Probenecid hypersensitivity in AIDS: a case report

Combination of probenecid-sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine for intermittent preventive treatment in pregnancy

The antifolate sulphadoxine-pyrimethamine (SP) has been used in the intermittent prevention of malaria in pregnancy (IPTp). SP is an ideal choice for IPTp, however, as resistance of Plasmodium falciparum to SP increases, data are accumulating that SP may no longer provide benefit in areas of high-level resistance. Probenecid was initially used as an adjunctive therapy to increase the blood concentration of penicillin; it has since been used to augment concentrations of other drugs, including antifolates. The addition of probenecid has been shown to increase the treatment efficacy of SP against malaria, suggesting that the combination of probenecid plus SP may prolong the useful lifespan of SP as an effective agent for IPTp. Here, the literature on the pharmacokinetics, adverse reactions, interactions and available data on the use of these drugs in pregnancy is reviewed, and the possible utility of an SP-probenecid combination is discussed. This article concludes by calling for further research into this potentially useful combination.

A benefit-risk assessment of benzbromarone in the treatment of gout. Was its withdrawal from the market in the best interest of patients?

Benzbromarone, a potent uricosuric drug, was introduced in the 1970s and was viewed as having few associated serious adverse reactions. It was registered in about 20 countries throughout Asia, South America and Europe. In 2003, the drug was withdrawn by Sanofi-Synthélabo, after reports of serious hepatotoxicity, although it is still marketed in several countries by other drug companies. The withdrawal has greatly limited its availability around the world, and increased difficulty in accessing it in other countries where it has never been available.The overall aim of this paper is to determine if the withdrawal of benzbromarone was in the best interests of gouty patients and to present a benefit-risk assessment of benzbromarone. To determine this, we examined (i) the clinical benefits associated with benzbromarone treatment and compared them with the success of alternative therapies such as allopurinol and probenecid, particularly in patients with renal impairment; (ii) the attribution of the reported cases of hepatotoxicity to treatment with benzbromarone; (iii) the incidence of hepatotoxicity possibly due to benzbromarone; (iv) adverse reactions to allopurinol and probenecid. From these analyses, we present recommendations on the use of benzbromarone.Large reductions in plasma urate concentrations in patients with hyperuricaemia are achieved with benzbromarone and most patients normalize their plasma urate. The half-life of benzbromarone is generally short (about 3 hours); however, a uricosuric metabolite, 6-hydroxybenzbromarone, has a much longer half-life (up to 30 hours) and is the major species responsible for the uricosuric activity of benzbromarone, although its metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 in the liver may vary between patients as a result of polymorphisms in this enzyme. It is effective in patients with moderate renal impairment. Standard dosages of benzbromarone (100 mg/day) tend to produce greater hypouricaemic effects than standard doses of allopourinol (300 mg/day) or probenecid (1000 mg/day).Adverse effects associated with benzbromarone are relatively infrequent, but potentially severe. Four cases of benzbromarone-induced hepatotoxicity were identified from the literature. Eleven cases have been reported by Sanofi-Synthélabo, but details are not available in the public domain. Only one of the four published cases demonstrated a clear relationship between the drug and liver injury as demonstrated by rechallenge. The other three cases lacked incontrovertible evidence to support a diagnosis of benzbromarone-induced hepatotoxicity. If all the reported cases are assumed to be due to benzbromarone, the estimated risk of hepatotoxicity in Europe was approximately 1 in 17 000 patients but may be higher in Japan.Benzbromarone is also an inhibitor of CYP2C9 and so may be involved in drug interactions with drugs dependent on this enzyme for clearance, such as warfarin. Alternative drugs to benzbromarone have significant adverse reactions. Allopurinol is associated with rare life-threatening hypersensitivity syndromes; the risk of these reactions is approximately 1 in 56 000. Rash occurs in approximately 2% of patients taking allopurinol and usually leads to cessation of prescription of the drug. Probenecid has also been associated with life-threatening reactions in a very small number of case reports, but it frequently interacts with many renally excreted drugs. Febuxostat is a new xanthine oxidoreductase inhibitor, which is still in clinical trials, but abnormal liver function is the most commonly reported adverse reaction.Even assuming a causal relationship between benzbromarone and hepatotoxicity in the identified cases, benefit-risk assessment based on total exposure to the drug does not support the decision by the drug company to withdraw benzbromarone from the market given the paucity of alternative options. It is likely that the risks of hepatotoxicity could be ameliorated by employing a graded dosage increase, together with regular monitoring of liver function. Determination of CYP2C9 status and consideration of potential interactions through inhibition of this enzyme should be considered. The case for wider and easier availability of benzbromarone for treating selected cases of gout is compelling, particularly for patients in whom allopurinol produces insufficient response or toxicity.We conclude that the withdrawal of benzbromarone was not in the best interest of patients with gout.

Drug bioactivation, covalent binding to target proteins and toxicity relevance

A number of therapeutic drugs with different structures and mechanisms of action have been reported to undergo metabolic activation by Phase I or Phase II drug-metabolizing enzymes. The bioactivation gives rise to reactive metabolites/intermediates, which readily confer covalent binding to various target proteins by nucleophilic substitution and/or Schiff's base mechanism. These drugs include analgesics (e.g., acetaminophen), antibacterial agents (e.g., sulfonamides and macrolide antibiotics), anticancer drugs (e.g., irinotecan), antiepileptic drugs (e.g., carbamazepine), anti-HIV agents (e.g., ritonavir), antipsychotics (e.g., clozapine), cardiovascular drugs (e.g., procainamide and hydralazine), immunosupressants (e.g., cyclosporine A), inhalational anesthetics (e.g., halothane), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDSs) (e.g., diclofenac), and steroids and their receptor modulators (e.g., estrogens and tamoxifen). Some herbal and dietary constituents are also bioactivated to reactive metabolites capable of binding covalently and inactivating cytochrome P450s (CYPs). A number of important target proteins of drugs have been identified by mass spectrometric techniques and proteomic approaches. The covalent binding and formation of drug-protein adducts are generally considered to be related to drug toxicity, and selective protein covalent binding by drug metabolites may lead to selective organ toxicity. However, the mechanisms involved in the protein adduct-induced toxicity are largely undefined, although it has been suggested that drug-protein adducts may cause toxicity either through impairing physiological functions of the modified proteins or through immune-mediated mechanisms. In addition, mechanism-based inhibition of CYPs may result in toxic drug-drug interactions. The clinical consequences of drug bioactivation and covalent binding to proteins are unpredictable, depending on many factors that are associated with the administered drugs and patients. Further studies using proteomic and genomic approaches with high throughput capacity are needed to identify the protein targets of reactive drug metabolites, and to elucidate the structure-activity relationships of drug's covalent binding to proteins and their clinical outcomes.

Management of acyclovir-resistant herpes simplex virus

In immunocompetent patients, HSV is controlled rapidly by the human host's immune system, and recurrent lesions are small and short lived. When treated with antiviral agents, these patients rarely develop resistance to these drugs. In contrast immunocompromised patients might not be able to control HSV infection. Thus, frequent and severe reactivations are often seen and might lead to fatal herpetic encephalitis or disseminated HSV infection. Treatment in these patients is limited because immunocompromised hosts often develop severe herpes disease refractory to antiviral drug therapy. It is therefore imperative that physicians develop regimens to deal with both receptive and refractory HSV disease. The following treatment protocol (modified from Balfour and colleagues) might serve as a guide until further investigation of new drugs is performed. In all patients standard oral ACV therapy should be initiated at a dose of 200 mg orally, five times a day for the first 3 to 5 days. Prior to treatment, cultures the lesions should be obtained to verify HSV etiology. If the response is poor, the dose of oral ACV should be increased to 800 mg five times a day. If no response seen after 5 to 7 days, it is unlikely that the lesion will respond to intravenous ACV (or chemically and structurally related drugs such as VCV or famciclovir), so an alternative regimen must be assigned. First, repeat cultures for vital, fungal, and bacterial pathogens must be performed. In addition, ACV susceptibility studies should be ordered, if available. If the mucocutaneous lesion is accessible for topical treatment, TFT (as ophthalmic solution) should be applied to the area three to four times a day until the lesion is completely healed. If the lesion is inaccessible or if the response to TFT is poor, therapy with intravenous foscarnet should be given for 10 days or until complete resolution of the lesions. The dosage of foscarnet should be 40 milligrams per kilogram three times per day or 60 milligrams per kilogram twice daily. If foscarnet fails to achieve clinical clearing, consideration should be given to use of intravenous cidofovir (or application of compounded 1% to 3% topical cidofovir ointment). Vidarabine is reserved for situations in which all of these therapies fail. If lesions reoccur in the same location following clearing, the patient should started on high-dose oral ACV (800 mg, five times daily) or intravenous foscarnet (40 mg/kg tid or 60 mg/kg bid) as soon as possible. When lesions occur in a different location, the patient should be treated initially with standard doses of oral ACV (200 mg, five times daily) and the above protocol should be followed should there be clinical failure. In the future, new treatment options for patients with documented HSV resistance will be important in reducing the clinical impact of HSV.

The abacavir hypersensitivity reaction: a review

BACKGROUND

Abacavir sulfate is a recent addition to the nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor class of antiretroviral agents used in the treatment of HIV infection. It is approved for use in combination with other antiretroviral agents. Its tolerability has been studied, but the overall clinical relevance of the findings has yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

This review investigates available data on the abacavir hypersensitivity reaction (HSR) and provides a clinical perspective on maximizing this agent's tolerability and effective incorporation into antiretroviral regimens.

METHODS

Relevant data were identified through MEDLINE and AIDSLINE searches of the English-language literature from 1966 through 2002 using the terms abacavir and 1592U89, the investigational new drug designation for abacavir. The reference lists of identified articles were searched for additional documents. Additional information was obtained from the US Food and Drug Administration and the drug's manufacturer.

RESULTS

The abacavir HSR occurs in <5% of all patients started on therapy; the incidence appears to be unaffected by specific demographic characteristics or disease stage. Accurate diagnosis and appropriate patient education are essential, because reintroduction of abacavir in a patient with a history of possible HSR has been shown to result in a profound worsening of symptoms, including acute, severe hypersensitivity syndrome and possible death-even with aggressive treatment. Careful evaluation is necessary to distinguish an HSR from other manifestations of antiretroviral therapy. Despite the risk of HSR, compared with other anti-HIV medications, abacavir has demonstrated an overall favorable adverse-event profile.

CONCLUSIONS

The risk of abacavir HSR must be taken into consideration when selecting initial antiretroviral therapy for patients with HIV infection. Careful, appropriate evaluation is necessary to rule out an HSR and determine whether the medication can be continued.