Adverse events related to drug-drug interactions in COVID-19 patients. A persistent concern in the post-pandemic era: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Since COVID-19 patients are often polytreated, monitoring drug-drug interaction (DDIs) is necessary. We evaluated whether drugs used after the second COVID-19 pandemic wave were associated with DDI-related adverse events and the role of drug interaction checkers in identifying them. METHODS: The study (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42024507634) included: 1) consulting the drug interaction checkers Drugs.com, Liverpool COVID-19 Interactions, LexiComp, Medscape, and Micromedex; 2) systematic review; 3) reviewed studies analysis; 4) evaluating drug interaction checkers potential to anticipate DDI-related adverse events.The systematic review was performed searching PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane databases from 1 March 2022 to 11 November 2023. Observational studies, and clinical trials were included. Article without reporting direct association between DDIs and adverse events were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: The most frequent DDIs involved nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (N/R) and fluvoxamine. Fifteen studies, including 150 patients and 35 DDI-related outcomes, were analyzed. The most frequent DDIs involved tacrolimus with N/R, resulting in creatinine increase.Eighty percent of reported DDI-related adverse events would have been identified by all drug-interaction checkers, while the remaining 20% by at least 2 of them. CONCLUSIONS: Drug interaction checkers are useful but show inconsistencies. Multiple sources are needed to tailor treatment in the context of COVID-19.

Gender Differences Associated with the Prognostic Value of BPIFB4 in COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Preliminary Study.

In the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, male sex is a risk factor for severe disease and death, and the reasons for these clinical discrepancies are largely unknown. The aim of this work is to study the influence of sex on the course of infection and the differences in prognostic markers between genders in COVID-19 patients. Our cohort consisted of 64 adult patients (n = 34 men and n = 30 women) with PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further, a group of patients was characterized by a different severity degree (n = 8 high- and n = 8 low-grade individuals for both male and female patients). As expected, the serum concentrations of LDH, fibrinogen, CRP, and leucocyte count in men were significantly higher than in females. When serum concentrations of the inflammatory cytokines, including IL-6, IL-2, IP-10 and IL-4 and chemokines like MCP-1, were measured with multiplex ELISA, no significant differences between male and female patients were found. In COVID-19 patients, we recently attributed a new prognostic value to BPIFB4, a natural defensin against dysregulation of the immune responses. Here, we clarify that BPIFB4 is inversely related to the disease degree in men but not in women. Indeed, higher levels of BPIFB4 characterized low-grade male patients compared to high-grade ones. On the contrary, no significant difference was reported between low-grade female patients and high-grade ones. In conclusion, the identification of BPIFB4 as a biomarker of mild/moderate disease and its sex-specific activity would open an interesting field for research to underpin gender-related susceptibility to the disease.