Antidepressant-drug interactions are potentially but rarely clinically significant

Herb-drug interactions and toxicity: Underscoring potential mechanisms and forecasting clinically relevant interactions induced by common phytoconstituents via data mining and computational approaches

Herbals in the form of medicine are employed extensively around the world. Herbal and conventional medicine combination is a potentially dangerous practice mainly in comorbid, hepato insufficient and frail patients leading to perilous herb-drug interactions (HDI) and toxicity. This study features potential HDI of 15 globally famous plant species through data mining and computational methods. Several plant species were found to mimic warfarin. Phytochemicals from M. charantia induced hypoglycemica. M. chamomila and G. biloba possessed anticoagulant activities. S. hispanica reduces postprandial glycemia. R. officinalis has been reported to inhibit the efflux of anticancer substrates while A. sativum can boost the clearance of anticancer agents. P. ginseng can alter blood coagulation. A cross link of the biological and in silico data revealed that a plethora of herbal metabolites such as ursolic and rosmarinic acid among others are possible/probable inhibitors of specific CYP450 enzymes. Consequently, plant species/metabolites with a given pharmacological property/metabolizing enzyme should not be mixed with drugs having the same pharmacological property/metabolizing enzyme. Even if combined with drugs, herbal medicines must be used at low doses for a short period of time and under the supervision of a healthcare professional to avoid potential adverse and toxic effects.

Drug repurposing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: Could these drugs help fight COVID-19 and save lives?

The current 2019 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), an emerging infectious disease, is undoubtedly the most challenging pandemic in the 21st century. A total of 92,977,768 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and 1,991,289 deaths were reported globally up to January 14, 2021. COVID-19 also affects people's mental health and quality of life. At present, there is no effective therapeutic strategy for the management of this disease. Therefore, in the absence of a specific vaccine or curative treatment, it is an urgent need to identify safe, effective and globally available drugs for reducing COVID-19 morbidity and fatalities. In this review, we focus on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs: a class of antidepressant drugs with widespread availability and an optimal tolerability profile) that can potentially be repurposed for COVID-19 and are currently being tested in clinical trials. We also summarize the existing literature on what is known about the link between serotonin (5-HT) and the immune system. From the evidence reviewed here, we propose fluoxetine as an adjuvant therapeutic agent for COVID-19 based on its known immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory and antiviral properties. Fluoxetine may potentially reduce pro-inflammatory chemokine/cytokines levels (such as CCL-2, IL-6, and TNF-α) in COVID-19 patients. Furthermore, fluoxetine may help to attenuate neurological complications of COVID-19.

Clinically significant drug interactions with newer antidepressants

After the introduction of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), other newer antidepressants with different mechanisms of action have been introduced in clinical practice. Because antidepressants are commonly prescribed in combination with other medications used to treat co-morbid psychiatric or somatic disorders, they are likely to be involved in clinically significant drug interactions. This review examines the drug interaction profiles of the following newer antidepressants: escitalopram, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, reboxetine, bupropion, agomelatine and vilazodone. In general, by virtue of a more selective mechanism of action and receptor profile, newer antidepressants carry a relatively low risk for pharmacodynamic drug interactions, at least as compared with first-generation antidepressants, i.e. monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). On the other hand, they are susceptible to pharmacokinetic drug interactions. All new antidepressants are extensively metabolized in the liver by cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes, and therefore may be the target of metabolically based drug interactions. Concomitant administration of inhibitors or inducers of the CYP isoenzymes involved in the biotransformation of specific antidepressants may cause changes in their plasma concentrations. However, due to their relatively wide margin of safety, the consequences of such kinetic modifications are usually not clinically relevant. Conversely, some newer antidepressants may cause pharmacokinetic interactions through their ability to inhibit specific CYPs. With regard to this, duloxetine and bupropion are moderate inhibitors of CYP2D6. Therefore, potentially harmful drug interactions may occur when they are coadministered with substrates of these isoforms, especially compounds with a narrow therapeutic index. The other new antidepressants are only weak inhibitors or are not inhibitors of CYP isoforms at usual therapeutic concentrations and are not expected to affect the disposition of concomitantly administered medications. Although drug interactions with newer antidepressants are potentially, but rarely, clinically significant, the use of antidepressants with a more favourable drug interaction profile is advisable. Knowledge of the interaction potential of individual antidepressants is essential for safe prescribing and may help clinicians to predict and eventually avoid certain drug combinations.

Drug-drug interactions in general hospital and psychiatric hospital in-patients prescribed psychotropic medications

Abstract Objectives. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) present a serious, ever increasing clinical problem. Previous studies identified DDIs among psychiatric inpatients prescribed psychotropics, but none have focused on psychotropics prescribed to General Hospital inpatients. This study aimed to identify: putative drug-drug interactions; mechanisms; potential seriousness among patients prescribed psychotropes in both psychiatric and general hospital inpatients settings. We hypothesised that potential interactions per person would be greater in General Hospital inpatients on psychotropics, due to polypharmacy. Method. We surveyed psychotropic prescribing in hospital wards in a public sector mental health organisation and a 500-bed general hospital. Ward pharmacists collected drug prescription data. A computer based protocol evaluated DDIs. Results. A total of 7.4% of General Hospital inpatients and 100% of Psychiatric Unit inpatients surveyed were prescribed psychotropic medication. The General Hospital group had significantly more potential interactions per person (3.0) than Psychiatric inpatients (1.3) (P<0.05). There were significantly more potentially serious interactions in the general hospital group (P<0.025). Conclusions. DDIs affect those prescribed psychotropics in both General and Psychiatric Hospitals. The General Hospital patients had a higher number per person and more serious potential interactions, yet are often poorly served by psychiatric services, suggesting that liaison psychiatrists have a role in physician education and DDI assessment.

Pharmacogenomics of antidepressant drugs

While antidepressant pharmacotherapy is an effective treatment of depression, it is still hampered by the slow onset of appreciable clinical improvement and a series of side effects. Moreover, a substantial group of patients does not achieve remission or fails to respond at all. One possible source accounting for these variations in treatment outcome are genetic differences. In recent years a number of pharmacogenetic studies on antidepressant drugs have been published. This manuscript summarizes findings related to the pharmacogenetics of genes involved in the pharmacokinetics as well as pharmacodynamics of antidepressants to date. Illustrated by examples from current candidate gene- and whole genome association studies, this manuscript critically discusses aspects of pharmacogenetic studies in antidepressant response related to study design and clinical relevance.

Delirium in a Patient with Toxic Flecainide Plasma Concentrations: The Role of a Pharmacokinetic Drug Interaction with Paroxetine

Objective:

To describe a case of flecainide-induced delirium associated with a pharmacokinetic drug interaction with paroxetine.

Case Summary:

A 69-year-old white female presented to the emergency department with a history of confusion and paranoia over the past several days. On admission the patient was taking carvedilol 12 mg twice daily, warfarin 2 mg/day, folic acid 1 mg/day, levothyroxine 100 μg/day, pantoprazole 40 mg/day, paroxetine 40 mg/day, and flecainide 100 mg twice daily. Flecainide had been started 2 weeks prior for atrial fibrillation. Laboratory test findings on admission were notable only for a flecainide plasma concentration of 1360 μg/L (reference range 200–1000). A metabolic drug interaction between flecainide and paroxetine, which the patient had been taking for more than 5 years, was considered. Paroxetine was discontinued and the dose of flecainide was reduced to 50 mg twice daily. Her delirium resolved 3 days later.

Discussion:

Flecainide and pharmacologically similar agents that interact with sodium channels may cause delirium in susceptible patients. A MEDLINE search (1966–January 2009) revealed one in vivo pharmacokinetic study on the interaction between flecainide, a CYP2D6 substrate, and paroxetine, a CYP2D6 inhibitor, as well as 3 case reports of flecainide-induced delirium. According to the Naranjo probability scale, flecainide was the probable cause of the patient's delirium; the Horn Drug Interaction Probability Scale indicates a possible pharmacokinetic drug interaction between flecainide and paroxetine.

Conclusions:

Supratherapeutic flecainide plasma concentrations may cause delirium. Because toxicity may occur when flecainide is prescribed with paroxetine and other potent CYP2D6 inhibitors, flecainide plasma concentrations should be monitored closely with commencement of CYP2D6 inhibitors.

Clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with second-generation antidepressants: an update

BACKGROUND

The second-generation antidepressants include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other compounds with different mechanisms of action. All second-generation antidepressants are metabolized in the liver by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme system. Concomitant intake of inhibitors or inducers of the CYP isozymes involved in the biotransformation of specific antidepressants may alter plasma concentrations of these agents, although this effect is unlikely to be associated with clinically relevant interactions. Rather, concern about drug interactions with second-generation antidepressants is based on their in vitro potential to inhibit > or = 1 CYP isozyme.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this article was to review the current literature on clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with second-generation antidepressants.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted for original research and review articles published in English between January 1985 and February 2008. Among the search terms were drug interactions, second-generation antidepressants, newer antidepressants, SSRIs, SNRIs, fluoxetine, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, venlafaxine, duloxetine, mirtazapine, reboxetine, bupropion, nefazodone, pharmacokinetics, drug metabolism, and cytochrome P450. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included, and meeting abstracts were excluded. The reference lists of relevant articles were hand-searched for additional publications.

RESULTS

Second-generation antidepressants differ in their potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Fluoxetine and paroxetine are potent inhibitors of CYP2D6, fluvoxamine markedly inhibits CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, and nefazodone is a substantial inhibitor of CYP3A4. Therefore, clinically relevant interactions may be expected when these antidepressants are coadministered with substrates of the pertinent isozymes, particularly those with a narrow therapeutic index. Duloxetine and bupropion are moderate inhibitors of CYP2D6, and sertraline may cause significant inhibition of this isoform, but only at high doses. Citalopram, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and reboxetine are weak or negligible inhibitors of CYP isozymes in vitro and are less likely than other second-generation antidepressants to interact with co-administered medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation antidepressants are not equivalent in their potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Although interactions may be predictable in specific circumstances, use of an antidepressant with a more favorable drug-interaction profile may be justified.

Developing the role of pharmacists as members of community mental health teams: perspectives of pharmacists and mental health professionals

BACKGROUND

People living with bipolar mood disorder and psychotic illnesses in Australia primarily access public-sector mental health care through community mental health teams (CMHTs). Adverse drug events are common among clients of CMHTs taking psychotropic medications.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to investigate and describe a potential role for pharmacists as members of CMHTs.

METHODS

Five study pharmacists were employed 1 day per week to work with 5 mental health teams over a 24-week period. The pharmacists conducted both client and team specific activities designed to optimize the use of medications. The pharmacists recorded their professional activities in diaries. Audiotaped focus groups were conducted with the pharmacists (n=1) and mental health team staff (n=3) at the conclusion of the study. Pharmacists' diaries and the transcripts of focus groups were thematically content analyzed.

RESULTS

Study pharmacists were perceived as valuable sources of unbiased and evidence-based drug information for both mental health team staff and their clients and caregivers. Mental health team staff particularly appreciated the provision of information about nonpsychotropic medications. Pharmacists' participation in clinical team meetings was used as an opportunity to present medication review findings and recommendations. Liaising between medication prescribers and dispensers working in primary and secondary care settings was deemed an important additional role; however, participating only 1 day per week was considered to delay rapport building and the establishment of collaborative working relationships with mental health team staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Including pharmacists as members of CMHTs addressed an unmet need for pharmaceutical services among clients and staff of CMHTs. Pharmacists' contributions were welcomed by mental health team staff. The study raised the issue of whether pharmacists should be considered as essential and legitimate members of interdisciplinary CMHTs.