Assessing Pharmacokinetic Correlates of Escitalopram-Related Adverse Drug Reactions.

BACKGROUND: To assess the pharmacokinetic correlates of reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) under antidepressant treatment with escitalopram (ESC) using a large therapeutic drug monitoring database. METHODS: A large naturalistic sample of inpatients and outpatients prescribed ESC was analyzed. ADRs were classified using the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser side effect rating scale. We compared ESC-treated patients with (n = 35) and without ADRs (n = 273) using ESC plasma concentrations as the primary outcome. We also compared ADR rates in the 2 groups based on 2 cut-off ESC levels reflecting the recommended upper thresholds of the therapeutic reference range of 80 ng/mL, suggested by the consensus therapeutic drug monitoring guidelines, and 40 ng/mL, based on recent meta-analysis data. The effects of age, sex, smoking, daily ESC dose, plasma concentrations, and concentrations corrected for daily dose were included in a binary logistic regression model to predict ADRs. RESULTS: No differences in clinical, demographic, or pharmacokinetic parameters were observed between patients with and without ADRs ( P > 0.05). Patients with ESC-related ADRs were more frequently diagnosed with psychotic disorders than those without (25% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.004). None of the variables was associated with ADR risk. Overall, ADR rates were not significantly different in patients above versus below thresholds of ESC concentrations (ESC concentrations >40 [n = 59] vs. ≤40 ng/mL [n = 249] and >80 [n = 8] vs. ≤80 ng/mL [n = 300]; P = 0.56 and P = 1.0, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: No distinct pharmacokinetic patterns underlying ESC-associated ADRs were observed. Further studies with more specific assessments of ADRs in larger cohorts are required to better identify potential underlying patterns.

Pharmacokinetic correlates of clinical response in a naturalistic sample of escitalopram-treated patients.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed pharmacokinetic correlates of treatment response to escitalopram using a large therapeutic drug monitoring database. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Levomethadone Therapeutic Drug Monitoring to Aid Opioid Withdrawal Therapy: A Short Communication.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) is recommended for opioid maintenance therapy with levomethadone. However, TDM has not yet been applied to monitor opioid withdrawal therapy clinically, although tools to improve it are required. METHODS: In this observational cohort study, repeated TDM with levomethadone was performed according to a prospective opioid withdrawal study protocol. Objective and subjective opioid withdrawal symptoms were measured using validated rating scales and correlated to levomethadone plasma concentrations. Plasma levels were measured using high-pressure liquid chromatography with column switching and spectroscopic detection of methadone and its major metabolite. RESULTS: This study included 31 opioid-dependent patients who participated in standardized opioid withdrawal therapy. The serum levels of levomethadone were found to be highly variable and below the recommended therapeutic reference range of 250 ng/mL for maintenance therapy. These serum levels were positively correlated with dosage (r = 0.632; P < 0.001) and inversely correlated with subjective (r = -0.29; P = 0.011) and objective (r = -0.28; P = 0.014) withdrawal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence provided sheds light on how to improve levomethadone withdrawal therapy in patients with opioid dependence. It seems likely that higher initial doses at the beginning and lower dose reductions would have been advantageous. TDM can enhance the safety of opioid withdrawal therapies, minimize withdrawal symptoms, and reduce dropout rates.

Therapeutic Reference Range for Olanzapine in Schizophrenia: Systematic Review on Blood Concentrations, Clinical Effects, and Dopamine Receptor Occupancy.

Objective: Aiming at revising the therapeutic reference range for olanzapine, the present study highlights the association between blood olanzapine levels, clinical effects, and dopamine D2-receptor occupancy for oral and long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations.Data Sources: Databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and uncontrolled trials concerning blood olanzapine levels in relation to clinical outcomes or D2-receptor occupancy using MEDLINE (PubMed), Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library (March 2021, updated in December 2021). We excluded articles not written in English or German and non-human data. Search terms included olanzapine, blood level, drug monitoring, PET, and SPECT.Study Selection: The process of study selection followed a previously published protocol and PRISMA guidelines. A total of 2,824 articles were identified through database search and 1 article via reference list check. Thirty-four studies were suitable for qualitative synthesis, and 13 studies were included in the quantitative analysis.Data Extraction: Reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment of the included studies independently following the review protocol.Results: Evidence for a relationship between blood olanzapine level and efficacy/side effects (constipation) is considered low (Level C). In total, 3 studies of moderate quality consistently showed therapeutic thresholds of around 20 ng/mL for olanzapine 12 hours post-dose. This threshold is in line with findings from positron emission tomography (PET) studies that suggest optimal drug efficacy (65%-80% D2-receptor occupancy) between 17 and 44 ng/mL.Conclusions: We suggest a therapeutic reference range of 20-40 ng/mL for olanzapine oral and LAI formulations. In this range, optimal treatment response is expected in patients with schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Side effects, especially weight gain, may already occur at therapeutic levels. However, higher plasma concentrations are in general well tolerated and should not necessarily require a dose reduction in case of good response and tolerance.

Personalized switching from oral to long-acting injectable second-generation antipsychotics in schizophrenia treatment using pharmacokinetic considerations.

INTRODUCTION: Long-acting injectable (LAI) formulations of second-generation antipsychotics (SGA) are a mainstay in the treatment of schizophrenia-spectrum patients, and their use improves adherence and reduces relapse risk. Personalizing LAI-based therapy involves tailoring the transition from oral to LAIs based on individual and drug-related pharmacokinetic peculiarities. AREAS COVERED: We discuss pharmacokinetic considerations as a cornerstone of a smooth transition from oral to LAI SGAs based on works identified using an updated search in PubMed and Embase in February 2023. Establishing the extent of antipsychotic exposure during oral SGA-treatment from the patient's SGA levels is often a more appropriate orientation method to choose the equivalent LAI dose than population-based data. Oral dose adjustment during LAI transition can also be guided by checking SGA levels before the LAI injection. EXPERT OPINION: LAI SGAs may dominate the maintenance treatment of schizophrenia-spectrum disorders with increased use for other severe mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder. Spurring this trend is the development of newer formulations with longer injection intervals and increased administration ease, but transitioning from oral SGA remains a challenge. By understanding the pharmacokinetics of LAI formulations and measuring SGA levels during oral therapy, one can personalize/optimize the switch from oral SGAs to LAI counterparts.

Lower sertraline plasma concentration in patients co-medicated with clozapine-Implications for pharmacological augmentation strategies in schizophrenia.

Augmentation of antipsychotic treatment with antidepressants represents a common and beneficial treatment strategy in patients suffering from schizophrenia. Combining clozapine and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) sertraline represents a clinically important strategy in patients with therapy-resistant schizophrenia, but there is limited knowledge about mutual pharmacokinetic interactions. In the present study, we assessed the impact of clozapine on sertraline plasma concentrations. Based on a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) database, sertraline plasma concentrations were compared between two groups: patients receiving a combined treatment with sertraline and clozapine (N = 15) and a matched control group receiving sertraline but no clozapine (N = 17). Group differences with respect to raw and dose-adjusted concentrations were assessed using nonparametric tests. Comedication with clozapine was associated with 67% lower median sertraline plasma concentrations (16 vs. 48 ng/mL; p = .022) and 28% lower median dose-adjusted plasma concentrations (C/D; 0.21 vs. 0.29 (ng/mL)/(mg/day); p = .049) as compared to the control group. Scatter plots revealed a complex relationship between the dosage of clozapine and dose-adjusted sertraline concentrations composed of an initial decrease at clozapine doses below 300 mg, an increase between 300 and 600 mg and a final decrease at 800 mg which was best modeled by a third order polynomial term. Cotreatment with clozapine may lead to reduced sertraline plasma concentrations which may be explained by clozapine-induced gastrointestinal hypo-mobility already present at low doses and cytochrome P450 3A4 inducing properties at high clozapine doses. For this drug combination, clinicians should consider TDM to confirm therapeutically effective plasma concentrations of sertraline.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the therapeutic reference range for escitalopram: Blood concentrations, clinical effects and serotonin transporter occupancy.

Introduction: A titration within a certain therapeutic reference range presupposes a relationship between the blood concentration and the therapeutic effect of a drug. However, this has not been systematically investigated for escitalopram. Furthermore, the recommended reference range disagrees with mean steady state concentrations (11-21 ng/ml) that are expected under the approved dose range (10-20 mg/day). This work systematically investigated the relationships between escitalopram dose, blood levels, clinical effects, and serotonin transporter occupancy. Methods: Following our previously published methodology, relevant articles were systematically searched and reviewed for escitalopram. Results: Of 1,032 articles screened, a total of 30 studies met the eligibility criteria. The included studies investigated escitalopram blood levels in relationship to clinical effects (9 studies) or moderating factors on escitalopram metabolism (12 studies) or serotonin transporter occupancy (9 studies). Overall, the evidence for an escitalopram concentration/effect relationship is low (level C). Conclusion: Based on our findings, we propose a target range of 20-40 ng/ml for antidepressant efficacy of escitalopram. In maintenance treatment, therapeutic response is expected, when titrating patients above the lower limit. The lower concentration threshold is strongly supported by findings from neuroimaging studies. The upper limit for escitalopram's reference range rather reflects a therapeutic maximum than a tolerability threshold, since the incidence of side effects in general is low. Concentrations above 40 ng/ml should not necessarily result in dose reductions in case of good clinical efficacy and tolerability. Dose-related escitalopram concentrations in different trials were more than twice the expected concentrations from guideline reports. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=215873], identifier [CRD42020215873].

Therapeutic Reference Range for Aripiprazole in Schizophrenia Revised: a Systematic Review and Metaanalysis.

RATIONALE: While one of the basic axioms of pharmacology postulates that there is a relationship between the concentration and effects of a drug, the value of measuring blood levels is questioned by many clinicians. This is due to the often-missing validation of therapeutic reference ranges. OBJECTIVES: Here, we present a prototypical meta-analysis of the relationships between blood levels of aripiprazole, its target engagement in the human brain, and clinical effects and side effects in patients with schizophrenia and related disorders. METHODS: The relevant literature was systematically searched and reviewed for aripiprazole oral and injectable formulations. Population-based concentration ranges were computed (N = 3,373) and pharmacokinetic influences investigated. RESULTS: Fifty-three study cohorts met the eligibility criteria. Twenty-nine studies report blood level after oral, 15 after injectable formulations, and nine were positron emission tomography studies. Conflicting evidence for a relationship between concentration, efficacy, and side effects exists (assigned level of evidence low, C; and absent, D). Population-based reference ranges are well in-line with findings from neuroimaging data and individual efficacy studies. We suggest a therapeutic reference range of 120-270 ng/ml and 180-380 ng/ml, respectively, for aripiprazole and its active moiety for the treatment of schizophrenia and related disorders. CONCLUSIONS: High interindividual variability and the influence of CYP2D6 genotypes gives a special indication for Therapeutic Drug Monitoring of oral and long-acting aripiprazole. A starting dose of 10 mg will in most patients result in effective concentrations in blood and brain. 5 mg will be sufficient for known poor metabolizers.

Pharmacokinetic drug interactions with oral haloperidol in adults: dose correction factors from a combined weighted analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions (DDIs) of oral haloperidol, a first-generation antipsychotic, are systematically reviewed. AREAS COVERED: After exclusions, the search for DDIs with oral haloperidol provided 47 articles as victim and 7 as perpetrator. Changes in mean haloperidol concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratios after weighting each study's size were used to calculate the effects of other drugs (inhibitors/inducers) on haloperidol. These changes of haloperidol C/D ratio were used to estimate dose-correction factors (<1 for inhibitors and >1 for inducers). EXPERT OPINION: A box summarizes our recommendations for clinicians regarding our current knowledge of haloperidol PK DDIs, which will need to be updated as new information becomes available. Moderate to strong inducers (carbamazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, or rifampin) should be avoided since they required dose-correction factors of 2-5. Smoking appeared to be a weak inducer (dose-correction factor 1.2). Fluvoxamine, promethazine, and combinations of CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 inhibitors should be avoided. There are no long-term studies on fluoxetine to provide a dose correction factor. Limited information suggests that valproate may be an inhibitor (dose-correction factor 0.6). In most patients, haloperidol may not have clinically relevant effects as a perpetrator, but in vitro and clinical studies suggest it is a weak CYP2D6 inhibitor.

Is Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Relevant for Antidepressant Drug Therapy? Implications From a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Focus on Moderating Factors.

Inter-individual differences in antidepressant drug concentrations attained in blood may limit the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of depressive disorders. Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) enables to determine drug concentrations in blood and adjust antidepressant dosage accordingly. However, research on the underlying assumption of TDM, association between concentration and clinical effect, has yielded ambiguous results for antidepressants. It has been proposed that this ambiguity may be caused by methodological shortcomings in studies investigating the concentration-effect relationship. Guidelines recommend the use of TDM in antidepressant treatment as expert opinion. This reflects the lack of research, particularly systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, on the relationship between concentration and effect as well as on the benefits of the use of TDM in clinical practice. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has been performed to investigate the relationship between antidepressant concentration, efficacy, and side effects. It is the first meta-analytical approach to this subject and additionally considers methodological properties of primary studies as moderators of effect in quantitative analysis. Our results identified methodological shortcomings, namely the use of a flexible dose design and the exclusion of concentrations in lower- or subtherapeutic ranges, which significantly moderate the relationship between antidepressant concentration and efficacy. Such shortcomings obscure the evidence base of using TDM in clinical practice to guide antidepressant drug therapy. Further research should consider these findings to determine the relationship between concentration and efficacy and safety of antidepressant treatments, especially for newer antidepressants. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=246149, identifier: CRD42021246149.

Effects of body weight, smoking status, and sex on plasma concentrations of once-monthly paliperidone palmitate.

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge about the impact of body composition features on pharmacokinetics of newer long-acting injectable antipsychotics is limited. METHODS: We analyzed steady-state plasma concentrations of paliperidone in different body mass index (BMI), age, sex, and smoking status patient subgroups treated with once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M). Paliperidone plasma concentrations and dose-adjusted-plasma concentrations (C/D) from a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) database of PP1M-treated patients were compared among normal BMI, overweight, and obese patients as well as between females vs. males, elderly vs. non-elderly, and smokers vs. non-smokers using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: In a total of 183 PP1M-treated patients, we found highly variable paliperidone plasma concentrations between individuals but no significant effect of PP1M dose or dosing intervals (p> 0.05). C/D ratios were similar in 54 obese, 82 overweight, and 47 normal BMI patients (p> 0.05). Females had 13.7% higher C/D ratios compared to males, yet this difference was not significant (p> 0.05). No differences were found between elderly vs. non-elderly patients or for smokers vs. non-smokers (p> 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that age, sex, smoking, or body weight may not substantially affect pharmacokinetic indices of PP1M. The high interindividual variation of plasma concentrations implies that TDM may be helpful to enhance PP1M efficacy and tolerability.

An International Adult Guideline for Making Clozapine Titration Safer by Using Six Ancestry-Based Personalized Dosing Titrations, CRP, and Clozapine Levels.

This international guideline proposes improving clozapine package inserts worldwide by using ancestry-based dosing and titration. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) databases suggest that clozapine is the third most toxic drug in the United States (US), and it produces four times higher worldwide pneumonia mortality than that by agranulocytosis or myocarditis. For trough steady-state clozapine serum concentrations, the therapeutic reference range is narrow, from 350 to 600 ng/mL with the potential for toxicity and ADRs as concentrations increase. Clozapine is mainly metabolized by CYP1A2 (female non-smokers, the lowest dose; male smokers, the highest dose). Poor metabolizer status through phenotypic conversion is associated with co-prescription of inhibitors (including oral contraceptives and valproate), obesity, or inflammation with C-reactive protein (CRP) elevations. The Asian population (Pakistan to Japan) or the Americas' original inhabitants have lower CYP1A2 activity and require lower clozapine doses to reach concentrations of 350 ng/mL. In the US, daily doses of 300-600 mg/day are recommended. Slow personalized titration may prevent early ADRs (including syncope, myocarditis, and pneumonia). This guideline defines six personalized titration schedules for inpatients: 1) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing minimum therapeutic dosages of 75-150 mg/day, 2) ancestry from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average metabolism needing 175-300 mg/day, 3) European/Western Asian ancestry with lower metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 100-200 mg/day, 4) European/Western Asian ancestry with average metabolism needing 250-400 mg/day, 5) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with lower clozapine metabolism (obesity or valproate) needing 150-300 mg/day, and 6) in the US with ancestries other than from Asia or the original people from the Americas with average clozapine metabolism needing 300-600 mg/day. Baseline and weekly CRP monitoring for at least four weeks is required to identify any inflammation, including inflammation secondary to clozapine rapid titration.

Therapeutic Reference Ranges for Psychotropic Drugs: A Protocol for Systematic Reviews.

Background: For many psychotropic drugs, monitoring of drug concentrations in the blood (Therapeutic Drug Monitoring; TDM) has been proven useful to individualize treatments and optimize drug effects. Clinicians hereby compare individual drug concentrations to population-based reference ranges for a titration of prescribed doses. Thus, established reference ranges are pre-requisite for TDM. For psychotropic drugs, guideline-based ranges are mostly expert recommendations derived from a conglomerate of cohort and cross-sectional studies. A systematic approach for identifying therapeutic reference ranges has not been published yet. This paper describes how to search, evaluate and grade the available literature and validate published therapeutic reference ranges for psychotropic drugs. Methods/Results: Following PRISMA guidelines, relevant databases have to be systematically searched using search terms for the specific psychotropic drug, blood concentrations, drug monitoring, positron emission tomography (PET) and single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). The search should be restricted to humans, and diagnoses should be pre-specified. Therapeutic references ranges will not only base upon studies that report blood concentrations in relation to clinical effects, but will also include implications from neuroimaging studies on target engagement. Furthermore, studies reporting concentrations in representative patient populations are used to support identified ranges. Each range will be assigned a level of underlying evidence according to a systematic grading system. Discussion: Following this protocol allows a comprehensive overview of TDM literature that supports a certain reference range for a psychotropic drug. The assigned level of evidence reflects the validity of a reported range rather than experts' opinions.

Pharmacotherapy, drug-drug interactions and potentially inappropriate medication in depressive disorders.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to describe the number and type of drugs used to treat depressive disorders in inpatient psychiatry and to analyse the determinants of potential drug-drug interactions (pDDI) and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). METHODS: Our study was part of a larger pharmacovigilance project funded by the German Innovation Funds. It included all inpatients with a main diagnosis in the group of depressive episodes (F32, ICD-10) or recurrent depressive disorders (F33) discharged from eight psychiatric hospitals in Germany between 1 October 2017 and 30 September 2018 or between 1 January and 31 December 2019. RESULTS: The study included 14,418 inpatient cases. The mean number of drugs per day was 3.7 (psychotropic drugs = 1.7; others = 2.0). Thirty-one percent of cases received at least five drugs simultaneously (polypharmacy). Almost one half of all cases received a combination of multiple antidepressant drugs (24.8%, 95% CI 24.1%-25.5%) or a treatment with antidepressant drugs augmented by antipsychotic drugs (21.9%, 95% CI 21.3%-22.6%). The most frequently used antidepressants were selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, followed by serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors and tetracyclic antidepressants. In multivariate analyses, cases with recurrent depressive disorders and cases with severe depression were more likely to receive a combination of multiple antidepressant drugs (Odds ratio recurrent depressive disorder: 1.56, 95% CI 1.41-1.70, severe depression 1.33, 95% CI 1.18-1.48). The risk of any pDDI and PIM in elderly patients increased substantially with each additional drug (Odds Ratio: pDDI 1.32, 95% CI: 1.27-1.38, PIM 1.18, 95% CI: 1.14-1.22) and severity of disease (Odds Ratio per point on CGI-Scale: pDDI 1.29, 95% CI: 1.11-1.46, PIM 1.27, 95% CI: 1.11-1.44), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study identified potential sources and determinants of safety risks in pharmacotherapy of depressive disorders and provided additional data which were previously unavailable. Most inpatients with depressive disorders receive multiple psychotropic and non-psychotropic drugs and pDDI and PIM are relatively frequent. Patients with a high number of different drugs must be intensively monitored in the management of their individual drug-related risk-benefit profiles.

Pharmacokinetic Correlates of Once-Monthly Paliperidone Palmitate-Related Adverse Drug Reactions.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate associations between pharmacokinetic correlates and once-monthly paliperidone palmitate (PP1M)-related adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: Plasma concentrations and dose-adjusted plasma concentrations ('concentration-by-dose' [C/D]) of paliperidone from a naturalistic therapeutic drug monitoring database of PP1M-treated patients were compared between patients with ADRs, classified according to the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersogelser side-effect rating scales categories, and patients without ADRs. Analyses included non-parametric tests and a logistic regression model with a significance level set at 0.05. RESULTS: In 172 patients, we found no differences in sex, age, smoking, body mass index, PP1M dose, paliperidone plasma concentrations, and C/D values (p > 0.05) between 44 patients with and 128 patients without PP1M-related ADRs. We did not detect differences when specifying for different types of ADRs (p > 0.05). Injection intervals were shorter in patients with vs patients without ADRs (p = 0.03). The logistic regression did not report effects for sex, plasma concentrations, or C/D values (p > 0.05). Post hoc analyses in male patients receiving PP1M every 28 weeks reported higher paliperidone concentrations and C/D values in patients with vs without ADRs (p = 0.049 and p = 0.022). Within the group of male patients, we found an odds ratio of 3.07 for PP1M-associated ADRs in patients with C/D values above 7.7 (ng/mL)/(mg/day). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings did not reveal distinct patterns of paliperidone concentrations in patients with PP1M-related ADRs. However, male patients receiving PP1M every 28 days with C/D values higher than 7.7 (ng/mL)/(mg/day) showed a higher risk for ADRs, implying that therapeutic drug monitoring may be useful in assessing the risk of PP1M-related ADRs.

Polypharmacy and the risk of drug-drug interactions and potentially inappropriate medications in hospital psychiatry.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyze the epidemiology of polypharmacy in hospital psychiatry. Another aim was to investigate predictors of the number of drugs taken and the associated risks of drug-drug interactions and potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly. METHODS: Daily prescription data were obtained from a pharmacovigilance project sponsored by the Innovations Funds of the German Federal Joint Committee. RESULTS: The study included 47 071 inpatient hospital cases from eight different study centers. The mean number of different drugs during the entire stay was 6.1 (psychotropic drugs = 2.7; others = 3.4). The mean number of drugs per day was 3.8 (psychotropic drugs = 1.6; others = 2.2). One third of cases received at least five different drugs per day on average during their hospital stay (polypharmacy). Fifty-one percent of patients received more than one psychotropic drug simultaneously. Hospital cases with polypharmacy were 18 years older (p < 0.001), more likely to be female (52% vs. 40%, p < 0.001) and had more comorbidities (5 vs. 2, p < 0.001) than hospital cases without polypharmacy. The risks of drug-drug interactions (OR = 3.7; 95% CI = 3.5-3.9) and potentially inappropriate medication use in the elderly (OR = 2.2; CI = 1.9-2.5) substantially increased in patients that received polypharmacy. CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy is frequent in clinical care. The number of used drugs is a proven risk factor of adverse drug reactions due to drug-drug interactions and potentially inappropriate medication use in the elderly. The potential interactions and the specific pharmacokinetics and -dynamics of older patients should always be considered when multiple drugs are used.

Risk of Bleeding Associated with Antidepressant Drugs: The Competitive Impact of Antithrombotics in Quantitative Signal Detection.

BACKGROUND: To date, disproportionality analysis has been unable to demonstrate the increased bleeding risk associated with antidepressant drugs, especially selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that a potential signal for an increased bleeding risk may be mitigated by the effects of agents other than antidepressant drugs that are strongly associated with haemorrhages, especially antithrombotics. In addition, we investigated if the use of more specific search terms of the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities facilitates the detection of signals. METHODS: Pharmacovigilance data from the Uppsala Monitoring Centre were used to calculate substance-specific reporting odds ratios (RORs) for all types of bleeding and gastrointestinal bleeding. Reporting odds ratios were calculated with and without antithrombotic comedication. RESULTS: Regarding any type of bleeding, no signals were found in association with antidepressant drugs. Concerning upper gastrointestinal bleeding, signals were found related to citalopram (ROR: 1.56 [95% confidence interval 1.11-2.20]) and escitalopram (ROR: 1.52 [95% confidence interval 1.03-2.25]). After removal of reports related to antithrombotics, these signals could no longer be detected, but a new signal related to St. John's Wort associated with haemorrhages was found (ROR: 1.50 [95% confidence interval 1.21-1.86]). CONCLUSIONS: Antithrombotics seem unlikely to have a major impact on the detection of the bleeding risk of antidepressant drugs. The different categorisation of adverse drug reactions regarding the strength of a causal relationship between a drug and an event in the database may be relevant for this negative finding.

Predicting the risk of drug-drug interactions in psychiatric hospitals: a retrospective longitudinal pharmacovigilance study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to use routine data available at a patient's admission to the hospital to predict polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions (DDI) and to evaluate the prediction performance with regard to its usefulness to support the efficient management of benefits and risks of drug prescriptions. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal study. SETTING: We used data from a large multicentred pharmacovigilance project carried out in eight psychiatric hospitals in Hesse, Germany. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatient episodes consecutively discharged between 1 October 2017 and 30 September 2018 (year 1) or 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019 (year 2). OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportion of rightly classified hospital episodes. METHODS: We used gradient boosting to predict respective outcomes. We tested the performance of our final models in unseen patients from another calendar year and separated the study sites used for training from the study sites used for performance testing. RESULTS: A total of 53 909 episodes were included in the study. The models' performance, as measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic, was 'excellent' (0.83) and 'acceptable' (0.72) compared with common benchmarks for the prediction of polypharmacy and DDI, respectively. Both models were substantially better than a naive prediction based solely on basic diagnostic grouping. CONCLUSION: This study has shown that polypharmacy and DDI can be predicted from routine data at patient admission. These predictions could support an efficient management of benefits and risks of hospital prescriptions, for instance by including pharmaceutical supervision early after admission for patients at risk before pharmacological treatment is established.