RESUMO
Multiple drugs currently used in clinical practice have been approved by regulatory agencies based on studies that utilize composite endpoints. Composite endpoints are appealing because they reduce sample size requirements, follow-up periods, and costs. However, interpreting composite endpoints can be challenging, and their misuse is not uncommon. Incorrect interpretation of composite outcomes can lead to misleading conclusions that impact patient care. To correctly interpret composite outcomes, several important questions should be considered. Are the individual components of the composite outcome equally important to patients? Did the more and less important endpoints occur with similar frequency? Do the component endpoints exhibit similar relative risk reductions? If these questions receive affirmative answers, the use and interpretation of the composite endpoint would be appropriate. However, if any component of the composite endpoint fails to satisfy the aforementioned criteria, interpretation can become difficult, necessitating additional steps. Regulatory agencies acknowledge these challenges and have specific considerations when approving drugs based on studies employing composite endpoints. In conclusion, composite endpoints are valuable tools for evaluating the efficacy and net clinical benefit of interventions; however, cautious interpretation is advised.
RESUMO
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the behavior of self-medication has increased. The dissemination of misleading information regarding the efficacy of certain drugs or substances for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 has been the major contributing factor for this phenomenon. Alongside with the increase in self-medication behavior, the inherent risks to this act such as drug-drug interactions, adverse events, drug toxicity, and masking of symptoms have also increased. Self-medication in the context of COVID-19 has led to drug misuse leading in some cases to the development of fatal adverse drug reactions. It is important that during this ongoing pandemic drugs with potential clinical efficacy against COVID-19 are adequately analyzed regarding their efficacy, safety, and monitoring. The aim of this review is to describe the available evidence regarding the efficacy, safety, and monitoring of the drugs and substances that have been shown to be frequently used for self-medication in patients with COVID-19 (hydroxychloroquine, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ivermectin, azithromycin, vitamins, aspirin, and chlorine dioxide) to adequately characterize their risks, safe use, monitoring strategies, and to reinforce the concept that these substances should not be used for self-medication and require a medical prescription. Plain Language Summary: Drug safety of frequently used drugs and substances for self-medication in COVID-19 Dissemination of information about potential COVID-19 treatments has led individuals to self-medicate and expose themselves to risks such as drug-drug interactions, side effects, antibiotic resistance, and misdiagnosis. There is a need to review the medical literature to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the drugs and substances commonly used by the population for the treatment and prevention of SARS CoV-2 infection. In this review, we included drugs that are frequently used for self-medication and commonly advertised such as ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, chlorine dioxide, azithromycin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, among others. A brief introduction of the drug and its mechanism of action, followed by a summary of the efficacy in COVID-19 and safety, will be described for each drug in order to promote their responsible use.
RESUMO
Invasive fungal infections are an important cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in critically ill patients. Increasing resistance rates and inadequate antifungal exposure have been documented in these patients, due to clinically relevant pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) alterations, leading to treatment failure. Physiological changes such as third spacing (movement of fluid from the intravascular compartment to the interstitial space), hypoalbuminemia, renal failure and hepatic failure, as well as common interventions in the intensive care unit, such as renal replacement therapy and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, can lead to these PK and PD alterations. Consequently, a therapeutic target concentration that may be useful for one patient may not be appropriate for another. Regular doses do not take into account the important PK variations in the critically ill, and the need to select an effective dose while minimising toxicity advocates for the use of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). This review aims to describe the current evidence regarding optimal PK/PD indices associated with the clinical efficacy of the most commonly used antifungal agents in critically ill patients (azoles, echinocandins, lipid complexes of amphotericin B, and flucytosine), provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors affecting the PK of each agent, document the PK parameters of critically ill patients compared to healthy volunteers, and, finally, make recommendations for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of antifungals in critically ill patients.
RESUMO
The pharmacological treatment of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) aims to decrease disease activity, progression, systemic compromise, and mortality. Among the pharmacological alternatives, there are chemically synthesized drugs whose efficacy has been evaluated, but which have the potential to generate adverse events that may compromise adherence and response to treatment. Therapy selection and monitoring will depend on patient characteristics and the safety profile of each drug. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the most important synthetic drugs used in the treatment of SLE, including the current treatment options (mycophenolate mofetil, azathioprine, and cyclophosphamide), review their mechanism of action, efficacy, safety, and, most importantly, provide monitoring parameters that should be considered while the patient is receiving the pharmacotherapy.