What is known and objective: Initial treatment recommendations of COVID-19 were based on the use of antimicrobial drugs and immunomodulators. Although information on drug interactions was available for other pathologies, there was little evidence in the treatment of COVID-19. The objective of this study was to analyse the potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) derived from the medication used in COVID-19 patients in the first pandemic wave and to evaluate the real consequences of such interactions in clinical practice.Methods: Cohort, retrospective and single-centre study carried out in a third-level hospital. Adult patients, admitted with suspected COVID-19, that received at least one dose of hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir/ritonavir, interferon beta 1-b or tocilizumab and with any pDDIs according to "Liverpool Drug Interaction Group" between March and May 2020 were included. The possible consequences of pDDIs at the QTc interval level or any other adverse event according to the patient's medical record were analysed. A descriptive analysis was carried out to assess possible factors that may affect the QTc interval prolongation.Results and discussion: Two hundred and eighteen (62.3%) patients of a total of 350 patients admitted with COVID-19 had at least one pDDI. There were 598 pDDIs.Thirty-eight pDDIs (6.3%) were categorized as not recommended or contraindicated. The mean value difference between baseline and pDDI posterior ECG was 412.3 ms ± 25.8 ms vs. 426.3 ms ± 26.7 ms; p < 0.001. Seven patients (5.7%) had a clinically significant alteration of QTc. A total of 44 non-cardiological events (7.3%) with a possible connection to a pDDI were detected.

Immunotherapy with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors (ICIs) has demonstrated a profitable performance for Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) cancer treatment in some patients; however, there is still a percentage of patients in whom immunotherapy does not provide the desired results regarding beneficial outcomes. Therefore, obtaining predictive biomarkers for ICI response will improve the treatment management in clinical practice. In this sense, liquid biopsy appears as a promising method to obtain samples in a minimally invasive and non-biased way. In spite of its evident potential, the use of these circulating biomarkers is still very limited in the real clinical practice, mainly due to the huge heterogeneity among the techniques, the lack of consensus, and the limited number of patients included in these previous studies. In this work, we review the pros and cons of the different proposed biomarkers, such as soluble PD-L1, circulating non-coding RNA, circulating immune cells, peripheral blood cytokines, and ctDNA, obtained from liquid biopsy to predict response to ICI treatment at baseline and to monitor changes in tumor and tumor microenvironment during the course of the treatment in NSCLC patients.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a treat-and-extend (T&E) regimen of ranibizumab as the first-choice treatment in macular oedema (MO) secondary to branch retinal vein occlusion (BRVO). We conducted a retrospective study of 20 patients who developed MO due to BRVO treated with intravitreal ranibizumab in a T&E regimen between 2016 and 2017 with a minimum follow-up of two years. Patients were classified as complete responders if treated with ranibizumab alone or incomplete responders if salvage treatment with other medications or laser was needed. Data on best corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central macular thickness (CMT) every 6 months were recorded. The mean BCVA (logMAR) improved from 0.60 ± 0.36 to 0.29 ± 0.44 and the CMT decreased from 559.85 ± 198.61 to 305.85 ± 11.78 μm. We found statistically significant differences between complete and incomplete responders on the average number of injections during the second year (2.46 ± 2.18 compared to 5.43 ± 1.27; p = 0.007) and change of the BCVA and CMT between both groups (p < 0.001) at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. T&E seems to be effective in MO secondary to BRVO, improving visual function and decreasing CMT, with less need for injections.

Background: Colorectal cancer is the ninth leading cause of death in Spain. The latest therapeutic developments in the advanced stages of this disease are the oral drugs trifluridine/tipiracil and regorafenib. Objective: Results of clinical trials (CTs) are not in real conditions and therefore, we want to study the effectiveness and the safety profile in the usual clinical practice and compare it with the bibliography. Materials and Methods: A retrospective and unicentric study was carried out in a health area of 500,000 inhabitants. Patients who started treatment with regorafenib and/or trifluridine/tipiracil were included from the date of marketing until June 2019. Patient-related variables, pathology, effectiveness, and treatment toxicity were collected. The statistical analysis was carried out with the PSPP program. Results: Fifty-four patients were analyzed. Men accounted for 59.3% of patients. Regorafenib was the treatment for 22.2% of patients and 77.8% received trifluridine/tipiracil. The reason for the drug's suspension was the disease progression in 85.2% of patients. No patient had a full response and 3.2% achieved partial response. The median progression-free survival time in treatments with regorafenib was 2.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.0–5.4) and the overall survival time was 3.1 months (95% CI: 0.0–6.7), while in treatments with trifluridine/tipiracil, these data were, respectively, 2.8 (95% CI: 2.5–3.2) and 5.7 months (95% CI: 3.8–7.6). Side effects occurred in 91.7% of patients treated with regorafenib and in 100% of treated with trifluridine/tipiracil. Hematological adverse reactions were, on average, 0.4 ± 0.5/patient with regorafenib and 1.5 ± 0.9 with trifluridine/tipiracil. General (77.8%) and gastrointestinal disorders (50%) were common with both drugs. Conclusions: The effectiveness results of standard clinical practice are lower than those described in CTs and in the literature. The toxicity profile does reproduce what is described in the bibliography.