Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety, and tolerability of dopamine-receptor antagonists for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

INTRODUCTION

Dopamine (D)2,3-receptor antagonists (RAs) were the first antiemetics used in the prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV).

AREAS COVERED

Eight D2,3-RAs, amisulpride, domperidone, droperidol, haloperidol, metoclopramide, metopimazine, olanzapine and prochlorperazine are reviewed focusing on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, antiemetic effect and side effects.

EXPERT OPINION

Since the introduction of D2,3-RAs, antiemetics such as corticosteroids, 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)3-RAs and neurokinin (NK)1-RAs have been developed. The classical D2,3-RAs are recommended in the prophylaxis of CINV from low emetic risk chemotherapy, but not as a fixed component of an antiemetic regimen for moderately or highly (HEC) emetic risk chemotherapy. D2,3-RAs are also used in patients with breakthrough nausea and vomiting. It should be emphasized, that most of these drugs are not selective for dopamine receptors.The multi-receptor targeting agent, olanzapine, is recommended in the prophylaxis of HEC-induced CINV as part of a four-drug antiemetic regimen, including a 5-HT3-RA, dexamethasone and a NK1-RA. Olanzapine is the most effective agent to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea.Side effects differ among various D2,3-RAs. Metopimazine and domperidone possess a low risk of extrapyramidal side effects. Domperidone and metoclopramide are prokinetics, whereas metopimazine delays gastric emptying and haloperidol does not influence gastric motility. Many D2,3-RAs increase the risk of prolonged QTc interval; other side effects include sedation and orthostatic hypotension.

Precision Medicine into Clinical Practice: A Web-Based Tool Enables Real-Time Pharmacogenetic Assessment of Tailored Treatments in Psychiatric Disorders

The management of neuropsychiatric disorders involves different pharmacological treatments. In order to perform efficacious drug treatments, the metabolism of CYP genes can help to foresee potential drug–drug interactions. The NeuroPGx software is an open-source web-based tool for genotype/diplotype/phenotype interpretation for neuropharmacogenomic purposes. The software provides information about: (i) the genotypes of evaluated SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphisms); (ii) the main diplotypes in CYP genes and corresponding metabolization phenotypes; (iii) the list of neuropsychiatric drugs with recommended dosage adjustment (according to CPIC and DPWG guidelines); (iv) the list of possible (rare) diplotypes and corresponding metabolization phenotypes. The combined application of NeuroPGx software to the OpenArray technology results in an easy, quick, and highly automated device ready to be used in routine clinical practice.

Factors for Timely Identification of Possible Occurrence of Delirium in Palliative Care: A Prospective Observational Study

Delirium occurs in 50–80% of end-of-life patients but is often misdiagnosed. Identification of clinical factors potentially associated with delirium onset can lead to a correct early diagnosis. To this aim, we conducted a prospective cohort study on patients from an Italian palliative care unit (PCU) admitted in 2018–2019. We evaluated the presence of several clinical factors at patient admission and compared their presence in patients who developed delirium and in those who did not develop it during follow-up. Among 503 enrolled patients, after a median follow-up time of 16 days (interquartile range 6–40 days), 95 (18.9%) developed delirium. Hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were computed using Cox proportional hazard models. In univariate analyses, factors significantly more frequent in patients with delirium were care in hospice, compromised performance status, kidney disease, fever, renal failure, hypoxia, dehydration, drowsiness, poor well-being, breathlessness, and “around the clock” therapy with psychoactive drugs, particularly haloperidol. In multivariate analyses, setting of care (HR 2.28 for hospice versus home care, 95% CI 1.45–3.60; p < 0.001), presence of breathlessness (HR 1.71, 95% CI 1.03–2.83, p = 0.037), and administration of psychoactive drugs, particularly haloperidol (HR 2.17 for haloperidol, 95% CI 1.11–4.22 and 1.53 for other drugs, 95% CI 0.94–2.48; p = 0.048) were significantly associated with the risk of developing delirium. The study indicates that some clinical factors are associated with the probability of delirium onset. Their evaluation in PC patients could help healthcare professionals to identify the development of delirium in those patients in a timely manner.

Haloperidol Use in the Emergency Department for Gastrointestinal Symptoms: Nausea, Vomiting, and Abdominal Pain

INTRODUCTION

Haloperidol (HL) has successfully been used for nausea and abdominal pain in emergency departments (EDs). This study examines outcomes and predictive factors for clinical improvement of patients presenting to an ED with gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms (nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain) who received HL.

METHODS

Review of patients' records who presented to our ED between August 2016 and March 2019 with GI symptoms and received HL. International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes were used to identify patients.

RESULTS

In all, 281 patients (410 encounters) presented to the ED with GI symptoms and received HL for their symptoms: 66% were women, 32% had diabetes, 68% used marijuana, and 27% used chronic opioids. Patients received HL 1.1 ± 0.3 times with dose 2.5 ± 3.0 mg, mostly intravenously (84.6%). Total ED length of stay was 7.5 ± 3.9 hours (3.2 ± 2.1 hours before HL and 4.4 ± 3.4 hours after). Approximately 4.4% of patients developed side effects to HL, including 2 patients with dystonia which improved with medication before discharge. Most patients (56.6%) were discharged home while 43.2% were admitted to hospital mostly because of refractory nausea or vomiting (70.1%). Receiving HL as the only medication in the ED led to lower hospital admission (odds ratio = 0.25, P < 0.05). Diabetes, cannabinoid use, anxiety, male sex, and longer ED stay were associated with increased hospital admissions.

DISCUSSION

Most patients treated in our ED with HL for GI symptoms, particularly nausea, vomiting, and/or abdominal pain, were successfully treated and discharged home. HL use seemed relatively safe and, when used as the only medication, led to less frequent hospital admissions.

Haloperidol in palliative care: Indications and risks

Individual response to medication depends on several factors (age, gender, body weight, general clinical condition, genetics, diet, hydration status, comorbidities, co-administered drugs and their mode of administration, smoking, alcohol overuse, environmental factors, e.g. sunlight) that may contribute to adverse drug reactions even at therapeutic doses. Patients in palliative care are at increased risk of these reactions. Unwanted drug effects diminish the quality of life and may lead to a suboptimal dying process. Haloperidol is one of the three most commonly used drugs in palliative care and the most commonly employed typical antipsychotic. It has also been recommended for inclusion into the palliative care emergency kit of home care teams. As such, it is important to be fully conversant with the indications, benefits, and risks of haloperidol, especially in the context of palliative care.

Nausea and Vomiting Not Related to Cancer Therapy: Intractable Problem or Clinical Challenge?

PURPOSE

Unlike therapy-related nausea and vomiting (chemotherapy or radiotherapy induced), nausea and vomiting (N/V) in patients with advanced cancer is often multicausal and thus presents unique challenges. Few professional guidelines address the palliative management of N/V, and those that do are insufficiently detailed to bolster clinical decision-making. Nonetheless, oncology advanced practitioners (APs) are frequently challenged to manage these high-impact symptoms. This requires collaborating with other oncology care providers and cultivating a knowledge base to educate and mentor professional colleagues to optimize N/V unrelated to treatment.

METHODS

Literature reviewed included current and classic articles that address the physiologic bases of N/V related to disease and with malignant bowel obstruction, agents used to alleviate nausea or N/V, and nonpharmacologic adjunctive measures. This information was framed within palliative care and symptom management clinical experience.

RESULTS

This review article summarizes what is known about the neuropharmacology of N/V in advanced disease. Focused assessment, pharmacologic agents (antiemetics, central neuromodulators, and peripheral prokinetic agents), and nondrug adjunctive measures that may be useful for N/V are included.

CONCLUSIONS

Managing N/V in advanced cancer is a quality-of-life imperative that requires persistence and interprofessional collaboration among oncology APs and other clinicians to personalize management. This work can change the perception that N/V related to progressive disease is frequently intractable to one that considers it as a manageable clinical challenge.

Nausea and Vomiting: a Palliative Care Imperative

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review was undertaken to survey recent literature for research reports and comprehensive clinical reviews addressing the pharmacologic management of nausea and vomiting (N&V) in advanced cancer. The goal was to integrate findings in a comprehensive article that incorporates palliative care concepts into antiemetic treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

There are few published studies of N&V in advanced cancer; such research may be limited by the multicausal nature of N&V and participant burden to patients with life-limiting disease. Most articles are written by oncologists who also specialize in palliative care, and those addressing adverse effects of drugs used as antiemetics are found in other literature. Articles addressing more novel therapies, like cannabinoids and medical marijuana, are uncommon in the oncology literature. N&V in patients with progressive or advanced cancer is often multicausal. Nausea is more common and persistent, and even mild nausea is bothersome and may cause anxiety or depression. The mechanisms of nausea and vomiting overlap, but different neural pathways constitute the final pathway for each-the brainstem for vomiting and higher brain regions for nausea. Common causes of N&V in advanced cancer include constipation, opioids, and malignant bowel obstruction. About 40% have undetermined causes and may be exacerbated by impaired gastric emptying, chemical imbalances, or other factors. Several drugs that have antiemetic effects and act at different receptors are used to palliate N&V. There is a paucity of research that supports palliative antiemetic choices, and other research is needed to define potential therapeutic strategies that capitalize on differences between nausea and vomiting.

Population pharmacokinetics of haloperidol in terminally ill adult patients

Purpose

Over 80% of the terminally ill patients experience delirium in their final days. In the treatment of delirium, haloperidol is the drug of choice. Very little is known about the pharmacokinetics of haloperidol in this patient population. We therefore designed a population pharmacokinetic study to gain more insight into the pharmacokinetics of haloperidol in terminally ill patients and to find clinically relevant covariates that may be used in developing an individualised dosing regimen.

Methods

Using non-linear mixed effects modelling (NONMEM 7.2), a population pharmacokinetic analysis was conducted with 87 samples from 28 terminally ill patients who received haloperidol either orally or subcutaneously. The covariates analysed were patient and disease characteristics as well as co-medication.

Results

The data were accurately described by a one-compartment model. The population mean estimates for oral bioavailability, clearance and volume of distribution for an average patient were 0.86 (IIV 55%), 29.3 L/h (IIV 43%) and 1260 L (IIV 70%), respectively. This resulted in an average terminal half-life of haloperidol of around 30 h.

Conclusion

Our study showed that the pharmacokinetics of haloperidol could be adequately described by a one-compartment model. The pharmacokinetics in terminally ill patients was comparable to other patients. We were not able to explain the wide variability using covariates.

Aripiprazole

Delirium is a palliative care emergency where patients experience changes in perception, awareness, and behavior. Common features include changes in the sleep-wake cycle, emotional lability, delusional thinking, and language and thought disorders. Delirium results from neurotransmitter imbalances involving several neurotransmitters such as dopamine, glutamate, norepinephrine, acetylcholine, gamma-aminobutyric acid, and serotonin. Untreated delirium causes significant morbidity and mortality. Nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic approaches treat delirium. Current pharmacologic management of delirium involves using agents such as haloperidol or second-generation antipsychotics. Third-generation atypical antipsychotic drugs have emerged as a potential choice for delirium management. Aripiprazole is a third-generation antipsychotic with a dopamine receptor-binding profile distinct from other second-generation antipsychotics. Aripiprazole acts as partial agonist at dopamine D₂ and 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)_1A receptors, stabilizing the dopamine receptor leading to improvement in symptoms. The article reviews the pharmacology, pharmacodynamics, metabolism, and evidence of clinical efficacy for this new antipsychotic agent. This article explores possible roles in palliative care.

Patient-Related Determinants of the Administration of Continuous Palliative Sedation in Hospices and Palliative Care Units: A Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Study

CONTEXT

Knowledge of determinants that are associated with the administration of continuous palliative sedation (CPS) helps physicians identify patients who are at risk of developing refractory symptoms, thereby enabling proactive care planning.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to explore which patient-related factors at admission are associated with receiving CPS later in the terminal phase of life.

METHODS

A prospective multicenter observational study was performed in six Dutch hospices and three nursing home-based palliative care units. The association between patient-related variables at admission (age, gender, diagnosis, use of opioids or psycholeptics, number of medications, Karnofsky Performance Status scale score, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System distress score, and Glasgow Coma Scale score) and the administration of CPS at the end of life was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 467 patients died during the study period, of whom 130 received CPS. In univariate analysis, statistically significant differences were noted between the sedated and nonsedated patients with respect to younger age (P = 0.009), malignancy as a diagnosis (P = 0.05), higher Karnofsky Performance Status score (P = 0.03), the use of opioids (P < 0.001), the use of psycholeptics (P = 0.003), and higher Edmonton Symptom Assessment System distress score (P = 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that only the use of opioids at admission (odds ratio 1.90; 95% confidence interval 1.18-3.05) was significantly associated with the administration of CPS.

CONCLUSION

Physicians should be aware that patients who use opioids at admission have an increased risk for the administration of CPS at the end of life. In this group of patients, a comprehensive personalized care plan starting at admission is mandatory to try to prevent the development of refractory symptoms. Further research is recommended, to identify other determinants of the administration of CPS and to investigate which early interventions will be effective to prevent the need for CPS in patients at high risk.

Pharmacokinetic considerations and recommendations in palliative care, with focus on morphine, midazolam and haloperidol

INTRODUCTION

A variety of medications are used for symptom control in palliative care, such as morphine, midazolam and haloperidol. The pharmacokinetics of these drugs may be altered in these patients as a result of physiological changes that occur at the end stage of life.

AREAS COVERED

This review gives an overview of how the pharmacokinetics in terminally ill patients may differ from the average population and discusses the effect of terminal illness on each of the four pharmacokinetic processes absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination. Specific considerations are also given for three commonly prescribed drugs in palliative care: morphine, midazolam and haloperidol).

EXPERT OPINION

The pharmacokinetics of drugs in terminally ill patients can be complex and limited evidence exists on guided drug use in this population. To improve the quality of life of these patients, more knowledge and more pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics studies in terminally ill patients are needed to develop individualised dosing guidelines. Until then knowledge of pharmacokinetics and the physiological changes that occur in the final days of life can provide a base for dosing adjustments that will improve the quality of life of terminally ill patients. As the interaction of drugs with the physiology of dying is complex, pharmacological treatment is probably best assessed in a multi-disciplinary setting and the advice of a pharmacist, or clinical pharmacologist, is highly recommended.

Palliative Pharmacotherapy: State-of-the-Art Management of Symptoms in Patients With Cancer

BACKGROUND

Advanced cancer produces multiple symptoms as patients progress through their disease trajectory. Identifying, measuring, and providing therapy for uncontrolled symptoms becomes important because disease-altering therapies may be no longer possible. Symptoms other than pain that cause distress in patients with cancer include delirium, dyspnea, anorexia, nausea, and fatigue. Precise management of these symptoms can lead to the best possible quality of life and lessen distress. This article reviews current management strategies of these symptoms.

METHODS

The epidemiology, mechanisms, assessment, and therapies of common symptoms in the advanced cancer population are reviewed.

RESULTS

Identifiable approaches facilitate symptom management in advanced illness.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a systematic approach to symptoms in advanced illness can improve the quality of life and lessen distress among patients with cancer and their families, friends, and caregivers.

Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients

BACKGROUND

Nausea and vomiting are common symptoms in patients with terminal, incurable illnesses. Both nausea and vomiting can be distressing. Haloperidol is commonly prescribed to relieve these symptoms. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2009, of Haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse events associated with the use of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients.

SEARCH METHODS

For this updated review, we performed updated searches of CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE in November 2013 and in November 2014. We searched controlled trials registers in March 2015 to identify any ongoing or unpublished trials. We imposed no language restrictions. For the original review, we performed database searching in August 2007, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and AMED, using relevant search terms and synonyms. Handsearching complemented the electronic searches (using reference lists of included studies, relevant chapters and review articles) for the original review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of haloperidol for the treatment of nausea or vomiting, or both, in any setting, for inclusion. The studies had to be conducted with adults receiving palliative care or suffering from an incurable progressive medical condition. We excluded studies where nausea or vomiting, or both, were thought to be secondary to pregnancy or surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We imported records from each of the electronic databases into a bibliographic package and merged them into a core database where we inspected titles, keywords and abstracts for relevance. If it was not possible to accept or reject an abstract with certainty, we obtained the full text of the article for further evaluation. The two review authors independently assessed studies in accordance with the inclusion criteria. There were no differences in opinion between the authors with regard to the assessment of studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We considered 27 studies from the 2007 search. In this update we considered a further 38 studies from the 2013 search, and two in the 2014 search. We identified one RCT of moderate quality with low risk of bias overall which met the inclusion criteria for this update, comparing ABH (Ativan®, Benadryl®, Haldol®) gel, applied to the wrist, with placebo for the relief of nausea in 22 participants. ABH gel includes haloperidol as well as diphenhydramine and lorazepam. The gel was not significantly better than placebo in this small study; however haloperidol is reported not to be absorbed significantly when applied topically, therefore the trial does not address the issue of whether haloperidol is effective or well-tolerated when administered by other routes (e.g. by mouth, subcutaneously or intravenously). We identified one ongoing trial of haloperidol for the management of nausea and vomiting in patients with cancer, with initial results published in a conference abstract suggesting that haloperidol is effective for 65% of patients. The trial had not been fully published at the time of our review. A further trial has opened, comparing oral haloperidol with oral methotrimeprazine (levomepromazine) for patients with cancer and nausea unrelated to their treatment, which we aim to include in the next review update.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Since the last version of this review, we found one new study for inclusion but the conclusion remains unchanged. There is incomplete evidence from published RCTs to determine the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care. Other than the trial of ABH gel vs placebo, we did not identify any fully published RCTs exploring the effectiveness of haloperidol for nausea and vomiting in palliative care patients for this update, but two trials are underway.

Pain management at the end of life: A comparative study of cancer, dementia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients

BACKGROUND

Limited data exist concerning the unique pain characteristics of patients with non-cancer terminal diseases referred for inpatient hospice care.

AIMS

To define the unique pain characteristics of patients admitted to an acute inpatient hospice setting with end-stage dementia or chronic obstructive lung disease (or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) and to compare them to patients with end-stage cancer.

DESIGN

Retrospective patient chart review. Demographic, physiological, pain parameters, and medication utilization data were extracted. Associations between pain characteristics, medication utilization, and admission diagnoses were assessed. Analyses included descriptive statistics.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In total, 146 patients admitted to an acute inpatient hospice between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012 with an underlying primary diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (n = 51), dementia (n = 48), or cancer (n = 47).

RESULTS

Pain was highly prevalent in all diagnostic groups, with cancer patients experiencing more severe pain on admission. Cancer patients received a significantly higher cumulative opioid dose compared with dementia and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Pain control within 24 h of pain onset was achieved in less than half of all patient groups with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients the least likely to achieve pain control.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the fact that pain is the most common complaint at the end of life, pain management may be suboptimal for some primary diagnoses. Admission diagnosis is the strongest predictor of pain control. Patient with cancer achieve the best pain control, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients are the least likely to have their pain adequately treated.

Management of delirium in palliative care: a review

Delirium is a complex but common disorder in palliative care with a prevalence between 13 and 88 % but a particular frequency at the end of life (terminal delirium). By reviewing the most relevant studies (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycLit, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library), a correct assessment to make the diagnosis (e.g., DSM-5, delirium assessment tools), the identification of the possible etiological factors, and the application of multicomponent and integrated interventions were reported as the correct steps to effectively manage delirium in palliative care. In terms of medications, both conventional (e.g., haloperidol) and atypical antipsychotics (e.g., olanzapine, risperidone, quetiapine, aripiprazole) were shown to be equally effective in the treatment of delirium. No recommendation was possible in palliative care regarding the use of other drugs (e.g., α-2 receptors agonists, psychostimulants, cholinesterase inhibitors, melatonergic drugs). Non-pharmacological interventions (e.g., behavioral and educational) were also shown to be important in the management of delirium. More research is necessary to clarify how to more thoroughly manage delirium in palliative care.

Frequency and Outcome of Neuroleptic Rotation in the Management of Delirium in Patients with Advanced Cancer

Purpose

The response to haloperidol as a first-line neuroleptic and the pattern of neuroleptic rotation after haloperidol failure have not been well defined in palliative care. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of haloperidol as a first-line neuroleptic and the predictors associated with the need to rotate to a second neuroleptic.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a retrospective review of the charts of advanced cancer patients admitted to our acute palliative care unit between January 2012 and March 2013. Inclusion criteria were a diagnosis of delirium and first-line treatment with haloperidol.

Results

Among 167 patients with delirium, 128 (77%) received only haloperidol and 39 (23%) received a second neuroleptic. Ninety-one patients (71%) who received haloperidol alone improved and were discharged alive. The median initial haloperidol dose was 5 mg (interquartile ranges [IQR], 3 to 7 mg) and the median duration was 5 days (IQR, 3 to 7 days). The median final haloperidol dose was 6 mg (IQR, 5 to 7 mg). A lack of treatment efficacy was the most common reason for neuroleptic rotation (87%). Significant factors associated with neuroleptic rotation were inpatient mortality (59% vs. 29%, p=0.001), and being Caucasian (87% vs. 62%, p=0.014). Chlorpromazine was administered to 37 patients (95%) who were not treated successfully by haloperidol. The median initial chlorpromazine dose was 150 mg (IQR, 100 to 150 mg) and the median duration was 3 days (IQR, 2 to 6 days). Thirteen patients (33%) showed reduced symptoms after the second neuroleptic.

Conclusion

Neuroleptic rotation from haloperidol was only required in 23% of patients with delirium and was associated with inpatient mortality and white race.

Nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer

Nausea and vomiting are very common symptoms in cancer both treatment and non-treatment related. Many complications of advanced cancer such as gastroparesis, bowel and outlet obstructions, and brain tumors may have nausea and vomiting or either symptom alone. In a non-obstructed situation, nausea may be more difficult to manage and is more objectionable to patients. There is little research on management of these symptoms except the literature on chemotherapy induced nausea where guidelines exist. This article will review the etiologies of nausea and vomiting in advanced cancer and the medications which have been used to treat them. An etiology based protocol to approach the symptom is outlined.

Delirium in adult patients receiving palliative care: a systematic review of the literature

Delirium in palliative care patients is common and its diagnosis and treatment is a major challenge. Our objective was to perform a literature analysis in two phases on the recent scientific evidence (2007-2012) on the diagnosis and treatment of delirium in adults receiving palliative care. In phase 1 (descriptive studies and narrative reviews) 133 relevant articles were identified: 73 addressed the issue of delirium secondarily, and 60 articles as the main topic. However, only 4 prospective observational studies in which delirium was central were identified. Of 135 articles analysed in phase 2 (clinical trials or descriptive studies on treatment of delirium in palliative care patients), only 3 were about prevention or treatment: 2 retrospective studies and one clinical trial on multicomponent prevention in cancer patients. Much of the recent literature is related to reviews on studies conducted more than a decade ago and on patients different to those receiving palliative care. In conclusion, recent scientific evidence on delirium in palliative care is limited and suboptimal. Prospective studies are urgently needed that focus specifically on this highly vulnerable population.

Sex differences in human lymphoblastoid cells sensitivities to antipsychotic drugs

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a major concern in pharmacotherapy and are more common among women. Immortalized human lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) are emerging as a novel tool for studying interindividual variability in drug response, including ADRs. In the present study, we compared sensitivities of LCLs from unrelated healthy male and female donors to growth inhibition by a panel of common drugs. We observed large interindividual drug sensitivity variations with similar mean sensitivities recorded for LCLs from male and female donors for most tested drugs. A notable exception was observed for the typical antipsychotic haloperidol and the atypical antipsychotic risperidone, which exhibited, on average, more robust in vitro growth inhibition in male as compared with female LCLs. An opposite finding was observed for the antidepressant paroxetine, which was more potent for inhibiting the growth of female as compared with male LCLs. These observations are discussed in the context of the higher incidence of dystonia reported for male schizophrenia patients treated with haloperidol and the higher efficacy of paroxetine in female major depression patients.