Chiral bioanalytical methods in bioequivalence studies of intravenous vs. oral formulations of ibuprofen.

According to the Ibuprofen Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidance of the European Medicines Agency, achiral bioanalytical methods are considered acceptable for demonstration of bioequivalence of ibuprofen-containing products. The aim of this investigation is to compare the bioequivalence outcomes obtained with individual R and S ibuprofen enantiomers and the sum of both enantiomers from bioequivalence studies in which new intravenous ibuprofen products were compared with oral ibuprofen products. Bioequivalence was assessed for S and R enantiomers of ibuprofen and the sum of both enantiomers, which was calculated to represent the results that would have been obtained with an achiral assay. The infusion rates of 15, 20, and 30 minutes modify the maximum concentration (Cmax ) of the intravenous administrations. In contrast, the time when the maximum concentration is observed (Tmax ) was insensitive to detect differences in input rate within this range of infusion times. The eutomer S-ibuprofen is the least sensitive analyte to detect differences in input rate; therefore, the regulatory acceptance of achiral bioanalytical methods for ibuprofen bioequivalence studies is justified because the sum of both enantiomers is more discriminative than the chiral methods where only the eutomer is used for regulatory decisions.

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.

Risk of cerebrovascular accident associated with use of antipsychotics: population-based case-control study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the association between use of antipsychotics and risk of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) in individuals with dementia aged 65 and older. DESIGN: Population-based case-control study. SETTING: UK-based electronic primary care records in the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). PARTICIPANTS: Individuals with dementia aged 65 and older registered in the database between January 1, 1995, and June 22, 2007. MEASUREMENTS: Odds ratio (OR) of CVA in users versus nonusers of antipsychotics (typical or atypical) and in users of typical versus atypical antipsychotics. Multivariate analyses were performed using logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounders: demographic variables, comorbidity, and concomitant treatments. RESULTS: After adjusting for confounding variables, the OR of CVA associated with use of only typical antipsychotics versus no antipsychotics in individuals with dementia aged 65 and older was 1.16 (95% confidence interval (CI)=1.07-1.27) and for use of only atypical antipsychotics versus no antipsychotics was 0.62 (95% CI=0.53-0.72). In the comparison of typical versus atypical antipsychotics, the OR was 1.83 (95% CI=1.57-2.14). CONCLUSION: No reasons were found to question the cerebrovascular safety of atypical antipsychotics in older adults with dementia. The typical antipsychotics appear to be associated with a higher risk of CVA, although the risk disappears after use is discontinued.

Use of non-specific intravenous human immunoglobulins in Spanish hospitals; need for a hospital protocol.

UNLABELLED: Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) use in non-approved indications, the increase in consumption and its high cost recommend rationalisation in its utilisation. AIMS: To assess the use of IVIG in Spanish hospitals. METHODS: An observational, prospective and multicentre drug utilisation study was conducted in 13 tertiary Spanish hospitals. Data were collected for 3 months in patients receiving any IVIG. Patient demographics, indication for IVIG use, dosage regimen and cost of treatment were collected. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifty-four patients (mean age of 52 years) were included in the study. A total of 1,287 prescriptions were administered, and the average number of prescriptions per patient was 2.3. The mean daily dose was 24 g (range 0.6-90 g). Overall, IVIG was prescribed for authorised indications in 335 patients (60%) with 953 prescriptions (74%), for non-authorised indications with scientific evidentiary support in 86 patients (16%) with 137 prescriptions (11%), and non-authorised and non-accepted indications in 133 patients (24%) with 197 prescriptions (15%). The most frequent authorised indications were primary and secondary immunodeficiencies, and the most frequent non-authorised and non-accepted indications were multiple sclerosis and bullous dermatosis. The mean cost of IVIG per patient for authorised indications was 2,636.2 , non-authorised indications with scientific support 5,262.1 and non-accepted indications 3,555.8 . CONCLUSIONS: IVIG is prescribed for a significant number of non-authorised and non-accepted indications with a notable cost. There is an important variability in IVIG prescriptions between hospitals, indicating room for improvement in IVIG use and the need for a consensus of protocol use.

Truncated area under the urinary excretion rate curve in the evaluation of alendronate bioequivalence after a single dose in healthy volunteers.

This study was designed to evaluate the bioequivalence of two formulations of alendronate (CAS 121268-17-5) 70 mg (test formulation, alendronate 70 mg tablets, vs. the reference formulation) in 80 healthy volunteers under fasting conditions. The trial followed an open, randomized, crossover design with a washout period of 28 days. Urine samples were collected up to 48 h post-dose, and the concentrations of alendronate were determined by HPLC. The mean Ae(0-48) was (mean +/- SD) 152.15 +/- 136.09 microg for the reference formulation and 150.37 +/- 126.20 microg for the test formulation, while the mean Rmax was 53.33 +/- 41.53 microg/h and 55.85 +/- 49.57 microg/h, respectively. No significant differences in pharmacokinetic parameters between the two formulations were found. The 90% confidence interval for the ratios of Ae(0-48) and Rmax of alendronate were within the acceptance range for bioequivalence trials. The results of the present study suggest that the test formulation is bioequivalent to the reference formulation. The analyses of truncated AURC to shorter times showed similar values, which were within the range of bioequivalence.

[Association between non-steroid antiinflammatory drugs intake and decompensation of heart failure]. / Asociación entre consumo de antiinflamatorios no esteroideos e insuficiencia cardíaca congestiva.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to estimate the association between the intake of non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and hospitalization due to heart failure (HF) and to assess the effect of selective COX-2 inhibitors. PATIENTS AND METHOD: This was a case-control study, including 982 patients with HF, and 788 controls, with a history of HF who were hospitalized in 10 hospitals of the community of Madrid. RESULTS: The use of NSAIDs (other than aspirine at low doses) was associated with an increase in the risk of hospitalization due to HF (OR crude = 1.59; 95% interval confidence, 1.20-2.09; OR adjusted, 1.40; 95% interval confidence, 1.03-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: Intake of NSAIDs is associated with an increased risk of hospitalization due to HF, in susceptible patients.

Asociación entre consumo de antiinflamatorios noesteroideos e insuficiencia cardíaca congestiva / Association between non-steroid antiinflammatory drugs intake and decompensation of heart failure

FUNDAMENTO Y OBJETIVO: Estimar la asociación entre el consumo previo de antiinflamatorios no esteroideos (AINE) y el ingreso hospitalario debido a insuficiencia cardíaca congestiva (ICC), y evaluar el efecto de los inhibidores selectivos de la ciclooxigenasa 2 (COX-2) en esta descompensación. PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Estudio de casos y controles: 982 casos de ICC y 788 controles con antecedentes de ICC, que ingresaron en 10 hospitales de Madrid. RESULTADOS: El uso de AINE (distintos de aspirina a dosis bajas) se asoció con un aumento del riesgo de ingreso hospitalario por ICC (odds ratio [OR] bruta = 1,59; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95 por ciento, 1,20-2,09; OR ajustada = 1,40; IC del 95 por ciento, 1,03-1,90). CONCLUSIONES: En individuos susceptibles, el consumo de AINE supone un aumento del riesgo de ingreso por ICC (AU)