Peri-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection increases postoperative mortality. The aim of this study was to determine the optimal duration of planned delay before surgery in patients who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection. This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients undergoing elective or emergency surgery during October 2020. Surgical patients with pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 infection were compared with those without previous SARS-CoV-2 infection. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted 30-day mortality rates stratified by time from diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection to surgery. Among 140,231 patients (116 countries), 3127 patients (2.2%) had a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis. Adjusted 30-day mortality in patients without SARS-CoV-2 infection was 1.5% (95%CI 1.4-1.5). In patients with a pre-operative SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis, mortality was increased in patients having surgery within 0-2 weeks, 3-4 weeks and 5-6 weeks of the diagnosis (odds ratio (95%CI) 4.1 (3.3-4.8), 3.9 (2.6-5.1) and 3.6 (2.0-5.2), respectively). Surgery performed ≥ 7 weeks after SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis was associated with a similar mortality risk to baseline (odds ratio (95%CI) 1.5 (0.9-2.1)). After a ≥ 7 week delay in undertaking surgery following SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients with ongoing symptoms had a higher mortality than patients whose symptoms had resolved or who had been asymptomatic (6.0% (95%CI 3.2-8.7) vs. 2.4% (95%CI 1.4-3.4) vs. 1.3% (95%CI 0.6-2.0), respectively). Where possible, surgery should be delayed for at least 7 weeks following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Patients with ongoing symptoms ≥ 7 weeks from diagnosis may benefit from further delay.

The inhalation route is frequently used to administer drugs for the management of respiratory diseases such as asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Compared with other routes of administration, inhalation offers a number of advantages in the treatment of these diseases. For example, via inhalation, a drug is directly delivered to the target organ, conferring high pulmonary drug concentrations and low systemic drug concentrations. Therefore, drug inhalation is typically associated with high pulmonary efficacy and minimal systemic side effects. The lung, as a target, represents an organ with a complex structure and multiple pulmonary-specific pharmacokinetic processes, including (1) drug particle/droplet deposition; (2) pulmonary drug dissolution; (3) mucociliary and macrophage clearance; (4) absorption to lung tissue; (5) pulmonary tissue retention and tissue metabolism; and (6) absorptive drug clearance to the systemic perfusion. In this review, we describe these pharmacokinetic processes and explain how they may be influenced by drug-, formulation- and device-, and patient-related factors. Furthermore, we highlight the complex interplay between these processes and describe, using the examples of inhaled albuterol, fluticasone propionate, budesonide, and olodaterol, how various sequential or parallel pulmonary processes should be considered in order to comprehend the pulmonary fate of inhaled drugs.

Drug-drug interactions are a major concern not only during clinical practice, but also in drug development. Due to limitations of in vitro-in vivo predictions of transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions, multiple clinical Phase I drug-drug interaction studies may become necessary for a new molecular entity to assess potential drug interaction liabilities. This is a resource-intensive process and exposes study participants, who frequently are healthy volunteers without benefit from study treatment, to the potential risks of a new drug in development. Therefore, there is currently a major interest in new approaches for better prediction of transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions. In particular, researchers in the field attempt to identify endogenous compounds as biomarkers for transporter function, such as hexadecanedioate, tetradecanedioate, coproporphyrins I and III, or glycochenodeoxycholate sulfate for hepatic uptake via organic anion transporting polypeptide 1B or N-methylnicotinamide for multidrug and toxin extrusion protein-mediated renal secretion. We summarize in this review the currently proposed biomarkers and potential limitations of the substances identified to date. Moreover, we suggest criteria based on current experiences, which may be used to assess the suitability of a biomarker for transporter function. Finally, further alternatives and supplemental approaches to classic drug-drug interaction studies are discussed.

This article reports the clinical investigation of a probe drug cocktail containing substrates of key drug transporters. Single oral doses of 0.25 mg digoxin (P‐gp), 5 mg furosemide (OAT1 and OAT3), 500 mg metformin (OCT2, MATE1, and MATE2‐K), and 10 mg rosuvastatin (OATP1B1, OATP1B3, and BCRP) were administered separately or as a cocktail in a randomized six‐period crossover trial in 24 healthy male volunteers. As a cocktail, relative bioavailabilities of digoxin and metformin and furosemide AUC0‐tz were similar to separate dosing. However, when administered as a cocktail the Cmax of furosemide was 19.1% lower and the Cmax and AUC0‐tz of rosuvastatin were 38.6% and 43.4% higher, respectively. In addition, the effects of increased doses of metformin or furosemide on the cocktail were investigated in 11 and 12 subjects, respectively. The cocktail explored in this trial has the potential to be used for the in vivo screening of transporter‐mediated drug–drug interactions. © 2016 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Objectives: Convalescent plasma (CP) as a passive source of neutralizing antibodies and immunomodulators is a century-old therapeutic option used for the management of viral diseases. We investigated its effectiveness for the treatment of COVID-19. Design: Open-label, parallel-arm, phase II, multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Setting: Thirty-nine public and private hospitals across India. Participants: Hospitalized, moderately ill confirmed COVID-19 patients (PaO2/FiO2: 200-300 or respiratory rate > 24/min and SpO2 ≤ 93% on room air). Intervention: Participants were randomized to either control (best standard of care (BSC)) or intervention (CP + BSC) arm. Two doses of 200 mL CP was transfused 24 hours apart in the intervention arm. Main Outcome Measure: Composite of progression to severe disease (PaO2/FiO2<100) or all-cause mortality at 28 days post-enrolment. Results: Between 22 nd April to 14 th July 2020, 464 participants were enrolled; 235 and 229 in intervention and control arm, respectively. Composite primary outcome was achieved in 44 (18.7%) participants in the intervention arm and 41 (17.9%) in the control arm [aOR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.77]. Mortality was documented in 34 (13.6%) and 31 (14.6%) participants in intervention and control arm, respectively [aOR) 1.06 95% CI: -0.61 to 1.83]. Interpretation: CP was not associated with reduction in mortality or progression to severe COVID-19. This trial has high generalizability and approximates real-life setting of CP therapy in settings with limited laboratory capacity. A priori measurement of neutralizing antibody titres in donors and participants may further clarify the role of CP in management of COVID-19.