Clinically Significant Drug Interactions Between Psychotropic Agents and Repurposed COVID-19 Therapies

Drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 drug therapies and antidepressants

INTRODUCTION

Antidepressants are widely used for the pharmacological treatment of anxiety and mood disorders. Since the eruption of the SARS-COV-2 pandemic and the later development of targeted treatments against COVID-19, inevitably many patients receive antidepressants as well as targeted treatments against COVID-19 against COVID-19. Co-administration of antidepressants with COVID-19 therapeutics has the potential of drug-drug interactions, of varying severity and clinical significance.

AREAS COVERED

This is a curated narrative review of the current state of the art regarding drug-drug interactions between COVID-19 therapeutics and medications licensed for the pharmacotherapy of depression. A systematic search of electronic databases, using as keywords the international nonproprietaty names of currently approved COVID-19 therapeutics and antidepressants was performed, and additionally online interaction checker tools were consulted. Derived data were synthesized for each COVID-19 therapeutic and presented with up-to-date guidance.

EXPERT OPINION

Several COVID-19 therapeutics have potential for drug-drug interactions with antidepressants. Remdesivir and Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir have the higher risk, whereas several monoclonal antibodies appear safer. The most serious drug-drug interactions (serotonin syndrome and QTc prolongation) require close monitoring; however, DDI toward reducing the efficacy of antidepressants may be difficult to recognize. As COVID-19 treatment protocols take precedence, psychiatrists should exert flexibility in antidepressant use and proactively monitor treatment progress.

Drug-Drug Interactions Between COVID-19 Treatments and Psychotropic Medications: An Updated Study

The recent evolution of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treatments has created challenges for healthcare providers in terms of new potential interactions between these COVID-19 treatments and psychotropic drugs in patients with psychiatric disorders. Current clinical practice guidelines on managing interactions between psychotropic medications and COVID-19 treatments do not account for the newer COVID-19 medications. There is a need for updated patient management recommendations that take into account drug interactions between psychotropic drugs and the latest pharmacological approaches to COVID-19 treatment. A search of literature pertaining to drug interactions and outcomes in patients concurrently prescribed COVID-19 treatments and psychotropic medications was conducted. Drug databases were also analyzed to screen for interactions. Our review focuses on the most recent and effective COVID-19 treatments, including PaxlovidTM (nirmatrelvir/ritonavir), remdesivir, dexamethasone, tocilizumab, and baricitinib. The study provides condensed and easily interpretable tables for healthcare providers to screen for potentially harmful drug interactions. We discuss the implications of our findings on appropriate treatment plan selection by healthcare providers for patients taking select antipsychotics, antidepressants, mood stabilizers, and benzodiazepines while receiving COVID-19 treatments. Notably, PaxlovidTM may interact with several medications, particularly antipsychotics and anxiolytics, necessitating close monitoring and, in some cases, reconsideration of use. We find that dexamethasone, remdesivir, tocilizumab, and baricitinib have fewer reported interactions with psychotropics, and while some monitoring is necessary, no major adjustments are recommended for their administration in conjunction with psychotropic medications. These findings underscore the importance of careful consideration and monitoring when combining COVID-19 treatments with other medications to mitigate the risk of adverse interactions and ensure patient safety.

Impact of Inflammation on Voriconazole Exposure in Critically ill Patients Affected by Probable COVID-19-Associated Pulmonary Aspergillosis

(1) Background: To explore the impact of the degree of inflammation on voriconazole exposure in critically ill patients affected by COVID-associated pulmonary aspergillosis (CAPA); (2) Methods: Critically ill patients receiving TDM-guided voriconazole for the management of proven or probable CAPA between January 2021 and December 2022 were included. The concentration/dose ratio (C/D) was used as a surrogate marker of voriconazole total clearance. A receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed by using C-reactive protein (CRP) or procalcitonin (PCT) values as the test variable and voriconazole C/D ratio > 0.375 (equivalent to a trough concentration [C_min] value of 3 mg/L normalized to the maintenance dose of 8 mg/kg/day) as the state variable. Area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated; (3) Results: Overall, 50 patients were included. The median average voriconazole C_min was 2.47 (1.75-3.33) mg/L. The median (IQR) voriconazole concentration/dose ratio (C/D) was 0.29 (0.14-0.46). A CRP value > 11.46 mg/dL was associated with the achievement of voriconazole C_min > 3 mg/L, with an AUC of 0.667 (95% CI 0.593-0.735; p < 0.001). A PCT value > 0.3 ng/mL was associated with the attainment of voriconazole C_min > 3 mg/L (AUC 0.651; 95% CI 0.572-0.725; p = 0.0015). (4) Conclusions: Our findings suggest that in critically ill patients with CAPA, CRP and PCT values above the identified thresholds may cause the downregulation of voriconazole metabolism and favor voriconazole overexposure, leading to potentially toxic concentrations.

COVID-19-Related Mortality Risk in People With Severe Mental Illness: A Systematic and Critical Review

Background: Increasing clinical evidence suggests that people with severe mental illness (SMI), including schizophrenia spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder (BD), and major depressive disorder (MDD), are at higher risk of dying from COVID-19. Several systematic reviews examining the association between psychiatric disorders and COVID-19-related mortality have recently been published. Although these reviews have been conducted thoroughly, certain methodological limitations may hinder the accuracy of their research findings. Methods: A systematic literature search, using the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus databases (from inception to July 23, 2021), was conducted for observational studies assessing the risk of death associated with COVID-19 infection in adult patients with pre-existing schizophrenia spectrum disorders, BD, or MDD. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Results: Of 1,446 records screened, 13 articles investigating the rates of death in patients with pre-existing SMI were included in this systematic review. Quality assessment scores of the included studies ranged from moderate to high. Most results seem to indicate that patients with SMI, particularly patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders, are at significantly higher risk of COVID-19-related mortality, as compared to patients without SMI. However, the extent of the variation in COVID-19-related mortality rates between studies including people with schizophrenia spectrum disorders was large because of a low level of precision of the estimated mortality outcome(s) in certain studies. Most studies on MDD and BD did not include specific information on the mood state or disease severity of patients. Due to a lack of data, it remains unknown to what extent patients with BD are at increased risk of COVID-19-related mortality. A variety of factors are likely to contribute to the increased mortality risk of COVID-19 in these patients. These include male sex, older age, somatic comorbidities (particularly cardiovascular diseases), as well as disease-specific characteristics. Conclusion: Methodological limitations hamper the accuracy of COVID-19-related mortality estimates for the main categories of SMIs. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that SMI is associated with excess COVID-19 mortality. Policy makers therefore must consider these vulnerable individuals as a high-risk group that should be given particular attention. This means that targeted interventions to maximize vaccination uptake among these patients are required to address the higher burden of COVID-19 infection in this already disadvantaged group.

Treatment paradigms in Parkinson's Disease and Covid-19

People with Parkinson's Disease (PwP) may be at higher risk for complications from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19) due to older age and to the multi-faceted nature of Parkinson's Disease (PD) per se, presenting with a variety of motor and non-motor symptoms. Those on advanced therapies may be particularly vulnerable. Taking the above into consideration, along with the potential multi-systemic impact of Covid-19 on affected patients and the complications of hospitalization, we are providing an evidence-based guidance to ensure a high standard of care for PwP affected by Covid-19 with varying severity of the condition. Adherence to the dopaminergic medication of PwP, without abrupt modifications in dosage and frequency, is of utmost importance, while potential interactions with newly introduced drugs should always be considered. Treating physicians should be cautious to acknowledge and timely address any potential complications, while consultation by a neurologist, preferably with special knowledge on movement disorders, is advised for patients admitted in non-neurological wards. Non-pharmacological approaches, including the patient's mobilization, falls prevention, good sleep hygiene, emotional support, and adequate nutritional and fluid intake, are essential and the role of telemedicine services should be strengthened and encouraged.

The Cytokine Release Syndrome and/or the Proinflammatory Cytokines as Underlying Mechanisms of Downregulation of Drug Metabolism and Drug Transport: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Pharmacokinetics of Victim Drugs of this Drug-Disease Interaction Under Different Clinical Conditions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

An ever-growing body of evidence supports the impact of cytokine modulation on the patient's phenotypic drug response. The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the clinical studies that assessed the pharmacokinetics of victim drugs of this drug-disease interaction in the presence of different scenarios of cytokine modulation in comparison with baseline conditions.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review by searching the PubMed-MEDLINE database from inception until February 2022 to retrieve prospective and/or retrospective observational studies, population pharmacokinetic studies, phase I studies, and/or case series/reports that investigated the impact of cytokine modulation on the pharmacokinetic behavior of victim drugs. Only studies providing quantitative pharmacokinetic data of victim drugs by comparing normal status versus clinical conditions with documented cytokine modulation or by assessing the influence of anti-inflammatory biological agents on metabolism and/or transport of victim drugs were included.

RESULTS

Overall, 26 studies were included. Rheumatoid arthritis (6/26; 23.1%) and sepsis (5/26; 19.2%) were the two most frequently investigated pro-inflammatory clinical scenarios. The victim drug most frequently assessed was midazolam (14/26; 53.8%; as a probe for cytochrome P450 [CYP] 3A4). Cytokine modulation showed a moderate inhibitory effect on CYP3A4-mediated metabolism (area under the concentration-time curve increase and/or clearance decrease between 1.98-fold and 2.59-fold) and a weak-to-moderate inhibitory effect on CYP1A2, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19-mediated metabolism (in the area under the concentration-time curve increase or clearance decrease between 1.29-fold and 1.97-fold). Anti-interleukin-6 agents showed remarkable activity in counteracting downregulation of CYP3A4-mediated activity (increase in the area under the concentration-time curve between 1.75-fold and 2.56-fold).

CONCLUSIONS

Cytokine modulation may cause moderate or weak-to-moderate downregulation of metabolism/transport of victim drugs, and this may theoretically have relevant clinical consequences.

Potential Psychotropic and COVID-19 Drug Interactions: A Comparison of Integrated Evidence From Six Database Programs

Background

Drug interactions are a significant issue in mental illnesses and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections. Inconsistency in drug interaction resources makes prescribing challenging for healthcare professionals. To assess the scope, completeness, and consistency of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between psychotropic and COVID-19 medications in six specific drug information (DI) databases.

Methodology

For the comparison, six DI resources were used: Portable Electronic Physician Information Database, Micromedex®, Medscape.com, UpToDate®, Drugs.com drug interaction checker, and WebMD.com drug interaction checker. Using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 27 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY), the gathered data were examined for scope, completeness, and consistency.

Results

Scope scores were higher for PEPID© than all the other resources (p < 0.001) for each comparison. PEPID© had better overall completeness scores (median 5, Interquartile range [IQR] 5 to 5; p<0.05 for each comparison), except for Drugs.com (p < 0.05 for each comparison), and were more remarkable for Micromedex® (median 5, IQR 5 to 5). The Fleiss kappa scores among the six different DI sources were poor (k < 0.20, p < 0.05) for the category of information related to clinical effects and level of documentation, moderate agreement (k = 0.4 - 0.6, p < 0.05) for the severity and course of action of DDIs, and fair agreement (k = 0.4 - 0.6, p < 0.05) for mechanism.

Conclusion

A comprehensive, accurate information among DI resources is essential for healthcare professionals that will significantly impact patient care in the clinical practice. Banking on high-quality resources will help healthcare professionals to make an informed decision while prescribing to avoid inappropriate combinations that can adversely affect patient outcomes.