Adherence to escitalopram treatment in depression: a study of electronically compiled dosing histories in the 'Depression: the search for phenotypes' study.

Poor adherence to depression treatment is common. Understanding determinants of poor adherence to therapy is crucial to ensure optimal clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to describe characteristics of dosing history in participants with depression receiving once daily escitalopram. Participants were randomly assigned to interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) or pharmacotherapy. Participants assigned to IPT who did not evidence a response or remission had escitalopram added to their treatment. Adherence to pharmacotherapy was assessed using an electronically monitored pill cap (MEMS). Fifty-four participants on escitalopram alone and 32 on escitalopram+IPT were monitored. After 200 days, 71.7% of the participants in the escitalopram group and 54.8% of those in the escitalopram+IPT group were still engaged with the dosing regimen. Of those engaged in the dosing regimen, 17.9% (average over 210 days) of the participants did not take their medication (nonexecution). In 69% of the days participants took the correct dosage required. On average, participants had three drug holidays and the mean length of a holiday was 7 days per patient. No difference in adherence patterns was observed between patients receiving escitalopram alone vs. IPT+escitalopram. Early discontinuation of treatment and suboptimal daily execution of the prescribed regimen are the most common facets of poor adherence in this study population.

Performance of Cpred/Cobs concentration ratios as a metric reflecting adherence to antidepressant drug therapy.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence is very common among subjects undergoing pharmacotherapy for schizophrenia and depression. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the ratio of the nonlinear mixed effects pharmacokinetic model predicted concentration to observed drug concentration (ratio of population predicted to observed concentration (Cpred/Cobs) and ratio of individual predicted to observed concentration (Cipred/Cobs) as a measure of erratic drug exposure, driven primarily by variable execution of the dosage regimen and unknown true dosage history. METHODS: Modeling and simulation approaches in conjunction with dosage history information from the Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS, provided by the "Depression: The search for treatment relevant phenotypes" study), was applied to evaluate the consistency of exposure via simulation studies with scenarios representing a long half-life drug (escitalopram). Adherence rates were calculated based on the percentage of the prescribed doses actually taken correctly during the treatment window of interest. The association between Cpred/Cobs, Cipred/Cobs ratio, and adherence rate was evaluated under various assumptions of known dosing history. RESULTS: Simulations for those scenarios representing a known dosing history were generated from historical MEMS data. Simulations of a long half-life drug exhibited a trend for overprediction of concentrations in patients with a low percentage of doses taken and underprediction of concentrations in patients taking more than their prescribed number of doses. Overall, the ratios did not predict adherence well, except when the true adherence rates were extremely high (greater than 100% of prescribed doses) or extremely low (complete nonadherence). In general, the Cipred/Cobs ratio was a better predictor of adherence rate than the Cpred/Cobs ratio. Correct predictions of extreme (high, low) 7-day adherence rates using Cipred/Cobs were 73.8% and 64.0%. CONCLUSION: This simulation study demonstrated the limitations of the Cpred/obs and Cipred/obs ratios as metrics for actual dosage intake history, and identified that use of MEMS dosing history monitoring combined with sparse pharmacokinetic sampling is a more reliable approach.

Effect of age, weight, and CYP2C19 genotype on escitalopram exposure.

The purpose of this study was to characterize escitalopram population pharmacokinetics (PK) in patients treated for major depression in a cross-national, US-Italian clinical trial. Data from the 2 sites participating in this trial, conducted at Pittsburgh (United States) and Pisa (Italy), were used. Patients received 5, 10, 15, or 20 mg of escitalopram daily for a minimum of 32 weeks. Nonlinear mixed effects modeling was used to model the PK characteristics of escitalopram. One- and 2-compartment models with various random effect implementations were evaluated during model development. Objective function values and goodness-of-fit plots were used as model selection criteria. CYP2C19 genotype, age, weight, body mass index, sex, race, and clinical site were evaluated as possible covariates. In total, 320 plasma concentrations from 105 Pittsburgh patients and 153 plasma concentrations from 67 Pisa patients were available for the PK model development. A 1-compartmental model with linear elimination and proportional error best described the data. Apparent clearance (CL/F) and volume of distribution (V/F) for escitalopram without including any covariates in the patient population were 23.5 L/h and 884 L, respectively. CYP2C19 genotype, weight, and age had a significant effect on CL/F, and patient body mass index affected estimated V/F. Patients from Pisa, Italy, had significantly lower clearances than patients from Pittsburgh that disappeared after controlling for patient CYP2C19 genotype, age, and weight. Postprocessed individual empirical Bayes estimates on clearance for the 172 patients show that patients without allele CYP2C19(*)2 or (*)3 (n = 82) cleared escitalopram 33.7% faster than patients with heterogeneous or homogeneous (*)2 or (*)3 ((*)17/(*)2, (*)17/(*)3, (*)1/(*)2, (*)1/(*)3, (*)2/(*)2, (*)2/(*)3, and (*)3/(*)3, n = 46). CL/F significantly decreased with increasing patient age. Patients younger than 30 years (n = 45) cleared escitalopram 20.7% and 42.7% faster than patients aged 30 to 50 years (n = 84) and older than 50 years of age (n = 43), respectively. CYP2C19 genotype, age, and weight strongly influenced the CL/F of escitalopram. These variables may affect patient tolerance of this antidepressant and may provide important information in the effort to tailor treatments to patients' individual needs.

The effect of reporting methods for dosing times on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters of escitalopram.

The objective of this study was to compare population pharmacokinetic models of escitalopram developed from dosage times recorded by a medication event monitoring system (MEMS) versus the reported times from patients with diagnosed depression. Seventy-three patients were prescribed doses of 10, 15, or 20 mg escitalopram daily. Sparse blood samples were collected at weeks 4, 12, 24, and 36 with 185 blood samples obtained from the 73 patients. NONMEM was used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model based on dosing records obtained from MEMS prior to each blood sample time. A separate population pharmacokinetic analysis using NONMEM was performed for the same population using the patient-reported last dosing time and assuming a steady-state condition as the model input. Objective function values and goodness-of-fit plots were used as model selection criteria. The absolute mean difference in the last dosing time between MEMS and patient-reported times was 4.48 +/- 10.12 hours. A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination was sufficient for describing the data. Estimated oral clearance (CL/F) to escitalopram was statistically insensitive to reported dosing methods (MEMS vs patient reported: 25.5 [7.0%] vs 26.9 [6.6%] L/h). However, different dosing report methods resulted in significantly different estimates on the volume of distribution (V/F; MEMS vs patient reported: 1000 [17.3%] vs 767 [17.5%] L) and the absorption rate constant K(a) (MEMS vs patient reported: 0.74 [45.7%] vs 0.51 [35.4%] h(-1)) for escitalopram. Furthermore, the parameters estimated from the MEMS method were similar to literature reported values for V/F ( approximately 1100 L) and K(a) ( approximately 0.8-0.9 h(-1)) arising from traditional pharmacokinetic approaches.