Evaluation of the potential for interactions of paroxetine with diazepam, cimetidine, warfarin, and digoxin

Interactions between Antidepressants and Warfarin: A Review

Background:

Since warfarin has a very narrow therapeutic index, the interaction between warfarin and antidepressants is very critical and has potentially severe consequences. It is unclear whether clinicians have sufficient knowledge about the risk of bleeding when warfarin and antidepressants are used concomitantly.

Objective:

In this systematic review, we discuss the main considerations when using warfarin with antidepressants.

Methods:

The information about warfarin-antidepressant interactions was obtained from Google Scholar®, PubMed/MEDLINE® and a hand search of the published literature. The following research terms which were systematically combined with each other to find articles: warfarin, anticoagulant, interactions, antidepressant (and each antidepressant name individually), SSRI, SNRI, TCA, MAOI.

Results:

Several possible mechanisms that can cause bleeding when antidepressants and warfarin are used concomitantly, have been discussed. According to the available data, sertraline and citalopram/ escitalopram are safer antidepressants to use with warfarin, whereas fluoxetine and fluvoxamine have a higher interaction potential with warfarin. The remaining antidepressants appear to lie somewhere in between and have little empirical data to guide the clinicians.

Conclusion:

It is recommended that when an antidepressant is prescribed to a patient using warfarin, patient’s international normalized ratio (INR) level should be checked regularly. In this review, the interaction between warfarin and antidepressants, including new ones, were evaluated inclusively and in detail.

Clinically relevant drug interactions between newer antidepressants and oral anticoagulants

Introduction: This is a review of the drug interactions (DIs) between newer antidepressants and oral anticoagulants (OACs): vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct-acting OACs (DOACs).Areas covered: Articles were obtained from PubMed searches performed for each of the newer antidepressants and oral anticoagulants. The basic pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic mechanisms for DIs with these drugs were summarized. Some newer antidepressants are inhibitors of a number of cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms and many antidepressants appear to have potential to impair serotonin platelet function and increase bleeding risk.Expert opinion: Clinicians should not forget that the DIs between newer antidepressants and VKAs can be potentially lethal. Among SSRIs, fluoxetine and fluvoxamine appear to be associated with the highest DI risk with warfarin, the most commonly prescribed VKA worldwide. Case reports featuring duloxetine, mirtazapine and trazadone suggested potential for interaction with warfarin. As CYP3A4 is an important metabolic pathway for all DOACs except dabigatran, it appears reasonable to recommend avoiding the co-prescription of fluoxetine and fluvoxamine (weak to moderate CYP3A4 inhibitors) and St John's wort (CYP3A4 inducer). Many package inserts for the newer antidepressants include a warning regarding an increased risk of bleeding events with concomitant use of these agents with OACs.

Antidepressant Drug Interactions

Second-generation antidepressants are more selective in their pharmacological mechanisms and offer fewer side effects and a safer toxicological profile than cyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors. While the risk for pharmacodynamic interactions is more limited than with older agents with broader receptor effects, the risks for pharmacokinetic interactions is greater. The capacity of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors to inhibit the metabolic activity of cytochrome P450 isozyme system has spurred over a decade of intense psychopharmacological and pharmacogenetics research to better the understanding of the significance of these interactions. Clinicians have had to increase their knowledge and understanding of drug interaction potential to better manage patients receiving these newer antidepressants. The following is a review of both pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions with antidepressants.

Co-medication of pravastatin and paroxetine-a categorical study

Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) are wealthy storehouses of patient information, to which data mining techniques can be prudently applied to reveal clinically significant patterns. Detecting patterns in drug-drug interactions, leading to adverse drug reactions is a powerful application of EMR data mining. Adverse effects of drug treatments can be investigated by mining clinical laboratory tests data which are reliable indicators of abnormal physiological functions. We report here the co-medication effects of pravastatin (HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor) and paroxetine (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) anti-depressant) on significant clinical parameters, identified through a data mining analysis conducted on the Allscripts data warehouse. We found that the concomitant drug treatments of pravastatin and paroxetine increased the mean values of glucose serum from 113.2 to 132.1 mg/dL and international normalized ratio (INR) from 2.18 to 2.52, respectively. It also decreased the mean values of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) from 43 to 37 mL/min/1.73 m(3) and blood CO2 levels from 24.8 to 23.9 mEq/L respectively. Our findings indicate that co-medication of pravastatin and paroxetine might have significant impact on blood anti-coagulation, kidney function, and glucose homeostasis. Our methodology can be applied to any EMR data set to reveal co-medication effects of any drug pairs.

Importance of multi-p450 inhibition in drug-drug interactions: evaluation of incidence, inhibition magnitude, and prediction from in vitro data

Drugs that are mainly cleared by a single enzyme are considered more sensitive to drug-drug interactions (DDIs) than drugs cleared by multiple pathways. However, whether this is true when a drug cleared by multiple pathways is coadministered with an inhibitor of multiple P450 enzymes (multi-P450 inhibition) is not known. Mathematically, simultaneous equipotent inhibition of two elimination pathways that each contribute half of the drug clearance is equal to equipotent inhibition of a single pathway that clears the drug. However, simultaneous strong or moderate inhibition of two pathways by a single inhibitor is perceived as an unlikely scenario. The aim of this study was (i) to identify P450 inhibitors currently in clinical use that can inhibit more than one clearance pathway of an object drug in vivo and (ii) to evaluate the magnitude and predictability of DDIs caused by these multi-P450 inhibitors. Multi-P450 inhibitors were identified using the Metabolism and Transport Drug Interaction Database. A total of 38 multi-P450 inhibitors, defined as inhibitors that increased the AUC or decreased the clearance of probes of two or more P450s, were identified. Seventeen (45%) multi-P450 inhibitors were strong inhibitors of at least one P450, and an additional 12 (32%) were moderate inhibitors of one or more P450s. Only one inhibitor (fluvoxamine) was a strong inhibitor of more than one enzyme. Fifteen of the multi-P450 inhibitors also inhibit drug transporters in vivo, but such data are lacking on many of the inhibitors. Inhibition of multiple P450 enzymes by a single inhibitor resulted in significant (>2-fold) clinical DDIs with drugs that are cleared by multiple pathways such as imipramine and diazepam, while strong P450 inhibitors resulted in only weak DDIs with these object drugs. The magnitude of the DDIs between multi-P450 inhibitors and diazepam, imipramine, and omeprazole could be predicted using in vitro data with similar accuracy as probe substrate studies with the same inhibitors. The results of this study suggest that inhibition of multiple clearance pathways in vivo is clinically relevant, and the risk of DDIs with object drugs may be best evaluated in studies using multi-P450 inhibitors.

Warfarin: pharmacological profile and drug interactions with antidepressants

Oral anticoagulants are among the drugs with the greatest number of drug interactions. The concomitant use of several medications is a common practice in patients with cardiovascular problems, who often also present with depression; therefore, the probability of an interaction occurring between warfarin and the antidepressants is high, and may result in increased or decreased anticoagulant activity. Since the possible interactions between these two classes of drugs have been poorly explored in literature, with a risk to the patients who use them, we reviewed the pharmacology of warfarin and its possible interactions with antidepressants. Of the antidepressants analyzed, those that showed relevant effects on the interaction with warfarin were, in decreasing order: paroxetine, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and duloxetine.

Age-related changes in antidepressant pharmacokinetics and potential drug-drug interactions: a comparison of evidence-based literature and package insert information

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are among the most commonly prescribed psychotropic agents for older patients. Little is known about the best source of pharmacotherapy information to consult about key factors necessary to safely prescribe these medications to older patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to synthesize and contrast information in the package insert (PI) with information found in the scientific literature about age-related changes of antidepressants in systemic clearance and potential pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs).

METHODS

A comprehensive search of two databases (MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1, 1975 to September 30, 2011) with the use of a combination of search terms (antidepressants, pharmacokinetics, and drug interactions) was conducted to identify relevant English language articles. This information was independently reviewed by two researchers and synthesized into tables. These same two researchers examined the most up-to-date PIs for the 26 agents available at the time of the study to abstract quantitative information about age-related decline in systemic clearance and potential DDIs. The agreement between the two information sources was tested with κ statistics.

RESULTS

The literature reported age-related clearance changes for 13 antidepressants, whereas the PIs only had evidence about 4 antidepressants (κ < 0.4). Similarly, the literature identified 45 medications that could potentially interact with a specific antidepressant, whereas the PIs only provided evidence about 12 potential medication-antidepressant DDIs (κ < 0.4).

CONCLUSION

The evidence-based literature compared with PIs is the most complete pharmacotherapy information source about both age-related clearance changes and pharmacokinetic DDIs with antidepressants. Future rigorously designed observational studies are needed to examine the combined risk of antidepressants with age-related decline in clearance and potential DDIs on important health outcomes such as falls and fractures in older patients.

[Pharmacological treatment of depression]

Depression is a disorder with higher prevalence that generates important costs in the personal and socioeconomic fields. We have currently various antidepressants drugs for its treatment. In this article a review of these drugs is carried out, including various approaches necessary for addressing the special characteristics of each clinical situation. Pharmacological strategies for resistant depression are evaluated later. Finally, the future research lines are analyzed in order to improve the pharmacological depression treatment.

Lack of pharmacologic interaction between paroxetine and alprazolam at steady state in healthy volunteers

This investigation aimed to provide evidence on the lack of pharmacokinetic interaction of paroxetine (20 mg/d) and alprazolam (1 mg/d) in combined therapy. In addition, the central effects of both drugs when administered alone and in combination were assessed to rule out any relevant synergistic depressant central effect. Twenty-five healthy young adult volunteers participated in a double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, repeated dose (15 days), 4-period crossover study. Each subject received each of 4 treatment sequences (ie, paroxetine-alprazolam placebo, alprazolam-paroxetine placebo, paroxetine-alprazolam, and paroxetine placebo-alprazolam placebo) in randomized order. The ratios for area under the curve within a dosing interval and maximum plasma concentration of the paroxetine plus alprazolam sequence to single agent paroxetine were 1.07 (90% confidence interval = 0.99 to 1.16) and 1.05 (90% confidence interval = 0.97 to 1.13), respectively, with no statistically significant differences between the 2 treatments. Similarly, for alprazolam, ratios for the combined to the single treatment sequence were 0.99 (90% confidence interval = 0.93 to 1.05) and 1.00 (90% confidence interval = 0.94 to 1.07) for area under the curve within a dosing interval and maximum plasma concentration, respectively, showing no evidence for interaction. Comparative pharmacodynamics on the combination was assessed using 6 Psychomotor Performance Tests and 5 Visual Analogue Scales focused on mood variables. Alprazolam and paroxetine plus alprazolam induced similar and significant performance impairment and sedation after both single and repeated dose administration, being less evident on day 15. After dosing, paroxetine plus alprazolam showed a lower recovery pattern than alprazolam alone, especially on day 15. No treatment sequence showed cumulative effects after repeated dose administration. Psychomotor Performance Tests and Visual Analogue Scales data suggested lack of pharmacodynamic interactions. Accordingly, study results showed no evidence for pharmacologic interactions between paroxetine and alprazolam at steady state. The most commonly reported adverse event was drowsiness, with a higher incidence under both single and combined alprazolam treatments.

Treatment of Anxiety and Depression in Transplant Patients

Depressive and anxiety disorders appear during the transplant process due to psychological stressors, medications and physiological disturbances. Treatment is necessary to prevent impact on patient compliance, morbidity and mortality. Psychotropic medications provide an effective option, although most are only available as oral formulations. Because of this, they are more susceptible to alterations in pharmacokinetic behaviour arising from organ dysfunction in the pretransplant period. Kinetics are also an issue when considering potential drug-drug interactions before and after transplantation. Prior to transplant, organ dysfunction can change the pharmacokinetic behaviour of some psychotropic agents, requiring adjustment of dosage and schedules. Thoracic or abdominal organ failure may reduce drug absorption through disturbances in intestinal motility, perfusion and function. Cirrhotic patients experience increased drug bioavailability due to portosystemic shunting, and thus dosage is adjusted downward. In contrast, dosage needs to be raised when peripheral oedema expands the drug distribution volume for hydrophilic and protein-bound agents. Drug clearance for most psychotropic medications is dependent upon hepatic metabolism, which is often disrupted by endstage organ disease. Selection of drugs or their dosage may need to be adjusted to lower the risk of drug accumulation. Further adjustments in dosage may be called for when renal failure accompanies thoracic or abdominal organ failure, resulting in further impairment of clearance. Studies regarding the treatment of anxiety and depressive disorders in the medically ill are limited in number, but recommendations are possible by review of clinical and pharmacokinetic data. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are well tolerated and efficacious for depression, panic disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. Adjustments in dosage are required when renal or hepatic impairment is present. Among them, citalopram and escitalopram appear to have the least risk of drug-drug interactions. Paroxetine has demonstrated evidence supporting its use with generalised anxiety disorder. Venlafaxine is an alternative option, beneficial in depression, post-traumatic stress and generalised anxiety disorders. Nefazodone may also be considered, but there is some risk of hepatotoxicity and interactions with immunosuppressant drugs. Mirtazapine still needs to be studied further in anxiety disorders, but can be helpful for depression accompanied by anorexia and insomnia. Bupropion is effective in the treatment of depression, but data are sparse about its use in anxiety disorders. Psychostimulants are a unique approach if rapid onset of antidepressant action is desired. Acute or short-term anxiolysis is obtained with benzodiazepines, and selection of particular agents entails consideration of distribution rate, half-life and metabolic route.

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).

Psychotropic drugs, cardiac arrhythmia, and sudden death

A variety of drugs targeted towards the central nervous system are associated with cardiac side effects, some of which are linked with reports of arrhythmia and sudden death. Some psychotropic drugs, particularly tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and antipsychotic agents, are correlated with iatrogenic prolongation of the QT interval of the electrocardiogram (ECG). In turn, this is associated with the arrhythmia (TdP). This review discusses the association between psychotropic agents, arrhythmia and sudden death and, focusing on TCAs and antipsychotics, considers their range of cellular actions on the heart; potentially pro-arrhythmic interactions between psychotropic and other medications are also considered. At the cellular level TCAs, such as imipramine and amitriptyline, and antipsychotics, such as thioridazine, are associated with inhibition of potassium channels encoded by In many cases this cellular action correlates with ECG changes and a risk of TdP. However, not all psychotropic agents that inhibit HERG at the cellular level are associated equally with QT prolongation in patients, and the potential for QT prolongation is not always equally correlated with TdP. Differences in risk between classes of psychotropic drugs, and between individual drugs within a class, may result from additional cellular effects of particular agents, which may influence the consequent effects of inhibition of repolarizing potassium current.

Clinically significant drug interactions with antidepressants in the elderly

Pharmacological treatment of depression in old age is associated with an increased risk of adverse pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions. Elderly patients may have multiple disease states and, therefore, may require a variety of other drugs. In addition to polypharmacy, other factors such as age-related physiological changes, diseases, genetic constitution and diet may alter drug response and, therefore, predispose elderly patients to adverse effects and drug interactions. Antidepressant drugs currently available differ in their potential for drug interactions. In general, older compounds, such as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), have a higher potential for interactions than newer compounds, such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other relatively novel agents with a more specific mechanism of action. In particular, TCAs and MAOIs are associated with clinically significant pharmacodynamic interactions with many medications frequently prescribed to elderly patients. Moreover, TCAs may be susceptible to pharmacokinetic interactions when given in combination with inhibitors or inducers of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoenzymes involved in their metabolism. Because of a more selective mechanism of action, newer antidepressants have a low potential for pharmacodynamic drug interactions. However, the possibility of the serotonin syndrome should be taken into account when drugs affecting serotonergic transmission, such as SSRIs, venlafaxine or nefazodone, are coadministered with other serotonergic agents. Newer agents have a differential potential for pharmacokinetic interactions because of their selective effects on CYP isoenzymes. Within the group of SSRIs, fluoxetine and paroxetine are potent inhibitors of CYP2D6, while fluvoxamine predominantly affects CYP1A2 and CYP2C19 activity. Therefore, these agents should be closely monitored or avoided in elderly patients treated with substrates of these isoforms, especially those with a narrow therapeutic index. On the other hand, citalopram and sertraline have a low inhibitory activity on different drug metabolising enzymes and appear particularly suitable in an elderly population. Among other newer antidepressants, nefazodone is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A4 and its combination with substrates of this isoform should be avoided.

Lack of citalopram effect on oral digoxin pharmacokinetics

The effect of chronic administration of citalopram on the single oral dose pharmacokinetics of digoxin was evaluated in 11 healthy adult subjects in an open, one-way crossover study. Subjects received 1 mg digoxin on day 1. Serial blood samples and total urine were collected over 192 hours, followed by an 11-day washout period. On days 22 through 50, subjects received 40 mg citalopram once daily. On day 43, a single dose of 1 mg digoxin was coadministered; again, serial blood samples and total urine were collected over 192 hours after the digoxin dose. There were no statistically significant differences in any of the digoxin pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC(0-->24), AUC(0-->infinity), Cmax, tmax, t(1/2), CL/F, CLrenal, and Ae(0-->infinity)), and the 90% confidence intervals for treatment differences for the parameters (except for tmax) were all within 80% to 125%. Concomitant digoxin administration did not significantly affect citalopram pharmacokinetics. The treatment was well tolerated by all subjects; no serious adverse events and no clinically significant ECG changes were observed. These data suggest that it is unlikely that concomitantly administered citalopram would have any significant effect on serum digoxin concentrations in patients who are receiving chronic digoxin therapy.

Antidepressants, old and new. A review of their adverse effects and toxicity in overdose

The newer antidepressants are as efficacious as the older agents in the treatment of depression. They have a side effect profile that is different from the older drugs and are generally better tolerated. Drug-drug interactions do exist with some of these agents and can usually be predicted from knowledge of their metabolism. When taken in overdose as the sole agents they are rarely fatal; seizures, nausea, vomiting, decreased level of consciousness, and tachycardia are common. In combination with other drugs, toxicity can be more severe. The serotonin syndrome can occur with many of these drugs, and the emergency physician must be vigilant in the evaluation of the overdose patient. CAs and older MAOIs are still in use and remain dangerous when taken in overdose. Patients asymptomatic after a period of observation in the ED usually can be discharged after psychiatric evaluation, when it is required.

Clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with benzodiazepines

The reports of interactions between benzodiazepines (BZPs) and other drugs (e.g., antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, antiulcer drugs, antiepileptic drugs, macrolide antibiotics) during their combined use are reviewed. In general, metabolism of BZPs is delayed when combined with a number of other drugs but some reports have suggested otherwise. In recent years, the cytochrome P450 (P450 or CYP) isoenzyme that catalyses the metabolism of BZPs has also been identified. BZPs are mainly catalysed by CYP3A4. When published reports are studied, it appears necessary to be exceptionally careful about interactions mainly between BZPs and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cimetidine, antiepileptic drugs, macrolide antibiotics and antimycotics. More information is necessary to identify individuals at greatest risk of drug interactions and adverse events.

Clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with psychoactive drugs: antidepressants and antipsychotics and the cytochrome P450 system

Psychotherapeutic drugs (antipsychotics and antidepressants) are widely used for treating anxiety. Many psychotherapeutic drugs are metabolized mainly by cytochrome P450 (CYP)2C19 and CYP2D6, and are often administered with other drugs. Therefore, it is necessary to be careful when co-administering psychotherapeutic drugs whose metabolism might be inhibited by other drugs. In particular, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) inhibit the metabolism of psychotherapeutic drugs mediated by CYP2C19 and CYP2D6. It is useful to phenotype CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 (extensive metabolizers or poor metabolizers) before giving such medication. Knowledge of substrates, inhibitors and inducers of CYP isoenzymes may help clinicians to anticipate and avoid psychotherapeutic drug interactions and improve rational prescribing practices. In addition, genotyping for these drugs may be also useful in preventing side-effects.

Drug-drug interactions in pediatric psychopharmacology

Serious consequences caused by drug-drug interactions continue to plague contemporary pharmacotherapy. The possibility of a drug-drug interaction should be suspected anytime a new or unexpected effect occurs that complicates the clinical management of a patient in the setting where the patient is receiving more than one drug. In this article, the authors address the mechanisms of pharmacokinetic-based drug-drug interactions focusing on important interactions that may occur with the common medications a pediatrician may prescribe to the child receiving psychoactive medication(s) prescribed by a child psychiatrist.

Psychopharmacologic treatment of depression in the medically ill

Appropriate selection of an antidepressant agent in medically ill patients requires a careful risk-benefit assessment matching the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the drug being considered against the patient's physiological vulnerabilities, potential for drug interactions, and primary symptoms of the patient's depression. While in the past antidepressant drug selection was limited by the almost sole availability of the tricyclic antidepressants, newer drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, bupropion, and venlafaxine have vastly simplified treating depression in the medically ill. In refractory cases of depression in patients with medical illness, electroconvulsive therapy can be used with appropriate anesthetic management.

Paroxetine. An update of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in depression and a review of its use in other disorders

Paroxetine is a potent and selective inhibitor of the neuronal reuptake of serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT), which was previously reviewed as an antidepressant in Drugs in 1991. Since then, more comparative trials with other antidepressants have become available, and its use in the elderly and as long term maintenance therapy has been investigated. Paroxetine has also been studied in several other disorders with a presumed serotonergic component, primarily obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and panic disorder. In short term clinical trials in patients with depression, paroxetine produced clinical improvements that were significantly greater than those with placebo and similar to those achieved with other agents including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), maprotiline, nefazodone and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) fluoxetine, fluvoxamine and sertraline. Long term data suggest that paroxetine is effective in preventing relapse or recurrence of depression in patients treated for up to 1 year. In the elderly, the overall efficacy of paroxetine was at least as good as that of comparator agents. In short term clinical trials involving patients with OCD or panic disorder, paroxetine was significantly more effective than placebo and of similar efficacy to clomipramine. Limited long term data show that paroxetine is effective in maintaining a therapeutic response over periods of 1 year (OCD) and up to 6 months (panic disorder). Preliminary data suggest that paroxetine has potential in the treatment of social phobia, premenstrual dysphoric disorder and chronic headache. Like the other SSRIs, paroxetine is better tolerated than the TCAs, causing few anticholinergic adverse effects. The most commonly reported adverse event associated with paroxetine treatment is nausea, although this is generally mild and subsides with continued use. Fewer withdrawals from treatment due to adverse effects occurred with paroxetine treatment than with TCAs. The adverse events profile of paroxetine appears to be broadly similar to that of other SSRIs, although data from comparative trials are limited. Serious adverse effects associated with paroxetine are very rare. In conclusion, paroxetine is effective and well tolerated, and suitable as first-line therapy for depression. It also appears to be a useful alternative to other available agents for the treatment of patients with OCD or panic disorder.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and CNS drug interactions. A critical review of the evidence

The potential for drug-drug interactions in psychiatric patients is very high as combination psychopharmacotherapy used to treat comorbid psychiatric disorders, to treat the adverse effects of a medication, to augment a medication effect or to treat concomitant medical illnesses. Interactions can be pharmacodynamic or pharmacokinetic in nature. This paper focuses on the metabolic kinetic interactions between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and other central nervous system (CNS) drugs. The evidence for and clinical significance of these interactions are reviewed, with special emphasis on antipsychotics, tricyclic antidepressants and benzodiazepines. Many psychotropic medications have an affinity for the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes which promote elimination by transforming lipid soluble substances into more polar compounds. SSRIs serve both as substrates and inhibitors of these enzymes. In vitro studies provide a screening method for evaluating drug affinities for substrates, inhibitors or inducers of CYP enzymes. Although in vitro data are important as a starting point for predicting these metabolic kinetic drug interactions, case reports and controlled experimental studies in humans are required to fully evaluate their clinical significance. Several factors must be considered when evaluating the clinical significance of a potential interaction including: (a) the nature of each drugs' activity at an enzyme site (substrate, inhibitor or inducer); (b) the potency estimations for the inhibitor/inducer; (c) the concentration of the inhibitor/inducer at the enzyme site; (d) the saturability of the enzyme; (e) the extent of metabolism of the substrate through this enzyme (versus alternative metabolic routes); (f) the presence of active metabolites of the substrate; (g) the therapeutic window of the substrate; (h) the inherent enzyme activity of the individual, phenotyping/genotyping information; (i) the level of risk of the individual experiencing adverse effects (e.g. the elderly) and (j) from an epidemiological perspective, the probability of concurrent use. This paper systematically reviews both the in vitro and in vivo evidence for drug interactions between SSRIs and other CNS drugs. As potent inhibitors of CYP2D6, both paroxetine and fluoxetine have the potential to increase the plasma concentrations of antipsychotic medications metabolised through this enzyme, including perphenazine, haloperidol, thioridazine and risperidone in patients who are CYP2D6 extensive metabolisers. Controlled studies have demonstrated this for perphenazine with paroxetine and haloperidol with fluoxetine. Fluvoxamine, as a potent inhibitor of CYP1A2, can inhibit the metabolism of clozapine, resulting in higher plasma concentrations. Drug interactions between the SSRIs and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) can occur. Fluoxetine and paroxetine, as potent inhibitors of CYP2D6, can increase the plasma concentrations of secondary and tertiary tricyclic antidepressants. Sertraline and citalopram are less likely to have this effect. Fluvoxamine can increase the plasma concentrations of tertiary TCAs. Fluvoxamine inhibits, via CYP3A. CYP2C19 and CYP1A2, the metabolism of several benzodiazepines, including alprazolam, bromazepam and diazepam. Fluoxetine increases the plasma concentrations of alprazolam and diazepam by inhibiting CYP3A and CYP2C19, respectively. The clinical importance of the interaction with diazepam is attenuated by the presence of its active metabolite. Sertraline inhibits these enzymes only mildely to moderately at usual therapeutic doses. Therefore the potential for interactions is less; however, the in vivo evidence is minimal. Paroxetine and citalopram are unlikely to cause interactions with benzodiazepines. The evidence is conflicting for an interaction between carbamazepine and the SSRIs fluoxetine and fluvoxamine. These combinations should be used cautiously, and be accompanied by monitoring for adverse events and carb

Clinically relevant pharmacology of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. An overview with emphasis on pharmacokinetics and effects on oxidative drug metabolism

This paper presents an overview of the clinically relevant pharmacology of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) with an emphasis on their pharmacokinetics and effects on cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. The SSRIs are potent inhibitors of the neuronal reuptake pump for serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) and have minimal effects on a number of other sites of actions (e.g. neuroreceptors and fast sodium channels). For this reason, drugs in this class have remarkable similarity as regards acute and maintenance antidepressant efficacy and tolerability profile. However, individual members of this class differ substantially in their pharmacokinetics and effects on CYP enzymes. Most SSRIs have a half-life (t1/2) of approximately 1 day. Fluoxetine, however, has a longer t1/2 of 2 to 4 days, and its active metabolite, norfluoxetine, has an extended t1/2 of 7 to 15 days. Fluoxetine, paroxetine and, to a lesser extent, fluvoxamine inhibit their own metabolism. That is not the case for citalopram or sertraline. There are nonlinear increases in paroxetine plasma concentrations with dosage increases, but proportional changes with citalopram and sertraline. Indirect data suggest that fluoxetine and fluvoxamine also have nonlinear pharmacokinetics over their usual dosage range. Age-related increases in plasma drug concentrations for citalopram (approximately 130%) and paroxetine (approximately 50 to 100%) have been observed in healthy elderly (65 to 75 years) persons versus those who are younger. There is an age-gender interaction for sertraline, with its plasma concentrations being 35 to 40% lower in young men than in elderly or young females or elderly males. While there is no apparent change in fluvoxamine plasma levels as a function of age, plasma drug concentrations are 40 to 50% lower in males than in females. Limited data from clinical trials suggest that age-related differences with fluoxetine may be comparable to those of citalopram and paroxetine. Marked differences exist between the SSRIs with regard to effects on specific CYP enzymes and, thus, the likelihood of clinically important pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. The most extensive in vitro and in vivo research has been done with fluoxetine, fluvoxamine and sertraline; there has been less with paroxetine and citalopram. The available in vivo data at each drug's usually effective antidepressant dose are summarised below. Citalopram produces mild inhibition of CYP2D6. Fluvoxamine produces inhibition (which would be expected to be clinically meaningful) of two CYP enzymes. CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, and probably a third, CYP3A3/4. Fluoxetine substantially inhibits CYP2D6 and probably CYP2C9/10, moderately inhibits CYP2C19 and mildly inhibits CYP3A3/4. Paroxetine substantially inhibits CYP2D6 but doses not appear to inhibit any other CYP enzyme. Sertraline produces mild inhibition of CYP2D6 but has little, if any, effect on CYP1A2, CYP2C9/10, CYP2C19 or CYP3A3/4. Understanding the similarities and differences in the pharmacology of SSRIs can aid the clinician in optimal use of this important class of antidepressants.

Effects of serotonin reuptake inhibitors on hemostasis

OBJECTIVE

To examine the hematologic safety profile of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), with particular emphasis on the effects of these drugs on platelet aggregation.

METHODS

Platelet aggregation studies were undertaken at baseline, and repeated 2 and 4 weeks after the initiation of treatment with an SSRI. Other investigations undertaken included analysis of serum electrolyte and liver enzyme concentrations, complete blood count, and coagulation studies. Patients were also assessed for clinical signs of bleeding. Eight patients (7 treated with fluoxetine, 1 with paroxetine) completed the study protocol.

RESULTS

Repeated ANOVA revealed no abnormalities in platelet aggregation, hematopoiesis, or coagulation profile. No patient developed clinical signs of abnormal hemostasis during the study period. A statistically significant elevation in the mean serum bilirubin concentration was detected, but this was not of clinical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the SSRIs may cause abnormal hemostasis, this effect is probably rare. Another possibility is that abnormal hemostasis is more likely to occur when high doses of SSRIs are administered.

New antidepressant drugs and the treatment of depression in the medically ill patient

The advent of the SSRIs, venlafaxine, bupropion, and nefazodone, has greatly expanded pharmacologic treatment options for the depressed medically ill patient. Although the relatively benign side effects of these medications on cardiac conduction and blood pressure allow for more liberal use in the medically ill, these drugs nevertheless have different capacities for adverse drug interactions that must be considered. Nevertheless, such interactions can usually be avoided or managed by knowledgeable clinicians cognizant of the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic principles outlined in this article.

Expanding psychopharmacologic treatment options for the depressed medical patient

Psychopharmacologic treatment of depression in medically ill patients is greatly enhanced by the availability of new antidepressant medications that have low or no anticholinergic, anti-alpha-adrenergic, antihistaminic, and quinidine-like properties. This article discusses the important pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline), bupropion, venlafaxine, and nefazodone--with an emphasis on their side effects relevant to medical patients as well as important drug interactions. In addition, the safety of these newer medications is compared with that of tricyclics; the role for continued tricyclic use in the medical-psychiatric population is examined; the use of electroconvulsive therapy in medically ill patients who are refractory to antidepressants is also briefly discussed.

The SSRIs: advantages, disadvantages and differences

The highly specific mechanism of action of the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) confers advantages on this group, relative to other classes of antidepressant, and thus represents a significant advance in the pharmacotherapy of depression. Whilst their clinical efficacy is equivalent to that of the tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), the SSRIs have a greatly reduced risk of toxicity in overdose and have been shown to be significantly better tolerated. Specifically, the SSRIs have a low incidence of anticholinergic effects and are essentially devoid of cardiotoxicity. This tolerability advantage may be of significance in improving compliance and hence cost-effectiveness of treatment, particularly in the long term. Despite a lack of sedative effect, there is evidence that SSRIs are more effective than TCAs in the treatment of depression with anxiety. In addition, the SSRIs have been shown to be effective in obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder and social phobia. Although superior efficacy has not been demonstrated for any one of the SSRIs, the structural diversity of this group is reflected in emerging qualitative and quantitative differences in side effects and drug interaction potential. Many of these differential features reflect important variations in pharmacological and pharmacokinetic profiles, including dosage flexibility, washout times, dose-plasma level proportionality and age-related changes in plasma levels. Fluoxetine, for example, has a considerably longer half-life than other SSRIs and side effects and drug interactions may thus occur for an extended period following discontinuation of treatment. Significant differences in the potential for drug interactions in this group are related to their relative potency for inhibition of important liver drug-metabolising enzymes including CYPIID6, CYPIA2 and CYPIIIA4. Large comparative clinical trials of the different SSRIs have yet to be undertaken; however, the differences that have already become apparent provide important information enabling the physician to choose an SSRI appropriate to the individual patient.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: pharmacologic profiles and potential therapeutic distinctions

OBJECTIVE

To review the respective pharmacologic profiles of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), with particular emphasis placed on clinically relevant distinctions.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search was conducted to identify English language literature published within the last five years on the four SSRIs (fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, fluvoxamine). Previous review articles were scrutinized for additional citations, and manufacturers provided a contemporary bibliography of more recent material.

STUDY SELECTION/DATA EXTRACTION

Studies were selected for specific citation on the basis of comparative research merit and the contribution of this original literature to the pharmacologic profile(s) described.

DATA SYNTHESIS

All SSRIs appear to be more efficacious than placebo for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). Short-term (six-week) efficacy was comparable with that of tricyclic antidepressants for the amelioration of MDD regarded as moderate in severity. Further comparative trials are clearly indicated to demonstrate the therapeutic benefits of SSRIs in specific populations (e.g., geriatric, severely ill) and to demonstrate sustained benefit with long-term prophylaxis. Other potential indications for SSRIs include obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, bulimia, and chronic pain syndromes. Pharmacokinetic profiles of the four SSRIs reveal similar parametric values, and most quantitative differences are of limited clinical significance. Adverse effects are common but ordinarily mild and transient, primarily restricted to the gastrointestinal tract and central nervous system. Important differences in the prevalence or severity of these adverse effects await the accumulation of further clinical experience and the completion of additional comparative trials. Similarly, the relative propensity of SSRIs to inhibit the metabolism of other medications is currently under investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

The four SSRIs studied appear to be more similar than they are different. Slowly, important distinctions are beginning to emerge with regard to adverse effect profiles and potential drug interactions. Given that the costs of these respective medications are comparable, such differences may ultimately serve to establish the preferential selection of individual agents in specific clinical situations.

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of therapy with newer antidepressants

Since the early 1950s, when imipramine was first introduced, a whole series of antidepressants with differences in structures, neurochemical effects and pharmacokinetics have been developed. Structurally or functionally, they have been classified as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), tetracyclic antidepressants, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), or selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). In addition, there is a series of antidepressants with unique structures. Many of the newer TCAs appear to have shorter half-lives than the standard TCAs (e.g. imipramine), allowing for the possibility of a more rapid response, but requiring the drugs to be given in multiple daily doses, which may reduce patient compliance. The short time to peak plasma concentration (tmax) can also lead to rapid onset of adverse effects. The tetracyclic antidepressants have longer elimination half-lives (t1/2) than the TCAs, but there is only very minimal evidence for a relationship between drug concentrations in the blood and clinical response. The triazolopyridines, like the newer TCAs, show pharmacokinetic evidence for rapid onset of adverse effects and the need for multiple daily doses due to short tmax and t1/2. The newer MAOIs are a significant addition to therapy, as the rapid binding action of these medications increases their safety margin with regard to tyramine interactions. Further information in this area is required. In addition, moclobemide has pharmacokinetic features that are clinically beneficial (e.g. aging and renal dysfunction have little effect on the elimination of the drug), but also features that are not beneficial (e.g. nonlinear pharmacokinetics). Among the SSRIs, there are a range of t1/2 values for the parent drugs, from relatively short t1/2 values of less than 24 hours (paroxetine, fluvoxamine) to among the longest found (e.g. 2 days for fluoxetine). Only 2 of the agents (sertraline and citalopram) have linear pharmacokinetics, and 1 drug has nonlinear pharmacokinetics within the usual therapeutic range (fluvoxamine). Once a therapeutic blood concentration is established, linearity is helpful in avoiding the small dose changes and repeated rechecking of concentrations of medications that would be required for those agents with nonlinear pharmacokinetics. Sertraline stands out as having the best effects on behaviour among all antidepressants. However, fluoxetine and fluvoxamine are least likely to penetrate into breast milk. All 3 of the structurally unique newer antidepressants [amfebutamone (bupropion), viloxazine venlafaxine] have relatively short tmax values (1 to 2 hours), which may relate to the early onset of adverse effects. Amfebutamone has the benefits of linear pharmacokinetics with potential for defined therapeutic blood concentrations, lack of effect of liver enzymes on metabolism of the drug, and lack of significant effects of either aging or hepatic dysfunction on elimination of the drug. Thus, the antidepressants best suited for pharmacokinetic optimisation of therapy are the following: desipramine, sertraline, fluvoxamine, citalopram and amfebutamone.

Pharmacokinetics of paroxetine in patients with cirrhosis

In a 14-day multiple-dose study the pharmacokinetics of paroxetine was investigated in 12 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and in 6 subjects without liver disease. The dose of 20-30 mg paroxetine daily was adjusted to the reduction in liver function, as assessed by the galactose elimination capacity. Accordingly, all but two of the cirrhotic patients received 20 mg, while all six control subjects received 30 mg. Dose-corrected, trough drug concentration at steady state (CSSmin) and dose-corrected AUC24h were significantly higher in the patients with liver diseases than in the control subjects [3.4 vs 1.5 ng.ml-1 per mg paroxetine and 89 vs 43 h (ng).ml-1 per mg paroxetine]. The elimination t1/2 was prolonged [83 vs 36 h], but the difference was not statistically significant, and the cirrhotic patients were still able to clear almost all the paroxetine by metabolism. All but two patients with cirrhosis experienced nausea during the first two or three days after the first dose, while none of the controls had this symptom. The study showed slower elimination of paroxetine and consequently higher plasma levels in patients with cirrhosis, suggesting that in the latter the dose of paroxetine should be in the lower end of the therapeutic range.

Paroxetine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic potential in depressive illness

Paroxetine is a potent and selective inhibitor of the neuronal reuptake of serotonin, thereby facilitating serotoninergic transmission; this action appears to account for the antidepressant activity observed with this drug. A mean terminal elimination half-life of approximately 24 hours permits once daily administration. Results of short term clinical trials have shown paroxetine to be significantly superior to placebo, and comparable to amitriptyline, clomipramine, imipramine, dothiepin and mianserin in relieving symptoms associated with major depressive disorders. Paroxetine has shown some preliminary promise in the treatment of depressive illness resistant to tricyclic antidepressant therapy but further studies are required before any conclusions can be drawn. Paroxetine in therapeutic doses has been very well tolerated, and the favourable tolerability profile of this agent appears to be its primary advantage over traditional antidepressant agents. Paroxetine causes minimal anticholinergic-type adverse effects, and unlike tricyclic antidepressants, it does not precipitate cardiovascular effects or provoke cardiac conduction disturbances. Nausea has been the most frequently reported adverse event during short term use of paroxetine, but it is generally mild and transient and subsides with continued use. With longer term use headache, sweating and constipation were the most frequently reported side effects but the incidence rate was not significantly different from that noted for comparator antidepressants. Furthermore, the frequency of withdrawal due to adverse effects is less with paroxetine than with tricyclic antidepressant agents. Overall, available data appear to indicate that while the efficacy of paroxetine is similar to that of traditional antidepressant drugs, the newer agent possesses much improved tolerability. In addition, the wide therapeutic index of paroxetine may be beneficial when treating patients with an increased risk of suicide. Thus, paroxetine clearly looks to become a valuable addition to the range of drugs currently available to treat depressive illness. Future research may help to further define the relative place of this newer agent in antidepressant therapy and determine how its overall therapeutic efficacy compares with that of other related antidepressant agents such as fluoxetine.

A review of the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of paroxetine in man

Paroxetine is well absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, and appears to undergo first-pass metabolism which is partially saturable. Consistent with its lipophilic amine character, paroxetine is extensively distributed into tissues. Its plasma protein binding at therapeutically relevant concentrations is about 95%. Paroxetine is eliminated by metabolism involving oxidation, methylation, and conjugation. All of these factors lead to wide interindividual variation in the pharmacokinetics of paroxetine. Renal clearance of the compound is negligible. The major metabolites of paroxetine are conjugates which do not compromise its selectivity nor contribute to the clinical response. Ascending single-dose studies reveal that the pharmacokinetics of paroxetine are non-linear to a limited extent in most subjects and to a marked degree in only a few. Also, steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters are not predictable from single-dose data. In many subjects, daily administration of 20-50 mg of paroxetine leads to little or no disproportionality in plasma levels with dose, although in a few subjects this phenomenon is evident. Steady-state plasma concentrations are generally achieved within 7 to 14 days. The terminal half-life is about one day, although there is a wide intersubject variability (e.g. with 30 mg, a range of 7-65 hours was observed in a group of 28 healthy young subjects). In elderly subjects there is wide interindividual variation in steady-state pharmacokinetic parameters, with statistically significantly higher plasma concentrations and slower elimination than in younger subjects, although there is a large degree of overlap in the ranges of corresponding parameters. In severe renal impairment higher plasma levels of paroxetine are achieved than in healthy individuals after single dose. In moderate hepatic impairment the pharmacokinetics after single doses are similar to those of normal subjects. Paroxetine is not a general inducer or inhibitor of hepatic oxidation processes, and has little or no effect on the pharmacokinetics of other drugs examined. Its metabolism and pharmacokinetics are to some degree affected by the induction or inhibition of drug metabolizing enzyme(s). From a pharmacokinetic standpoint, drug interactions involving paroxetine are considered unlikely to be a frequent occurrence. Data available have failed to reveal any correlation between plasma concentrations of paroxetine and its clinical effects (either efficacy or adverse events).