Patients with various rheumatologic and inflammatory disease states commonly require drugs known to decrease the inflammatory or autoimmune response for adequate control of their condition. Such drugs include nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors, corticosteroids, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), and biologic response modifiers. These drugs affect inflammation and local immune responses, which are necessary for proper wound healing in the perioperative setting, thereby potentially resulting in undesirable postoperative complications. Such complications include wound dehiscence, infection, and impaired collagen synthesis. The end result is delayed healing of soft tissue and bone wounds. The current literature provides insight into the effect of some of these drugs on wound healing. For certain drugs, such as methotrexate, trials have been conducted in humans and direct us on what to do during the perioperative period. Whereas with other drugs, we must rely on either small-animal studies or extrapolation of data from human studies that did not specifically look at wound healing. Unfortunately, no clear consensus exists on the need and optimum time for withholding therapy before surgery. Likewise, clinicians are often uncertain of the appropriate time to resume therapy after the procedure. For those drugs with limited or no data in this setting, the use of pharmacokinetic properties and biologic effects of each drug should be considered individually. In some cases, discontinuation of therapy may be required up to 4 weeks before surgery because of the long half-lives of the drugs. In doing so, patients may experience an exacerbation or worsening of disease. Clinicians must carefully evaluate individual patient risk factors, disease severity, and the pharmacokinetics of available therapies when weighing the risks and benefits of discontinuing therapy in the perioperative setting.

Uremic bleeding syndrome is a recognized consequence of renal failure and can result in clinically significant sequelae. Although the pathophysiology of the condition has yet to be fully elucidated, it is believed to be multifactorial. This article is a review of both the normal hemostatic and homeostatic mechanisms that operate within the body to prevent unnecessary bleeding, as well as an in-depth discussion of the dysfunctional components that contribute to the complications associated with uremic bleeding syndrome. As a result of the multifactorial nature of this syndrome, prevention and treatment options can include one or a combination of the following: dialysis, erythropoietin, cryoprecipitate, desmopressin, and conjugated estrogens. Here, these treatment options are compared with regard to their mechanism of action, and onset and duration of efficacy. An extensive review of the clinical trials that have evaluated each treatment is also presented. Lastly, we have created an evidence-based treatment algorithm to help guide clinicians through most clinical scenarios, and answered common questions related to the management of uremic bleeding.

Atazanavir is the first once-daily protease inhibitor for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus type 1 infection and should be used only in combination therapy, as part of a highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) regimen. In addition to being the most potent protease inhibitor in vitro, atazanavir has a distinct cross-resistance profile that does not confer resistance to other protease inhibitors. However, resistance to other protease inhibitors often confers clinically relevant resistance to atazanavir. Currently, atazanavir is not a preferred protease inhibitor for initial HAART regimens. In treatment-naive patients, atazanavir can be given as 400 mg/day. However, atazanavir should be pharmacologically boosted with ritonavir in treatment-experienced patients or when coadministered with either tenofovir or efavirenz. Patients who receive atazanavir experience similar rates of adverse events compared with patients receiving comparator regimens. An exception is an increased risk of asymptomatic hyperbilirubinemia, which is due to competitive inhibition of uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A1. Although hyperbilirubinemia is a common adverse drug reaction of atazanavir therapy (22-47%), fewer than 2% of patients discontinue atazanavir therapy because of this adverse effect. Common adverse effects reported with atazanavir include infection, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, headache, peripheral neuropathy, and rash. Of significance, fewer abnormalities have been observed in plasma lipid profiles in patients treated with atazanavir compared with other protease inhibitor-containing regimens. As with other protease inhibitors, atazanavir is also a substrate and moderate inhibitor of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system, in particular CYP3A4 and CYP2C9. Clinically significant drug interactions include (but are not limited to) antacids, proton pump inhibitors, histamine type 2 receptor antagonists, tenofovir, diltiazem, irinotecan, simvastatin, lovastatin, St. John's wort, and warfarin. We conclude that atazanavir is a distinctively characteristic protease inhibitor owing to its in vitro potency, once-daily dosing, distinct initial resistance pattern, and infrequent association with metabolic abnormalities.