Over the last decade, fruit juice consumption has increased. Their rise in popularity can be attributed to the belief that they are a quick way to consuming a dietary portion of fruit. Probiotics added to fruit juices produce various bioactive compounds, thus probiotic fruit juices can be considered as a new type of functional foods. Such combinations could improve nutritional properties and provide health benefits of fruit juices, due to delivering positive health attributes from both sources (fruit juices and probiotics). However, this review discusses the other side of the same coin, i.e., the one that challenges general beliefs that probiotics are undoubtedly safe. This topic deserves more acknowledgments from the medical and nutritional literature, as it is highly important for health care professionals and nutritionists who must be aware of potential probiotic issues. Still, clinical trials have not adequately questioned the safety of probiotics, as they are generally considered safe. Therefore, this reviews aims to give an evidence-based perspective of probiotic safety, focusing on probiotic fruit beverages and nutraceuticals, by providing documented clinical case reports and studies. Finally, the paper deals with some additional insights from the pharmacological and toxicological point of views, such as pharmacological repercussions of probiotics on health.

Effects of paraben toxicity, i.e. , endocrine-disruption properties, are in the focus of researchers for decades, but still – they are a hot subject of debate. Parabens are aliphatic esters of p -hydroxybenzoic acid, which are widely used as antimicrobial agents for the preservation of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and foods. Mostly used parabens are methyl-, ethyl-, propyl- and butylparaben. Although the toxicity of parabens is reported in animals and in in vitro studies, it cannot be taken for granted when discussing hazards for human health due to an unrealistic exposure -safety profile. Many studies have demonstrated that parabens are non-teratogenic, non-mutagenic, non-carcinogenic and the real evidence for their toxicity in humans has not been established. For now, methyl-, ethyl- and propylparaben are considered safe for use in cosmetics and pharmaceuticals within the recommended range of doses. Regarding alternatives for parabens, a variety of approaches have been proposed, but every substitute would need to be tested rigorously for toxicity and safety.

Fruit juices contain a large number of phytochemicals that, in combination with certain drugs, can cause food–drug interactions that can be clinically significant and lead to adverse events. The mechanisms behind such interactions are in most cases related to phytochemical interference with the activity of cytochrome P450 metabolizing enzymes (CYPs) or drug transporters. Moreover, alterations in their activity can have a clinical relevance if systemic exposure to the drug is decreased or increased, meaning that the pharmacological drug effects are suboptimal, or the drug will cause toxicity. In general, the common pharmacokinetic parameters found to be altered in food–drug interactions regarding fruit juices are the area under the concentration–time curve, bioavailability, and maximum plasma concentration. In most cases, the results from the drug interaction studies with fruit juices provide only limited information due to the small number of subjects, which are also healthy volunteers. Moreover, drug interactions with fruit juices are challenging to predict due to the unknown amounts of the specific phytochemicals responsible for the interaction, as well as due to the inter-individual variability of drug metabolism, among others. Therefore, this work aims to raise awareness about possible pharmacological interactions with fruit juices.

Monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) have revolutionized the treatment of many chronic inflammatory diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is a term that comprises two quite similar, yet distinctive, disorders—Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). Two blockbuster MAbs, infliximab (IFX) and adalimumab (ADL), transformed the pharmacological approach of treating CD and UC. However, due to the complex interplay of pharmacology and immunology, MAbs face challenges related to their immunogenicity, effectiveness, and safety. To ease the burden of IBD and other severe diseases, biosimilars have emerged as a cost-effective alternative to an originator product. According to the current knowledge, biosimilars of IFX and ADL in IBD patients are shown to be as safe and effective as their originators. The future of biosimilars, in general, is promising due to the potential of making the health care system more sustainable. However, their use is accompanied by misconceptions regarding their effectiveness and safety, as well as by controversy regarding their interchangeability. Hence, until a scientific consensus is achieved, scientific data on the long-term effectiveness and safety of biosimilars are needed.

Background: The purpose of the review is to explain and encourage the use of terminology that distinguishes between the steps of measurement and reporting of concentrations, interpretation of the measurements, and subsequent prediction of individualized doses. The principles of concentration-guided dosing (CGD) provide a rational basis for personalized dosing. Existing terminology such as therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) or model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) may have multiple meanings or be imprecisely defined. A brief history of CGD reveals the evolution of more accurate terminology focused on using concentration observations to provide individual drug dose guidance to clinicians. Methods: Relevant literature was identified using keyword searches such as “TDM,” “therapeutic range,” “individualized dosing,” “target concentration intervention,” “precision dosing,” “MIPD,” and “personalized dosing.” Studies were included if they addressed the theoretical basis, clinical implementation, and/or effectiveness of CGD approaches. The findings were synthesized to underscore the relevance of a CGD approach in the context of clinical pharmacology. Results: CGD is commonly implemented using either the therapeutic window approach (TWA) or the target concentration approach (TCA). The dosing approach is often not specified for TDM and MIPD. Clinicians, clinical pharmacologists, and pharmacists have typically been trained to view TWA as the gold standard for personalized dosing. Conclusions: Although many clinicians are well-versed in dosing using TWA, understanding and awareness of the benefits of TCA are still lacking. TCA offers accurate, personalized treatment by guiding the clinical team to use an optimally effective and safe dose for each patient.

This paper examines the use of vinpocetine in the context of clinical pharmacology. The main and active metabolite of vinpocetine is apovincaminic acid (AVA). Due to the scarce information in the literature on AVA pharmacokinetics, we propose a population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model for AVA based on a study in healthy volunteers with three different formulations of vinpocetine. The suggested PopPK model (and simulations) could be helpful in ensuring the more effective and safer use of the vinpocetine in the future given the increasing range of suggested indications for its use.