reactions (p = 0.002) and lower rate of mortality (p = 0.007). There was no difference in the rate of cough disappearance on Day 14 (p = 0.24) or the rate of severe/critical illness (p = 0.07) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Arbidol may be superior to lopinavir/ritonavir in the treatment of COVID-19. However, due to the small number of included studies and the number of patients, high-quality multicenter large-sample randomized double-blind controlled trials are still needed for verification.

Off-Label Use of Hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19: Analysis of Reports of Suspected Adverse Reactions From the Italian National Network of Pharmacovigilance.

This study aimed to characterize adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to hydroxychloroquine in the setting of COVID-19, occurring in Italy in the period March to May 2020. The analysis of the combination therapy with azithromycin or/and lopinavir/ritonavir as well as a comparison with ADRs reported throughout 2019 was performed. ADRs collected by the Italian National Network of Pharmacovigilance were analyzed for their incidence, seriousness, outcome, coadministered drugs, and Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities classification. A total of 306 reports were gathered for the quarter of 2020: 54% nonserious and 46% serious, and half of the latter required either the hospitalization or its prolongation. However, most of them were either completely recovered (26%) or in the process of recovery (45%), except for 9 fatal cases. Throughout 2019, 38 reports were collected, 53% nonserious and 47% serious, but no deaths had been reported. Diarrhea, prolonged QT interval, and hypertransaminasemia were the most frequently ADRs reported in 2020, significantly higher than 2019 and specific for COVID-19 subjects treated with hydroxychloroquine. The logistic regression analyses demonstrated that the likelihood of serious ADRs, QT prolongation, and diarrhea significantly increased with hydroxychloroquine dosage. Coadministration of lopinavir/ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine showed a positive correlation with diarrhea and hypertransaminasemia and a negative relationship with the ADR seriousness. The combination therapy with azithromycin was another independent predictor of a serious ADR. Off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, alone or in combination regimens, was associated with increased incidence and/or seriousness of specific ADRs in patients with additional risk factors caused by the infection.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of the Abacavir/Lamivudine/Lopinavir/Ritonavir Fixed-Dose Granule Formulation (4-in-1) in Neonates: PETITE Study.

BACKGROUND: Antiretroviral options for neonates (younger than 28 days) should be expanded. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and acceptability of the "4-in-1" fixed-dose pediatric granule formulation of abacavir/lamivudine/lopinavir/ritonavir (30/15/40/10 mg) in neonates. METHODS: The PETITE study is an ongoing phase I/II, open-label, single-arm, 2-stage trial conducted in South Africa. In stage 1, term neonates exposed to HIV on standard antiretroviral prophylaxis (nevirapine ± zidovudine) received single dose(s) of the 4-in-1 formulation, followed by intensive pharmacokinetic sampling and safety assessments. At each PK visit, blood was drawn after an observed dose at 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours postdose. In this study, we have reported the planned interim pharmacokinetic and safety analysis after completion of the single-dose administration. RESULTS: Sixteen neonates, with a median (range) birth weight of 3130 g (2790-3590 g), completed 24 pharmacokinetic visits. The 4-in-1 formulation imposed relatively high doses of abacavir [8.6 mg/kg (6.6-11.4)] and lamivudine [4.3 mg/kg (3.3-5.7)] but lower doses of lopinavir [11.5 mg/kg (8.8-15.2)]. The geometric means (GM, 90% CI) AUC0-12 of abacavir, lamivudine, and lopinavir were 29.87 (26.29-33.93), 12.61 (10.72-14.83), and 3.49 (2.13-5.72) µg.h/mL, respectively. Lopinavir GM AUC0-12 was below the predefined target (20-100 µg.h/mL), and ritonavir concentrations were only detectable in 4 of the 120 (3%) samples. No adverse events were related to study drugs. No neonate had difficulty swallowing the 4-in-1 formulation. CONCLUSIONS: The high doses of abacavir and lamivudine (in mg/kg) and AUCs were safe, and the formulation was well tolerated; however, lopinavir/ritonavir exposures were extremely low, preventing its use in neonates use in neonates. Alternative pediatric solid antiretroviral formulations must be studied in neonates.

A multi-centre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of chloroquine phosphate, hydroxychloroquine sulphate and lopinavir/ritonavir for the treatment of COVID-19 in Lagos State: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that was first identified in Wuhan, Hubei, China, in December 2019. It was recognized as a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020. Outbreak forecasting and mathematical modelling suggest that these numbers will continue to rise. Early identification of effective remedies that can shorten the duration and severity of illness is critical for Lagos State, which is the epi-centre of the disease in Nigeria. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled superiority trial. The study investigates the efficacy of chloroquine phosphate, hydroxychloroquine sulphate and lopinavir/ritonavir added on to standard of care compared to standard of care only in patients with COVID-19 disease. The primary outcome is the clinical status of patients measured using a 7-point ordinal scale at day 15. Research participants and clinicians will be blinded to the allocated intervention. Outcome measures will be directly assessed by clinicians. Statistical analysis will be done by a team blinded to the identity and allocation of research participants. Data analysis will follow intention-to-treat methods, using R software. DISCUSSION: The current study is of strategic importance for Lagos State in potentially curbing the health, social and economic burden of COVID-19 disease. Should the current study demonstrate that either of the three intervention drugs is more efficacious than standard therapy alone, the State Ministry of Health will develop an evidence-based guideline for the management of COVID-19 in Lagos State. The findings will also be shared nationally and with other states which may lead to a standardized national guideline for the treatment of COVID-19 in Nigeria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Register PACTR202004801273802 . Registered prospectively on April 2, 2020.

Drug interactions in HIV-infected children undergoing treatment with antiretrovirals. / Interacciones farmacológicas en niños con infección por VIH en tratamiento con antirretrovirales.

INTRODUCTION: Drug interactions are undesirable events observed in clinical practice. In patients with HIV infection on antiretroviral therapy (ART), it is particularly important to bear in mind that many drugs com monly used in pediatrics can cause such interactions. OBJECTIVE: to report a case of drug interaction between an antiretroviral drug (lopinavir/ritonavir) and inhaled corticosteroid in a child with HIV infection, and to review more frequent drug interactions in children on ART. CLINICAL CASE: 5-year- old male with history of stage N1 vertical transmitted HIV infection (1994 CDC classification), on ART from 8 months of age with zidovudine, lamivudine, and lopinavir/ritonavir, with successful virological and immunological outcome. Due to symptoms of allergic rhinitis (congestion, itchy nose, and nocturnal snoring) treatment with intranasal fluticasone was started. After 1 month of treatment, he developed cushingoid facies, weight gain, mixed dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, morning basal cortisol levels < 1 µg/dL, and Adrenocorticotropic hormone (ACTH) < 2 pg/ml, presenting ACTH stimulation test compatible with central adrenal insufficiency, attributed to a drug interaction with lopinavir/ritonavir due to known interaction. He started hydrocortisone replacement treatment, recovering hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis function after 18 months. CONCLUSION: Knowledge of this and other drug interactions between ART and drugs commonly used in pediatrics is essential for the comprehensive management of patients with HIV infection, especially in the prevention of unwanted adverse effects.

Current evidence for the risk of PR prolongation, QRS widening, QT prolongation, from lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir had been reportedly used or suggested for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatment. They may cause electrocardiography changes. We aim to evaluate risk of PR prolongation, QRS widening, and QT prolongation from lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir. METHODS: In accordance with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines, our search was conducted in PubMed Central, PubMed, EBSCOhost, and ProQuest from inception to June 25, 2020. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0 and Downs and Black criteria was used to evaluate quality of studies. RESULTS: We retrieved 9 articles. Most randomized controlled trials have low risk of biases while all quasi-experimental studies have a positive rating. Four studies reporting PR prolongation however only 2 studies with PR interval >200 ms. One of which, reported its association after treatment with ritonavir-boosted saquinavir treatment while another, during treatment with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir. No study reported QRS widening >120 ms with treatment. Four studies reporting QT prolongation, with only one study reaching QT interval >450 ms after ritonavir-boosted saquinavir treatment on healthy patients. There is only one study on COVID-19 patients reporting QT prolongation in 1 out of 95 patients after ritonavir-boosted lopinavir treatment. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that lopinavir, ritonavir, atazanavir, and saquinavir could cause PR prolongation, QRS widening, and QT prolongation. Further trials with closer monitoring and assessment of electrocardiography are needed to ascertain usage safety of antivirals in COVID-19 era.

QT Interval Monitoring with Handheld Heart Rhythm ECG Device in COVID-19 Patients.

Background: QTc prolongation is an adverse effect of COVID-19 therapies. The use of a handheld device in this scenario has not been addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of QTc monitoring with a smart device in COVID-19 patients receiving QTc-interfering therapies. Methods: Prospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin ± lopinavir-ritonavir. ECG monitoring was performed with 12-lead ECG or with KardiaMobile-6L. Both registries were also sequentially obtained in a cohort of healthy patients. We evaluated differences in QTc in COVID-19 patients between three different monitoring strategies: 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up (A), 12-lead ECG at baseline and follow-up with the smart device (B), and fully monitored with handheld 6-lead ECG (group C). Time needed to obtain an ECG registry was also documented. Results: One hundred and eighty-two COVID-19 patients were included (A: 119(65.4%); B: 50(27.5%); C: 13(7.1%). QTc peak during hospitalization did significantly increase in all groups. No differences were observed between the three monitoring strategies in QTc prolongation (p = 0.864). In the control group, all but one ECG registry with the smart device allowed QTc measurement and mean QTc did not differ between both techniques (p = 0.612), displaying a moderate reliability (ICC 0.56 [0.19-0.76]). Time of ECG registry was significantly longer for the 12-lead ECG than for handheld device in both cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusion: QTc monitoring with KardiaMobile-6L in COVID-19 patients was feasible. Time of ECG registration was significantly lower with the smart device, which may offer an important advantage for prevention of virus dissemination among healthcare providers.