ABSTRACT
The growing threat of antibiotic-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which causes gonorrhea, presents a current public health challenge. Over the years, the pathogen has developed resistance to different antibiotics, leaving few effective treatment options. High-level resistance to key drugs, including ceftriaxone, has become a concerning reality. This article primarily focuses on the treatment of gonorrhea and the current clinical trials aimed at providing new antibiotic treatment options. We explore ongoing efforts to assess new antibiotics, including zoliflodacin, and gepotidacin. These drugs offer new effective treatment options, but their rapid availability remains uncertain. We delve into two ongoing clinical trials: one evaluating the efficacy and safety of gepotidacin compared to the standard ceftriaxone-azithromycin combination and the other assessing the non-inferiority of zoliflodacin versus the combination therapy of ceftriaxone-azithromycin. These trials represent crucial steps in the search for alternative treatments for uncomplicated gonorrhea. Notably, gonorrhea has been included in the "WHO Priority Pathogens List for Research and Development of New Antibiotics". In conclusion, the urgent need for innovative treatment strategies is underscored by the rising threat of antibiotic resistance in N. gonorrhoeae; collaboration among researchers, industries, and healthcare authorities is therefore essential.
ABSTRACT
Importance: During the COVID-19 pandemic, urgent clinical management of patients has mainly included drugs currently administered for other diseases, referred to as repositioned drugs. As a result, some of these drugs have proved to be not only ineffective but also harmful because of adverse events associated with drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Objective: To identify DDIs that led to adverse clinical outcomes and/or adverse drug reactions in patients with COVID-19 by systematically reviewing the literature and assessing the value of drug interaction checkers in identifying such events. Evidence Review: After identification of the drugs used during the COVID-19 pandemic, the drug interaction checkers Drugs.com, COVID-19 Drug Interactions, LexiComp, Medscape, and WebMD were consulted to analyze theoretical DDI-associated adverse events in patients with COVID-19 from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2022. A systematic literature review was performed by searching the databases PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane for articles published from March 1, 2020, through February 28, 2022, to retrieve articles describing actual adverse events associated with DDIs. The drug interaction checkers were consulted again to evaluate their potential to assess such events. Findings: The DDIs identified in the reviewed articles involved 46 different drugs. In total, 575 DDIs for 58 drug pairs (305 associated with at least 1 adverse drug reaction) were reported. The drugs most involved in DDIs were lopinavir and ritonavir. Of the 6917 identified studies, 20 met the inclusion criteria. These studies, which enrolled 1297 patients overall, reported 115 DDI-related adverse events: 15 (26%) were identifiable by all tools analyzed, 29 (50%) were identifiable by at least 1 of them, and 14 (24%) remained nonidentifiable. Conclusions and Relevance: The main finding of this systematic review is that the use of drug interaction checkers could have identified several DDI-associated adverse drug reactions, including severe and life-threatening events. Both the interactions between the drugs used to treat COVID-19 and between the COVID-19 drugs and those already used by the patients should be evaluated.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Databases, Factual , Drug Interactions , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions/epidemiology , Humans , PandemicsABSTRACT
Data supporting the use of Tocilizumab (TCZ) in COVID-19 are contrasting and inconclusive. This meta-analysis aimed to assess TCZ effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate in COVID-19 patients. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane, WILEY, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to evaluate observational studies and RCTs. The outcome was the mortality rate. Forty observational studies and seven RCTs, involving 9640 and 5556 subjects treated with Standard Therapy (ST) + TCZ or ST alone, respectively, were included. In patients treated with ST+TCZ, a higher survival (Log odds ratio = -0.41; 95% CI: -0.68 -0.14; p < 0.001) was found. Subgroups analyses were performed to better identify the possible interference of some parameters in modifying the efficacy of TCZ therapy on COVID-19 mortality. Separating observational from RCTs, no statistically significant (p = 0.70) TCZ-related reduction of mortality regarding RCTs was found, while a significant reduction (Log odds ratio = -0.52; 95% CI: -0.82 -0.22, p < 0.001) was achieved regarding the observational studies. Stratifying for the use of Invasive Mechanic Ventilation (IMV), a higher survival was found in patients treated with TCZ in the No-IMV and IMV groups (both p < 0.001), but not in the No-IMV/IMV group. Meta-regression analyses were also performed. The meta-analysis of observational studies reveals that TCZ is associated with reducing the mortality rate in both severe and critically ill patients. Although the largest RCT, RECOVERY, is in line with this result, the meta-analysis of RCTs failed to found any difference between ST + TCZ and ST. It is crucial to personalize the therapy considering the patients' characteristics.
