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.     

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.     

The use of the Impact on Sibling scale with families of children with chronic illness and developmental disability

Objective   This study evaluated the Impact on Sibling scale, a six-item measure of parents' perception of the effects of a child's illness on healthy siblings.
Methods   Participants were 122 parents of a child with chronic illness, developmental disability, or autism spectrum disorder, and a well sibling aged 4–13 years. Parents completed the Impact on Sibling scale and the Child Behavior Checklist about the sibling, and completed the revised Impact on Family scale and the Brief Symptom Inventory about themselves.
Results   The Impact on Sibling score was correlated with measures of sibling, parent and family functioning. The internal consistency of the Impact on Sibling scale was higher for families with children with chronic illness compared with the other two diagnostic groups.
Conclusion   The Impact on Sibling scale is a brief set of items that can help identify siblings who are negatively affected by a brother/sister's illness. Findings support further research on the Impact on Sibling scale, particularly with families of children with chronic illnesses.     

Issues and challenges in staging of pressure ulcers.

Wound assessment is a key element of effective wound care, and assessment of pressure ulcers includes accurate determination of wound stage. Although the original staging system established by Shea was based on his understanding of the pathology involved in pressure ulcer development, subsequent staging systems (and the one currently in use) were intended simply to establish the level of tissue damage. Recently, clinicians have drawn attention to numerous limitations associated with the current staging system, including the inability to differentiate between an inflammatory response involving intact skin and a deep tissue injury (deep bruising) underneath intact skin. This is a clinically significant difference because clinicians have noted that most inflammatory responses resolve with intervention, whereas most areas of deep tissue injury progress to full-thickness ulcers even when appropriate intervention is provided. A second area of controversy involves partial-thickness (Stage 2) lesions; because many of these lesions are caused by maceration and/or friction (as opposed to pressure) clinicians are frequently unclear regarding which of these lesions should be staged. In response to these concerns, the National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel convened a consensus forum and published white papers to clearly outline the issues; they solicited clinician feedback on the white papers and the Wound, Ostomy, Continence Nurses Society provided a written response. This article summarizes the key points of the white papers, WOCN Society response, and consensus forum discussion.