A review of literature published regarding non-tenofovir antiretroviral agents causing renal adverse effects was conducted. The literature involving renal adverse effects and antiretroviral therapy is most robust with protease inhibitors, specifically atazanavir and indinavir, and includes reports of crystalluria, leukocyturia, nephritis, nephrolithiasis, nephropathy and urolithiasis. Several case reports describe potential nephropathy (including Fanconi syndrome) secondary to administration of abacavir, didanosine, lamivudine and stavudine. Case reports documented renal events such as acute renal failure, nephritis, proteinuria and renal stones with efavirenz administration. Regarding rilpivirine, a small increase of serum creatinine levels (SCr) was found in clinical trials; however, the clinical significance and impact on actual renal function is unknown. The integrase strand transfer inhibitors and enfuvirtide have a relatively safe renal profile, although studies have shown dolutegravir and raltegravir cause mild elevations in SCr without an impact on actual renal function. This is similar to the reaction observed with cobicistat, the pharmacokinetic enhancer frequently given with elvitegravir.

Ceftaroline provides in vitro bactericidal activity against methicillin-, vancomycin-, daptomycin-, and linezolid-resistant Gram-positive organisms and select Gram-negative pathogens. The pharmacodynamics of ceftaroline is similar to other β-lactam agents. Ceftaroline exhibits a favorable adverse effect profile and is generally well tolerated. There is little data on clinical success of ceftaroline in patients with bacteremia or endocarditis other than what has been published in a small series of case reports. Randomized-control studies are needed to establish clinical outcomes and safety in these patient populations.

Minimal information is available regarding antiretroviral prescribing patterns and outcomes for HIV patients in correctional systems. This study analyzes single- (STR) and multiple- (MTR) tablet regimen effectiveness in patients receiving HIV telemedicine care through the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). This study involves a retrospective review of HIV-positive adult patients in IDOC on either an STR (efavirenz, rilpivirine, elvitegravir based) or an MTR (emtricitabine/tenofovir with atazanavir/ritonavir, darunavir/ritonavir, or raltegravir). No significant differences in virologic suppression were seen between groups at baseline, weeks 24, 48, 96, and last clinic visit. Similar proportions of patient-reported adverse effects, self-reported adherence, and discontinuation rates were found in both groups. With similar rates of viral suppression, tolerability, adherence, and discontinuation, administering MTR in the incarcerated population is a viable alternative to STR.

Objective: The various basal insulin products possess differences in pharmacokinetics that can significantly impact glycemic control and total daily basal insulin dosing. In addition, there will be instances where transitions between the different long-acting insulins will need to be made. Because every basal insulin product is not interchangeable on a 1:1 unit-to-unit basis, it is important for health care providers to understand the expected dose adjustments necessary to maintain a similar level of glycemic control. Data Sources: A Medline and Web of Science search was conducted in September 2021 using the following keywords and medical subjecting headings: NPH, glargine, detemir, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Included articles were those that followed adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus and compared the following types of insulin: “NPH and glargine,” “NPH and detemir,” and “glargine and detemir” for at least 4 weeks, had documented basal insulin (BI) doses, and excluded pregnant patients. Data synthesis: Twenty-five articles were found that include adult type 1 and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Once daily NPH can be converted unit-to-unit to glargine or detemir. Twice daily NPH converted to glargine or detemir requires an initial 20% reduction in BI dose. An increase in dose of BI is recommended when transitioning from glargine to detemir. Glargine and detemir consistently resulted in improved glycemic control with lower incidence of hypoglycemic events compared with NPH. Conclusions: When transitioning between long-acting insulins, the doses are not always interchangeable on a 1:1 basis. Unit dose adjustments are likely if transitioning between BIs and can influence short-term parameters in the acute care setting and long-term parameters in the outpatient setting.

No abstract