Transport and inhibition mechanisms of the human noradrenaline transporter.

The noradrenaline transporter (also known as norepinephrine transporter) (NET) has a critical role in terminating noradrenergic transmission by utilizing sodium and chloride gradients to drive the reuptake of noradrenaline (also known as norepinephrine) into presynaptic neurons1-3. It is a pharmacological target for various antidepressants and analgesic drugs4,5. Despite decades of research, its structure and the molecular mechanisms underpinning noradrenaline transport, coupling to ion gradients and non-competitive inhibition remain unknown. Here we present high-resolution complex structures of NET in two fundamental conformations: in the apo state, and bound to the substrate noradrenaline, an analogue of the χ-conotoxin MrlA (χ-MrlAEM), bupropion or ziprasidone. The noradrenaline-bound structure clearly demonstrates the binding modes of noradrenaline. The coordination of Na+ and Cl- undergoes notable alterations during conformational changes. Analysis of the structure of NET bound to χ-MrlAEM provides insight into how conotoxin binds allosterically and inhibits NET. Additionally, bupropion and ziprasidone stabilize NET in its inward-facing state, but they have distinct binding pockets. These structures define the mechanisms governing neurotransmitter transport and non-competitive inhibition in NET, providing a blueprint for future drug design.

Molecular basis of human noradrenaline transporter reuptake and inhibition.

Noradrenaline, also known as norepinephrine, has a wide range of activities and effects on most brain cell types1. Its reuptake from the synaptic cleft heavily relies on the noradrenaline transporter (NET) located in the presynaptic membrane2. Here we report the cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structures of the human NET in both its apo state and when bound to substrates or antidepressant drugs, with resolutions ranging from 2.5 Å to 3.5 Å. The two substrates, noradrenaline and dopamine, display a similar binding mode within the central substrate binding site (S1) and within a newly identified extracellular allosteric site (S2). Four distinct antidepressants, namely, atomoxetine, desipramine, bupropion and escitalopram, occupy the S1 site to obstruct substrate transport in distinct conformations. Moreover, a potassium ion was observed within sodium-binding site 1 in the structure of the NET bound to desipramine under the KCl condition. Complemented by structural-guided biochemical analyses, our studies reveal the mechanism of substrate recognition, the alternating access of NET, and elucidate the mode of action of the four antidepressants.

Antidepressant Augmentation versus Switch in Treatment-Resistant Geriatric Depression.

BACKGROUND: The benefits and risks of augmenting or switching antidepressants in older adults with treatment-resistant depression have not been extensively studied. METHODS: We conducted a two-step, open-label trial involving adults 60 years of age or older with treatment-resistant depression. In step 1, patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to augmentation of existing antidepressant medication with aripiprazole, augmentation with bupropion, or a switch from existing antidepressant medication to bupropion. Patients who did not benefit from or were ineligible for step 1 were randomly assigned in step 2 in a 1:1 ratio to augmentation with lithium or a switch to nortriptyline. Each step lasted approximately 10 weeks. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in psychological well-being, assessed with the National Institutes of Health Toolbox Positive Affect and General Life Satisfaction subscales (population mean, 50; higher scores indicate greater well-being). A secondary outcome was remission of depression. RESULTS: In step 1, a total of 619 patients were enrolled; 211 were assigned to aripiprazole augmentation, 206 to bupropion augmentation, and 202 to a switch to bupropion. Well-being scores improved by 4.83 points, 4.33 points, and 2.04 points, respectively. The difference between the aripiprazole-augmentation group and the switch-to-bupropion group was 2.79 points (95% CI, 0.56 to 5.02; P = 0.014, with a prespecified threshold P value of 0.017); the between-group differences were not significant for aripiprazole augmentation versus bupropion augmentation or for bupropion augmentation versus a switch to bupropion. Remission occurred in 28.9% of patients in the aripiprazole-augmentation group, 28.2% in the bupropion-augmentation group, and 19.3% in the switch-to-bupropion group. The rate of falls was highest with bupropion augmentation. In step 2, a total of 248 patients were enrolled; 127 were assigned to lithium augmentation and 121 to a switch to nortriptyline. Well-being scores improved by 3.17 points and 2.18 points, respectively (difference, 0.99; 95% CI, -1.92 to 3.91). Remission occurred in 18.9% of patients in the lithium-augmentation group and 21.5% in the switch-to-nortriptyline group; rates of falling were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with treatment-resistant depression, augmentation of existing antidepressants with aripiprazole improved well-being significantly more over 10 weeks than a switch to bupropion and was associated with a numerically higher incidence of remission. Among patients in whom augmentation or a switch to bupropion failed, changes in well-being and the occurrence of remission with lithium augmentation or a switch to nortriptyline were similar. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; OPTIMUM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02960763.).

Duration of Adjunctive Antidepressant Maintenance in Bipolar I Depression.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are used to treat acute depression in patients with bipolar I disorder, but their effect as maintenance treatment after the remission of depression has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted a multisite, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of maintenance of treatment with adjunctive escitalopram or bupropion XL as compared with discontinuation of antidepressant therapy in patients with bipolar I disorder who had recently had remission of a depressive episode. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to continue treatment with antidepressants for 52 weeks after remission or to switch to placebo at 8 weeks. The primary outcome, assessed in a time-to-event analysis, was any mood episode, as defined by scores on scales measuring symptoms of hypomania or mania, depression, suicidality, and mood-episode severity; additional treatment or hospitalization for mood symptoms; or attempted or completed suicide. Key secondary outcomes included the time to an episode of mania or hypomania or depression. RESULTS: Of 209 patients with bipolar I disorder who participated in an open-label treatment phase, 150 who had remission of depression were enrolled in the double-blind phase in addition to 27 patients who were enrolled directly. A total of 90 patients were assigned to continue treatment with the prescribed antidepressant for 52 weeks (52-week group) and 87 were assigned to switch to placebo at 8 weeks (8-week group). The trial was stopped before full recruitment was reached owing to slow recruitment and funding limitations. At 52 weeks, 28 of the patients in the 52-week group (31%) and 40 in the 8-week group (46%) had a primary-outcome event. The hazard ratio for time to any mood episode in the 52-week group relative to the 8-week group was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 1.10; P = 0.12 by log-rank test). A total of 11 patients in the 52-week group (12%) as compared with 5 patients in the 8-week group (6%) had mania or hypomania (hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 0.86 to 6.08), and 15 patients (17%) as compared with 35 patients (40%) had recurrence of depression (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.75). The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In a trial involving patients with bipolar I disorder and a recently remitted depressive episode, adjunctive treatment with escitalopram or bupropion XL that continued for 52 weeks did not show a significant benefit as compared with treatment for 8 weeks in preventing relapse of any mood episode. The trial was stopped early owing to slow recruitment and funding limitations. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00958633.).

Medication-Induced Weight Change Across Common Antidepressant Treatments : A Target Trial Emulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are among the most commonly prescribed medications, but evidence on comparative weight change for specific first-line treatments is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare weight change across common first-line antidepressant treatments by emulating a target trial. DESIGN: Observational cohort study over 24 months. SETTING: Electronic health record (EHR) data from 2010 to 2019 across 8 U.S. health systems. PARTICIPANTS: 183 118 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Prescription data determined initiation of treatment with sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. The investigators estimated the population-level effects of initiating each treatment, relative to sertraline, on mean weight change (primary) and the probability of gaining at least 5% of baseline weight (secondary) 6 months after initiation. Inverse probability weighting of repeated outcome marginal structural models was used to account for baseline confounding and informative outcome measurement. In secondary analyses, the effects of initiating and adhering to each treatment protocol were estimated. RESULTS: Compared with that for sertraline, estimated 6-month weight gain was higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.52 kg]), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg [CI, 0.20 to 0.54 kg]), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg [CI, 0.22 to 0.44 kg]), venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg [CI, 0.03 to 0.31 kg]), and citalopram (difference, 0.12 kg [CI, 0.02 to 0.23 kg]); similar for fluoxetine (difference, -0.07 kg [CI, -0.19 to 0.04 kg]); and lower for bupropion (difference, -0.22 kg [CI, -0.33 to -0.12 kg]). Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine were associated with 10% to 15% higher risk for gaining at least 5% of baseline weight, whereas bupropion was associated with 15% reduced risk. When the effects of initiation and adherence were estimated, associations were stronger but had wider CIs. Six-month adherence ranged from 28% (duloxetine) to 41% (bupropion). LIMITATION: No data on medication dispensing, low medication adherence, incomplete data on adherence, and incomplete data on weight measures across time points. CONCLUSION: Small differences in mean weight change were found between 8 first-line antidepressants, with bupropion consistently showing the least weight gain, although adherence to medications over follow-up was low. Clinicians could consider potential weight gain when initiating antidepressant treatment. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

A bupropion modulatory site in the Gloeobacter violaceus ligand-gated ion channel.

Bupropion is an atypical antidepressant and smoking cessation drug that causes adverse effects such as insomnia, irritability, and anxiety. Bupropion inhibits dopamine and norepinephrine reuptake transporters and eukaryotic cation-conducting pentameric ligand-gated ion channels, such as nicotinic acetylcholine and serotonin type 3A receptors, at clinically relevant concentrations. Here, we demonstrate that bupropion also inhibits a prokaryotic homolog of pentameric ligand-gated ion channels, the Gloeobacter violaceus ligand-gated ion channel (GLIC). Using the GLIC as a model, we used molecular docking to predict binding sites for bupropion. Bupropion was found to bind to several sites within the transmembrane domain, with the predominant site being localized to the interface between transmembrane segments M1 and M3 of two adjacent subunits. Residues W213, T214, and W217 in the first transmembrane segment, M1, and F267 and I271 in the third transmembrane segment, M3, most frequently reside within a 4 Å distance from bupropion. We then used single amino acid substitutions at these positions and two-electrode voltage-clamp recordings to determine their impact on bupropion inhibitory effects. The substitution T214F alters bupropion potency by shifting the half-maximal inhibitory concentration to a 13-fold higher value compared to wild-type GLIC. Residue T214 is found within a previously identified binding pocket for neurosteroids and lipids in the GLIC. This intersubunit binding pocket is structurally conserved and almost identical to a binding pocket described for neurosteroids in γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors. Our data thus suggest that the T214 that lines a previously identified lipophilic binding pocket in GLIC and γ-aminobutyric acid type A receptors is also a modulatory site for bupropion interaction with the GLIC.

Cost-effectiveness of point of care smoking cessation interventions in oncology clinics.

BACKGROUND: We examined the cost-effectiveness of providing systematic smoking cessation interventions to oncology patients at point-of-care. METHODS: A decision analytic model was completed from the healthcare payer's perspective and included all incident cancer cases involving patients who smoke in New Brunswick, Canada (n = 1040), cancer site stratifications, and risks of mortality, continued smoking, and cancer treatment failure over one year. Usual care (no cessation support) was compared to the standard Ottawa Model for Smoking Cessation (OMSC) intervention, and to OMSC plus unlimited cost-free stop smoking medication (OMSC + SSM), including nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline, or bupropion. Primary outcomes were incremental cost per quit (ICQ) and incremental cost per cancer treatment failure avoided (ICTFA). RESULTS: The ICQ was $C143 and ICTFA $C1193 for standard OMSC. The ICQ was $C503 and ICTFA was $C5952 for OMSC + SSM. The number needed to treat (NNT) to produce one quit was 9 for standard OMSC and 4 for OMSC + SSM, and the NNT to avoid one first-line treatment failure was 78 for OMSC and 45 for OMSC + SSM. Both were cost-effective in 100% of 1000 simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high clinical benefits and low incremental costs, systematic smoking cessation interventions should be a standard component of first-line cancer treatment.

Bupropion and Naltrexone in Methamphetamine Use Disorder.

BACKGROUND: The use of naltrexone plus bupropion to treat methamphetamine use disorder has not been well studied. METHODS: We conducted this multisite, double-blind, two-stage, placebo-controlled trial with the use of a sequential parallel comparison design to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extended-release injectable naltrexone (380 mg every 3 weeks) plus oral extended-release bupropion (450 mg per day) in adults with moderate or severe methamphetamine use disorder. In the first stage of the trial, participants were randomly assigned in a 0.26:0.74 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or matching injectable and oral placebo for 6 weeks. Those in the placebo group who did not have a response in stage 1 underwent rerandomization in stage 2 and were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive naltrexone-bupropion or placebo for an additional 6 weeks. Urine samples were obtained from participants twice weekly. The primary outcome was a response, defined as at least three methamphetamine-negative urine samples out of four samples obtained at the end of stage 1 or stage 2, and the weighted average of the responses in the two stages is reported. The treatment effect was defined as the between-group difference in the overall weighted responses. RESULTS: A total of 403 participants were enrolled in stage 1, and 225 in stage 2. In the first stage, 18 of 109 participants (16.5%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 10 of 294 (3.4%) in the placebo group had a response. In the second stage, 13 of 114 (11.4%) in the naltrexone-bupropion group and 2 of 111 (1.8%) in the placebo group had a response. The weighted average response across the two stages was 13.6% with naltrexone-bupropion and 2.5% with placebo, for an overall treatment effect of 11.1 percentage points (Wald z-test statistic, 4.53; P<0.001). Adverse events with naltrexone-bupropion included gastrointestinal disorders, tremor, malaise, hyperhidrosis, and anorexia. Serious adverse events occurred in 8 of 223 participants (3.6%) who received naltrexone-bupropion during the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with methamphetamine use disorder, the response over a period of 12 weeks among participants who received extended-release injectable naltrexone plus oral extended-release bupropion was low but was higher than that among participants who received placebo. (Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and others; ADAPT-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03078075.).

Effect of combined GLP-1 analogue and bupropion/naltrexone on weight loss: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the effect of a multi-drug weight loss strategy in obesity treatment, particularly combining bupropion/naltrexone and glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogue. The purpose of this study was to evaluate if there are any additive effects of prescribing bupropion/naltrexone on top of GLP-1 analogue as weight loss therapy. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with a body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 kg/m2 prescribed GLP-1 analogue therapy at an obesity specialist clinic in Vancouver, Canada. We compared a 6 and 12-month change in total body weight loss (TBWL) for those receiving monotherapy from the initiation of GLP-1 analogue therapy with those receiving combination therapy from the initiation of bupropion/naltrexone added-on therapy. Patients prescribed combination therapy were stratified into responder (loss of ≥ 5% TBWL) and non-responder (TBWL < 5%) subgroups based on initial response to the GLP-1 analogue alone for any amount of time. RESULTS: The mean weight loss among patients prescribed GLP-1 analogue monotherapy at 12 months was 11.42 kg, SD 9.95 (9.6% TBWL). There was no significant difference between these two treatment strategies overall (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14, p = 0.35). However, when stratified by response to initial GLP analogue therapy, the addition of bupropion/naltrexone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in weight in both the responder (4.3% TBWL (p < 0.01)) and non-responder groups (4.0% TBWL (p < 0.01)). CONCLUSIONS: GLP-1 analogues are an effective treatment for weight loss, and the addition of bupropion/naltrexone is associated with greater weight loss including in patients who are initially non-responsive to GLP-1 analogues.

Cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies in Canada: a societal perspective.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of weight-management pharmacotherapies approved by Canada Health, i.e., orlistat, naltrexone 32 mg/bupropion 360 mg (NB-32), liraglutide 3.0 mg and semaglutide 2.4 mg as compared to the current standard of care (SoC). METHODS: Analyses were conducted using a cohort with a mean starting age 50 years, body mass index (BMI) 37.5 kg/m2, and 27.6% having type 2 diabetes. Using treatment-specific changes in surrogate endpoints from the STEP trials (BMI, glycemic, blood pressure, lipids), besides a network meta-analysis, the occurrence of weight-related complications, costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were projected over lifetime. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY, semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment, at an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of CAD 31 243 and CAD 29 014 per QALY gained versus the next best alternative, i.e., orlistat, and SoC, respectively. Semaglutide 2.4 mg extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg and remained cost-effective both under a public and private payer perspective. Results were robust to sensitivity analyses varying post-treatment catch-up rates, longer treatment durations and using real-world cohort characteristics. Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the preferred intervention, with a likelihood of 70% at a WTP threshold of CAD 50 000 per QALY gained. However, when the modeled benefits of weight-loss on cancer, mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD) or osteoarthritis surgeries were removed simultaneously, orlistat emerged as the best value for money compared with SoC, with an ICUR of CAD 35 723 per QALY gained. CONCLUSION: Semaglutide 2.4 mg was the most cost-effective treatment alternative compared with D&E or orlistat alone, and extendedly dominated other pharmacotherapies such as NB-32 or liraglutide 3.0 mg. Results were sensitive to the inclusion of the combined benefits of mortality, cancer, CVD, and knee osteoarthritis.

Pharmacogenetic Influence on Stereoselective Steady-State Disposition of Bupropion.

Bupropion is used for treating depression, obesity, and seasonal affective disorder, and for smoking cessation. Bupropion is commonly prescribed, but has complex pharmacokinetics and interindividual variability in metabolism and bioactivation may influence therapeutic response, tolerability, and safety. Bupropion is extensively and stereoselectively metabolized, the metabolites are pharmacologically active, and allelic variation in cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2B6 affects clinical hydroxylation of single-dose bupropion. Genetic effects on stereoselective disposition of steady-state bupropion are not known. In this preplanned secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, crossover study which compared brand and generic bupropion XL 300 mg drug products, we measured steady-state enantiomeric plasma and urine parent bupropion and primary and secondary metabolite concentrations. This investigation evaluated the influence of genetic polymorphisms in CYP2B6, CYP2C19, and P450 oxidoreductase on the disposition of Valeant Pharmaceuticals Wellbutrin brand bupropion in 67 participants with major depressive disorder. We found that hydroxylation of both bupropion enantiomers was lower in carriers of the CYP2B6*6 allele and in carriers of the CYP2B6 516G>T variant, with correspondingly greater bupropion and lesser hydroxybupropion plasma concentrations. Hydroxylation was 25-50% lower in CYP2B6*6 carriers and one-third to one-half less in 516T carriers. Hydroxylation of the bupropion enantiomers was comparably affected by CYP2B6 variants. CYP2C19 polymorphisms did not influence bupropion plasma concentrations or hydroxybupropion formation but did influence the minor pathway of 4'-hydroxylation of bupropion and primary metabolites. P450 oxidoreductase variants did not influence bupropion disposition. Results show that CYP2B6 genetic variants affect steady-state metabolism and bioactivation of Valeant brand bupropion, which may influence therapeutic outcomes. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Bupropion, used for depression, obesity, and smoking cessation, undergoes metabolic bioactivation, with incompletely elucidated interindividual variability. We evaluated cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2B6, CYP2C19 and P450 oxidoreductase genetic variants and steady-state bupropion and metabolite enantiomers disposition. Both enantiomers hydroxylation was lower in CYP2B6*6 and CYP2B6 516G>T carriers, with greater bupropion and lesser hydroxybupropion plasma concentrations. CYP2C19 polymorphisms did not affect bupropion or hydroxybupropion but did influence minor 4'-hydroxylation of bupropion and primary metabolites. CYP2B6 variants affect steady-state bupropion bioactivation, which may influence therapeutic outcomes.

The effects of bupropion alone and combined with naltrexone on blood pressure and CRP concentration: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Considering the conflicting effects of bupropion on parameters related to cardiovascular system including blood pressure and inflammation, in this meta-analysis study, we investigated the effects of this drug alone or in combination with naltrexone on systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and C-reactive protein (CRP). METHODS: Scopus, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Embase databases were searched using standard keywords to identify all controlled trials investigating effects of bupropion alone and combined with naltrexone on the BP and CRP. Pooled weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were achieved by random-effects model analysis for the best estimation of outcomes. RESULTS: The pooled findings showed that that bupropion alone or in combination with naltrexone would significantly increase SBP (weighted mean difference (WMD): 1.34 mmHg, 95% CI: 0.38-2.29) and DBP (WMD: 0.93 mmHg, 95% CI 0.88-0.99) as well as decrease CRP (WMD: -0.89 mg/L, 95% CI -1.09 to -0.70). The findings of the subgroup also show the greater effect of bupropion on blood pressure (SBP and DBP) increase in a dose greater than 360 mg and a duration of intervention less equal to 26 weeks. In addition, the subgroup analysis showed that changes in SBP after receiving bupropion together with naltrexone were more compared to bupropion alone. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of combination therapies such as bupropion and naltrexone can significantly improve CRP levels. However, its effect on blood pressure requires proper management of this drug.

Changes in lipid profile and glucose metabolism following administration of bupropion alone or in combination with naltrexone: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

BACKGROUND: Considering the conflicting effects of bupropion on parameters related to metabolic syndrome including glucose metabolism and lipid profile, in this meta-analysis study, we investigated the effects of this drug alone or in combination with naltrexone on glucose metabolism and lipid profile. METHODS: Scopus, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Embase databases were searched using standard keywords to identify all controlled trials investigating effects of bupropion alone and combined with naltrexone on the glucose and lipid profile. Pooled weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals were achieved by random-effects model. RESULTS: Twelve studies with 5152 participants' were included in this article. The pooled findings showed that bupropion alone or in combination with naltrexone would significantly reduce glucose (weighted mean difference (WMD): -2.25 mg/dL, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.10, -0.40), insulin (WMD: -4.06 µU/mL, 95% CI: -6.09, -2.03), homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (WMD: -0.58, 95% CI: -0.98, -0.19), triglyceride (TG) (WMD: -11.78 mg/dL, 95% CI: -14.48 to -9.08) and increase high-density lipoprotein (HDL) (WMD: 2.68 mg/dL, 95% CI: 2.13 to 3.24). A Greater reduction in glucose levels was observed with duration >26 weeks. Dose of bupropion intake ≤360 mg and intervention for more than 26 weeks decreased insulin level significantly. With regard to lipid profile, reduction of triglycerides is more significant with dose of bupropion greater than 360 mg and a shorter intervention length equal to 26 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of combination therapies such as bupropion and naltrexone to lifestyle modification can significantly improve glucose metabolism and some lipid parameters.

Effect of next-step antidepressant treatment on suicidal ideation: findings from the VAST-D trial.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) contributes to suicide risk. Treating MDD effectively is considered a key suicide prevention intervention. Yet many patients with MDD do not respond to their initial medication and require a 'next-step'. The relationship between next-step treatments and suicidal thoughts and behaviors is uncharted. METHOD: The VA Augmentation and Switching Treatments for Depression trial randomized 1522 participants to one of three next-step treatments: Switching to Bupropion, combining with Bupropion, and augmenting with Aripiprazole. In this secondary analysis, features associated with lifetime suicidal ideation (SI) and attempts (SA) at baseline and current SI during treatment were explored. RESULTS: Compared to those with SI only, those with lifetime SI + SA were more likely to be female, divorced, or separated, unemployed; and to have experienced more childhood adversity. They had a more severe depressive episode and were more likely to respond to 'next-step' treatment. The prevalence of SI decreased from 46.5% (694/1492) at baseline to 21.1% (315/1492) at end-of-treatment. SI during treatment was associated with baseline SI; low positive mental health, more anxiety, greater severity and longer duration of current MDD episode; being male and White; and treatment with S-BUP or C-BUP as compared to A-ARI. CONCLUSION: SI declines for most patients during next-step medication treatments. But about 1 in 5 experienced emergent or worsening SI during treatment, so vigilance for suicide risk through the entire 12-week acute treatment period is necessary. Treatment selection may affect the risk of SI.

Clinical Presentations of Bupropion Prescription Drug Misuse: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Among prescribers, bupropion is considered a substance of low misuse potential, with some studies showing lesser misuse potential than caffeine. However, several case reports exist of recreational bupropion misuse and diversion. Our goal is to understand at-risk populations, clinical courses, interventions, and outcomes after acute ingestion of bupropion via oral, intravenous route, and insufflation. METHODS: The systematic review was registered with PROSPERO on August 5, 2023. We conducted a systematic literature search on July 30, 2023, utilizing 8 databases with the help of the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) term "Bupropion" in the context of misuse and abuse. Ultimately, we found 17 articles with qualitative synthesis relevant to our study objective and meeting our inclusion/exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Bupropion insufflation and intravenous injection occur almost exclusively in patients with a substance use disorder history, with a preponderance of patients with stimulant use disorder or multiple substance use disorders. Additionally, many were dual-diagnosis patients with a history of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and stimulant use disorder, treated with bupropion. Patients describe the effects of bupropion insufflation/IV injection as a milder "cocaine-like" high that is brief, with less severe withdrawal effects of anxiety and agitation. The most common side effect at presentation was tachycardia, followed by seizures responsive to IV benzodiazepines. IV injection seems particularly insulting to the vascular system, with cellulitis, tissue necrosis, and digital ischemia as documented adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights the bupropion misuse potential in certain patient populations and serves to increase awareness among clinicians. Additional patient screening, monitoring and follow-up, surveillance, and further research are needed to investigate and prevent bupropion misuse in at-risk patient populations entirely.

The GlyT1-inhibitor Org 24598 facilitates the alcohol deprivation abolishing and dopamine elevating effects of bupropion + varenicline in rats.

Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) is a relapsing brain disorder that involves perturbations of brain dopamine (DA) systems, and combined treatment with varenicline + bupropion produces additive effects on accumbal DA output and abolishes the alcohol deprivation effect (ADE) in rats. Also, direct and indirect glycine receptor (GlyR) agonists raise basal DA, attenuate alcohol-induced DA release in the nucleus Accumbens (nAc) and reduce alcohol consumption in rats. This study in rats examines whether the GlyT1-inhibitor Org 24598, an indirect GlyR agonist, enhances the ADE-reducing and DA elevating action of the combined administration of varenicline + bupropion in lower doses than previously applied. Effects on voluntary alcohol consumption, the ADE and extracellular levels of glycine and DA in nAc were examined following treatment with Org 24598 6 and 9 mg/kg i.p., bupropion 3.75 mg/kg i.p. and varenicline 1.5 mg/kg s.c., in monotherapy or combined, using a two-bottle, free-choice alcohol consumption paradigm with an ADE paradigm, and in vivo microdialysis in male Wistar rats. Notably, all treatment regimens appeared to abolish the ADE but only the effect produced by the triple combination (Org24598 + varenicline + bupropion) was significant compared to vehicle. Hence, addition of Org 24598 may enhance the ADE-reducing action of varenicline + bupropion and appears to allow for a dose reduction of bupropion. Treatment with Org 24598 raised accumbal glycine levels but did not significantly alter DA output in monotherapy. Varenicline + bupropion produced a substantial elevation in accumbal DA output that was slightly enhanced following addition of Org 24598. Conceivably, the blockade of the ADE is achieved by the triple combination enhancing accumbal DA transmission in complementary ways, thereby alleviating a hypothesized hypodopaminergia and negative reinforcement to drink. Ultimately, combining an indirect or direct GlyR agonist with varenicline + bupropion may constitute a new pharmacological treatment principle for AUD, although further refinement in dosing and evaluation of other glycinergic compounds are warranted.

NRG-CC004 ancillary data study-exploring the effect of bupropion on sexual desire in female cancer survivors with and without vulvovaginal symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Female cancer survivors often experience estrogen-deprivation symptoms, which may lead to decreases in sexual desire, vulvovaginal health (lubrication, dryness, discomfort), and sexual satisfaction. Interventions are needed to address these concerns. AIM: The objective of this secondary analysis was to determine if women with higher (better) scores on the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) lubrication and pain subscales reported higher desire scores based on treatment with bupropion vs placebo. METHODS: Participants were part of NRG Oncology's NRG-CC004 (NCT03180294), a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating bupropion (150 vs 300 mg) to improve sexual desire in survivors of breast or gynecologic cancer. All participants with baseline data from the FSFI lubrication, pain, and desire subscales with 5- and/or 9-week data were analyzed. The FSFI subscale scores were correlated using Spearman correlation coefficients. Logistic regression was used to determine associations between FSFI desire and other FSFI subscales while accounting for treatment arm and other covariates. OUTCOMES: The primary outcome of NRG Oncology's NRG-CC004 (NCT03180294) randomized phase II dose-finding trial was change from baseline to 9 weeks on the FSFI desire subscale score. Similar to the parent study, the primary outcome for this ancillary data study was the FSFI desire subscale score at 5 and 9 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 230 participants completed the FSFI at baseline and 189 at 9 weeks. The strongest correlations were between lubrication and pain at baseline (all participants, rho = 0.77; bupropion arms, rho = 0.82), week 5 (all participants, rho = 0.71; bupropion arms, rho = 0.68), and week 9 (all participants, rho = 0.75; bupropion arms, rho = 0.78), and the weakest correlations were between desire and pain. In patients in the treatment arms there were no interactions between lubrication or pain.The impact of various covariates on the FSFI score for desire at 9 weeks demonstrated that participants of non-White race (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.21-0.81; P = .010), with a high lubrication score (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21-0.61; P = .0002), with a high pain score (less pain) (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.87; P = .014), or with prior pelvic surgery (OR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.23-0.63; P = .0002) had lower odds of having low desire. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Acute estrogen-deprivation symptoms should be addressed prior to sexual desire intervention. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This secondary analysis was not powered to examine all variables. CONCLUSION: Lubrication and pain were predictors of low desire. Therefore, vulvovaginal atrophy and associated genitourinary symptoms of menopause such as vaginal dryness and dyspareunia should be addressed prior to or in parallel with interventions for sexual desire.

Antidepressant nonadherence and sexual dysfunction among young adult males: the cross-sectional YAMAN study.

PURPOSE: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors are associated with high rates of nonadherence and sexual dysfunction, yet the correlation between these findings in young adult men is poorly characterized. We aimed to evaluate if young adult men are less willing to adhere to antidepressant treatment due to intolerable side effects, such as sexual dysfunction. METHODS: Deidentified, compensated survey that assessed baseline demographics, PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores, attitudes towards antidepressant medication side effects, and perceptions of antidepressant medications including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, bupropion, and mirtazapine. RESULTS: From 665 delivered surveys, 505 respondents completed their survey (response rate: 76%), of which 486 were included for final analysis. After seeing common side effect profiles, our sample's willingness to take sexual function-sparing agents, such as bupropion or mirtazapine, was significantly greater than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (p < 0.001), with no significant difference between bupropion and mirtazapine (p = 0.263). The negative influence of erectile dysfunction and anorgasmia scored significantly higher than other common antidepressant side effects like weight gain, nausea, and dry mouth (range: p < 0.001, p = 0.043). With the exception of insomnia, participants indicated that experiencing sexual dysfunction while taking an antidepressant medication would lead to nonadherence at a significantly higher frequency than any other side effect assessed (range: p < 0.001, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: The risk of experiencing sexual side effects when taking antidepressants could lead young adult men to become nonadherent to these medications. Strategies to augment the effectiveness of antidepressants, such as shared decision-making and the use of sexual function-sparing agents, are critical.

Total and H-specific growth/differentiation factor 15 levels are unaffected by liraglutide or naltrexone/bupropion administration.

AIM: To investigate growth/differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) levels in response to antiobesity medications, namely, liraglutide (Lira) and naltrexone/bupropion (N/B), in individuals with overweight or obesity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective, non-randomized clinical trial with a two-arm, parallel design. A total of 42 individuals with overweight or obesity without type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus were enrolled. The participants received either Lira 3 mg or N/B 32/360 mg, along with diet and exercise, according to comorbidities, cost and method of administration. Participants underwent clinical and laboratory measurements at baseline, as well as at the 3- and 6-month time points. Anthropometric measurements and body composition analysis via bioelectrical impendence analysis were performed. Total blood samples for GDF-15 and H-specific GDF-15 were collected in the fasting state and every 30 min for 3 h after the consumption of a standardized mixed meal. RESULTS: Overall, participants' weight was reduced by 9.29 ± 5.34 kg at Month 3 and 11.52 ± 7.52 kg at Month 6. Total and H-specific GDF-15 levels did not show significant changes during the mixed meal compared to values before the meal when all participants were examined at baseline, and at 3 and 6 month follow-ups. No statistical significance was found when participants were examined by subgroup (Lira vs. N/B). No significant differences between treatment groups in postprandial area under the curve (AUC) or incremental AUC values were found at baseline or in the follow-up months with regard to total and H-specific GDF-15 levels. CONCLUSION: Neither total nor H-specific GDF-15 levels are affected by Lira or N/B treatment in patients with overweight or obesity.

Pharmacological treatment of obesity in adults in Norway 2004-2022.

AIMS: To describe trends in the use of anti-obesity drugs in Norway during the period 2004-2022. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed the annual utilization of any available drug indicated for obesity recorded in the nationwide Norwegian Prescribed Drug Register for adults (age 18-79 years) from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2022. Prevalence was stratified by sex and age group (18-29 years and 10-year age groups thereafter). Additional analyses were performed in individuals initiating treatment with an anti-obesity drug and on the cost of the anti-obesity drugs since 2017. RESULTS: The prevalence of anti-obesity drug use decreased from 2009, when sibutramine and rimonabant were withdrawn from the market, and increased again after the approval of bupropion-naltrexone in 2017 and liraglutide in 2018. The use of the peripheral-acting anti-obesity drug orlistat decreased from 2004. In 2022, 1.04% of the adult Norwegian population (72.8% women) filled at least one prescription of bupropion-naltrexone, 0.91% used liraglutide (Saxenda; 74.2% women), and semaglutide without reimbursement was used by 0.68% (76.7% women). The prevalence increased with age, peaking in the age group 50 to 59 years, and decreased in older age groups. From 2017 to 2022, 2.8% of the adult residents initiated treatment with an anti-obesity drug. The total sale of those drugs increased from 1.1 million euros in 2017 to 91.8 million euros in 2022. CONCLUSIONS: The use of anti-obesity drugs in Norway has increased substantially in recent years, especially among women aged 40 to 59 years. Changes in availability and reimbursement have influenced the use of these drugs in recent years.