Search

Aims: Metamizole is quite an old drug with analgesic, antipyretic and spasmolytic properties. Recent findings have shown that it may induce several cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, especially CYP3A4 and CYP2B6. The clinical relevance of these properties is uncertain. We aimed to unravel potential pharmacokinetic interactions between metamizole and the CYP3A4 substrate quetiapine. Methods: Plasma concentrations of quetiapine from a large therapeutic drug monitoring database were analysed. Two groups of 33 patients, either receiving quetiapine as a monotherapy (without CYP modulating comedications) or with concomitantly applied metamizole, were compared addressing a potential impact of metamizole on the metabolism of quetiapine being reflected in differences of plasma concentrations of quetiapine and dose‐adjusted plasma concentrations. Results: Patients comedicated with metamizole showed >50% lower plasma concentrations of quetiapine (median 45.2 ng/mL, Q1 = 15.5; Q3 = 90.5 vs. 92.0 ng/mL, Q1 = 52.3; Q3 = 203.8, P =.003). The dose‐adjusted plasma concentrations were 69% lower in the comedication group (P =.001). Subgroup analyses did not suggest a dose dependency of the metamizole effect or an influence of quetiapine formulation (immediate vs. extended release). Finally, the comedication group exhibited a significantly higher proportion of patients whose quetiapine concentrations were below the therapeutic reference range (78.8% in the metamizole group vs. 54.4% in the control group, P =.037) indicating therapeutically insufficient drug concentrations. Conclusion: The combination of metamizole and quetiapine leads to significantly lower drug concentrations of quetiapine, probably via an induction of CYP3A4. Clinicians must consider the risk of adverse drug reactions, especially treatment failure under quetiapine when adding metamizole. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For psychotic disorders (i.e. schizophrenia), pharmacotherapy plays a key role in controlling acute and long-term symptoms. To find the optimal individual dose and dosage strategy, specialised tools are used. Three tools have been proven useful to personalise drug treatments: therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of drug levels, pharmacogenetic testing (PG), and molecular neuroimaging. Methods: In these Guidelines, we provide an in-depth review of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacogenetics for 45 antipsychotics. Over 30 international experts in psychiatry selected studies that have measured drug concentrations in the blood (TDM), gene polymorphisms of enzymes involved in drug metabolism, or receptor/transporter occupancies in the brain (positron emission tomography (PET)). Results: Study results strongly support the use of TDM and the cytochrome P450 (CYP) genotyping and/or phenotyping to guide drug therapies. Evidence-based target ranges are available for titrating drug doses that are often supported by PET findings. Conclusion: All three tools discussed in these Guidelines are essential for drug treatment. TDM goes well beyond typical indications such as unclear compliance and polypharmacy. Despite its enormous potential to optimise treatment effects, minimise side effects and ultimately reduce the global burden of diseases, personalised drug treatment has not yet become the standard of care in psychiatry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We aimed to investigate the ambiguous findings of earlier research regarding the reduction of quetiapine plasma levels when combined with lamotrigine, most likely via UDP-glucuronosyltransferase induction by lamotrigine. Methods: One thousand one hundred and fifty samples, divided into four groups of patients receiving either quetiapine immediate- (IR) or extended-release (XR) without or in combination with lamotrigine were compared regarding absolute and dose-adjusted plasma concentrations. Furthermore, samples of intra-individual controls were analyzed. Results: Patients receiving quetiapine IR in combination with lamotrigine showed 31% lower plasma (p = 0.002) and 23% lower dose-adjusted plasma concentrations (p = 0.004) compared to those receiving IR monotherapy. The proportion of patients with quetiapine plasma concentrations below the lower limit of the therapeutic reference range was 50% and 30% in the combination group and in patients receiving monotherapy, respectively (p = 0.03). However, no significant differences regarding plasma concentration (p = 0.13) and dose-adjusted plasma concentration (p = 0.42) were observed in patients with combination vs. monotherapy with the XR formulation of quetiapine. In the intra-individual controls, no trends could be identified, possibly due to insufficient number of samples (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The combination of quetiapine IR with lamotrigine is associated with significantly lower drug concentrations of quetiapine, potentially impacting quetiapine effectiveness. For quetiapine ER, a significant interaction is less likely. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bei der Einstellung von Patient:innen auf ein Psychopharmakon kann nicht sicher vorhergesagt werden, ob sie wirklich eine wirksame Medikamentenkonzentration aufbauen oder nicht. Therapeutisches Drug Monitoring kann im Sinne der personalisierten Medizin dabei helfen, individuelle Eigenschaften der Patient:innen zu berücksichtigen und so die Dosierung der angeordneten Psychopharmaka zu optimieren. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assessed pharmacokinetic correlates of treatment response to escitalopram using a large therapeutic drug monitoring database. A large naturalistic sample of patients receiving escitalopram was analyzed. Responders were defined as 'very much improved' or 'much improved' based on the Clinical Global Impression – Improvement score, CGI-I. We compared responders (n = 83) vs. non-responders (n = 388) with the primary outcome being the escitalopram plasma concentration and concentration corrected by the daily dose (C/D ratio). Effects of age, sex, body-mass-index (BMI), and C/D ratio were assessed in a multivariate logistic regression model predicting response. There were no statistically significant differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between responders vs. non-responders. There were also no differences between escitalopram daily doses or plasma concentrations, while C/D ratios were significantly higher in non-responders than in responders (1.6 ± 1.7 vs. 1.2 ± 0.9 (ng/mL)/(mg/day), p = 0.007); C/D ratios (odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.34–0.80, p < 0.003) were associated with response to escitalopram, after controlling for age, sex, and BMI. Patients with low clearance of escitalopram as reflected upon high C/D ratios may be less likely respond to escitalopram. Identifying these patients during dose titration may support clinical decision-making, including switching to a different antidepressant instead of increasing daily dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]