An assessment of drug-drug interactions: the effect of desvenlafaxine and duloxetine on the pharmacokinetics of the CYP2D6 probe desipramine in healthy subjects

Investigation of the Differences in the Pharmacokinetics of CYP2D6 Substrates, Desipramine, and Dextromethorphan in Healthy African Subjects Carrying the Allelic Variants CYP2D6*17 and CYP2D6*29, When Compared with Normal Metabolizers

This study investigated the differences in the pharmacokinetics (PK) of dextromethorphan and desipramine in healthy African volunteers to understand the effect of allelic variants of the human cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme, namely the diplotypes of CYP2D6*1/*2 (*1*1, *1*2, *2*2) and the genotypes of CYP2D6*17*17 and CYP2D6*29*29. Overall, 28 adults were included and split into 3 cohorts after genotype screening: CYP2D6*1/*2 (n = 12), CYP2D6*17*17 (n = 12), and CYP2D6*29*29 (n = 4). Each subject received a single oral dose of dextromethorphan 30 mg syrup on day 1 and desipramine 50 mg tablet on day 8. The PK parameters of area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time of dosing to time of last quantifiable concentration (AUClast), and extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf), and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were determined. For both dextromethorphan and desipramine, AUCinf and Cmax were higher in subjects of the CYP2D6*29*29 and CYP2D6*17*17 cohorts, as compared with subjects in the CYP2D6*1/*2 diplotype cohort and with normal metabolizers from the literature. All PK parameters, including AUCinf, Cmax, and the elimination half-life, followed a similar trend: CYP2D6*17*17 > CYP2D6*29*29 > CYP2D6*1/*2. The plasma and urinary drug/metabolite exposure ratios of both drugs were higher in subjects of the CYP2D6*17*17 and CYP2D6*29*29 cohorts, when compared with subjects in the CYP2D6*1/*2 diplotype cohort. All adverse events were mild, except in 1 subject with CYP2D6*17*17 who had moderately severe headache with desipramine. These results indicate that subjects with CYP2D6*17*17 and CYP2D6*29*29 genotypes were 5-10 times slower metabolizers than those with CYP2D6*1/*2 diplotypes. These findings suggest that dose optimization may be required when administering CYP2D6 substrate drugs in African patients. Larger studies can further validate these findings.

Effect of CYP2D6 genotype on duloxetine serum concentration

Duloxetine is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP)1A2 and CYP2D6. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the CYP2D6 genotype on duloxetine serum concentration adjusting for age and sex. Patients were included retrospectively from a therapeutic drug monitoring service. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of CYP2D6 genotype, age and sex on the duloxetine concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratio. In total, 269 patients were included and assigned to the following genotype-predicted phenotype subgroups: CYP2D6 poor metabolizers (PMs, n = 23), intermediate metabolizers (IMs, n = 121), normal metabolizers (NMs, n = 120) and ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs, n = 5). Multiple linear regression analysis revealed a 95% higher duloxetine C/D ratio in PMs compared with NMs (p = 0.009). Patients ≥65 years had a 56% higher C/D ratio than younger patients (p = 0.01), while women had a 46% higher C/D ratio than men (p = 0.04). In conclusion, the CYP2D6 PM phenotype is associated with a twofold higher concentration at recommended dosing compared with the NM phenotype. CYP2D6 PM females above 65 years are at particular risk of high duloxetine levels as they may obtain a threefold higher C/D ratio compared with younger, male NMs.

Efficacy of duloxetine compared with opioid for postoperative pain control following total knee arthroplasty

Background

The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of duloxetine as an alternative to opioid treatment for postoperative pain management following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

Among 944 patients, 290 (30.7%) of patients received opioid or duloxetine for pain control for 6 weeks when the pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score was greater than 4 out of 10 at the time of discharge. 121 patients in the Opioid group and 118 in the Duloxetine group were followed up for more than one year. Preoperative and postoperative patient reported outcome measures (pain VAS score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities OA Index (WOMAC) score were compared. The rate of further drug prescription (opioid or duloxetine) after 6 weeks of first prescription, 30-day readmission rate, and side effects were also investigated.

Results

There was no significant difference in pain VAS score, WOMAC Pain and Function score, at each time point between before and after surgery (all p>0.05). Fifteen (9.8%) patients in the opioid group and six (4.4%) patients in the duloxetine group were prescribed additional medication after first 6 weeks, showing no significant (p>0.05) difference in proportion. The 30-day readmission rate and the incidence of side effects were also similar (all p>0.05). There was no difference in the incidence of side effects between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion

Duloxetine and opioid did not show any difference in pain control, function, and side effects for up to one year after TKA. Although large-scale randomized controlled trials are still required to further confirm the side effects of duloxetine, it can be considered as an alternative to opioid for postoperative pain control following TKA.

Mechanisms of CYP450 Inhibition: Understanding Drug-Drug Interactions Due to Mechanism-Based Inhibition in Clinical Practice

In an ageing society, polypharmacy has become a major public health and economic issue. Overuse of medications, especially in patients with chronic diseases, carries major health risks. One common consequence of polypharmacy is the increased emergence of adverse drug events, mainly from drug–drug interactions. The majority of currently available drugs are metabolized by CYP450 enzymes. Interactions due to shared CYP450-mediated metabolic pathways for two or more drugs are frequent, especially through reversible or irreversible CYP450 inhibition. The magnitude of these interactions depends on several factors, including varying affinity and concentration of substrates, time delay between the administration of the drugs, and mechanisms of CYP450 inhibition. Various types of CYP450 inhibition (competitive, non-competitive, mechanism-based) have been observed clinically, and interactions of these types require a distinct clinical management strategy. This review focuses on mechanism-based inhibition, which occurs when a substrate forms a reactive intermediate, creating a stable enzyme–intermediate complex that irreversibly reduces enzyme activity. This type of inhibition can cause interactions with drugs such as omeprazole, paroxetine, macrolide antibiotics, or mirabegron. A good understanding of mechanism-based inhibition and proper clinical management is needed by clinicians when such drugs are prescribed. It is important to recognize mechanism-based inhibition since it cannot be prevented by separating the time of administration of the interacting drugs. Here, we provide a comprehensive overview of the different types of mechanism-based inhibition, along with illustrative examples of how mechanism-based inhibition might affect prescribing and clinical behaviors.

Effects of the Proton Pump Inhibitors Omeprazole and Pantoprazole on the Cytochrome P450-Mediated Metabolism of Venlafaxine

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: An increasing trend in prescribing proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) inevitably increases the risk of unwanted drug-drug interactions (DDIs). The aim of this study was to uncover pharmacokinetic interactions between two PPIs-omeprazole and pantoprazole-and venlafaxine.

METHODS

A therapeutic drug monitoring database contained plasma concentrations of venlafaxine and its active metabolite O-desmethylvenlafaxine. We considered three groups: a group of patients who received venlafaxine without confounding medications (non-PPI group, n = 906); a group of patients who were comedicated with omeprazole (n = 40); and a group of patients comedicated with pantoprazole (n = 40). Plasma concentrations of venlafaxine, O-desmethylvenlafaxine and active moiety (venlafaxine + O-desmethylvenlafaxine), as well as dose-adjusted plasma concentrations, were compared using non-parametrical tests.

RESULTS

Daily doses of venlafaxine did not differ between groups (p = 0.949). The Mann-Whitney U test showed significantly higher plasma concentrations of active moiety, as well as venlafaxine and O-desmethylvenlafaxine, in both PPI groups [p = 0.023, p = 0.011, p = 0.026, +29% active moiety, +27% venlafaxine, +36% O-desmethylvenlafaxine (pantoprazole); p = 0.003, p = 0.039 and p < 0.001, +36% active moiety, +27% venlafaxine, +55% O-desmethylvenlafaxine (omeprazole)]. Significantly higher concentration-by-dose (C/D) values for venlafaxine and active moiety were detected in the pantoprazole group (p = 0.013, p = 0.006, respectively), while in the omeprazole group, C/D ratios for all three parameters-venlafaxine, O-desmethylvenlafaxine and active moiety-were significantly higher (p = 0.021, p < 0.001 and p < 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly higher plasma concentrations for all parameters (venlafaxine, O-desmethylvenlafaxine, active moiety) suggest clinically relevant inhibitory effects of both PPIs, most likely on the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19-mediated metabolism of venlafaxine. The findings might be the result of different degrees of CYP2C19 involvement, therefore the inhibition of CYP2C19 by both PPIs may lead to an increased metabolism via CYP2D6 to O-desmethylvenlafaxine.

Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling for the Prediction of CYP2D6-Mediated Gene-Drug-Drug Interactions

The aim of this work was to predict the extent of Cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6)‐mediated drug–drug interactions (DDIs) in different CYP2D6 genotypes using physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. Following the development of a new duloxetine model and optimization of a paroxetine model, the effect of genetic polymorphisms on CYP2D6‐mediated intrinsic clearances of dextromethorphan, duloxetine, and paroxetine was estimated from rich pharmacokinetic profiles in activity score (AS)1 and AS2 subjects. We obtained good predictions for the dextromethorphan–duloxetine interaction (Ratio of predicted over observed area under the curve (AUC) ratio (R_pred/obs) 1.38–1.43). Similarly, the effect of genotype was well predicted, with an increase of area under the curve ratio of 28% in AS2 subjects when compared with AS1 (observed, 33%). Despite an approximately twofold underprediction of the dextromethorphan–paroxetine interaction, an R_pred/obs of 0.71 was obtained for the effect of genotype on the area under the curve ratio. Therefore, PBPK modeling can be successfully used to predict gene–drug–drug interactions (GDDIs). Based on these promising results, a workflow is suggested for the generic evaluation of GDDIs and DDIs that can be applied in other situations.

Mechanisms, Predictors, and Challenges in Assessing and Managing Painful Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy

OBJECTIVE

To describe the known predictors and pathophysiological mechanisms of chronic painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in cancer survivors and the challenges in assessing and managing it.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO.

CONCLUSION

The research on chronic painful CIPN is limited. Additional research is needed to identify the predictors and pathophysiological mechanisms of chronic painful CIPN to inform the development of assessment tools and management options for this painful and possibly debilitating condition.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Recognition of the predictors of chronic painful CIPN and proactive CIPN assessment and palliative management are important steps in reducing its impact on physical function and quality of life.

Genotype-sensitive reversible and time-dependent CYP2D6 inhibition in human liver microsomes

Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 metabolizes a wide range of xenobiotics and is characterized by a huge interindividual variability. A recent clinical study highlighted differential magnitude of CYP inhibition as a function of CYP2D6 genotype. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of CYP2D6 genotype on the inhibition of dextromethorphan O-demethylation by duloxetine and paroxetine in human liver microsomes (HLMs). The study focused on genotypes defined by the combination of two fully functional alleles (activity score 2, AS 2, n = 6), of one fully functional and one reduced allele (activity score 1.5, AS 1.5, n = 4) and of one fully functional and one non-functional allele (activity score 1, AS 1, n = 6), which all predict extensive metabolizer phenotype. Kinetic experiments showed that maximal reaction velocity was affected by CYP2D6 genotype, with a decrease in 33% of V_max in AS 1 HLMs compared to AS 2 (P = 0.06). No difference in inhibition parameters K_i , K_I and k_inact was observed neither with the competitive inhibitor duloxetine nor with the time-dependent inhibitor paroxetine. Among the genotypes tested, we found no difference in absolute CYP2D6 microsomal levels with ELISA immunoquantification. Therefore, our results suggest that genotype-sensitive magnitude of drug-drug interactions recently observed in vivo is likely to be due to differential amounts of functional enzymes at the microsomal level rather than to a difference in inhibition potencies across genotypes, which motivates for further quantitative proteomic investigations of functional and variant CYP2D6 alleles.

Effect of duloxetine on pain, function, and quality of life among patients with chemotherapy-induced painful peripheral neuropathy: a randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE

There are no known effective treatments for painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of duloxetine, 60 mg daily, on average pain severity.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover trial at 8 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-funded cooperative research networks that enrolled 231 patients who were 25 years or older being treated at community and academic settings between April 2008 and March 2011. Study follow-up was completed July 2012. Stratified by chemotherapeutic drug and comorbid pain risk, patients were randomized to receive either duloxetine followed by placebo or placebo followed by duloxetine. Eligibility required that patients have grade 1 or higher sensory neuropathy according to the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and at least 4 on a scale of 0 to 10, representing average chemotherapy-induced pain, after paclitaxel, other taxane, or oxaliplatin treatment.

INTERVENTIONS

The initial treatment consisted of taking 1 capsule daily of either 30 mg of duloxetine or placebo for the first week and 2 capsules of either 30 mg of duloxetine or placebo daily for 4 additional weeks.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary hypothesis was that duloxetine would be more effective than placebo in decreasing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathic pain. Pain severity was assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form "average pain" item with 0 representing no pain and 10 representing as bad as can be imagined.

RESULTS

Individuals receiving duloxetine as their initial 5-week treatment reported a mean decrease in average pain of 1.06 (95% CI, 0.72-1.40) vs 0.34 (95% CI, 0.01-0.66) among those who received placebo (P = .003; effect size, 0.513). The observed mean difference in the average pain score between duloxetine and placebo was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.26-1.20). Fifty-nine percent of those initially receiving duloxetine vs 38% of those initially receiving placebo reported decreased pain of any amount.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, the use of duloxetine compared with placebo for 5 weeks resulted in a greater reduction in pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00489411.

Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for the treatment of major depressive disorder:a systematic review of clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Desvenlafaxine is the third serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for major depressive disorder (MDD). This article summarizes data on the clinical pharmacology, efficacy, safety, and tolerability of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) for MDD with a focus on the 50-mg/d therapeutic dose. Additionally, the article discusses clinical practice considerations and future directions in desvenlafaxine research.

DATA SOURCES

Data relating to desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d were identified through searches of MEDLINE and publication databases of Pfizer for articles in English published before January 2009. Keywords were desvenlafaxine, O-desmethylvenlafaxine, ODV, and 50 mg.

STUDY SELECTION

Three randomized, placebo- and/or active comparator-controlled, 8-week clinical trials reported the efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for the treatment of MDD. The third of these studies included a post hoc pooled analysis of data from all 3 of these trials. In addition, the search retrieved an article examining pooled data from 9 trials, including 50-mg data from 2 of the 3 retrieved trials.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Desvenlafaxine is the major active metabolite of the SNRI venlafaxine. Significant improvements compared with placebo were observed on the primary efficacy measure (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale total score) and most secondary measures in 2 of 3 clinical trials. An integrated analysis of registration data from 9 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 8-week studies of desvenlafaxine (50 to 400 mg/d) for MDD demonstrated no evidence of greater efficacy with doses higher than 50 mg/d. Safety results indicate that desvenlafaxine treatment is generally safe and well tolerated; findings were consistent with those for the SNRI class. The 50-mg/d dose of desvenlafaxine was associated with low rates of discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events, which were similar to placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d has demonstrated efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the treatment of MDD in placebo-controlled trials. A long-term study is underway to further explore desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for MDD.

Clinically significant drug interactions with newer antidepressants

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

Prediction of CYP2D6 drug interactions from in vitro data: evidence for substrate-dependent inhibition

Predicting the magnitude of potential drug-drug interactions is important for underwriting patient safety in the clinical setting. Substrate-dependent inhibition of cytochrome P450 enzymes may confound extrapolation of in vitro results to the in vivo situation. However, the potential for substrate-dependent inhibition with CYP2D6 has not been well characterized. The inhibition profiles of 20 known inhibitors of CYP2D6 were characterized in vitro against four clinically relevant CYP2D6 substrates (desipramine, dextromethorphan, metoprolol, and thioridazine) and bufuralol. Dextromethorphan exhibited the highest sensitivity to in vitro inhibition, whereas metoprolol was the least sensitive. In addition, when metoprolol was the substrate, inhibitors with structurally constrained amino moieties (clozapine, debrisoquine, harmine, quinidine, and yohimbine) exhibited at least a 5-fold decrease in inhibition potency when results were compared with those for dextromethorphan. Atypical inhibition kinetics were observed for these and other inhibitor-substrate pairings. In silico docking studies suggested that interactions with Glu216 and an adjacent hydrophobic binding pocket may influence substrate sensitivity and inhibition potency for CYP2D6. The in vivo sensitivities of the clinically relevant CYP2D6 substrates desipramine, dextromethorphan, and metoprolol were determined on the basis of literature drug-drug interaction (DDI) outcomes. Similar to the in vitro results, dextromethorphan exhibited the highest sensitivity to CYP2D6 inhibition in vivo. Finally, the magnitude of in vivo CYP2D6 DDIs caused by quinidine was predicted using desipramine, dextromethorphan, and metoprolol. Comparisons of the predictions with literature results indicated that the marked decrease in inhibition potency observed for the metoprolol-quinidine interaction in vitro translated to the in vivo situation.

Quantitative prediction of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6-mediated drug interactions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

An approach was recently proposed for quantitative predictions of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4-mediated drug-drug interactions. This approach relies solely on in vivo data. It is based on two characteristic parameters: the contribution ratio (CR; i.e. the fraction of victim drug clearance due to metabolism by a specific CYP) and the inhibition ratio (IR) of the inhibitor. Knowledge of these parameters allows forecasting of the ratio between the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of the victim drug when the inhibitor is co-administered and the AUC of the victim drug administered alone. The goals of our study were to extend this method to CYP2D6-mediated interactions, to validate it, and to forecast the magnitude of a large number of interactions that have not been studied so far.

METHODS

A three-step approach was pursued. First, initial estimates of CRs and IRs were obtained by several methods, using data from the literature. Second, an external validation of these initial estimates was carried out, by comparing the predicted AUC ratios with the observed values. Third, refined estimates of CRs and IRs were obtained by orthogonal regression in a Bayesian framework.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine AUC ratios were available for external validation. The mean prediction error of the ratios was 0.31, while the mean prediction absolute error was 1.14. Seventy AUC ratios were available for the global analysis. Final estimates of CRs and IRs were obtained for 39 substrates and 11 inhibitors, respectively. The mean prediction error of the AUC ratios was 0.04, while the mean prediction absolute error was 0.51.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive distributions for 615 possible interactions were obtained, giving detailed information on some drugs or inhibitors that have been poorly studied so far, such as metoclopramide, bupropion and terbinafine.

Duloxetine: clinical pharmacokinetics and drug interactions

Duloxetine, a potent reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine, is effective for the treatment of major depressive disorder, diabetic neuropathic pain, stress urinary incontinence, generalized anxiety disorder and fibromyalgia. Duloxetine achieves a maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of approximately 47 ng/mL (40 mg twice-daily dosing) to 110 ng/mL (80 mg twice-daily dosing) approximately 6 hours after dosing. The elimination half-life of duloxetine is approximately 10-12 hours and the volume of distribution is approximately 1640 L. The goal of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may impact the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine with a focus on concomitant medications and their clinical implications. Patient demographic characteristics found to influence the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine include sex, smoking status, age, ethnicity, cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 genotype, hepatic function and renal function. Of these, only impaired hepatic function or severely impaired renal function warrant specific warnings or dose recommendations. Pharmacokinetic results from drug interaction studies show that activated charcoal decreases duloxetine exposure, and that CYP1A2 inhibition increases duloxetine exposure to a clinically significant degree. Specifically, following oral administration in the presence of fluvoxamine, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and C(max) of duloxetine significantly increased by 460% (90% CI 359, 584) and 141% (90% CI 93, 200), respectively. In addition, smoking is associated with a 30% decrease in duloxetine concentration. The exposure of duloxetine with CYP2D6 inhibitors or in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers is increased to a lesser extent than that observed with CYP1A2 inhibition and does not require a dose adjustment. In addition, duloxetine increases the exposure of drugs that are metabolized by CYP2D6, but not CYP1A2. Pharmacodynamic study results indicate that duloxetine may enhance the effects of benzodiazepines, but not alcohol or warfarin. An increase in gastric pH produced by histamine H(2)-receptor antagonists or antacids did not impact the absorption of duloxetine. While duloxetine is generally well tolerated, it is important to be knowledgeable about the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between duloxetine and drugs that inhibit CYP1A2 or drugs that are metabolized by CYP2D6 enzymes.

Assessing risks and benefits of nonhormonal treatments for vasomotor symptoms in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women

BACKGROUND

Vasomotor symptoms (VMS); (hot flushes and night sweats) are the most common menopausal complaint for which women seek treatment. Several therapies can be considered to help manage these complaints. The objective of this review is to assess the risks and benefits of available and emerging therapeutic options for the management of menopausal VMS.

METHODS

A review of the literature was conducted based on relevant publications identified through a PubMed search for clinical trials of agents used in the treatment of VMS.

RESULTS

Hormone therapy (HT) remains the most effective treatment available, but there will always remain a need for nonhormonal options. Evidence does not support the efficacy of alternative or over-the-counter products, such as phytoestrogens and black cohosh, and their long-term safety is largely unknown. There is evidence supporting the efficacy of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) for the management of VMS from clinical trials of paroxetine, venlafaxine, and desvenlafaxine. Gabapentin appears to be effective, but the doses required may cause poor tolerability and reduced patient adherence. Data also suggest that clonidine has a modest effect at the expense of considerable adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Choosing an appropriate treatment approach for the management of VMS requires careful assessment of the riskbenefit ratio of each alternative, as well as individual patient preference.

Induction of drug efflux protein expression by venlafaxine but not desvenlafaxine

Venlafaxine and its metabolite desvenlafaxine are serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors currently prescribed for the treatment of depression. Previously, it was reported that venlafaxine is an inducer of MDR1, the gene responsible for P-glycoprotein (P-gp). The present study expanded upon these findings by examining the effect of venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine on the expression of both P-gp and the breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) in human brain endothelial cells (HBMEC), an in vitro model of the blood-brain barrier (BBB). The HBMEC were treated for 1 h with various concentrations (500 nM to 50 µM) of venlafaxine and desvenlafaxine. Western blot analysis revealed treatment with venlafaxine significantly induced the expression of P-gp (2-fold) and BCRP (1.75-fold) in a dose-dependent manner, while treatment with desvenlafaxine had no effect on drug efflux transporter expression. To determine the functional significance of this effect, the permeability of a known drug efflux probe, rhodamine 123, across the BBB model and Caco-2 cells, a model of intestinal absorption, were examined. Treatment with venlafaxine (1-50 µM) for 1 h significantly reduced the apical-to-basolateral permeability of R123 across the BBB model (30%) and Caco-2 cell monolayers (25%), indicative of increased drug efflux transporter expression at the apical membrane. Conversely, desvenlafaxine had no effect on R123 permeability in either cellular model. These studies indicate that venlafaxine, but not desvenlafaxine is an inducer of drug efflux transporter expression, which consequently increases the potential for clinical drug-drug interactions. Therefore, based on these preliminary results, caution should be taken when prescribing venlafaxine with other P-gp substrates.

The effect of coadministration of duloxetine on steady-state serum concentration of risperidone and aripiprazole: a study based on therapeutic drug monitoring data

Previous studies have categorized duloxetine as a moderate inhibitor of CYP2D6. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential interactions between duloxetine and the two CYP2D6 substrates risperidone and aripiprazole in psychiatric patients. Serum concentration data from patients treated with risperidone (n = 8) or aripiprazole (n = 7) in combination with duloxetine were retrieved from therapeutic drug monitoring files at the Center for Psychopharmacology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway. The degree of interaction was assessed by comparing the data with a control group of CYP2D6-genotyped patients (homozygous "extensive metabolizers") using oral risperidone or aripiprazole without duloxetine. Coadministration of duloxetine did not significantly increase the concentration of the parent drug or the parent drug/metabolite ratio of either risperidone or aripiprazole. The present study therefore indicates that duloxetine may safely be used concomitantly with risperidone or aripiprazole.

A 10-month, open-label evaluation of desvenlafaxine in outpatients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The primary objective was to evaluate the long-term safety of desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) during open-label treatment in adult outpatients with a primary DSM-IV diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHOD

Depressed adult outpatients (≥ 18 years) who had completed 8-week, double-blind therapy (desvenlafaxine, venlafaxine extended release, or placebo) in a phase 3 study of desvenlafaxine for MDD received up to 10 months of open-label treatment with flexible-dose desvenlafaxine (200 to 400 mg/d). Safety assessments included physical examination, measurement of weight and vital signs, laboratory determinations, and 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings. Adverse events (AEs) and discontinuations due to AEs were monitored throughout the trial. The primary efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline on 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS-17) total score. The trial was conducted from August 2003 to March 2006.

RESULTS

The safety population included 1,395 patients who took at least 1 dose of open-label desvenlafaxine. Treatment-emergent AEs were reported by 1,238 of 1,395 patients (89%) during the open-label, on-therapy period. Treatment-emergent AEs reported by 10% or more patients were headache, nausea, hyperhidrosis, dizziness, dry mouth, insomnia, upper respiratory infection, nasopharyngitis, and fatigue. Adverse events were the primary reason for study discontinuation in 296 of 1,395 patients (21%). Ten patients (< 1%) had serious AEs that were considered possibly, probably, or definitely related to the study drug during the on-therapy period. No deaths occurred during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Desvenlafaxine can be safely administered for up to 12 months. No new safety findings were observed in this study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01309542.

Pharmacological and clinical profile of newer antidepressants: implications for the treatment of elderly patients

The pharmacological treatment of older adults with major depressive disorder presents a variety of challenges, including a relative lack of high quality studies designed to measure the efficacy and safety of antidepressants specific to this patient population. Gaining a clear understanding of how to use antidepressants in elderly patients with depression, especially new and widely used agents, would provide valuable insight to clinicians. The purpose of the current article is to review the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of newer antidepressants (i.e. escitalopram, duloxetine and desvenlafaxine) in the treatment of late-life depression. To accomplish this goal, a MEDLINE and PubMed search (1966 - February 2010) was conducted for relevant articles. Animal and human studies have clearly demonstrated the effects of desvenlafaxine, duloxetine and escitalopram on monoamine reuptake transporters. The serotonergic and noradrenergic actions of desvenlafaxine and duloxetine may provide for a faster onset of antidepressant activity in the elderly, but more definitive data are needed and the clinical effects of the possible faster onset of action need to be elucidated. Duloxetine and escitalopram are extensively metabolized via cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes and the decreased hepatic metabolism present in many older adults should be taken into account when prescribing these medications. Duloxetine possesses the greatest likelihood of producing clinically relevant drug-drug interactions because of its inhibition of CYP2D6. All three agents must also be used cautiously in older adults with poor renal function. In terms of clinical efficacy, 14 prospective published trials involving escitalopram (n = 8) and duloxetine (n = 6) in the treatment of older adults with major depressive disorder were identified. No such studies involving desvenlafaxine were found. Of the five randomized, double-blind, controlled trials, 46% and 37% of antidepressant-treated patients were considered responders and remitters, respectively. In contrast to escitalopram, duloxetine-treated patients experienced improvements in depressive symptoms that more consistently differentiated themselves from the symptoms of placebo-treated patients. Escitalopram and duloxetine were generally well tolerated, but 5-20% and 10-27% of patients, respectively, dropped out because of medication-related adverse effects. Adverse effects experienced by older adults were generally similar to those experienced by younger adults, although indirect comparisons suggest that older adults are more likely to experience dry mouth and constipation with duloxetine and escitalopram, while orthostasis may be more common in older adults prescribed desvenlafaxine. Overall, duloxetine and escitalopram represent modestly effective treatments for late-life depression that are generally well tolerated but do produce a variety of adverse effects. Conclusions regarding desvenlafaxine cannot be made at this time because of a lack of geriatric-specific data.

Desvenlafaxine succinate: a newer antidepressant for the treatment of depression and somatic symptoms

Desvenlafaxine succinate (DVS) is one of several serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs). Others are venlafaxine hydrochloride, milnacipran, and duloxetine. Desvenlafaxine has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) based on a number of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Clinical studies have investigated the efficacy of DVS in doses ranging from 50 to 400 mg/day for the treatment of MDD in adult outpatients. The effects of DVS 50 mg/day have been clearly distinguished from placebo in the reduction of MDD symptoms in such clinical trials. No additional therapeutic benefits were found at doses > 50 mg/day. The recommended dose of DVS ranges from 50 to 100 mg. Desvenlafaxine is currently the third SNRI approved by the FDA for this indication. Preliminary evidence also suggests the clinical usefulness of DVS in the treatment of vasomotor symptoms of menopause, anxiety symptoms, and painful physical symptoms. The modified pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of DVS differentiate this drug from the original product, venlafaxine. Significant points of difference, compared with venlafaxine, are once-daily dosing and the achievement of steady-state plasma concentrations within 4 to 5 days. To summarize, current evidence indicates that DVS has proven efficacy, acceptable safety and tolerability profiles, convenient dosing, and minimal impact on the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. A reduced risk for pharmacokinetic drug interactions is a potential advantage over other selective serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors. Desvenlafaxine succinate has demonstrated its efficacy for treating MDD but its variable efficacy, as shown in individual studies, limited long-term data, and its different risk-to-benefit ratio compared with earlier antidepressants, means that further investigation of this drug is necessary.

Clinical utility of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for treating MDD: a review of two randomized placebo-controlled trials for the practicing physician

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, seriously impairing illness. Desvenlafaxine (administered as desvenlafaxine succinate) is the third serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) approved in the United States for the treatment of MDD. Short-term clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of 50 to 400 mg/d doses, with no evidence that doses greater than 50 mg/d confer additional benefit.

OBJECTIVE

This paper summarizes published data on the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the desvenlafaxine 50-mg/d recommended therapeutic dose for MDD and discusses clinical practice considerations.

METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and PubMed (all years through June 2009) was performed using the terms desvenlafaxine, DVS, and ODV. The criteria for inclusion in the review were a double-blind design, a placebo control or active comparator group, the 50-mg desvenlafaxine dose group, and enrollment of patients with a diagnosis of MDD. Posters were included if they reported on a study that was subsequently published in a manuscript.

RESULTS

Overall results of two randomized, placebo-controlled, 8-week clinical trials demonstrated the efficacy of desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d for MDD. Statistically significant improvements compared with placebo were observed on the primary efficacy measure (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D(17)] total score; P < 0.05). Significant differences were observed on several secondary measures (Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores in both trials [P < 0.05]; Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scores [P < or = 0.01], Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scores [P < or = 0.01], HAM-D(17) response [P < or = 0.01] and remission [P < 0.05] in one trial each). Functional outcomes measures (Sheehan Disability Scale total and World Health Organization 5-Item Well-Being Index scores) were significant in both trials (P < 0.05). Safety results indicate desvenlafaxine treatment was safe and well tolerated; findings were consistent with the SNRI class. The generalizability of these findings is limited by the study protocols, which excluded patients with unstable comorbid medical conditions and also those with other Axis 1 and 2 psychiatric illnesses. Additionally, comparisons with other SNRIs are challenging given differences in study design. Desvenlafaxine can be initiated with the 50-mg/d therapeutic dose without titration and provides efficacy with rates of discontinuation due to treatment-emergent adverse events similar to placebo. In vitro data indicate desvenlafaxine has minimal inhibitory effects on cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 and clinical studies show desvenlafaxine does not have a clinically relevant effect on CYP2D6 metabolism. In vitro data also indicate desvenlafaxine is not a substrate or inhibitor of the p-glycoprotein transporter. Plasma protein binding of desvenlafaxine is low (30%) and independent of drug concentration. Bioavailability is high at 80% after oral administration and is not affected by food.

CONCLUSIONS

Desvenlafaxine 50 mg/d has demonstrated efficacy, safety, and tolerability for the treatment of MDD in two placebo-controlled trials. The metabolic profile of desvenlafaxine suggests a low risk of drug-drug interactions owing to minimal inhibitory effects on CYP2D6, lack of interaction with p-glycoprotein, and low protein binding.

Correction of venlafaxine- and duloxetine-induced transaminase elevations with desvenlafaxine in a patient with Gilbert's syndrome

Recent reviews have questioned whether the serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) desvenlafaxine succinate offers any practical clinical advantages over existing SNRIs. The following case is one instance where it appears that this SNRI offers unique safety and benefit. Presented is a case report of a patient with Gilbert's syndrome, longstanding social phobia, and more recent depressive disorder not otherwise specified, who was found to have elevated liver transaminases when prescribed both duloxetine and venlafaxine. The patient subsequently responded to desvenlafaxine but without liver abnormalities. In this patient with Gilbert's Syndrome, desvenlafaxine's lack of metabolism through the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 pathway may explain the avoidance of these abnormalities and thus suggests a possible therapeutic role for this SNRI in similarly susceptible patients.

Factors that impact choice of antidepressant treatment in medically complex patients

In medically complex patients with multiple comorbid illnesses who require concomitant medications, selecting the optimal antidepressant (ie, low risk of adverse effects and/or pharmacokinetic interactions) for an individual patient is critical for positive long-term patient outcomes. The serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRls) are increasingly being used as first-line treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) and may prove beneficial for treatment of medically complex patients.Thus, it is key for clinicians to evaluate the differences in the pharmacokinetic and tolerability profiles of the SNRI class of antidepressants, evaluating differences both within the class and compared with other antidepressants used to treat MDD.

Duloxetine: in patients with fibromyalgia

Duloxetine is a selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor available in delayed-release capsules for oral use. Duloxetine 60 mg/day, compared with placebo, was associated with a greater reduction from baseline in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) average pain severity score, a greater improvement in the patient-rated global impression of improvement (PGI-I) scale in patients with fibromyalgia, with or without major depressive disorder, in two 12- and 15-week phase III studies. In a 27-week, phase III trial, there was no significant difference between duloxetine (60 or 120 mg/day) and placebo for the least squares mean change from baseline to endpoint in BPI average pain scores and the PGI-I score. The significant improvements in efficacy that occurred in patients with fibromyalgia during 8 weeks of open-label treatment with duloxetine 60 mg/day were generally maintained during 52 weeks of subsequent blinded treatment at the same dosage in a phase III trial. Nonresponders during treatment with open-label duloxetine 60 mg/day, demonstrated no increased ability to respond if the duloxetine dosage was up-titrated to 120 mg/day than those who remained on the same dosage during the subsequent 52-week, double-blind phase. Duloxetine was generally well tolerated in studies of up to 1 year in duration, with nausea being the most frequent adverse event and main cause for discontinuing therapy.