Systematic review of drug–drug interactions between rifamycins and anticoagulant and antiplatelet agents and considerations for management

Rifamycins (rifampin, rifabutin, and rifapentine) play an essential role in the treatment of mycobacterial and some nonmycobacterial infections. They also induce the activity of various drug transporting and metabolizing enzymes, which can impact the concentrations and efficacy of substrates. Many anticoagulant and antiplatelet (AC/AP) agents are substrates of these enzymes and have narrow therapeutic indices, leading to risks of thrombosis or bleeding when coadministered with rifamycins. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects on AC/AP pharmacokinetics, laboratory markers, and clinical safety and efficacy of combined use with rifamycins. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidance was performed. The PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases were queried for English-language reports on combination use of rifamycins and AC/AP agents from database inception through August 2021. The 29 studies identified examined warfarin (n = 17), direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (n = 8), and antiplatelet agents (n = 4) combined with rifampin (n = 28) or rifabutin (n = 1). Eleven studies were case reports or small case series; 14 reported on pharmacokinetic or laboratory markers in healthy volunteers. Rifampin-warfarin combinations led to reductions in warfarin area under the curve (AUC) of 15%–74%, with variability by warfarin isomer and study. Warfarin dose increases of up to 3–5 times prerifampin doses were required to maintain coagulation parameters in the therapeutic range. DOAC AUCs were decreased by 20%–67%, with variability by individual agent and with rifampin versus rifabutin. The active metabolite of clopidogrel increased substantially with rifampin coadministration, whereas prasugrel was largely unaffected and ticagrelor saw decreases. Our review suggests most combinations of AC/AP agents and rifampin are problematic. Further studies are required to determine whether rifabutin or rifapentine could be safe alternatives for coadministration with AC/AP drugs.     

Arachidonic acid-stimulated platelet tests: Identification of patients less sensitive to aspirin treatment

Serum thromboxane-B2 (TxB2), together with arachidonic acid (AA)-induced platelet aggregation, are, at the moment, the most used tests to identify patients displaying high on-aspirin treatment platelet reactivity (HAPR). Both tests are specific for aspirin action on cyclooxygenase-1. While the correlation between serum TxB2 assay and clinical outcome is established, data are conflicting with regard to aspirin treatment and a possible association with AA-stimulated platelet markers and clinical outcome. To understand such discrepancy, we performed a retrospective study to compare both assays. We collected data from 132 patients receiving a daily dose of aspirin (100?mg/day) and data from 48 patients receiving aspirin on alternate days. All Patients who received a daily dose of aspirin were studied for AA-induced platelet aggregation together with serum TxB2 levels and AA-induced TxB2 formation was also studied in 71 patients out of entire population. Consistent with recommendations in the literature, we defined HAPR by setting a cut-off point at 3.1?ng/ml for serum levels of thromboxane B2 and 20% for AA-induced platelet aggregation. According to this cut-off point, we divided our overall population into two groups: (1) TxB2?<?3.1?ng/ml and (2) TxB2?>?3.1?ng/ml. We found low agreement between such tests to identify patients displaying HAPR. Our results show that AA-induced platelet aggregation >20% identify a smaller number of HAPR patients in comparison with TxB2. A good correlation between serum TxB2 and arachidonic acid-induced TxB2 production was found (r?=?0.76619).     

Nickel Allergy and Our Children's Health: A Review of Indexed Cases and a View of Future Prevention

Nickel is the leading cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) from early childhood through adolescence. Studies have shown that skin piercings and other nickel‐laden exposures can trigger the onset of nickel ACD in those who are susceptible. Nickel ACD causes a vast amount of cutaneous disease in children. Cases of nickel ACD in children have been reported in peer‐reviewed literature from 28 states. Common items that contain inciting nickel include jewelry, coins, zippers, belts, tools, toys, chair studs, cases for cell phones and tablets, and dental appliances. The diagnosis of nickel ACD has been routinely confirmed by patch testing in children older than 6 months suspected of ACD from nickel. Unlike in Europe, there are no mandatory restrictions legislated for nickel exposure in the United States. Denmark has demonstrated that regulation of the nickel content in metals can lower the risk of ACD and the associated health care–related costs that arise from excess nickel exposure. To further awareness, this article reviews the prominent role of nickel in pediatric skin disease in the United States. It discusses the need for a campaign by caretakers to reduce nickel‐related morbidity. Lastly, it promotes the model of European legislation as a successful intervention in the prevention of nickel ACD.