The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a novel coronavirus not previously recognized in humans until late 2019. On 31 December 2019, a cluster of cases of pneumonia of unspecified etiology was reported to the World Health Organization in China. The availability of adequate SARS-CoV-2 drugs is also limited, and the efficacy and safety of these drugs for COVID-2019 pneumonia patients need to be assessed by further clinical trials. For these reasons, there is a need for other strategies against COVID-19 that are capable of prevention and treatment. Physical exercise has proven to be an effective therapy for most chronic diseases and microbial infections with preventive/therapeutic benefits, considering that exercise involves primary immunological mediators and/or anti-inflammatory properties. This review aimed to provide an insight into how the implementation of a physical exercise program against COVID-19 may be a useful complementary tool for prevention, which can also enhance recovery, improve quality of life, and provide immune protection against SARS-CoV-2 virus infection in the long term. In summary, physical exercise training exerts immunomodulatory effects, controls the viral gateway, modulates inflammation, stimulates nitric oxide synthesis pathways, and establishes control over oxidative stress.

There is no evidence to date on immunogenic response among individuals who participated in clinical trials of COVID-19 experimental vaccines redirected to standard national vaccination regimens. This multicentre, prospective controlled cohort study included subjects who received a COVID-19 experimental vaccine (CVnCoV)(test group, TG) - and unvaccinated subjects (control group, CG), selected among individuals to be vaccinated according to the Spanish vaccination program. All study subjects received BNT162b2 as a standard national vaccination schedule, except 8 (from CG) who received mRNA-1273 and were excluded from immunogenicity analyses. Anti-RBD antibodies level and neutralising titres (NT50) against G614, Beta, Mu, Delta and Omicron variants were analysed. Reactogenicity was also assessed. 130 participants (TG:92; CG:38) completed standard vaccination. In TG, median (IQR) of anti-RBD antibodies after first BNT162b2 dose were 10740·0 BAU/mL (4466·0-12500) compared to 29·8 BAU/mL (14·5-47·8) in CG (p <0·0001). Median NT50 (IQR) of G614 was 2674·0 (1865·0-3997·0) in TG and 63·0 (16·0-123·1) in CG (p <0·0001). After second BNT162b2 dose, anti-RBD levels increased to ≥12500 BAU/mL (11625·0-12500) in TG compared to 1859·0 BAU/mL (915·4-3820·0) in CG (p <0·0001). NT50 was 2626·5 (1756·0-5472·0) and 850·4 (525·1-1608·0), respectively (p <0·0001). Variant-specific (Beta, Mu, Omicron) response was also assessed. Most frequent adverse reactions were headache, myalgia, and local pain. No severe AEs were reported. Heterologous BNT162b2 as third and fourth doses in previously suboptimal immunized individuals elicit stronger immune response than that obtained with two doses of BNT162b2. This apparent benefit was also observed in variant-specific response. No safety concerns arose. Partly funded by the Institute of Health Carlos-III and COVID-19 Fund, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund (FEDER) “A way to make Europe”.

Carisoprodol was authorised in 1959 without a full pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK–PD) characterisation. We designed a crossover, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial to characterize the PKs of carisoprodol and its main active metabolite, meprobamate, after single (350 mg), multiple (350 mg/8 h, 14 days), and double (700 mg) doses of carisoprodol. Thirteen healthy volunteers were enrolled. After a single (350 mg) dose, the main carisoprodol parameters were (mean ± SD) Cmax: 2580 ± 1214 ng/mL, AUC_0–∞: 8072 ± 6303 h·ng/mL, and half-life (T_1/2): 2 ± 0.8 h. For meprobamate, the parameters were Cmax: 2181 ± 605 ng/mL and 34,529 ± 7747 h·ng/mL y 9 ± 1.9 h. Different profiles were found for extensive and poor 2C19 metabolizers. After 14 days of treatment (350 mg/8 h) the results for carisoprodol were (mean ± SD) Cmax: 2504 ± 730 ng/mL, AUC_0–∞: 7451 ± 3615 h·ng/mL, and T_1/2: 2 ± 0.7 h. For meprobamate (a steady state was reached), the parameters were Cmax: 5758 ± 1255 ng/mL and 79,699 ± 17,978 h·ng/mL y 8.7 ± 1.4 h. The study allowed for the full characterization of the pharmacokinetic profile of carisoprodol and meprobamate. Accumulation of meprobamate but not of carisoprodol was evident after 14 days of treatment.

Background/Objectives: Using a combination of analgesics allows for the use of lower doses of each, therefore, lowering risk of side effects. The study aims to estimate the bioavailability (pharmacokinetics of enantiomers and metabolites, as well as linearity and sex-related effects) of fixed doses combinations of Ibuprofen/Tramadol via an intravenous (IV) vs. oral route, and it is interesting to bridge the gap of equipotent doses by different routes. Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, crossover, five-period pharmacokinetics clinical trial, in which a single dose of each formulation [four different strengths of Ibuprofen 400 mg/Tramadol HCl (30, 31.5, 33, 37.5 mg), intravenous; Ibuprofen/Tramadol HCl 400 mg/37.5 mg, granules for oral solution], were administered to healthy volunteers. Enantiomers of Ibuprofen, of Tramadol, and of its main active metabolite O-desmethyl-Tramadol (M1) were measured, and pharmacokinetic parameters (maximal concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration curve (AUC)) were estimated. Given the exploratory nature of the study, the sample size was small to provide sufficient power for comparisons of differences across all subgroups. The study was registered at Spanish register of clinical trials (REec), EudraCT code: 2017-001303-77. Results: Twelve subjects were recruited. Different patterns of rate and amount of the studied analytes are shown for oral and the several strengths of IV drugs tested. Ibuprofen, with an absolute oral bioavailability of 91%, showed an equivalent AUC of oral and IV administration. Tramadol showed an absolute oral bioavailability of 80%. Conclusions: Intravenous administration of Tramadol produces higher bioavailability (Cmax and AUClast) of the parent drug and lower of M1, than oral route. Dose normalized Cmax and AUClast of Tramadol and M1 were into the bioequivalence interval. Upon our pharmacokinetics study results, the intravenous dose of Tramadol should not be reduced when switching from oral dosing. No significant differences attributable to sex, once corrected by weight, were found.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the bioequivalence of two oral methocarbamol formulations, as follows: the test (T) methocarbamol 1500 mg tablets and the reference (R) Robaxin® 500 mg tablets (3 tablets, total dose: 1500 mg) under fasting conditions, and compare their pharmacokinetic performance. Methods: This was a single-center, phase I, randomized, open-label (blinded for analytical determination), two-sequence, two-period, crossover, bioequivalence study. A total of 32 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to receive the T-R or R-T administration sequence. Each volunteer received a single dose of each methocarbamol formulation (T or R) separated by a washout period of 7 days. To evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile, blood samples were collected at nineteen time points after dosing. Results: The arithmetic mean Cmax was 31.72 µg/mL for R and 32.39 µg/mL for T, and the arithmetic mean AUC0−t was 90.25 h × µg/mL and 89.72 h × µg/mL, respectively. All adverse events reported were mild for both formulations. The 90% confidence intervals for the corresponding logarithmically transformed geometric mean ratios of Cmax and AUC0−t fell within the acceptance interval of 80.00–125.00%, as their values were 91.67–112.47% for ln(Cmax) and 92.34–103.47% for ln(AUC0−t). Conclusion: Therefore, one tablet of methocarbamol 1500 mg was found to be bioequivalent to the Robaxin® 500 mg tablets (3 tablets), with comparable tolerability and safety profiles.