A clinically significant interaction between warfarin and simvastatin is unique to carriers of theCYP2C9*3allele

2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 757-762 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marine L Andersson ◽  
Erik Eliasson ◽  
Jonatan D Lindh
Keyword(s):  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Clinically Significant

Carbamazepine-Isoniazid Interaction

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 139-139
Author(s):  
J. M. WRIGHT
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Similar Case ◽  
Drug Regimen ◽  
Acetylator Phenotype ◽  
Serum Concentrations ◽  
Slow Acetylator ◽  
Steady State Serum ◽  
Clinically Significant

To the Editor.— The case report of carbamazepine intoxication secondary to isoniazid administration recently described in this journal1 is a clinically significant interaction. I have previously presented2 a similar case in which a patient receiving carbamazepine, valproate, and nitrazepam developed severe carbamazepine intoxication when isoniazid was added to the drug regimen. The patient was determined to have inherited the slow acetylator phenotype. On careful rechallenge, 300 mg of isoniazid increased carbamazepine steady-state serum concentrations by 85% and decreased carbamazepine clearance by 45%.

scholarly journals No Clinically Significant Interaction between Ciclosporin and Isradipine

Nephron ◽  
1991 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 658-659 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Martinez ◽  
Yves Pirson ◽  
Pierre Wallemacq ◽  
Charles van Ypersele de Strihou
Keyword(s):  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Clinically Significant

scholarly journals SIX MONTHS OF GEROFIT RESULTS IN MOBILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN OLDER VETERANS REGARDLESS OF BMI CLASSIFICATION

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S34-S34
Author(s):  
Odessa Addison ◽  
Jamie Giffuni ◽  
Monica Serra ◽  
Leslie Katzel
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
General Population ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Mobility Limitations ◽  
Walk Distance ◽  
Mobility Function ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Minute Walk Distance ◽  
Weight Groups ◽  
Minute Walk

Abstract Older Veterans represent a unique population at high risk for mobility limitations. They are also more likely to be overweight or obese when compared to the general population. We sought to compare changes in mobility function across the obesity spectrum in older Gerofit participants at six different sites. Two-hundred and seventy Veterans (mean age: 74 years) completed six-months of Gerofit participation and mobility assessments at baseline, three and six months. Our assessments included gait-speed, six-minute walk distance, 30-second chair stands, and the eight foot up and go. When comparing weight groups, we found no significant interaction of weight and time, however we found clinically significant (P<0.02) improvements of 7-20% across all mobility measures. Six-months of Gerofit participation appears to be one way to improve mobility function in older Veterans across the weight spectrum.

Warfarin dose adjustment required after cannabidiol initiation and titration

2020 ◽  
Vol 77 (22) ◽  
pp. 1846-1851
Author(s):  
Josh Cortopassi
Keyword(s):  
Case Report ◽  
Interaction Potential ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Dose Adjustment ◽  
Intractable Epilepsy ◽  
Warfarin Dose ◽  
International Normalized Ratio ◽  
Dose Titration ◽  
Published Report ◽  
Clinically Significant

Abstract Purpose A case of a possible interaction between cannabidiol and warfarin is presented along with a brief overview of cytochrome enzymes involved in these drugs’ metabolism. Summary A 46-year-old male taking warfarin for treatment of a deep venous thrombosis was initiated on a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved cannabidiol product (Epidiolex, Greenwich Biosciences) for intractable epilepsy. The patient’s International Normalized Ratio (INR) was monitored closely during cannabidiol initiation and dose titration. The patient required a nearly 20% warfarin dose reduction to maintain an INR within the goal range after starting therapy with cannabidiol. There is 1 other case report describing a clinically significant interaction between cannabidiol (specifically Epidiolex) and warfarin in a patient receiving warfarin who was enrolled in a study involving the initiation and titration of cannabidiol; that patient developed a supratherapeutic INR of 6.86 and required a 30% reduction in the weekly warfarin dose to reachieve the goal INR. Conclusion A previously published report suggesting an interaction between cannabidiol and warfarin is supported by this case report. INR should be monitored frequently in patients taking warfarin who begin to take FDA-approved cannabidiol. Additional studies should be performed to clarify the interaction potential of cannabidiol and warfarin.

Abstract P453: Histamine 2 Blockers and Nimodipine in Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Patients

Stroke ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 52 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adnan I Qureshi ◽  
Wei Huang ◽  
Iryna Lobanova ◽  
Fawad Ishfaq ◽  
Nitish Kumar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Relative Bioavailability ◽  
Discharge Destination ◽  
H2 Blockers ◽  
Clinically Significant

Background: Histamine (H) 2 blockers led to a significant increase of the relative bioavailability of nimodipine and therefore may change tolerability of nimodipine in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). Objective: To determine the effect of H2 blockers on outcome of SAH patients being treated with nimodipine on outcomes. Methods: We analyzed data from Cerner Health Facts® which collected data from participating facilities from January 1st, 2000 to July 1st, 2018. We identified SAH patients who underwent endovascular or surgical treatment for intracranial aneurysm and received nimodipine with or without H2 blockers. Outcome was defined by discharge destination and classified into none to minimal disability, moderate to severe disability, or death. Results: A total of 815 (54.8%) of 1488 SAH patients received H2 blockers in addition to nimodipine. There were no differences in rates of cerebral ischemia (8.8% versus 9.8%) or performance of angioplasty (3.8% versus 3.7%) between patients who did or did not receive H2 blockers. There were no differences in rates of intubation/mechanical ventilation (26.0% versus 29.3%) or intra-procedural cerebral infarction (3.4% versus 2.8%) between the two groups. There was no difference in in hospital mortality rates (10.9% versus 10.2%) or none to minimal disability (41.8% versus 38.2%) between patients who did or did not receive H2 blockers. Conclusions: H2 blockers are frequently used with nimodipine in SAH patients and did not appear to adversely affect rates of death or disability. The finding does not support any clinically significant interaction between H2 blockers and nimodipine in SAH patients.

Warfarin and topical miconazole: the potential for a clinically significant interaction

2012 ◽  
Vol 182 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. C. Ufondu ◽  
P. Ferrins ◽  
A. Cushen ◽  
J. Quinn
Keyword(s):  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Clinically Significant

Methotrexate Elimination When Coadministered With Levetiracetam

2016 ◽  
Vol 50 (12) ◽  
pp. 1016-1022 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Reeves ◽  
Sarah DiDominick ◽  
Suzanne Finn ◽  
Hyeon Jin Kim ◽  
Amanda Shake
Keyword(s):  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Potential Interaction ◽  
High Dose ◽  
Additional Risk ◽  
Institutional Review Board Approval ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Methotrexate Concentration ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Time Point

Background: Delayed elimination of methotrexate was previously reported in 2 patients receiving concomitant levetiracetam. Objective: To explore the potential interaction between methotrexate and levetiracetam in patients receiving high-dose methotrexate. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed the records of 81 adults receiving 280 cycles of methotrexate to determine the effects of levetiracetam on methotrexate elimination. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Results: Levetiracetam was administered in 33 (12%) cycles of methotrexate. Patients receiving levetiracetam had significantly lower 24-hour methotrexate concentrations compared with those not receiving levetiracetam (2.91 vs 7.37 µmol/L, P = 0.005). Despite this difference, concentrations at 48 and 72 hours were similar between groups. Times to nontoxic methotrexate concentration (<0.1 µmol/L) were the same regardless of the presence of levetiracetam. The frequency of delayed elimination at 24, 48, and 72 hours was similar in both groups as was the frequency of delayed elimination at any time point. Cox regression demonstrated that levetiracetam was not a significant predictor of time to nontoxic methotrexate concentration ( P = 0.796; HR = 1.058; 95% CI = 0.692-1.617), and logistic regression demonstrated that levetiracetam was not a significant predictor of delayed elimination at any time point. Levetiracetam use was similar between groups when comparing patients experiencing delayed elimination at any time point with those without delayed elimination (13% vs 10%, respectively, P = 0.527). Conclusion: This study does not support the previous reports of a significant interaction between levetiracetam and methotrexate. A clinically significant interaction is unlikely in those without additional risk factors for delayed elimination.

Absence of a clinically significant interaction between theophylline and furosemide

1987 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 487-491 ◽  
Author(s):  
U. -A. J�nicke ◽  
B. Kr�dewagen ◽  
A. Schulz ◽  
U. Gundert-Remy
Keyword(s):  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Clinically Significant
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document