Effect of fluoxetine and imipramine on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of the antipsychotic quetiapine

Quetiapine dose optimisation during gestation: a pharmacokinetic modelling study

Objectives

The second-generation antipsychotic quetiapine has been demonstrated to undergo gestation-related changes in pharmacokinetics. This study applied pharmacokinetic modelling principles to investigate the mechanism of these changes and to propose new dosing strategies to counteract these changes.

Methods

A pharmacokinetic modelling approach was implemented using virtual population groups. Changes in quetiapine trough plasma concentration during gestation were quantified across all trimesters, and dose adjustment strategies were applied to counteract these changes by targeting a therapeutic range of 50–500 ng/ml throughout gestation.

Key findings

The application of the model during gestation predicted a decrease in trough concentration. A maximum decrease of 58% was predicted during trimester 2, and being associated with a statistically significant decrease in oral clearance at gestation week 25, 204 l/h ± 100.8 l/h compared with non-pregnant subjects, 121.9 l/h ± 51.8 l/h. A dosing optimisation strategy identified that dose increases to 500–700 mg twice daily would result in 32–55% of subjects possessing trough concentration in excess of 50 ng/ml.

Conclusions

Quetiapine doses in pregnancy should be increased to 500–700 mg twice daily to counteract a concomitant increase in metabolic clearance, increase in volume of distribution and decrease in plasma protein binding.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between fluoxetine and omeprazole in healthy male volunteers: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Fluoxetine is an inhibitor of the main metabolizing enzymes (cytochrome P450 [CYP] 2C19 and CYP3A4) of omeprazole and thus might influence that drug's pharmacokinetics. The changes in omeprazole's pharmacokinetics may have clinical significance concerning efficacy and tolerability of the treatment.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetic interaction of fluoxetine with omeprazole in healthy volunteers.

METHODS

The study enrolled healthy adult men and consisted of 2 periods. In the first period, all subjects received a single 40-mg dose of omeprazole. This was followed by an 8-day period during which fluoxetine monotherapy (60 mg/d) was administered as a single oral daily dose. At the end of those 8 days, the subjects were administered a 40-mg dose of omeprazole with a 60-mg dose of fluoxetine. Plasma concentrations of omeprazole were determined at 0.5, 1, 1.33, 1.66, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 hour(s) after study drug administration. Omeprazole plasma concentrations were determined by a validated HPLC method. Pharmacokinetic parameters of omep-razole were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Adverse events were assessed throughout the study duration.

RESULTS

Eighteen healthy male volunteers (mean [SD] age, 22.11 [2.52] years [range, 18-26 years]; body mass index, 23.34 [2.31] kg/m(2) [range, 19.1-27.1 kg/m(2)]) were enrolled and completed the study. In the 2 periods of treatment, the mean Cmax of omeprazole was 730.8 ng/mL (omeprazole monotherapy) and 1725.5 ng/mL (combination treatment with fluoxetine). The observed AUC0-∞ was 1453.3 and 5072.5 ng/mL/h and AUC0-t was 1465.0 and 5185.3 ng/mL/h, respectively. The Tmax was 1.30 and 1.63 hours and the elimination rate constant was 0.753 and 0.482 hr(-1). The t½ was 0.96 and 1.47 hours, whereas the mean residence time was 2.33 and 3.35 hours, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed for all parameters between periods 1 and 2 (all, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The data found in this prospective pilot study suggest a pharmacokinetic interaction between fluoxetine and omeprazole in these healthy volunteers, but its relevance has to be confirmed.

Clinically relevant interactions between newer antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics

INTRODUCTION

Combinations of newer antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently used by clinicians. Pharmacokinetic drug interaction (PK DI) and poorly understood pharmacodynamic (PD) drug interaction (PD DI) can occur between them.

AREAS COVERED

This paper comprehensively reviews PD DI and PK DI studies.

EXPERT OPINION

More PK DI studies are needed to better establish dose correction factors after adding fluoxetine and paroxetine to aripiprazole, iloperidone and risperidone. Further PK DI studies and case reports are also needed to better establish the need for dose correction factors after adding i) fluoxetine to clozapine, lurasidone, quetiapine and olanzapine; ii) paroxetine to olanzapine; iii) fluvoxamine to asenapine, aripiprazole, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone; iv) high sertraline doses to aripiprazole, clozapine, iloperidone and risperidone: v) bupropion and duloxetine to aripiprazole, clozapine, iloperidone and risperidone; and vi) asenapine to paroxetine and venlafaxine. Possible beneficial PD DI effects occur after adding SGAs to newer antidepressants for treatment-resistant major depressive and obsessive-compulsive disorders. The lack of studies combining newer antidepressants and SGAs in psychotic depression is worrisome. PD DIs between newer antidepressants and SGAs may be more likely for mirtazapine and bupropion. Adding selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and SGAs may increase QTc interval and may very rarely contribute to torsades de pointes.

Impact of genetic polymorphism on drug-drug interactions mediated by cytochromes: a general approach

Currently, quantitative prediction of the impact of genetic polymorphism and drug-drug interactions mediated by cytochromes, based on in vivo data, is made by two separate methods and restricted to a single cytochrome. We propose a unified approach for describing the combined impact of drug-drug interactions and genetic polymorphism on drug exposure. It relies on in vivo data and uses the following three characteristic parameters: one for the victim drug, one for the interacting drug, and another for the genotype. These parameters are known for a wide range of drugs and genotypes. The metrics of interest are the ratio of victim drug area under the curve (AUC) in patients with genetic variants taking both drugs, to the AUC in patients with either variant or wild-type genotype taking the victim drug alone. The approach was evaluated by external validation, comparing predicted and observed AUC ratios found in the literature. Data were found for 22 substrates, 30 interacting drugs, and 38 substrate-interacting drug couples. The mean prediction error of AUC ratios was 0.02, and the mean prediction absolute error was 0.38 and 1.34, respectively. The model may be used to predict the variations in exposure resulting from a number of drug-drug-genotype combinations. The proposed approach will help (1) to identify comedications and population at risk, (2) to adapt dosing regimens, and (3) to prioritize the clinical pharmacokinetic studies to be done.

Inhibitory metabolic drug interactions with newer psychotropic drugs: inclusion in package inserts and influences of concurrence in drug interaction screening software

BACKGROUND

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations mandate that package inserts (PIs) include observed or predicted clinically significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs), as well as the results of pharmacokinetic studies that establish the absence of effect.

OBJECTIVE

To quantify how frequently observed metabolic inhibition DDIs affecting US-marketed psychotropics are present in FDA-approved PIs and what influence the source of DDI information has on agreement between 3 DDI screening programs.

METHODS

The scientific literature and PIs were reviewed to determine all drug pairs for which there was rigorous evidence of a metabolic inhibition interaction or noninteraction. The DDIs were tabulated noting the source of evidence and the strength of agreement over chance. Descriptive statistics were used to examine the influence of source of DDI information on agreement among 3 DDI screening tools. Logistic regression was used to assess the influence of drug class, indication, generic status, regulatory approval date, and magnitude of effect on agreement between the literature and PI as well as agreement among the DDI screening tools.

RESULTS

Thirty percent (13/44) of the metabolic inhibition DDIs affecting newer psychotropics were not mentioned in PIs. Drug class, indication, regulatory approval date, generic status, or magnitude of effect did not appear to be associated with more complete DDI information in PIs. DDIs found exclusively in PIs were 3.25 times more likely to be agreed upon by all 3 DDI screening tools than were those found exclusively in the literature. Generic status was inversely associated with agreement among the DDI screening tools (odds ratio 0.11; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.89).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence in PIs of DDI information for newer psychotropics appears to have a strong influence on agreement among DDI screening tools. Users of DDI screening software should consult more than 1 source when considering interactions involving generic psychotropics.

Quetiapine: a review of its use in the management of bipolar depression

Quetiapine (Seroquel®) is an orally administered atypical antipsychotic that is indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, including bipolar depression. An extended-release (XR) formulation of quetiapine is also available. This review summarizes the pharmacological properties, efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and quetiapine XR in patients with bipolar depression. Quetiapine is an antagonist at both serotonin 5-HT2 and dopamine D2 receptors, and its antipsychotic effects are thought to stem from interactions at these receptors. The antidepressant effects of quetiapine are poorly understood, but may be related to antagonism of 5-HT2A receptors in cortical regions, partial agonism of 5-HT1A in the prefrontal cortex in association with increased extracellular dopamine release in the region, or to reduced synaptic reuptake of noradrenaline resulting from inhibition of the noradrenaline reuptake transporter by the quetiapine metabolite norquetiapine. The efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine was evaluated in five 8-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre or multinational trials in patients with a major depressive episode (MDE) associated with bipolar disorder. Across trials, monotherapy with oral quetiapine 300 or 600 mg/day (or quetiapine XR 300 mg/day) produced significantly greater improvements than placebo in depressive symptoms (primary endpoint), according to the change in the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale total score. In general, quetiapine and quetiapine XR were also associated with significantly higher MDE response and remission rates than placebo. Across trials, quetiapine and quetiapine XR produced significantly greater improvements in global severity of illness scores than placebo, according to changes in the Clinical Global Impressions scale score. There were no differences in treatment outcomes between quetiapine 300 mg/day and 600 mg/day dosage groups. Patients with bipolar depression who responded to quetiapine during two 8-week acute treatment trials also benefited from continuing quetiapine therapy for up to 52 weeks. Compared with quetiapine responders randomized to placebo, quetiapine responders who continued quetiapine 300 or 600 mg/day had a significantly reduced risk of recurrence of any mood events and of depression mood events, but not of hypomanic/manic events. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, quetiapine maintenance therapy for up to 104 weeks was more efficacious than placebo or lithium in prolonging the time to recurrence of any mood event (primary endpoint). Patients in this trial had bipolar I disorder with mania, depression or a mixed episode as the index episode, and the trial included only patients who were responsive to acute phase quetiapine, which may have introduced a positive bias in favour of quetiapine over lithium during maintenance therapy. Quetiapine 300 or 600 mg/day and quetiapine XR 300 mg/day was generally well tolerated in patients with bipolar depression, with most treatment-emergent adverse events being of mild to moderate severity. The most frequent adverse events occurring during the acute treatment phase were dry mouth, sedation, somnolence, dizziness (quetiapine and quetiapine XR), constipation (quetiapine) and increased appetite (quetiapine XR). Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) occurred across quetiapine and placebo groups, but there were no significant differences between quetiapine and placebo recipients on objective measures of EPS and akathisia. In some trials, quetiapine recipients experienced significantly greater weight gain than placebo recipients. Across trials, some quetiapine recipients had clinically relevant increases in blood glucose or lipid parameters, although these also occurred in patients from other treatment groups. The clinical significance of these changes is uncertain. In conclusion, quetiapine and quetiapine XR are valuable additions to the first-line treatments for bipolar depression. Further head-to-head trials of quetiapine versus other drug regimens that are effective in bipolar depression would be of considerable interest.

Effect of fluoxetine on the pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole: a two-treatment period study in healthy male subjects

BACKGROUND

Fluoxetine is an inhibitor of the main metabolizing enzymes of lansoprazole and could influence the pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole. The changes in lansoprazole pharmacokinetics could have clinical significance concerning the safety of the therapy.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction between fluoxetine and lansoprazole in healthy subjects.

METHODS

A dose of lansoprazole 30 mg, alone or in combination with fluoxetine 60 mg, was administered to 18 healthy male subjects in a two-treatment study design, separated by an 8-day period in which fluoxetine alone was administered as a single oral daily dose. Plasma concentrations of lansoprazole were determined during a 12-hour period following drug administration. Lansoprazole plasma concentrations were determined by a validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry method. The pharmacokinetic parameters of lansoprazole were calculated using non-compartmental analysis.

RESULTS

In the two periods of treatment, the mean maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) values were 817 ng/mL (lansoprazole alone) and 1370 ng/mL (lansoprazole in combination with fluoxetine after pre-treatment with fluoxetine for 8 days) [p < 0.0001]. The observed area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to time of last measurable concentration values were 2400 and 6220 ng · h/mL (p < 0.0001), respectively, and the AUC from time zero to infinity values were 2480 and 7290 ng · h/mL (p < 0.0001), respectively. The time to reach C(max) values were 2.72 and 2.64 hours, respectively. The elimination rate constant from the central compartment values were 0.50 and 0.21 h-1, respectively (p < 0.0001). The elimination half-life values were 1.47 and 3.56 hours (p < 0.0001), respectively, and the mean residence times were 4.0 and 6.9 hours (p < 0.0001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

The data demonstrate a pharmacokinetic interaction between fluoxetine and lansoprazole and suggest that the observed interaction may be clinically significant, although its clinical relevance has yet to be confirmed.

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.

Open-label steady-state pharmacokinetic drug interaction study on co-administered quetiapine fumarate and divalproex sodium in patients with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there is a pharmacokinetic drug interaction between quetiapine fumarate and divalproex sodium.

METHODS

The pharmacokinetics and short-term tolerability and safety of coadministered quetiapine and divalproex were examined in adults with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder (Cohort A) or bipolar disorder (Cohort B) in an open-label, parallel, 2-cohort drug-interaction study conducted at three centers in the United States. Cohort A was administered quetiapine (150 mg bid) prospectively for 13 days, with divalproex (500 mg bid) added on days 6-13. Cohort B was administered divalproex (500 mg bid) for 16 days, with quetiapine (150 mg bid) added on days 9-16. Quetiapine and valproic acid plasma concentration-time data over a 12-h steady-state dosing interval were used to determine C(max), T(max), C(min), area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(tau)), and oral clearance (CL/F).

RESULTS

In Cohort A (n = 18), addition of divalproex did increase the C(max) of quetiapine by 17% but did not change AUC(tau). In Cohort B (n = 15), addition of quetiapine decreased both total valproic acid C(max) and AUC(tau) by 11%. No differences were observed in adverse events (AEs) with either quetiapine or divalproex monotherapy or their combination.

CONCLUSION

Combination therapy with quetiapine (150 mg bid) and divalproex (500 mg bid) resulted in small and statistically non-significant pharmacokinetic changes.

Creating more effective antidepressants: clues from the clinic

Antidepressant medications have eased the suffering of millions of people. In addition to treating depression, antidepressant drugs also treat several anxiety disorders. Unfortunately, there are problematic limitations with antidepressant agents, including a delayed therapeutic response and insufficient efficacy. Emerging evidence shows that atypical antipsychotic agents can be used as augmentation therapy in patients with poor responses to antidepressants. Future drugs combining key features of antidepressant and atypical antipsychotic agents could offer new promise for patients suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder and depression.

Quetiapine: a review of its use in the treatment of bipolar depression

Quetiapine (Seroquel) is the only atypical antipsychotic approved in the US for use as monotherapy in both bipolar mania and depression, offering potential compliance advantages. Monotherapy with oral quetiapine 300 mg/day is effective in the treatment of patients with bipolar I or II depression. Rapid and sustained improvements in depressive and anxiety symptoms are seen with quetiapine, as well as improvements in health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Quetiapine is generally well tolerated in bipolar depression and is not associated with an increased risk of treatment-emergent mania. Thus, despite the current lack of data from active comparator trials, quetiapine monotherapy should be considered a first-line option for the acute treatment of bipolar depression.

Quetiapine in the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders

Quetiapine was developed in 1985 by scientists at AstraZeneca (formerly Zeneca) Pharmaceuticals. It received official US Food and Drug Administration approval in September 1997 and approval in Germany in 2000. Since then, quetiapine has been used in the treatment of severe mental illness in approximately 70 countries including Canada, most Western European countries, and Japan. Quetiapine is a dibenzothiazepine derivative with a relatively broad receptor binding profile. It has major affinity to cerebral serotonergic (5HT(2A)), histaminergic (H1), and dopaminergic D(1) and D(2) receptors, moderate affinity to alpha(1)- und alpha(2)-adrenergic receptors, and minor affinity to muscarinergic M1 receptors; it demonstrates a substantial selectivity for the limbic system. This receptor occupancy profile with relatively higher affinity for the 5HT(2A) receptor compared with the D(2) receptor is in part responsible for the antipsychotic characteristics and low incidence of extrapyramidal side-effects of quetiapine. The efficacy of quetiapine in reducing positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia has been proven in several clinical trials with placebo-controlled comparators. Quetiapine has also demonstrated robust efficacy for treatment of cognitive, anxious-depressive, and aggressive symptoms in schizophrenia. Long-term trials show sustained tolerability for a broad spectrum of symptoms. Quetiapine has also proven efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of moderate to severe manic episodes, and in the treatment of juveniles with oppositional-defiant or conduct disorders, and in the geriatric dementia population. Recent data indicate that quetiapine may also be effective in the treatment of bipolar depressive symptoms without increasing the risk of triggering manic episodes, and in borderline personality disorder. In comparison with other antipsychotics, quetiapine has a favorable side-effect profile. In clinical trials only small insignificant prolongations of the QT interval were observed. Weight-gain liabilities and new-onset metabolic side-effects occupy a middle-ground among newer antipsychotics. As a result of its good efficacy and tolerability profile quetiapine has become well established in the treatment of schizophrenia and manic episodes.

Metabolic drug interactions with newer antipsychotics: a comparative review

Newer antipsychotics introduced in clinical practice in recent years include clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, sertindole, ziprasidone, aripiprazole and amisulpride. These agents are subject to drug-drug interactions with other psychotropic agents or with medications used in the treatment of concomitant physical illnesses. Most pharmacokinetic interactions with newer antipsychotics occur at the metabolic level and usually involve changes in the activity of the major drug-metabolizing enzymes involved in their biotransformation, i.e. the cytochrome P450 (CYP) monooxygenases and/or uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferases (UGT). Clozapine is metabolized primarily by CYP1A2, with additional contribution by other CYP isoforms. Risperidone is metabolized primarily by CYP2D6 and, to a lesser extent, CYP3A4. Olanzapine undergoes both direct conjugation and CYP1A2-mediated oxidation. Quetiapine is metabolized by CYP3A4, while sertindole and aripiprazole are metabolized by CYP2D6 and CYP3A4. Ziprasidone pathways include aldehyde oxidase-mediated reduction and CYP3A4-mediated oxidation. Amisulpride is primarily excreted in the urine and undergoes relatively little metabolism. While novel antipsychotics are unlikely to interfere with the elimination of other drugs, co-administration of inhibitors or inducers of the major enzymes responsible for their metabolism may modify their plasma concentrations, leading to potentially significant effects. Most documented metabolic interactions involve antidepressant and anti-epileptic drugs. Of a particular clinical significance is the interaction between fluvoxamine, a potent CYP1A2 inhibitor, and clozapine. Differences in the interaction potential among the novel antipsychotics currently available may be predicted based on their metabolic pathways. The clinical relevance of these interactions should be interpreted in relation to the relative width of their therapeutic index. Avoidance of unnecessary polypharmacy, knowledge of the interaction profiles of individual agents, and careful individualization of dosage based on close evaluation of clinical response and, possibly, plasma drug concentrations are essential to prevent and minimize potentially adverse drug interactions in patients receiving newer antipsychotics.

Antidepressants for the negative symptoms of schizophrenia

BACKGROUND

Negative symptoms are common in people with schizophrenia and are often difficult to treat with antipsychotic drugs. Treatment often involves the use of various add-on medications such as antidepressants.

OBJECTIVES

To review the effects of the combination of antipsychotic and antidepressant drug treatment for management of negative symptoms in schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's register (January 2004). We also contacted authors of included studies in order to identify further trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials comparing antipsychotic and antidepressant combinations with antipsychotics alone for the treatment of prominent negative symptoms in schizophrenia and/or schizophrenia-like psychoses.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Working independently, we selected and critically appraised studies, extracted data and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Where possible and appropriate we calculated the relative risk RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI), with the number needed to treat (NNT).

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies (all short-term, total N=190). We found no significant difference for 'leaving the study early for any reason' between the antipsychotic plus antidepressant combination and the control group (n=90, 3 RCTs, RR 3.0 CI 0.35 to 26.04). Leaving early due to adverse events (n=64, 2 RCTs, RR 5.0 CI 0.26 to 97.0) and leaving the study early due to inefficacy (n=34, 1 RCT, RR 3.0 CI 0.13 to 68.84) also showed no significant difference between the two treatment groups. In terms of clinical response, participants treated with the antipsychotic plus antidepressant medications showed a statistically significant greater improvement (n=30, 1 RCT, WMD -1.0 CI -1.61 to -0.39) and showed a significantly lower severity at endpoint (n=30, 1 RCT, WMD -0.9 CI -1.55 to -0.25) on the Clinical Global Impression Scale than those treated with antipsychotics alone. More people allocated to combination therapy had a clinically significant improvement in negative symptoms compared with those given antipsychotics and placebo (n=60, 2 RCTs, RR 0.56 CI 0.32 to 0.97, NNT 3 CI 3 to 34). Significant differences in favour of the combination therapy were seen in different aspects of negative symptoms: 'affective flattening' (n=30, 1 RCT, WMD -7.0 CI -10.37 to -3.63), 'alogia' (n=26, 1 RCT, WMD -3.00 CI -5.14 to -0.86) and 'avolition' (n=30, 1 RCT, WMD -3.0 CI -5.04 to -0.96). No statistically significant difference was found between treatment groups in regards to the outcome 'at least one adverse event' (n=84, 2 RCTs, RR 1.80 CI 0.66 to 4.90). For movement disorders and other adverse effects, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the studies that provided usable data on these outcomes. There are no data at all on outcomes such as compliance, cost, social and cognitive functioning, relapse, recurrence of negative symptoms, rehospitalisation or quality of life. There are no medium or long term data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants may be effective in treating negative symptoms of schizophrenia, but the amount of information is currently too limited to allow any firm conclusions. Large, pragmatic, well-designed and reported long term trials are justified.

Quetiapine: an approach for the treatment of bipolar disorders

Quetiapine is one of the atypical antipsychotics that are formally approved by the US FDA for use in bipolar disorders. In recent Phase III clinical studies, it has provided satisfactory efficacy in the treatment of mania. In ongoing Phase III trials, its efficacy in depression is being investigated. Current data also support its efficacy in special conditions of bipolar disorders, such as rapid cycling and mixed states, the treatment of children and subjects suffering from comorbidities, which is a condition often seen in bipolar patients, and the reason for the combination of several agents. Quetiapine is well tolerated widely and provides minimal interaction with other treatments.

IN VITRO STUDIES ON QUETIAPINE METABOLISM USING THE SUBSTRATE DEPLETION APPROACH WITH FOCUS ON DRUG-DRUG INTERACTIONS

The metabolism of the atypical antipsychotic quetiapine was investigated by in vitro methods. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined in human liver microsomes and recombinant cytochrome P450 measuring substrate depletion and product formation. The cytochrome P450 isozymes CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 displayed activity towards quetiapine. The isozyme CYP2D6 played a minor role in the metabolism of quetiapine as CYP3A4 contributed 89% to the overall metabolism. A Km value of 18 microM was determined by substrate depletion, suggesting linear kinetics under therapeutic conditions. Drugs known to inhibit CYP3A4, such as ketoconazole and nefazodone, displayed almost complete inhibition at low concentrations, whereas inhibitors of CYP2D6 do not seem to have a clinically relevant effect.

Antidepressants as add-on treatment to antipsychotics for people with schizophrenia and pronounced negative symptoms: a systematic review of randomized trials

The aim of our meta-analysis was to review the evidence base for the efficacy and safety of antipsychotic and antidepressant combinations in the treatment of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia and schizophrenia-like psychoses. Randomized controlled trials comparing the combination of antidepressants and antipsychotics with antipsychotics alone for patients with pronounced negative symptoms in schizophrenia were searched for by accessing the register of randomized controlled trials of the Cochrane Schizophrenia group. The studies identified were independently inspected and their quality assessed by two reviewers. The principal outcome of interest was the reduction of negative symptoms. Dichotomous data were analyzed using the relative risk and continuous data were analyzed using standardized mean differences, both specified with 95% confidence intervals. It was possible to include seven trials (n = 202) examining antidepressants as add-on to antipsychotics in this review. Except for one study, all included studies used first generation antipsychotics. While there was often merely a trend in favour of augmentation of antipsychotics with antidepressants in the small single studies, the meta-analytic combination resulted in a statistically significant superiority in the outcome reduction of negative symptoms as a whole. Statistically significant differences between groups in terms of specific subscores of the SANS were found, but the results were inconsistent. The combination of antipsychotics and antidepressants may be more effective in treating negative symptoms of schizophrenia than antipsychotics alone, but this finding needs to be corroborated by further large trials.

An overview of psychotropic drug-drug interactions

The psychotropic drug-drug interactions most likely to be relevant to psychiatrists' practices are examined. The metabolism and the enzymatic and P-glycoprotein inhibition/induction profiles of all antidepressants, antipsychotics, and mood stabilizers are described; all clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions between agents in these psychotropic classes, as well as with frequently encountered nonpsychotropic agents, are detailed; and information on the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic results, mechanisms, and clinical consequences of these interactions is presented. Although the range of drug-drug interactions involving psychotropic agents is large, it is a finite and manageable subset of the much larger domain of all possible drug-drug interactions. Sophisticated computer programs will ultimately provide the best means of avoiding drug-drug interactions. Until these programs are developed, the best defense against drug-drug interactions is awareness and focused attention to this issue.

The dosing of atypical antipsychotics

Drug-drug interactions or genetic variability may require using doses different from those recommended for atypical antipsychotics. Dosage alterations of olanzapine and clozapine, dependent on cytochrome P450 1A2 (CYP1A2) for clearance, and quetiapine, dependent on cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A), may be necessary when used with other drugs that inhibit or induce their metabolic enzymes. Smoking cessation can significantly increase clozapine, and perhaps olanzapine, levels. Ziprasidone pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions are not likely to be important. Genetic variations of cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) and drug-drug interactions causing inhibition (CYP2D6 and/or CYP3A) or induction (CYP3A) may be important for risperidone, and perhaps for aripiprazole, dosing. Adding inhibitors may cause side effects more easily in drugs with a narrow therapeutic window, such as clozapine or risperidone, than in those with a wide therapeutic window, such as olanzapine or aripiprazole. Adding inducers may be associated with a gradual development of lost efficacy.

Quetiapine serum concentrations in psychiatric patients: the influence of comedication

Steady-state serum concentrations of quetiapine were recorded in 62 psychiatric patients under routine conditions. Doses were administered twice daily, and serum quetiapine levels were measured in the morning about 12 hours after the last dose. Eight patients were in monotherapy, whereas the rest received various additional psychotropic drugs. For the whole group, the concentration-to-dose ratio (C/D) varied 238-fold, with a median value of 0.41 nmol/L/(mg/24 h). For the administered dose range (37.5-1200 mg/24 h), the serum concentrations ranged from below the detection limit (10 nmol/L) to 999 nmol/L. With the exception of 2 subjects receiving carbamazepine and patients receiving quetiapine outside the recommended dose interval, 80% of the rest had serum levels within the range 50 to 650 nmol/L, which may serve as an orienting interval for serum concentrations observed under routine treatment conditions. Patients (n = 38) comedicated with drugs competing for metabolism by CYP3A4 displayed a median C/D value of 0.48 nmol/L/(mg/24 h), which was 70% higher than the C/D value of the monotherapy group [0.28 nmol/L/(mg/24 h)], in contrast to patients receiving drugs metabolized by CYP2D6 with a median C/D of 0.23 nmol/L/(mg/24 h). None of the comedicated groups were significantly different from the monotherapy group. Two subjects comedicated with carbamazepine had very low C/D values [0.02-0.04 nmol/L/(mg/24 h)].

Quetiapine

Quetiapine (Seroquel), an atypical antipsychotic with established efficacy in the treatment of schizophrenia, shows efficacy in the treatment of acute mania and depression associated with bipolar disorder.Quetiapine, either as monotherapy or in combination with lithium or divalproex sodium (valproate semisodium), is generally well tolerated and effective in reducing manic symptoms in adult and adolescent patients with acute bipolar mania, and is approved for use in adults for this indication. As monotherapy, the drug is also effective in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar depression. It is associated with a low incidence of extrapyramidal symptom (EPS)-related adverse events and low EPS ratings in bipolar disorder. Quetiapine thus shows potential in the treatment of bipolar depression, and represents a useful agent for the treatment of acute bipolar mania.

Clinical effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in elderly patients with psychosis

The elderly represent a unique patient group in the sense that they have a high prevalence of psychotic symptoms that are a manifestation of a variety of psychiatric, neurological and organic disorders. Treatment is complicated by several factors including comorbid diagnoses (psychiatric and medical), polypharmacy, age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics and high susceptibility to adverse events. Elderly patients require pharmacological interventions that are effective in reducing symptoms but also are well tolerated, improve everyday functioning, subjective well-being and treatment adherence and reduce family/career burden. The ability of an antipsychotic to fulfil these requirements determines its clinical effectiveness. To date, few studies have investigated the clinical effectiveness of atypical antipsychotics in elderly patients. However, clear differences exist between the available agents, particularly with regard to tolerability profiles, which have a major impact on the clinical outcome of patients. Clinicians should select an agent that is not only effective in reducing psychotic symptoms but, more importantly, one that has a low incidence of adverse events, such as extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) and neurocognitive problems, which are of concern in the elderly.

Lack of a Fluoxetine Effect on Prednisolone Disposition and Cortisol Suppression

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the potential effect of fluoxetine, a cytochrome P450 isoenzyme inhibitor, on prednisolone disposition and cortisol suppression.

DESIGN

Sequential, two-phase, crossover, open-label pharmacokinetic study.

SETTING

General clinical research center.

SUBJECTS

Fourteen healthy volunteers.

INTERVENTION

A single intravenous dose of prednisolone 40 mg before and after 14 days of treatment with fluoxetine 20 mg/day for 5 days followed by 60 mg/day for 9 days to achieve steady-state concentrations.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Pharmacokinetic parameters of the prednisolone and resulting pharmacodynamic effects on the time course of plasma cortisol suppression before and after fluoxetine administration were evaluated. No significant differences were observed for the mean +/- SD area under the prednisolone concentration-time curve (3739 +/- 992 vs 3498 +/- 797 microg x hr/L, respectively), clearance (8.58 +/- 2.62 vs 8.92 +/- 2.05 L/hr, respectively), volume of distribution (39.5 +/- 12.4 vs 38.2 +/- 9.9 L, respectively), elimination half-life (3.32 +/- 0.83 vs 3.05 +/- 0.80 hrs, respectively), or duration of plasma cortisol suppression (23.5 +/- 3.1 vs 22.0 +/- 4.2 hrs, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Fluoxetine administration did not significantly affect prednisolone disposition or prolong cortisol suppression. This finding suggests that coadministration of these agents is unlikely to result in clinically important pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic drug interactions. Prednisolone may be a useful alternative for patients who require both glucocorticoid and fluoxetine therapy.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of drugs used to treat urge incontinence

Urge incontinence (also known as overactive bladder) is a common form of urinary incontinence, occurring alone or as a component of mixed urinary incontinence, frequently together with stress incontinence. Because of the pathophysiology of urge incontinence, anticholinergic/antispasmodic agents form the cornerstone of therapy. Unfortunately, the pharmacological activity of these agents is not limited to the urinary tract, leading to systemic adverse effects that often promote nonadherence. Although the pharmacokinetics of flavoxate, propantheline, scopolamine, imipramine/desipramine, trospium chloride and propiverine are also reviewed here, only for oxybutynin and tolterodine are there adequate efficacy/tolerability data to support their use in urge incontinence. Oxybutynin is poorly absorbed orally (2-11% for the immediate-release tablet formulation). Controlled-release oral formulations significantly prolong the time to peak plasma concentration and reduce the degree of fluctuation around the average concentration. Significant absorption occurs after intravesical (bladder) and transdermal administration, although concentrations of the active N-desethyl metabolite are lower after transdermal compared with oral administration, possibly improving tolerability. Food has been found to significantly affect the absorption of one of the controlled-release formulations of oxybutynin, enhancing the rate of drug release. Oxybutynin is extensively metabolised, principally via N-demethylation mediated by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A isozyme. The pharmacokinetics of tolterodine are dependent in large part on the pharmacogenomics of the CYP2D6 and 3A4 isozymes. In an unselected population, oral bioavailability of tolterodine ranges from 10% to 74% (mean 33%) whereas in CYP2D6 extensive metabolisers and poor metabolisers mean bioavailabilities are 26% and 91%, respectively. Tolterodine is metabolised via CYP2D6 to the active metabolite 5-hydroxymethyl-tolterodine and via CYP3A to N-dealkylated metabolites. Urinary excretion of parent compound plays a minor role in drug disposition. Drug effect is based upon the unbound concentration of the so-called 'active moiety' (sum of tolterodine + 5-hydroxymethyl-tolterodine). Terminal disposition half-lives of tolterodine and 5-hydroxymethyl-tolterodine (in CYP2D6 extensive metabolisers) are 2-3 and 3-4 hours, respectively. Coadministration of antacid essentially converts the extended-release formulation into an immediate-release formulation. Knowledge of the pharmacokinetics of these agents may improve the treatment of urge incontinence by allowing the identification of individuals at high risk for toxicity with 'usual' dosages. In addition, the use of alternative formulations (controlled-release oral, transdermal) may also facilitate adherence, not only by reducing the frequency of drug administration but also by enhancing tolerability by altering the proportions of parent compound and active metabolite in the blood.

Metabolic drug interactions with new psychotropic agents

New psychotropic drugs introduced in clinical practice in recent years include new antidepressants, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and 'third generation' antidepressants, and atypical antipsychotics, i.e. clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, ziprasidone and amisulpride. These agents are extensively metabolized in the liver by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes and are therefore susceptible to metabolically based drug interactions with other psychotropic medications or with compounds used for the treatment of concomitant somatic illnesses. New antidepressants differ in their potential for metabolic drug interactions. Fluoxetine and paroxetine are potent inhibitors of CYP2D6, fluvoxamine markedly inhibits CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, while nefazodone is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A4. These antidepressants may be involved in clinically significant interactions when coadministered with substrates of these isoforms, especially those with a narrow therapeutic index. Other new antidepressants including sertraline, citalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine and reboxetine are weak in vitro inhibitors of the different CYP isoforms and appear to have less propensity for important metabolic interactions. The new atypical antipsychotics do not affect significantly the activity of CYP isoenzymes and are not expected to impair the elimination of other medications. Conversely, coadministration of inhibitors or inducers of the CYP isoenzymes involved in metabolism of the various antipsychotic compounds may alter their plasma concentrations, possibly leading to clinically significant effects. The potential for metabolically based drug interactions of any new psychotropic agent may be anticipated on the basis of knowledge about the CYP enzymes responsible for its metabolism and about its effect on the activity of these enzymes. This information is essential for rational prescribing and may guide selection of an appropriate compound which is less likely to interact with already taken medication(s).