Antidepressant interactions with warfarin

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.

Fluoxetine and Risk of Bleeding in Patients Aged 60 Years and Older Using the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System Database: A Case/Noncase Study

BACKGROUND

Depression, the leading cause of nonfatal disease burden, has a strong correlation with suicide and affects approximately 7% of the general elderly population. Adverse drug reactions in older patients are particularly important because of reduced drug metabolism, polypharmacy, drug-drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions. Fluoxetine is the first representative selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor but is associated with the possibility of hemorrhage based on its mechanism of action. Serious cases of gastrointestinal bleeding and cerebral hemorrhage have been reported, raising concerns about the safety of this drug.

METHODS

We detected signals of bleeding risk associated with fluoxetine in an elderly population using the Korea Adverse Event Reporting System database. Reporting odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 16,517 adverse events related to antidepressants were reported. The reporting odds ratios for fluoxetine were 2.34 (95% CI, 1.03-5.34) for total bleeding, 4.41 (95% CI, 1.60-12.15) for major bleeding, 2.06 (95% CI, 0.28-15.03) for gastrointestinal bleeding, and 6.12 (95% CI, 2.14-22.60) for brain hemorrhage compared with those of all other antidepressants.

CONCLUSIONS

We detected safety signals with total bleeding, major bleeding, and brain hemorrhage related to fluoxetine. For patients with a high risk of bleeding, such as the elderly population, prescribing antidepressants other than fluoxetine can be considered. The results of this study provide preliminary evidence of a relationship between fluoxetine and hemorrhage but have wide 95% CIs. Further pharmacoepidemiological studies will be needed to confirm the risk of bleeding associated with fluoxetine.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Concomitant Use of Warfarin and Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors: A Multidatabase Observational Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Patients treated with warfarin are often coprescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for coexisting depression. Some SSRIs are potent CYP2C9 inhibitors that may increase warfarin plasma concentrations and the risk of bleeding. We aimed to examine the effect of the putative CYP2C9-mediated warfarin-SSRI interaction on clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted an observational cohort study among warfarin initiators who had a subsequent SSRI prescription in 5 US claims databases. Patients were followed for up to 180 days as long as they were exposed to both warfarin and their index SSRI groups. Cox regression models were used to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for bleeding events, ischemic or thromboembolic events, and mortality comparing patients treated with SSRIs that are potent CYP2C9 inhibitors (fluoxetine, fluvoxamine) with those treated with other SSRIs after propensity score matching.

FINDINGS

The eligible cohort comprised 52,129 patients. Hazard ratios were 1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.38) for bleeding events, 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.21) for ischemic or thromboembolic events, and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.72-1.14) for mortality. Results were consistent across individual component outcomes, different warfarin stabilization periods, and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients concomitantly treated with warfarin and SSRIs that are potent CYP2C9 inhibitors had comparable rates of bleeding events, ischemic or thromboembolic events, and mortality as did patients cotreated with warfarin and other SSRIs, although small but potentially meaningful effects on bleeding cannot be completely excluded. SSRI inhibition of CYP2C9 does not appear to affect major safety or effectiveness outcomes of warfarin treatment in clinical practice, where patients may be closely monitored.

Lack of the effect of lobeglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonist, on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin

Aims

Lobeglitazone has been developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study was conducted to evaluate potential drug–drug interactions between lobeglitazone and warfarin, an anticoagulant with a narrow therapeutic index.

Methods

In this open-label, three-treatment, crossover study, 24 healthy male subjects were administered lobeglitazone (0.5 mg) for 1–12 days with warfarin (25 mg) on day 5 in one period. After a washout interval, subjects were administered warfarin (25 mg) alone in the other period. Pharmacokinetics of R- and S-warfarin and lobeglitazone, as well as pharmacodynamics of warfarin, as measured by international normalized ratio (INR) and factor VII activity, were assessed.

Results

The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for area under the curve from time zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_last) for warfarin + lobeglitazone: warfarin alone were 1.0076 (90% CI: 0.9771, 1.0391) for R-warfarin and 0.9880 (90% CI: 0.9537, 1.0235) for S-warfarin. The maximum observed plasma concentration (C_max) values were 1.0167 (90% CI: 0.9507, 1.0872) for R-warfarin and 1.0028 (90% CI: 0.9518, 1.0992) for S-warfarin, both of which were contained in the interval 0.80–1.25. Lobeglitazone had no effect on the area under the effect–time curve from time 0 to 168 hours (AUEC) of INR and factor VII activity, as demonstrated by the GMRs of 1.0091 (90% CI: 0.9872, 1.0314) and 0.9355 (90% CI: 0.9028, 0.9695), respectively. In addition, the pharmacokinetics of lobeglitazone was also unaffected by warfarin.

Conclusion

Concomitant administration of lobeglitazone and warfarin was well tolerated. Lobeglitazone had no meaningful effect on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of warfarin. These findings indicate that lobeglitazone and warfarin can be coadministered without dosage adjustments for either drug.

The effect of aleglitazar on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of S- and R-warfarin in healthy male subjects

: Aleglitazar acts through balanced activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors α and γ; warfarin is a commonly prescribed anticoagulant. Given the extent of cardiovascular disease in patients with type 2 diabetes, cotreatment with aleglitazar and warfarin is likely in this population. This open-label, randomized, 2-period, crossover study in 12 healthy male subjects investigated the potential for drug-drug interactions between warfarin and aleglitazar (final data drawn from 11 white subjects). The primary objective was to investigate the effect of aleglitazar on the pharmacokinetic properties of S-warfarin and on the pharmacodynamics of the racemic mixture; the secondary objectives included the effect of aleglitazar on R-warfarin pharmacokinetics and of racemic warfarin on aleglitazar pharmacokinetics. Subjects were randomized to single-dose warfarin on day 1 or aleglitazar once daily (12 days) plus single-dose warfarin on day 6 followed by a 14-day washout period, then crossover. Coadministration of aleglitazar reduced S- and R-warfarin exposure (AUC0-∞) by 18% and 13%, respectively, but did not change its pharmacodynamic effects (prothrombin time and factor VII activity). After warfarin dosing, aleglitazar trough concentrations remained within the same range. These findings indicate that coadministration of aleglitazar and warfarin is unlikely to affect the efficacy or safety of either agent.

Clinically relevant drug interactions in anxiety disorders

OBJECTIVE

Certain drugs used in the treatment of patients with anxiety disorders can interact with other psychotropic drugs and with pharmacological treatments for physical illnesses. There is a need for an updated comparative review of clinically relevant drug interactions in this area.

DESIGN

Relevant literature on drug interactions with medications used in the treatment of anxiety disorders was identified through a search in MEDLINE and EMBASE.

RESULTS

Drug interactions involving medications used to treat anxiety disorders may be pharmacokinetic, such as enzyme inhibition or induction in the cytochrome P450 system and transporter-mediated drug interactions, or pharmacodynamic, such as additive effects in causing drowsiness or additive effects at neurotransmitter receptors. Certain selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, and paroxetine) are particularly liable to be potentially involved in untoward pharmacokinetic interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

The potential for drug interactions with medications used in anxiety disorders should be the cause of clinical concern, particularly in elderly individuals. However, the liability for harmful drug interactions may be anticipated, and the risk reduced. Although not all interactions are clinically relevant, careful monitoring of clinical response and possible interactions is essential.

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.

Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibiting antidepressants and the risk of overanticoagulation during acenocoumarol maintenance treatment

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of co-medication with selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) on overanticoagulation during acenocoumarol maintenance treatment.

METHODS

All subjects from The Rotterdam Study who received acenocoumarol maintenance treatment between April 1 1991 and September 9 2009 were followed for the event of an international normalized ratio (INR) ≥6, until death, end of treatment or end of the study period. With the Andersen-Gill extension of the Cox proportional hazards model, risks for repeated events of overanticoagulation in relation to concomitant SSRI use were calculated.

RESULTS

The risk for overanticoagulation during acenocoumarol maintenance treatment was increased in combination with fluvoxamine (HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.49, 4.66) and venlafaxine (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.21, 3.99). There was no increase in risk for the other SSRIs, but numbers of exposed cases were low for all SSRIs except paroxetine.

CONCLUSION

Fluvoxamine and venlafaxine were associated with a more than double risk of INR values ≥6 in acenocoumarol treated subjects.

Bleeding incidence with concomitant use of antidepressants and warfarin

INTRODUCTION

Bleeding is the major complication associated with warfarin therapy. Some antidepressants are also associated with increased bleeding risk. Warfarin and antidepressants are used frequently in combination, but it is unclear whether concomitant use increases the risk of bleeding beyond that with warfarin alone. The primary goal of this study was to determine whether the use of warfarin and an antidepressant increases the risk for bleeding outcomes compared with the use of warfarin alone. The secondary goal was to characterize the risk of bleeding in warfarin-treated patients taking one specific class of antidepressant, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective, single-center, study of warfarin-treated patients prescribed (n = 46) and not prescribed (n = 54) an antidepressant. Medical records over 6 months were reviewed for international normalized ratio values, medical history, bleeding type and incidence, and hospitalization due to bleeding. Patients were included in the antidepressant group if they were taking concomitant warfarin and antidepressant therapy consistently for a period of 6 months and in the control group if they were not taking an antidepressant with warfarin.

RESULTS

The use of any antidepressant with warfarin was not associated with the incidence of any bleeding or major bleeding during the 6-month period. However, the use of an SSRI with warfarin was associated with an increase in any bleeding event (odds ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.01-6.4 P = 0.04). The use of an SSRI remained a significant predictor of bleeding after accounting for other factors associated with bleeding risk.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these data, it is important to clarify the interaction between warfarin and SSRIs in regard to bleeding risk given the high frequency of their concomitant use.

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.

Warfarin toxicity and individual variability-clinical case

Warfarin is a widely used anticoagulant in the treatment and prevention of thrombosis, in the treatment for chronic atrial fibrillation, mechanical valves, pulmonary embolism, and dilated cardiomyopathy. It is tasteless and colorless, was used as a poison, and is still marketed as a pesticide against rats and mice. Several long-acting warfarin derivatives-superwarfarin anticoagulants-such as brodifacoum, diphenadione, chlorophacinone, bromadiolone, are used as pesticides and can produce profound and prolonged anticoagulation. Several factors increase the risk of warfarin toxicity. However, polymorphisms in cytochrome P450 genes and drug interactions account for most of the risk for toxicity complications. Each person is unique in their degree of susceptibility to toxic agents. The toxicity interpretation and the health risk of most toxic substances are a subject of uncertainty. Genetically determined low metabolic capacity in an individual can dramatically alter the toxin and metabolite levels from those normally expected, which is crucial for drugs with a narrow therapeutic index, like warfarin. Personalized approaches in interpretation have the potential to remove some of the scientific uncertainties in toxicity cases.

Clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with second-generation antidepressants: an update

BACKGROUND

The second-generation antidepressants include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and other compounds with different mechanisms of action. All second-generation antidepressants are metabolized in the liver by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme system. Concomitant intake of inhibitors or inducers of the CYP isozymes involved in the biotransformation of specific antidepressants may alter plasma concentrations of these agents, although this effect is unlikely to be associated with clinically relevant interactions. Rather, concern about drug interactions with second-generation antidepressants is based on their in vitro potential to inhibit > or = 1 CYP isozyme.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this article was to review the current literature on clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug interactions with second-generation antidepressants.

METHODS

A search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted for original research and review articles published in English between January 1985 and February 2008. Among the search terms were drug interactions, second-generation antidepressants, newer antidepressants, SSRIs, SNRIs, fluoxetine, paroxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, venlafaxine, duloxetine, mirtazapine, reboxetine, bupropion, nefazodone, pharmacokinetics, drug metabolism, and cytochrome P450. Only articles published in peer-reviewed journals were included, and meeting abstracts were excluded. The reference lists of relevant articles were hand-searched for additional publications.

RESULTS

Second-generation antidepressants differ in their potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Fluoxetine and paroxetine are potent inhibitors of CYP2D6, fluvoxamine markedly inhibits CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, and nefazodone is a substantial inhibitor of CYP3A4. Therefore, clinically relevant interactions may be expected when these antidepressants are coadministered with substrates of the pertinent isozymes, particularly those with a narrow therapeutic index. Duloxetine and bupropion are moderate inhibitors of CYP2D6, and sertraline may cause significant inhibition of this isoform, but only at high doses. Citalopram, escitalopram, venlafaxine, mirtazapine, and reboxetine are weak or negligible inhibitors of CYP isozymes in vitro and are less likely than other second-generation antidepressants to interact with co-administered medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Second-generation antidepressants are not equivalent in their potential for pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Although interactions may be predictable in specific circumstances, use of an antidepressant with a more favorable drug-interaction profile may be justified.

Hematologic problems in psychosomatic medicine

Vitamin B12 deficiency is associated with problems in cognition, mood, psychosis, and less commonly, anxiety. Folate deficiency primarily is associated with problems in mood. Patients who have sickle cell disease, a disease of chronic pain, experience difficulties with depression, anxiety, stigma, and are at risk for substance abuse and dependence. Patients with hemophilia have benefited from advances in treatment; however, their morbidity and mortality were compounded in those who received blood products contaminated with HIV, or hepatitis B and C. Psychiatrists who practice psychosomatic medicine should expect to encounter patients with the above problems, as they are frequently seen in medical settings. Finally, most of the commonly used psychotropic medications have uncommon but potentially important hematologic side effects or may interact with the anticoagulants used in medically ill patients.

Quality of life and metabolic status in mildly depressed patients with type 2 diabetes treated with paroxetine: a double-blind randomised placebo controlled 6-month trial

Background

Depression is prevalent in people with type 2 diabetes and affects both glycaemic control and overall quality of life. The aim of this investigator-initiated trial was to evaluate the effect of the antidepressant paroxetine on quality of life, metabolic control, and mental well-being in mildly depressed diabetics aged 50–70 years.

Methods

We randomised 49 mildly depressed primary care outpatients with non-optimally controlled diabetes to a 6-month double-blind treatment with either paroxetine 20 mg per day or matching placebo. Primary efficacy measurements were quality of life and glycaemic control. The primary global outcome of the study was defined as a 10 points improvement in the SF-36 quality of life score. The primary metabolic outcome of the study was defined as a 0.8%-units decrease in glycosylated haemoglobin A_1c(GHbA_1c). Psychiatric symptoms were assessed with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.

Results

Six patients withdrew their consent before starting medication and six dropped out later in the study. We performed analysis of covariance with the baseline value as a covariate. Quality of life and glycaemic control as well as symptoms of depression and anxiety improved in both groups over the 6-month study period. After three months of treatment we found a statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups in GHbA_1c (mean difference = 0.59%-units, p = 0.018) and in SF-36 score (mean difference = 11.0 points, p = 0.039). However, at the end of the study, no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups were observed. No severe adverse events occurred.

Conclusion

This pragmatic study of primary care patients did not confirm earlier preliminary findings indicating a beneficial effect of paroxetine on glycaemic control. The study indicates that in pragmatic circumstances any possible benefit from administration of paroxetine in diabetic patients with sub-threshold depression is likely to be modest and of short duration. Routine antidepressant prescription for patients with diabetes and sub-threshold depressive symptoms is not indicated.

Trial registration

Current controlled trials ISRCTN55819922

A systematic review on drug interactions in oncology

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review drug interactions in oncology.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for eligible articles and online databases abstracts of major oncology meetings from 2002 to 2005.

RESULTS

One study reported on the frequency of drug interactions. Interactions between chemotherapy and nonchemotherapy agents have been reported mostly in small clinical trials and case series. Interactions between chemotherapic agents have been reported mostly in Phase I studies. Few studies described fatal outcomes of drug interactions in cancer patients.

CONCLUSION

Drug interactions comprise an important issue in oncology, but very limited data exist on their frequency and clinical consequences.

Antidepressants, warfarin, and the risk of hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Case reports suggest that some selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors can interact with warfarin to increase the likelihood of bleeding. We speculated that, among patients receiving warfarin, initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment would be associated with an increased risk of hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding (UGIB).

METHODS

We conducted a population-based, nested, case-control study involving Ontario residents 66 years or older continuously treated with warfarin for at least 1 year. Cases admitted with UGIB were compared with matched controls (1:10) to explore the odds ratio for initiation of various antidepressants within 42, 90, and 180 days before the index admission.

RESULTS

From January 1994 to December 2002, we identified 98,784 elderly patients continuously receiving warfarin for at least 1 year; of whom 1538 (0.6%) were admitted to hospital for UGIB. The adjusted odds ratio for fluoxetine/fluvoxamine exposure in 90 days before UGIB hospitalization is 1.2 (95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.7), and the adjusted odds ratio for other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the same period was 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 0.9-1.4). The odds ratios for exposure to antidepressants in 180 days before UGIB hospitalization were similar.

CONCLUSION

The initiation of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment in patients receiving warfarin was not associated with a significant increase in the risk of hospitalization for UGIB.

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).

Quality of life and metabolic status in mildly depressed women with type 2 diabetes treated with paroxetine: a single-blind randomised placebo controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Depression is prevalent in people with type 2 diabetes and affects both glycemic control and overall quality of life. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effect of the antidepressant paroxetine on metabolic control, quality of life and mental well-being in mildly depressed women with type 2 diabetes.

METHODS

We randomised 15 mildly depressed women with non-optimally controlled type 2 diabetes to a 10-week single-blind treatment with either paroxetine 20 mg per day or placebo. Primary efficacy measurements were glycemic control and quality of life. Glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (GHbA1c) was used as a measure of glycemic control. Quality of life was evaluated using RAND-36. Mental state was assessed using two clinician-rated scoring instruments, Hamilton's Anxiety Scale (HAM-A) and Montgomery-Asberg's Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and a patient-rated scoring instrument, Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI).

RESULTS

At the end of the study no significant difference between groups in improvement of quality of life was found. A trend towards a superior improvement in glycemic control was found in the paroxetine group (p = 0.08). A superior increase in sex-hormone-binding-globuline (SHBG) levels was evidenced in the paroxetine group (p = 0.01) as a sign of improved insulin sensitivity. There was also a trend for superior efficacy of paroxetine in investigator-rated anxiety and depression. This notion was supported by a trend for superior decrease of serum cortisol levels in the paroxetine group (p = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Paroxetine has a beneficial effect on measures of insulin sensitivity and may improve glycemic control. Larger studies of longer duration are needed to verify the benefits of paroxetine in type 2 diabetes. While waiting for more conclusive evidence it seems sensible to augment standard care of type 2 diabetes with paroxetine even in patients who do not fulfil routine psychiatric criteria for initiation of antidepressant drug treatment.

[Oral anticoagulants in the elderly]

PURPOSE

Atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism are particularly frequent in the elderly. Whether or not prescribe oral anticoagulant treatment in the elderly is therefore a common question for the physician. Despite the benefits of anticoagulation demonstrated in clinical trials, oral anticoagulant therapy is underused in the elderly.

CURRENT KNOWLEDGE AND KEY POINTS

Indications for oral anticoagulation are discussed specifically in the elderly with a literature review. Only the length of anticoagulation treatment after a venous thromboembolism remained a purpose of discussion regarding the severity of the pathology. The frequency of systemic thromboembolism in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is increasing with age. Oral anticoagulation reduces this risk. This benefice is to compare with the increasing rate of major bleeding complications in the elderly and in patient who had stroke, hyper-tension, diabetes mellitus or gastrointestinal bleeding. The objective of this article is to focus on the mode to measure oral anticoagulant benefice/risk ratio in the elderly and to propose several ways to minimize the risk for bleeding.

FUTURE PROSPECTS AND PROJECTS

The potential drug side effect severity of oral anticoagulation must lead to find the "reasonable" clinical indications in term of benefice/risk ratio and what measures should be take to increase the safety of oral anticoagulation in the elderly. The comprehensive geriatric evaluation should be considered as a decision-aid tool in long-term oral anticoagulation in the frail elderly. Anticoagulation clinics, informatics'-prescription coupled with dose-adaptation decision-aid adapted to the elderly should be helpful in this research of quality. Finally, prescribers education supports must insist on the early course of therapy that is at higher risk of bleeding.

Moclobemide: therapeutic use and clinical studies

Moclobemide is a reversible inhibitor of monoamine-oxidase-A (RIMA) and has been extensively evaluated in the treatment of a wide spectrum of depressive disorders and less extensively studied in anxiety disorders. Nearly all meta-analyses and most comparative studies indicated that in the acute management of depression this drug is more efficacious than placebo and as efficacious as tricyclic (or some heterocyclic) antidepressants or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). There is a growing evidence that moclobemide is not inferior to other antidepressants in the treatment of subtypes of depression, such as dysthymia, endogenous (unipolar and bipolar), reactive, atypical, agitated, and retarded depression as with other antidepressants limited evidence suggests that moclobemide has consistent long-term efficacy. However, more controlled studies addressing this issue are needed. For patients with bipolar depression the risk of developing mania seems to be not higher with moclobemide than with other antidepressants. The effective therapeutic dose range for moclobemide in most acute phase trials was 300 to 600 mg, divided in 2 to 3 doses. While one controlled trial and one long-term open-label study found moclobemide to be efficacious in social phobia, three controlled trials subsequently revealed either no effect or less robust effects with the tendency of higher doses (600 - 900 mg/d) to be more efficacious. Two comparative trials demonstrated moclobemide to be as efficacious as fluoxetine or clomipramine in patients suffering from panic disorder. Placebo-controlled trials in this indication are, however, still lacking. A relationship between the plasma concentration of moclobemide and its therapeutic efficacy is not apparent but a positive correlation with adverse events has been found. Dizziness, nausea and insomnia occurred more frequently on moclobemide than on placebo. Due to negligible anticholinergic and antihistaminic actions, moclobemide has been better tolerated than tri- or heterocyclic antidepressants. Gastrointestinal side effects and, especially, sexual dysfunction were much less frequent with moclobemide than with SSRIs. Unlike irreversible MAO-inhibitors, moclobemide has a negligible propensity to induce hypertensive crisis after ingestion of tyramine-rich food ("cheese-reaction"). Therefore, dietary restrictions are not as strict. However, with moclobemide doses above 900 mg/d the risk of interaction with ingested tyramine might become clinically relevant. After multiple dosing the oral bioavailability of moclobemide reaches almost 100%. At therapeutic doses, moclobemide lacks significant negative effects on psychomotor performance, cognitive function or cardiovascular system. Due to the relative freedom from these side effects, moclobemide is particularly attractive in the treatment of elderly patients. Moclobemide is a substrate of CYP2C19. Although it acts as an inhibitor of CYP1A2, CYP2C19, and CYP2D6, relatively few clinically important drug interactions involving moclobemide have been reported. It is relatively safe even in overdose. The drug has a short plasma elimination half-life that allows switching to an alternative agent within 24 h. Since it is well tolerated, therapeutic doses can often be reached rapidly upon onset of treatment. Steady-state plasma levels are reached approximately at one week following dose adjustment. Patients with renal dysfunction require no dose reduction in contrast to patients with severe hepatic impairment. Cases of refractory depression might improve with a combination of moclobemide with other antidepressants, such as clomipramine or a SSRI. Since this combination has rarely been associated with a potentially lethal serotonin syndrome, it requires lower entry doses, a slower dose titration and a more careful monitoring of patients. Combination therapy with moclobemide and other serotonergic agents, or opioids, should be undertaken with caution, although no serious adverse events have been published with therapeutic doses of moclobemide to date. On the basis of animal data the combined use of moclobemide with pethidine or dextropropoxyphene should be avoided. There is no evidence that moclobemide would increase body weight or produce seizures. Some preclinical data suggest that moclobemide may have anticonvulsant property.

Drug interactions update: drugs, herbs, and oral anticoagulation

Management of warfarin drug interactions is often complicated by lack of information regarding interactions with new drugs and with herbal medicinals. The pharmaceutical industry has increased both the number and quality of drug interaction studies prior to marketing new agents. Interactions may still occur in patients, however, despite negative pre-marketing studies in healthy volunteers. The clinical significance and intensity of warfarin interactions with prescription drugs (e.g., celecoxib, proton pump inhibitors, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) can often be predicted on the basis of known metabolic characteristics of the drugs and warfarin enantiomers. Drug interactions with herbal medicinals are much more difficult to characterize and predict because of the lack of federal regulations regarding safety, efficacy, and manufacturing standards. Published case reports of interactions between warfarin and even the most widely used herbal medicinals are limited. Practitioners are encouraged to report such interactions through the FDA MedWatch program.

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.

The influence of ethnicity and antidepressant pharmacogenetics in the treatment of depression

Antidepressant disposition can be influenced by a variety of CYP isozymes and their effects in the treatment of depression are reviewed. The CYP isozymes 2D6, 3A4, 1A2 and 2C are discussed in regard to antidepressant drug pharmacokinetics, clinical relevance and variability in activity for each isozyme. Polymorphism has been identified with CYP 2D6 and 2C19. Disposition of antidepressants which are substrates of these two isozymes can also be influenced and contributes towards the wide interpatient and interethnic variability found with these drugs. Antidepressants (especially SSRIs) can be CYP isozyme inhibitors and produce significant drug-drug interactions.

Citalopram in the treatment of depression and other potential uses in psychiatry

During the past decade, treatment options for depression have increased with the introduction of new agents. Older agents, such as tricyclic antidepressants and monoamine oxidase inhibitors, increase noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission. Attempts to separate antidepressant effects from adverse effects led to the development of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Citalopram is the newest SSRI to be marketed in the United States. Of all SSRIs on the market, it is the most selective for serotonin reuptake pump. Its efficacy in treating depression was evident in both placebo-controlled and comparator trials. In addition, citalopram was studied in the treatment of other psychiatric disorders. The agent has less inhibition of cytochrome P450 enzymes than other SSRIs, possibly giving it a lower potential for drug interactions.