Paradoxical excitation on diphenhydramine may be associated with being a CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolizer: three case reports

Classics in Chemical Neuroscience: Deliriant Antihistaminic Drugs

Antihistaminic drugs are widely used clinically and have long been primarily known for their use to treat severe allergic conditions caused by histamine release. Antihistaminic drugs also exert central nervous system (CNS) effects, acting as anxiolytics, hypnotics, and neuroleptics. However, these drugs also have multiple serious neuropharmacological side-effects, inducing delirium, hyperarousal, disorganized behavior, and hallucinations. Due to their robust CNS effects, antihistamines are also increasingly abused, with occasional overdoses and life-threatening toxicity. Here, we discuss chemical and neuropharmacological aspects of antihistaminic drugs in both human and animal (experimental) models and outline their current societal and mental health importance as neuroactive substances.

The Skeletal Muscle Relaxer Cyclobenzaprine Is a Potent Non-Competitive Antagonist of Histamine H1 Receptors

Cyclobenzaprine is a tricyclic dimethylpropanamine skeletal muscle relaxant, which is used clinically to decrease muscle spasm and hypercontractility, as well as acute musculoskeletal pain. Although the absolute mechanism of action of cyclobenzaprine remains elusive, it is known to mediate its effects centrally via inhibition of tonic somatic motor function, likely through modulation of noradrenergic and serotonergic systems. While cyclobenzaprine is effective as a muscle relaxant, greater than 30% of patients experience drowsiness and sedative-hypnotic effects, yet the mechanisms that cause this adverse effect are also undescribed. Based on this common adverse effect profile and the structural similarity of cyclobenzaprine to tricyclic antidepressants, as well as ethanolamine first-generation antihistamines, we hypothesized that cyclobenzaprine facilitates sedative effects via off-target antagonism of central histamine H1 receptors (H1Rs). Here, for the first time, we present data that demonstrate that cyclobenzaprine exhibits low nanomolar affinity for the cloned human H1R, as well as that expressed in both rat and mouse brain. Using saturation radioligand binding, we also demonstrate that cyclobenzaprine binds to the H1R in a noncompetitive manner. Similarly, functional assays measuring both Ca+2 influx and novel TRUPATH G-protein subunit bioluminescence resonance energy transfer biosensors reveal that cyclobenzaprine also blocks histamine-mediated H1R functional activity in a noncompetitive manner, whereas the classical H1R antagonist diphenhydramine does so competitively. Given that cyclobenzaprine readily crosses the blood-brain barrier and its muscle relaxant effects occur centrally, our data suggest that off-target central antagonism of H1R by cyclobenzaprine facilitates the significant sedative effect of this agent seen in patients. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Cyclobenzaprine, a clinically used muscle relaxant that is strongly linked to sedation, demonstrates high-affinity noncompetitive antagonism at the histamine H1 receptor. This effect likely modulates the high degree of sedation that patients experience.

Drug-Drug Interactions in Vestibular Diseases, Clinical Problems, and Medico-Legal Implications

Peripheral vestibular disease can be treated with several approaches (e.g., maneuvers, surgery, or medical approach). Comorbidity is common in elderly patients, so polytherapy is used, but it can generate the development of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) that play a role in both adverse drug reactions and reduced adherence. For this reason, they need a complex kind of approach, considering all their individual characteristics. Physicians must be able to prescribe and deprescribe drugs based on a solid knowledge of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and clinical indications. Moreover, full information is required to reach a real therapeutic alliance, to improve the safety of care and reduce possible malpractice claims related to drug-drug interactions. In this review, using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library, we searched articles published until 30 August 2021, and described both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic DDIs in patients with vestibular disorders, focusing the interest on their clinical implications and on risk management strategies.

Adverse pharmacokinetic interactions between illicit substances and clinical drugs

Adverse pharmacokinetic interactions between illicit substances and clinical drugs are of a significant health concern. Illicit substances are taken by healthy individuals as well as by patients with medical conditions such as mental illnesses, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, diabetes mellitus and cancer. Many individuals that use illicit substances simultaneously take clinical drugs meant for targeted treatment. This concomitant usage can lead to life-threatening pharmacokinetic interactions between illicit substances and clinical drugs. Optimal levels and activity of drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug-transporters are crucial for metabolism and disposition of illicit substances as well as clinical drugs. However, both illicit substances and clinical drugs can induce changes in the expression and/or activity of drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug-transporters. Consequently, with concomitant usage, illicit substances can adversely influence the therapeutic outcome of coadministered clinical drugs. Likewise, clinical drugs can adversely affect the response of coadministered illicit substances. While the interactions between illicit substances and clinical drugs pose a tremendous health and financial burden, they lack a similar level of attention as drug-drug, food-drug, supplement-drug, herb-drug, disease-drug, or other substance-drug interactions such as alcohol-drug and tobacco-drug interactions. This review highlights the clinical pharmacokinetic interactions between clinical drugs and commonly used illicit substances such as cannabis, cocaine and 3, 4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA). Rigorous efforts are warranted to further understand the underlying mechanisms responsible for these clinical pharmacokinetic interactions. It is also critical to extend the awareness of the life-threatening adverse interactions to both health care professionals and patients.

Sleep Pharmacogenetics: The Promise of Precision Medicine

Pharmacogenetics is the branch of personalized medicine concerned with the variability in drug response occurring because of heredity. Advances in genetics research, and decreasing costs of gene sequencing, are promoting tremendous growth in pharmacogenetics in all areas of medicine, including sleep medicine. This article reviews the body of research indicating that there are genetic variations that affect the therapeutic actions and adverse effects of agents used for the treatment of sleep disorders to show the potential of pharmacogenetics to improve the clinical practice of sleep medicine.

Clinical and Experimental Human Sleep-Wake Pharmacogenetics

Sleep and wakefulness are highly complex processes that are elegantly orchestrated by fine-tuned neurochemical changes among neuronal and non-neuronal ensembles, nuclei, and networks of the brain. Important neurotransmitters and neuromodulators regulating the circadian and homeostatic facets of sleep-wake physiology include melatonin, γ-aminobutyric acid, hypocretin, histamine, norepinephrine, serotonin, dopamine, and adenosine. Dysregulation of these neurochemical systems may cause sleep-wake disorders, which are commonly classified into insomnia disorder, parasomnias, circadian rhythm sleep-wake disorders, central disorders of hypersomnolence, sleep-related movement disorders, and sleep-related breathing disorders. Sleep-wake disorders can have far-reaching consequences on physical, mental, and social well-being and health and, thus, need be treated with effective and rational therapies. Apart from behavioral (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia), physiological (e.g., chronotherapy with bright light), and mechanical (e.g., continuous positive airway pressure treatment of obstructive sleep apnea) interventions, pharmacological treatments often are the first-line clinical option to improve disturbed sleep and wake states. Nevertheless, not all patients respond to pharmacotherapy in uniform and beneficial fashion, partly due to genetic differences. The improved understanding of the neurochemical mechanisms regulating sleep and wakefulness and the mode of action of sleep-wake therapeutics has provided a conceptual framework, to search for functional genetic variants modifying individual drug response phenotypes. This article will summarize the currently known genetic polymorphisms that modulate drug sensitivity and exposure, to partly determine individual responses to sleep-wake pharmacotherapy. In addition, a pharmacogenetic strategy will be outlined how based upon classical and opto-/chemogenetic strategies in animals, as well as human genetic associations, circuit mechanisms regulating sleep-wake functions in humans can be identified. As such, experimental human sleep-wake pharmacogenetics forms a bridge spanning basic research and clinical medicine and constitutes an essential step for the search and development of novel sleep-wake targets and therapeutics.

The Art of Pharmacotherapy: Reflections on Pharmacophobia

PURPOSE/BACKGROUND

This commentary deals with the neglected issue of the art of psychopharmacology by recounting the authors' journeys.

METHODS/PROCEDURES

First, a model of medical science situated within the history of medicine is described including (1) a limitation of the mathematical model of science, (2) the distinction between mechanistic science and mathematical science, (3) how this distinction is applied to medicine, and (4) how this distinction is applied to explain pharmacology to psychiatrists. Second, the neglected art of psychopharmacology is addressed by explaining (1) where the art of psychopharmacotherapy was hiding in the first author's psychopharmacology research, (2) how the Health Belief Model was applied to the art of medicine, (3) how the second author became interested in the Health Belief Model, and (4) his studies introducing the Health Belief Model in psychopharmacology. The authors' collaboration led to: (1) study of the effect of pharmacophobia on poor adherence and (2) reflection on the limits of the art of psychopharmacology.

FINDINGS/RESULTS

Low adherence was found in 45% (116/258) of psychiatric patients with pharmacophobia versus 22% (149/682) in those with no pharmacophobia, providing an odds ratio of 2.9 (95% confidence interval, 2.2-4.0) and an adjusted odds ratio of 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.5) after adjusting for other variables contributing to poor adherence.

IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS

Different cognitive patterns in different patients may contribute to poor adherence. Specific interventions targeting these varying cognitive styles may be needed in different patients to improve drug adherence.

Where Failure Is Not an Option -Personalized Medicine in Astronauts

Drug safety and efficacy are highly variable among patients. Most patients will experience the desired drug effect, but some may suffer from adverse drug reactions or gain no benefit. Pharmacogenetic testing serves as a pre-treatment diagnostic option in situations where failure or adverse events should be avoided at all costs. One such situation is human space flight. On the international space station (ISS), a list of drugs is available to cover typical emergency settings, as well as the long-term treatment of common conditions for the use in self-medicating common ailments developing over a definite period. Here, we scrutinized the list of the 78 drugs permanently available at the ISS (year 2014) to determine the extent to which their metabolism may be affected by genetic polymorphisms, potentially requiring genotype-specific dosing or choice of an alternative drug. The purpose of this analysis was to estimate the potential benefit of pharmacogenetic diagnostics in astronauts to prevent therapy failure or side effects.

Comparison of droperidol and haloperidol for use by paramedics: assessment of safety and effectiveness

BACKGROUND

Since the 2001 "black box" warning on droperidol, its use in the prehospital setting has decreased substantially in favor of haloperidol. There are no studies comparing the prehospital use of either drug. The goal of this study was to compare QTc prolongation, adverse events, and effectiveness of droperidol and haloperidol among a cohort of agitated patients in the prehospital setting.

METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved before and after study, we collected data on 532 patients receiving haloperidol (n = 314) or droperidol (n = 218) between 2007 and 2010. We reviewed emergency department (ED) electrocardiograms when available (haloperidol, n = 78, 25%; droperidol, n = 178, 76%) for QTc length (in milliseconds), medical records for clinically relevant adverse events (defined a priori as systolic blood pressure (SBP) <90 mmHg, seizure, administration of anti-dysrhythmic medications, cardioversion or defibrillation, bag-valve-mask ventilation, intubation, cardiopulmonary arrest, and prehospital or in-hospital death). We also compared effectiveness of the medications, using administration of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival as a proxy for effectiveness.

RESULTS

The mean haloperidol dose was 7.9 mg (median 10 mg, range 4-20 mg). The mean droperidol dose was 2.9 mg (median 2.5 mg, range 1.25-10 mg.) Haloperidol was given i.m. in 289 cases (92%), and droperidol was given i.m. in 132 cases (61%); in all other cases, the medication was given i.v.. There was no statistically significant difference in median QTc after medication administration (haloperidol 447 ms, 95% CI: 440-454 ms; droperidol 454 ms, 95% CI: 450-457). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse events in the droperidol group as compared to the haloperidol group. One patient in the droperidol group with a history of congenital heart disease suffered a cardiopulmonary arrest and was resuscitated with neurologically intact survival. There was no significant difference in the use of additional sedating medications within 30 minutes of ED arrival after receiving droperidol (2.9%, 95% CI: -2.5-8.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cohort of agitated patients treated with haloperidol or droperidol in the prehospital setting, there was no significant difference found in QTc prolongation, adverse events, or need for repeat sedation between haloperidol and droperidol.

Paradoxical and bidirectional drug effects

A paradoxical drug reaction constitutes an outcome that is opposite from the outcome that would be expected from the drug's known actions. There are three types: 1. A paradoxical response in a condition for which the drug is being explicitly prescribed. 2. Paradoxical precipitation of a condition for which the drug is indicated, when the drug is being used for an alternative indication. 3. Effects that are paradoxical in relation to an aspect of the pharmacology of the drug but unrelated to the usual indication. In bidirectional drug reactions, a drug may produce opposite effects, either in the same or different individuals, the effects usually being different from the expected beneficial effect. Paradoxical and bidirectional drug effects can sometimes be harnessed for benefit; some may be adverse. Such reactions arise in a wide variety of drug classes. Some are common; others are reported in single case reports. Paradoxical effects are often adverse, since they are opposite the direction of the expected effect. They may complicate the assessment of adverse drug reactions, pharmacovigilance, and clinical management. Bidirectional effects may be clinically useful or adverse. From a clinical toxicological perspective, altered pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics in overdose may exacerbate paradoxical and bidirectional effects. Certain antidotes have paradoxical attributes, complicating management. Apparent clinical paradoxical or bidirectional effects and reactions ensue when conflicts arise at different levels in self-regulating biological systems, as complexity increases from subcellular components, such as receptors, to cells, tissues, organs, and the whole individual. These may be incompletely understood. Mechanisms of such effects include different actions at the same receptor, owing to changes with time and downstream effects; stereochemical effects; multiple receptor targets with or without associated temporal effects; antibody-mediated reactions; three-dimensional architectural constraints; pharmacokinetic competing compartment effects; disruption and non-linear effects in oscillating systems, systemic overcompensation, and other higher-level feedback mechanisms and feedback response loops at multiple levels. Here we review and provide a compendium of multiple class effects and individual reactions, relevant mechanisms, and specific clinical toxicological considerations of antibiotics, immune modulators, antineoplastic drugs, and cardiovascular, CNS, dermal, endocrine, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, haematological, respiratory, and psychotropic agents.

New insights on the consequences of biotransformation processes on the distribution and pharmacodynamic profiles of some neuropsychotropic drugs

The metabolic processes frequently trigger highly complex pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) characteristics for the coexisting entities, parent drug and its active or inactive metabolites. The interpretation of both individual and cumulative profiles, frequently used in the therapeutic drug monitoring procedures, must take into consideration the biological coherence of the changes of the molecular descriptors characterizing the metabolites versus the parent drugs, and further qualitative and quantitative consequences on permeability processes across highly specialized biological barriers (e.g. blood-brain barrier [BBB]). This paper analyzes the correlation of molecular descriptor differences and the PK/PD consequences for three representative psychotropic drugs (risperidone, clozapine and tramadol) and their active metabolites, underlying the safety and efficacy concerns of using the products of metabolic processes as potential new drugs. The minimal structural changes are correlated with the predicted or experimental penetrability across the biological membranes, with a special emphasis on BBB penetration, as the limiting phase for the effect at central nervous system level. The PD characteristics related to the active metabolites are compared to the ones reported for the parent drugs, concerning mainly the affinity for cerebral receptors and the type of activity at a specific level. For the neuropsychotropic substances, with BBB penetrability as a sine qua non condition, the comparative analysis of PK/PD properties for the parent drug and its metabolites generates a complete and highly complex image of the consequences of their coexistence, since these entities must be conceived and analyzed not separately, but by inclusion of usually complementary properties generating a unique therapeutic profile.

Pharmacologic management of acutely agitated pediatric patients

Acute agitation is a state of behavioral dyscontrol that requires intervention. Medications available in rapid delivery formats are frequently administered to treat acute agitation, either as a chemical restraint or on a voluntary basis. Prior to initiating treatment, the etiology of agitation must be evaluated. In choosing a medication, general pharmacologic principles should be followed. Medication should be selected based on the underlying cause in conjunction with weighing the risks, benefits, and side effects of medications. There are three classes of medications administered to children and adolescents to treat agitation: antihistamines, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics. The most concerning short-term side effects of antipsychotics are their adverse neurologic effects, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and prolonged corrected QT interval. Compared with typical antipsychotics, atypical antipsychotics have a more favorable short-term side effect profile.

CYP2D6 genotyping for psychiatric patients treated with risperidone: considerations for cost–effectiveness studies

In order to ascertain data availability and feasibility for conducting cost–effectiveness studies in pharmacogenetics, and as part of a European Commission Joint Research Center, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-IPTS) study, data concerning risperidone use and cytochrome P450 (CYP2D6) genotyping in medical care was collected in Germany, Spain and the USA, and are summarized in this perspective. The gene coding for CYP2D6 is highly polymorphic, resulting in a significant part of the population being poor metabolizers and ultrarapid metabolizers. Individuals who are CYP2D6 poor metabolizers, have an increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) when treated with CYP2D6-metabolized drugs, suggesting that CYP2D6 genotyping might be beneficial for patient care. This might be especially important in psychiatry, where approximately 50% of the patients use at least one drug primarily metabolized by CYP2D6. In particular, ADRs and poor response to treatment are major problems for some antipsychotics, including risperidone. However, there are no published cost–effectiveness studies on CYP2D6 genotyping, and the benefit that pharmacogenetic testing might represent by identifying problematic patients is still unclear. The present European Commission study found that current clinical and economical data concerning the frequency and direct healthcare costs of risperidone-related ADRs, the relation of such ADRs with the patients CYP2D6 genotypes, and costs for CYP2D6 genotyping, are not sufficient for determining if routine CYP2D6 genotyping might be cost beneficial for patients treated with risperidone. Therefore, efforts should be put on performing prospective cost–benefit studies with randomized treatment according to the CYP2D6 genotype to establish the utility of CYP2D6 genotyping for personalizing antipsychotic treatment.

Pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatry: a review of features and clinical realities

This article focuses on the first generation of pharmacogenetic tests that are potentially useful in psychiatry. All pharmacogenetic tests currently on the market, or soon to be marketed in psychiatry, for which some information has been published in peer-reviewed journal articles (or abstracts), were selected. Five pharmacogenetic tests are reviewed in detail: the Roche AmpliChip CYP450 Test, the Luminex Tag-It Mutation Detection Kit, the LGC clozapine response test, the PGxPredict: Clozapine test, and the Genomas PhyzioType system. After reviewing these tests, three practical aspects of implementing pharmacogenetic testing in psychiatric clinical practice are briefly reviewed: (1) the evaluation of these tests in clinical practice, (2) cost-effectiveness, and (3) regulatory oversight. Finally, the future of these and other pharmacogenetic tests in psychiatry is discussed.

DNA microarray technology in the clinical environment: the AmpliChip CYP450 test for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping

INTRODUCTION

An important technological advance in genetic testing is the DNA microarray, which allows for the simultaneous testing of thousands of DNA sequences. The AmpliChip CYP450 Test employs this microarray technology for cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 and CYP2C19 genotyping. Isoenzymes encoded by these genes are responsible for the metabolism of many widely prescribed drugs. The objectives of this study were to identify CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 alleles and phenotypes in a psychiatric patient population in Kentucky, and to describe practical issues associated with DNA microarray technology.

METHODS

A total of 4,532 psychiatric patients were recruited from three state hospitals in Kentucky. Whole blood, buccal swabs, or saliva samples were genotyped with the AmpliChip CYP450 Test to derive a predicted phenotype.

RESULTS

In this cohort, the overall prevalence of CYP2D6 poor metabolizers was 7.6% (95% CI 7%, 8.3%), 8.2% in the Caucasians (95% CI 7.4%, 9.%) and 1.8% in the African Americans (95% CI 0.9%, 3.5%). The overall prevalence of CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolizers was 1.5% (95% CI 1.2%, 1.9%), 1.5% in the Caucasians (95% CI 1.1%, 1.9%) and 2.0% in the African Americans (95% CI 1.1%, 3.7%). The overall prevalence of CYP2C19 poor metabolizers was 2.0% (95% CI 1.8%, 2.7%), 2.2% in Caucasians (95% CI 1.6%, 2.5%) and 4.0% in African Americans (95% CI 2.6%, 6.1%).

CONCLUSION

We also propose a numeric system for expression of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 enzyme activity to aid clinicians in determining treatment strategy for patients receiving therapeutics that are metabolized by the CYP2D6 or CYP2C19 gene products.