NCT01857869.

Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs) are not FDA approved, and obtaining SARMs for personal use is illegal. Nevertheless, SARM use is increasingly popular amongst recreational athletes. Recent case reports of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) and tendon rupture raise serious concerns for the safety of recreational SARM users. On 10 November 2022 PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for studies that reported safety data of SARMs. A multi-tiered screening approach was utilized, and any study or case report of generally healthy individuals exposed to any SARM was included. Thirty-three studies were included in the review with 15 case reports or case series and 18 clinical trials (total patients N = 2136 patients, exposed to SARM N = 1447). There were case reports of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) (N = 15), Achilles tendon rupture (N = 1), rhabdomyolysis (N = 1), and mild reversible liver enzyme elevation (N = 1). Elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT) was commonly reported in clinical trials in patients exposed to SARM (mean 7.1% across trials). Two individuals exposed to GSK2881078 in a clinical trial were reported to have rhabdomyolysis. Recreational SARM use should be strongly discouraged, and the risks of DILI, rhabdomyolysis, and tendon rupture should be emphasized. However, despite warnings, if a patient refuses to discontinue SARM use, ALT monitoring or dose reduction may improve early detection and prevention of DILI.

What is known and Objective Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of joint disease and activity limitation in adults. Common therapies to treat OA‐related pain are oral and topical non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and intra‐articular (IA) corticosteroids. However, prolonged courses of oral NSAIDs are associated with systemic adverse effects and repeat IA corticosteroid injections may cause cartilage degeneration. IA NSAIDs may be an alternative therapy possibly minimizing systemic side effects while maintaining efficacy. Therefore, we sought to summarize the pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of IA NSAIDs to help providers make a more informed decision on the use of IA NSAIDs. Methods We searched the National Library of Medicine Database with terms “intraarticular and nsaid”, yielding 1032 results. Only traditional formulations of NSAIDs were considered for inclusion. Animal studies were included if animals were healthy or if the method of arthritis induction was a reasonable model of osteoarthritis. Human studies were included if humans were healthy or if the primary disease studied was osteoarthritis of a large joint. Of 1032 results, 31 research articles met the inclusion criteria and were summarized in this review. Results and Discussion We found that single doses of IA NSAIDs provided far less total systemic and synovial exposure compared to a one week course of oral NSAIDs, but maximum concentrations to the synovium with IA administration were much higher. IA NSAIDs had an excellent safety profile in small animals, large animals and humans, although these injections were associated with non‐specific cartilage inflammation in healthy animals. In animal models, IA NSAIDs had similar efficacy to PO NSAIDs in treating OA‐related pain. In humans, IA NSAIDs had similar efficacy to PO NSAIDS and IA corticosteroids in treating OA‐related pain; however, many trials did not have a placebo control and outcome measures were heterogeneous. What is new and Conclusion Overall, single doses of IA NSAIDs appear safe and efficacious across animals and humans. The optimal use of IA NSAIDs is still to be determined and further research is needed. However IA NSAIDs may be an additional beneficial therapy to treat OA‐related pain. Potential uses may be to augment IA corticosteroids injections, to interrupt multiple IA corticosteroid injections or as an alternative in patients that are high risk for corticosteroid‐related adverse events.

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> The Seraph® 100 Microbind® Affinity Blood Filter (Seraph 100) is a hemoperfusion device that can remove pathogens from central circulation. However, the effect of Seraph 100 on achieving pharmacodynamic (PD) targets is not well described. We sought to determine the impact of Seraph 100 on ability to achieve PD targets for commonly used antibiotics. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Estimates of Seraph 100 antibiotic clearance were obtained via literature. For vancomycin and gentamicin, published pharmacokinetic models were used to explore the effect of Seraph 100 on ability to achieve probability of target attainment (PTA). For meropenem and imipenem, the reported effect of continuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) on achieving PTA was used to extrapolate decisions for Seraph 100. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Seraph 100 antibiotic clearance is likely less than 0.5 L/h for most antibiotics. Theoretical Seraph 100 clearance up to 0.5 L/h and 2 L/h had a negligible effect on vancomycin PTA in virtual patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) = 14 mL/min and CrCl &#x3e;14 mL/min, respectively. Theoretical Seraph 100 clearance up to 0.5 L/h and 2 L/h had a negligible effect on gentamicin PTA in virtual patients with CrCl = 120 mL/min and CrCl &#x3c;60 mL/min, respectively. CKRT intensity resulting in antibiotic clearance up to 2 L/h generally does not require dose increases for meropenem or imipenem. As Seraph 100 is prescribed intermittently and likely contributes far less to antibiotic clearance, dose increases would also not be required. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> Seraph 100 clearance of vancomycin, gentamicin, meropenem, and imipenem is likely clinically insignificant. There is insufficient evidence to recommend increased doses. For aminoglycosides, we recommend extended interval dosing and initiating Seraph 100 at least 30 min to 1 h after completion of infusion to avoid the possibility of interference with maximum concentrations.

Purpose: To explore patterns of antimuscarinic medication as a risk factor for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of females 18 years or older within the Military Health System from 2006 to 2016. Administrative and claims data were used to select patients who initiated therapy with tolterodine, fesoterodine, oxybutynin, darifenacin, solifenacin, or trospium. Patients with no documented history of T2DM were followed for the occurrence of T2DM, the end of the study or loss of eligibility. Rates of T2DM were calculated for the overall population, by duration of therapy and by individual drugs. Crude and adjusted Cox proportional hazards were calculated to assess differences by duration of use and specific muscarinic antagonist. Results: Over 2.6 million antimuscarinic prescriptions were dispensed to 241 829 females (mean age/SD, 62 ± 18 years). Patients exposed to M 3 selective antagonists had highest risk of developing T2DM compared to those exposed to nonselective antagonists. Using oxybutynin, a nonselective antagonist as a comparator, adjusted rate ratios of T2DM were 57% (HR 1.57, 95%CI 1.48-1.67) and 29% (HR 1.29, 95%CI 1.24-1.35) significantly higher for darifenacin and solifenacin, respectively (both M 3 selective). Conclusions: We found exposure to M 3 selective antagonists darifenacin and solifenacin had the highest risk of developing T2DM compared to nonselective antagonist oxybutynin. This is supported by well described physiologic mechanisms and may allow for more informed prescribing decisions, particularly if minimizing risk of T2DM is a priority. K E Y W O R D S darifenacin, diabetes mellitus type 2, muscarinic antagonists, oxybutynin, pharmacoepidemiology, tolterodine 1 | INTRODUCTION Urinary Incontinence (UI) as defined by the International Continence Society is the involuntary loss of urine for any reason 1 and is generally classified into three subtypes to include stress UI, urge UI, and mixed UI. 2 UI is estimated to affect 25% to 50% of all adult women in the United States, 3 twice the amount of men, and is shown to increase in prevalence with age regardless of gender. 4 Moreover, recent