Venlafaxine and O-desmethylvenlafaxine serum levels are positively associated with antidepressant response in elder depressed out-patients

Mirtazapine blood levels and antidepressant response

OBJECTIVE

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is an important tool for treatment optimisation. Its usefulness has recently been demonstrated for some first-line antidepressants; however, few studies have been reported on the relationship between blood levels of mirtazapine and its antidepressant effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between blood concentration of mirtazapine and antidepressant response.

METHODS

59 outpatients treated with mirtazapine for depression were recruited and followed up for three months in a naturalistic setting. Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-21 (HAMD-21) was administered at baseline, month 1, and month 3 to assess antidepressant response. Mirtazapine serum concentration was measured at steady state. Linear regression analysis and nonlinear least-squares regression were used to estimate association between serum concentration of mirtazapine and antidepressant response.

RESULTS

Our results showed no overall association between serum concentration of mirtazapine and symptom improvement at month 1 and month 3. A marginally significantly higher serum concentration of mirtazapine was found in responders vs non-responders at month 3.

CONCLUSIONS

The study suggests that serum concentration of mirtazapine is not strongly associated with the antidepressant efficacy of mirtazapine. This is probably attributed to its pharmacodynamic profile, even though higher blood levels seem to be marginally more effective.

French Society for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) guidelines for the management of patients with partially responsive depression and treatment-resistant depression: Update 2024

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this update is to add newly approved nomenclatures and treatments as well as treatments yet to be approved in major depressive disorder, thus expanding the discussions on the integration of resistance factors into the clinical approach.

METHODS

Unlike the first consensus guidelines based on the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, the French Association for Biological Psychiatry and Neuropsychopharmacology (AFPBN) developed an update of these guidelines for the management of partially responsive depression (PRD) and treatment-resistant depression (TRD). The expert guidelines combine scientific evidence and expert clinicians' opinions to produce recommendations for PRD and TRD.

RESULTS

The recommendations addressed three areas judged as essential for updating the previous 2019 AFPBN guidelines for the management of patients with TRD: (1) the identification of risk factors associated with TRD, (2) the therapeutic management of patients with PRD and TRD, and (3) the indications, the modalities of use and the monitoring of recent glutamate receptor modulating agents (esketamine and ketamine).

CONCLUSION

These consensus-based guidelines make it possible to build bridges between the available empirical literature and clinical practice, with a highlight on the 'real world' of the clinical practice, supported by a pragmatic approach centred on the experience of specialised prescribers in TRD.

Venlafaxine's therapeutic reference range in the treatment of depression revised: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine is among the most prescribed antidepressant drugs worldwide and, according to guidelines, its dose titration should be guided by drug-level monitoring of its active moiety (AM) which consists of venlafaxine (VEN) plus active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV). This indication of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), however, assumes a clear concentration/effect relationship for a drug, which for VEN has not been systematically explored yet.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between blood levels, efficacy, and adverse reactions in order to suggest an optimal target concentration range for VEN oral formulations for the treatment of depression.

METHODS

Four databases (MEDLINE (PubMed), PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched in March 2022 for relevant articles according to a previously published protocol. Reviewers independently screened references and performed data extraction and critical appraisal.

RESULTS

High-quality randomized controlled trials investigating concentration/efficacy relationships and studies using a placebo lead-in phase were not found. Sixty-eight articles, consisting mostly of naturalistic TDM studies or small noncontrolled studies, met the eligibility criteria. Of them, five cohort studies reported a positive correlation between blood levels and antidepressant effects after VEN treatment. Our meta-analyses showed (i) higher AM and (ii) higher ODV concentrations in patients responding to VEN treatment when compared to non-responders (n = 360, k = 5). AM concentration-dependent occurrence of tremor was reported in one study. We found a linear relationship between daily dose and AM concentration within guideline recommended doses (75-225 mg/day). The population-based concentration ranges (25-75% interquartile) among 11 studies (n = 3200) using flexible dosing were (i) 225-450 ng/ml for the AM and (ii) 144-302 ng/ml for ODV. One PET study reported an occupancy of 80% serotonin transporters for ODV serum levels above 85 ng/ml. Based on our findings, we propose a therapeutic reference range for AM of 140-600 ng/ml.

CONCLUSION

VEN TDM within a range of 140 to 600 ng/ml (AM) will increase the probability of response in nonresponders. A titration within the proposed reference range is recommended in case of non-response at lower drug concentrations as a consequence of VEN's dual mechanism of action via combined serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibition. Drug titration towards higher concentrations will, however, increase the risk for ADRs, in particular with supratherapeutic drug concentrations.

Precision medicine in mood disorders

The choice of the most appropriate psychoactive medication for each of our patients is always a challenge. We can use more than 100 psychoactive drugs in the treatment of mood disorders, which can be prescribed either alone or in combination. Response and tolerability problems are common, and much trial and error is often needed before achieving a satisfactory outcome. Precision medicine is therefore needed for tailoring treatment to optimize outcome. Pharmacological, clinical, and demographic factors are important and informative, but biological factors may further inform and refine prediction. Twenty years after the first reports of gene variants modulating antidepressant response, we are now confronted with the prospect of routine clinical pharmacogenetic applications in the treatment of depression. The scientific community is divided into two camps: those who are enthusiastic and those who are skeptical. Although it appears clear that the benefit of existing tools is still not completely defined, at least in the case of central nervous system gene variants, this is not the case for metabolic gene variants, which is generally accepted. Cumulative scores encompassing many variants across the entire genome will soon predict psychiatric disorder liability and outcome. At present, precision medicine in mood disorders may be implemented using clinical and pharmacokinetic factors. In the near future, a genome-wide composite genetic score in conjunction with clinical factors within each patient is the most promising approach for developing a more effective way to target treatment for patients suffering from mood disorders.

Antidepressant efficacy is correlated with plasma levels: mega-analysis and further evidence

The debate around optimal target dose for first-line antidepressants (ADs) is still ongoing. Along this line, therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) represents one of the most promising tools to improve clinical outcome. Nevertheless, a few data exist regarding the concentration-effect relationship of first-line ADs which limits TDM implementation in routine clinical practice. We conducted the first patient-level concentration-response mega-analysis including data acquired by us previously and explored the concentration dependency of first-line AD (206 subjects). Further, new data on mirtazapine are reported (18 subjects). Hamilton Depression Rating Scale-21 administered at baseline, at month 1 and month 3 was used as the measure of efficacy to assess antidepressant response (AR). When pooling all four first-line ADs together, normalized plasma levels and AR significantly fit a bell-shaped quadratic function with a progressive increase of AR up to around the upper normalized limit of the therapeutic reference range with a decrease of AR at higher serum levels. Our results complement the available evidence on the issue and the recent insights gained from dose-response studies. A concentration-dependent clinical efficacy, such as previously demonstrated for tricyclic compounds, also emerge for first-line ADs. Our study supports a role for TDM as a tool to optimize AD treatment to obtain maximum benefit.