Quantitative analysis of nortriptyline's analgesic properties: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to quantitatively analyse nortriptyline's analgesic potency, safety and tolerability. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: The systematic search was conducted in Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed in February 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of nortriptyline in reducing pain scores (open-label studies and comparisons of nortriptyline with placebo or other analgesics) in different pain types were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The data extraction procedure and the screening phases were carried out based on predetermined eligibility criteria. To pool the data, the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standardised mean change (SMC) methods, along with random-effect and fixed-effect meta-analysis, were used. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration method, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria were used to measure the certainty of the results. RESULTS: 14 of the initial 648 studies were eventually imported. Nortriptyline was reported to significantly reduce pain severity in chronic low back pain, painful symptoms in major depressive disorder, neuropathy, chronic pelvic pain and neuropathic corneal pain. However, it was not superior to placebo in fibromyalgia and knee osteoarthritis. In comparison to placebo and various alternative analgesics, the pooled SMD for lowering pain scores was 0.43 (0.23-0.64) and -0.18 (-0.39 to 0.03), respectively. In the pretreatment and post-treatment analyses, the pooled SMC was -1.20 (-1.48 to -0.93). Although constipation and xerostomia were the most commonly reported side effects, all references indicated that the adverse events were well tolerated at the administered dosages. CONCLUSION: While nortriptyline is effective in some chronic pains, such as neuropathies, it lacks efficacy in some other chronic pains, such as fibromyalgia and osteoarthritis. Nortriptyline is well tolerated when administered in doses intended for its analgesic effects. Moreover, several studies suggested that the analgesic effects of nortriptyline are comparable to those of amitriptyline and gabapentin.

Effectiveness of Antidepressants in Combination with Psychotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Consensus-guidelines for prescribing antidepressants recommend that clinicians should be vigilant to match antidepressants to patient's medical history but provide no specific advice on which antidepressant is best for a given medical history. AIMS OF THE STUDY: For patients with major depression who are in psychotherapy, this study provides an empirically derived guideline for prescribing antidepressant medications that fit patients' medical history. METHODS: This retrospective, observational, cohort study analyzed a large insurance database of 3,678,082 patients. Data was obtained from healthcare providers in the U.S. between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2018. These patients had 10,221,145 episodes of antidepressant treatments. This study reports the remission rates for the 14 most commonly prescribed single antidepressants (amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, desvenlafaxine, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, and venlafaxine) and a category named "Other" (other antidepressants/combination of antidepressants). The study used robust LASSO regressions to identify factors that affected remission rate and clinicians' selection of antidepressants. The selection bias in observational data was removed through stratification. We organized the data into 16,770 subgroups, of at least 100 cases, using the combination of the largest factors that affected remission and selection bias. This paper reports on 2,467 subgroups of patients who had received psychotherapy. RESULTS: We found large, and statistically significant, differences in remission rates within subgroups of patients. Remission rates for sertraline ranged from 4.5% to 77.86%, for fluoxetine from 2.86% to 77.78%, for venlafaxine from 5.07% to 76.44%, for bupropion from 0.5% to 64.63%, for desvenlafaxine from 1.59% to 75%, for duloxetine from 3.77% to 75%, for paroxetine from 6.48% to 68.79%, for escitalopram from 1.85% to 65%, and for citalopram from 4.67% to 76.23%. Clearly these medications are ideal for patients in some subgroups but not others. If patients are matched to the subgroups, clinicians can prescribe the medication that works best in the subgroup. Some medications (amitriptyline, doxepin, nortriptyline, and trazodone) always had remission rates below 11% and therefore were not suitable as single antidepressant therapy for any of the subgroups. DISCUSSIONS: This study provides an opportunity for clinicians to identify an optimal antidepressant for their patients, before they engage in repeated trials of antidepressants. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND USE: To facilitate the matching of patients to the most effective antidepressants, this study provides access to a free, non-commercial, decision aid at http://MeAgainMeds.com. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES:  Policymakers should evaluate how study findings can be made available through fragmented electronic health records at point-of-care. Alternatively, policymakers can put in place an AI system that recommends antidepressants to patients online, at home, and encourages them to bring the recommendation to their clinicians at their next visit. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH:  Future research could investigate (i) the effectiveness of our recommendations in changing clinical practice, (ii) increasing remission of depression symptoms, and (iii) reducing cost of care. These studies need to be prospective but pragmatic. It is unlikely random clinical trials can address the large number of factors that affect remission.

Nortriptyline hydrochloride, a potential candidate for drug repurposing, inhibits gastric cancer by inducing oxidative stress by triggering the Keap1-Nrf2 pathway.

Effective drugs for the treatment of gastric cancer (GC) are still lacking. Nortriptyline Hydrochloride (NTP), a commonly used antidepressant medication, has been demonstrated by numerous studies to have antitumor effects. This study first validated the ability of NTP to inhibit GC and preliminarily explored its underlying mechanism. To begin with, NTP inhibits the activity of AGS and HGC27 cells (Human-derived GC cells) in a dose-dependent manner, as well as proliferation, cell cycle, and migration. Moreover, NTP induces cell apoptosis by upregulating BAX, BAD, and c-PARP and downregulating PARP and Bcl-2 expression. Furthermore, the mechanism of cell death caused by NTP is closely related to oxidative stress. NTP increases intracellular reactive oxygen species (ROS) and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels, decreasing the mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) and inducing glucose (GSH) consumption. While the death of GC cells can be partially rescued by ROS inhibitor N-acetylcysteine (NAC). Mechanistically, NTP activates the Kelch-like ECH-associated protein (Keap1)-NF-E2-related factor 2 (Nrf2) pathway, which is an important pathway involved in oxidative stress. RNA sequencing and proteomics analysis further revealed molecular changes at the mRNA and protein levels and provided potential targets and pathways through differential gene expression analysis. In addition, NTP can inhibited tumor growth in nude mouse subcutaneous tumor models constructed respectively using AGS and MFC (mouse-derived GC cells), providing preliminary evidence of its effectiveness in vivo. In conclusion, our study demonstrated that NTP exhibits significant anti-GC activity and is anticipated to be a candidate for drug repurposing.

Pharmacological and electronic cigarette interventions for smoking cessation in adults: component network meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disease worldwide. Stopping smoking can reduce this harm and many people would like to stop. There are a number of medicines licenced to help people quit globally, and e-cigarettes are used for this purpose in many countries. Typically treatments work by reducing cravings to smoke, thus aiding initial abstinence and preventing relapse. More information on comparative effects of these treatments is needed to inform treatment decisions and policies. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the comparative benefits, harms and tolerability of different smoking cessation pharmacotherapies and e-cigarettes, when used to help people stop smoking tobacco. SEARCH METHODS: We identified studies from recent updates of Cochrane Reviews investigating our interventions of interest. We updated the searches for each review using the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group (TAG) specialised register to 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs and factorial RCTs, which measured smoking cessation at six months or longer, recruited adults who smoked combustible cigarettes at enrolment (excluding pregnant people) and randomised them to approved pharmacotherapies and technologies used for smoking cessation worldwide (varenicline, cytisine, nortriptyline, bupropion, nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) and e-cigarettes) versus no pharmacological intervention, placebo (control) or another approved pharmacotherapy. Studies providing co-interventions (e.g. behavioural support) were eligible if the co-intervention was provided equally to study arms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods for screening, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment (using the RoB 1 tool). Primary outcome measures were smoking cessation at six months or longer, and the number of people reporting serious adverse events (SAEs). We also measured withdrawals due to treatment. We used Bayesian component network meta-analyses (cNMA) to examine intervention type, delivery mode, dose, duration, timing in relation to quit day and tapering of nicotine dose, using odds ratios (OR) and 95% credibility intervals (CrIs). We calculated an effect estimate for combination NRT using an additive model. We evaluated the influence of population and study characteristics, provision of behavioural support and control arm rates using meta-regression. We evaluated certainty using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Of our 332 eligible RCTs, 319 (835 study arms, 157,179 participants) provided sufficient data to be included in our cNMA. Of these, we judged 51 to be at low risk of bias overall, 104 at high risk and 164 at unclear risk, and 118 reported pharmaceutical or e-cigarette/tobacco industry funding. Removing studies at high risk of bias did not change our interpretation of the results. Benefits We found high-certainty evidence that nicotine e-cigarettes (OR 2.37, 95% CrI 1.73 to 3.24; 16 RCTs, 3828 participants), varenicline (OR 2.33, 95% CrI 2.02 to 2.68; 67 RCTs, 16,430 participants) and cytisine (OR 2.21, 95% CrI 1.66 to 2.97; 7 RCTs, 3848 participants) were associated with higher quit rates than control. In absolute terms, this might lead to an additional eight (95% CrI 4 to 13), eight (95% CrI 6 to 10) and seven additional quitters per 100 (95% CrI 4 to 12), respectively. These interventions appeared to be more effective than the other interventions apart from combination NRT (patch and a fast-acting form of NRT), which had a lower point estimate (calculated additive effect) but overlapping 95% CrIs (OR 1.93, 95% CrI 1.61 to 2.34). There was also high-certainty evidence that nicotine patch alone (OR 1.37, 95% CrI 1.20 to 1.56; 105 RCTs, 37,319 participants), fast-acting NRT alone (OR 1.41, 95% CrI 1.29 to 1.55; 120 RCTs, 31,756 participants) and bupropion (OR 1.43, 95% CrI 1.26 to 1.62; 71 RCTs, 14,759 participants) were more effective than control, resulting in two (95% CrI 1 to 3), three (95% CrI 2 to 3) and three (95% CrI 2 to 4) additional quitters per 100 respectively. Nortriptyline is probably associated with higher quit rates than control (OR 1.35, 95% CrI 1.02 to 1.81; 10 RCTs, 1290 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), resulting in two (CrI 0 to 5) additional quitters per 100. Non-nicotine/placebo e-cigarettes (OR 1.16, 95% CrI 0.74 to 1.80; 8 RCTs, 1094 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to one additional quitter (95% CrI -2 to 5), had point estimates favouring the intervention over control, but CrIs encompassed the potential for no difference and harm. There was low-certainty evidence that tapering the dose of NRT prior to stopping treatment may improve effectiveness; however, 95% CrIs also incorporated the null (OR 1.14, 95% CrI 1.00 to 1.29; 111 RCTs, 33,156 participants). This might lead to an additional one quitter per 100 (95% CrI 0 to 2). Harms There were insufficient data to include nortriptyline and non-nicotine EC in the final SAE model. Overall rates of SAEs for the remaining treatments were low (average 3%). Low-certainty evidence did not show a clear difference in the number of people reporting SAEs for nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline, cytisine or NRT when compared to no pharmacotherapy/e-cigarettes or placebo. Bupropion may slightly increase rates of SAEs, although the CrI also incorporated no difference (moderate certainty). In absolute terms bupropion may cause one more person in 100 to experience an SAE (95% CrI 0 to 2). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The most effective interventions were nicotine e-cigarettes, varenicline and cytisine (all high certainty), as well as combination NRT (additive effect, certainty not rated). There was also high-certainty evidence for the effectiveness of nicotine patch, fast-acting NRT and bupropion. Less certain evidence of benefit was present for nortriptyline (moderate certainty), non-nicotine e-cigarettes and tapering of nicotine dose (both low certainty). There was moderate-certainty evidence that bupropion may slightly increase the frequency of SAEs, although there was also the possibility of no increased risk. There was no clear evidence that any other tested interventions increased SAEs. Overall, SAE data were sparse with very low numbers of SAEs, and so further evidence may change our interpretation and certainty. Future studies should report SAEs to strengthen certainty in this outcome. More head-to-head comparisons of the most effective interventions are needed, as are tests of combinations of these. Future work should unify data from behavioural and pharmacological interventions to inform approaches to combined support for smoking cessation.

Efficacy and safety of antidepressants for smoking cessation: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

To evaluate the effectiveness, safety and tolerability of antidepressants in helping smokers quit tobacco dependence, five databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTS ) on different antidepressant interventions involving smoking cessation in populations (September 2022). The STATA 15.1 software was used to perform network meta-analysis. The Cochrane bias risk tool was used to assess the risk of bias, and CINeMA was used to evaluate the evidence credibility for the effect of different interventions on smoking cessation. In all, 107 RCTs involving 42 744 patients were included. Seven studies were rated as having a low risk of bias. All trials reported 18 interventions and 153 pairwise comparisons were generated. The network meta-analysis showed that compared with placebo, varenicline + bupropion (OR = 3.53, 95% CI [2.34, 5.34]), selegiline + nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) (OR = 3.78, 95% CI [1.20, 11.92]), nortriptyline + NRT (OR = 2.33, 95% CI [1.21, 4.47), nortriptyline (OR = 1.58, 95% CI [1.11,2.26]), naltrexone + bupropion (OR = 3.84, 95% CI [1.39, 10.61]), bupropion + NRT (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.87, 2.81]) and bupropion (OR = 1.70, 95% CI [1.53, 1.89]) showed benefits with respect to smoking cessation. In addition, bupropion + NRT showed better effects than bupropion (OR = 1.35, 95% CI [1.12, 1.64]) and NRT (OR = 1.38, 95% CI [1.13, 1.69]) alone. The final cumulative ranking curve showed that varenicline + bupropion was the most likely to be the best intervention. There was moderate- to very-low-certainty evidence that most interventions showed benefits for smoking cessation compared with placebo, including monotherapy and combination therapies. Varenicline + bupropion had a higher probability of being the best intervention for smoking cessation.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied. However, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco: nicotine withdrawal can produce short-term low mood that antidepressants may relieve; and some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, harms, and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialised Register, most recently on 29 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people who smoked, comparing antidepressant medications with placebo or no pharmacological treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used differently. We excluded trials with fewer than six months of follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length for our analyses of harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months' follow-up. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Our secondary outcomes were harms and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropouts due to treatment. We carried out meta-analyses where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 124 studies (48,832 participants) in this review, with 10 new studies added to this update version. Most studies recruited adults from the community or from smoking cessation clinics; four studies focused on adolescents (with participants between 12 and 21 years old). We judged 34 studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk of bias did not change clinical interpretation of the results.  There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased smoking cessation rates when compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.49 to 1.72; I2 = 16%; 50 studies, 18,577 participants). There was moderate-certainty evidence that a combination of bupropion and varenicline may have resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence to establish whether a combination of bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.44; I2 = 43%; 15 studies, 4117 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was moderate-certainty evidence that participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs than those taking placebo or no pharmacological treatment. However, results were imprecise and the CI also encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 23 studies, 10,958 participants). Results were also imprecise when comparing SAEs between people randomised to a combination of bupropion and NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.89; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 657 participants) and randomised to bupropion plus varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.42; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 1268 participants). In both cases, we judged evidence to be of low certainty. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to AEs than placebo or no pharmacological treatment (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.27 to 1.65; I2 = 2%; 25 studies, 12,346 participants). However, there was insufficient evidence that bupropion combined with NRT versus NRT alone (RR 1.67, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.92; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 737 participants) or bupropion combined with varenicline versus varenicline alone (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.45; I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 1230 participants) had an impact on the number of dropouts due to treatment. In both cases, imprecision was substantial (we judged the evidence to be of low certainty for both comparisons). Bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.80; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 7564 participants), and to combination NRT (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; I2 = 0%; 2 studies; 720 participants). However, there was no clear evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and single-form NRT (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I2 = 0%; 10 studies, 7613 participants). We also found evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), and some evidence that bupropion resulted in superior quit rates to nortriptyline (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants), although this result was subject to imprecision. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion may increase SAEs (moderate-certainty evidence when compared to placebo/no pharmacological treatment). There is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with people receiving placebo or no pharmacological treatment. Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo, although bupropion may be more effective. Evidence also suggests that bupropion may be as successful as single-form NRT in helping people to quit smoking, but less effective than combination NRT and varenicline. In most cases, a paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions regarding harms and tolerability. Further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over other licensed smoking cessation treatments; namely, NRT and varenicline. However, it is important that future studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation measure and report on harms and tolerability.

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.).

Stopping the fat: Repurposing an antidepressant for cancer treatment.

In this issue of JEM, Chu and An et al. (2022. J. Exp. Med.https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20221316) describe the role of the tricyclic antidepressant nortriptyline in inhibition of fatty acid uptake. Nortriptyline promotes cell acidification and suppresses macropinocytosis, providing a link between fatty acid uptake and tumor progression.

Efficacy and Safety of Vernonia cinerea for Smoking Cessation: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Trial.

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of Vernonia cinerea (VC) and nortriptyline for smoking cessation. A randomized, active-comparator, open-label trial was conducted in 2019. A total of 84 patients participated in the study, and equally randomized with 42 participants in each group. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference of continuous abstinence rate (CAR) between VC and nortriptyline group (Odd ratio 0.68, 95%CI 0.25-1.85, P=0.451). After week 12, the end of treatment, CAR between both groups was not different (44.44% vs 45.95%, Odd ratio 0.77, 95%CI 0.23-2.54, P>0.999). After follow up by the end of research at week 24, the CAR in both groups was not different (41.67% vs 43.24%, Odd ratio 0.76, 95%CI 0.23-2.55, P>0.999). After week 24, relapse rate between VC and nortriptyline group was not different (13.89% vs 10.81%, P=0.923). In addition, both groups were effective in reducing the number of cigarettes per day compared to baseline. However, there was no difference between the groups. Overall, the VC group had an 8% smoking rate less than nortriptyline group, but not statistically significant (IRR 0.92, 95%CI 0.59-1.43, P=0.702). They also resulted in reducing the exhaled CO level at treatment period and wash out period (at week 12; 7(-17-20) vs 7(-12-16), mean difference 0.78, 95%CI -3.07-4.63, P>0.999, at week 24; 8(-5-22) vs 8.5(-5-17), mean difference 0.39, 95%CI -3.46-4.24, P>0.999). Overall, there was no difference between either group (mean difference -0.31, 95%CI -3.10-2.47). For safety data, adverse events including tongue bitter taste or numbness were found in VC group to be greater than in nortriptyline group (61.9% vs 30.95%, P=0.004), whereas dry mouth and drowsiness were greater found in nortriptyline group (35.71% vs 90.48%, P<0.001 and 16.67% vs 90.48%, P<0.001, respectively). Serious adverse events were not found. In smoking cessation, efficacy and safety of either VC or nortriptyline showed no difference.

Repurposing a tricyclic antidepressant in tumor and metabolism disease treatment through fatty acid uptake inhibition.

Fatty acid uptake is essential for cell physiological function, but detailed mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we generated an acetyl-CoA carboxylases (ACC1/2) double-knockout cell line, which lacked fatty acid biosynthesis and survived on serum fatty acids and was used to screen for fatty acid uptake inhibitors. We identified a Food and Drug Administration-approved tricyclic antidepressant, nortriptyline, that potently blocked fatty acid uptake both in vitro and in vivo. We also characterized underlying mechanisms whereby nortriptyline provoked lysosomes to release protons and induce cell acidification to suppress macropinocytosis, which accounted for fatty acid endocytosis. Furthermore, nortriptyline alone or in combination with ND-646, a selective ACC1/2 inhibitor, significantly repressed tumor growth, lipogenesis, and hepatic steatosis in mice. Therefore, we show that cells actively take up fatty acids through macropinocytosis, and we provide a potential strategy suppressing tumor growth, lipogenesis, and hepatic steatosis through controlling the cellular level of fatty acids.

Rationale and design of a multicenter randomized clinical trial of vestibulodynia: understanding pathophysiology and determining appropriate treatments (vestibulodynia: UPDATe).

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available to establish evidence-based management protocols for vestibulodynia (VBD), a chronic vulvar pain condition that affects approximately 14 million women in the U.S. For the purposes of the study, our group subdivided VBD subtypes that may benefit from different types of treatment: 1) VBD peripheral (VBD-p), characterized by pain localized to the vulvar vestibule and 2) VBD central (VBD-c), characterized by VBD alongside one or more other chronic overlapping pain conditions (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome, temporomandibular disorder, and fibromyalgia syndrome) that affect remote body regions. Here, we describe the rationale and design of an NIH-funded multicenter clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of topical and/or systemic medication for alleviating pain and normalizing pain- relevant biomarkers among women with VBD-p and VBD-c. METHODS: Participants will be randomly assigned to one of four parallel arms: peripheral treatment with 5% lidocaine + 0.5 mg/ml 0.02% oestradiol compound cream + oral placebo pill, 2) central treatment with the tricyclic antidepressant nortriptyline + placebo cream, 3) combined peripheral cream and central pill treatments, or 4) placebo cream and placebo pill. The treatment phase will last 16 weeks, with outcome measures and biomarkers assessed at 4 time points (0, 8, 16, and 24 weeks). First, we will compare the efficacy of treatments in alleviating pain using standardized tampon insertion with a numeric rating scale and self-reported pain on the short form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Next, we will compare the efficacy of treatments in improving perceived physical, mental, and sexual health using standardized questionnaires. Finally, we will measure cytokines and microRNAs in local vaginal and circulating blood samples using multiplex assays and RNA sequencing, and determine the ability of these biomarkers to predict treatment response. CONCLUSION: This is the first multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of peripherally and centrally acting medications currently used in clinical practice for treating unique VBD subtypes based on distinct clinical and biological signatures. ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION: Vestibulodynia UPDATe is a multi-centre, two-by-two factorial designed randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial registered at clinical trials.gov (NCT03844412). This work is supported by the R01 HD096331 awarded to Drs. Nackley, Rapkin, Geller and Carey by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).Key messagesPeripheral lidocaine and oestradiol and centrally-targeted nortriptyline medications are used for the treatment of pain in women with VBD, but there is a lack of data from well-powered RCTs.This two-by-two factorial RCT will test the efficacy of these medications in VBD subtypes characterized by distinct clinical characteristics and biomarker profiles.We hope that results will provide clinicians with scientific evidence of therapeutic efficacy in distinct VBD subtypes in an effort to direct and optimize treatment approaches.

A lipid nanoparticle platform for mRNA delivery through repurposing of cationic amphiphilic drugs.

Since the recent clinical approval of siRNA-based drugs and COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, the potential of RNA therapeutics for patient healthcare has become widely accepted. Lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are currently the most advanced nanocarriers for RNA packaging and delivery. Nevertheless, the intracellular delivery efficiency of state-of-the-art LNPs remains relatively low and safety and immunogenicity concerns with synthetic lipid components persist, altogether rationalizing the exploration of alternative LNP compositions. In addition, there is an interest in exploiting LNP technology for simultaneous encapsulation of small molecule drugs and RNA in a single nanocarrier. Here, we describe how well-known tricyclic cationic amphiphilic drugs (CADs) can be repurposed as both structural and functional components of lipid-based NPs for mRNA formulation, further referred to as CADosomes. We demonstrate that selected CADs, such as tricyclic antidepressants and antihistamines, self-assemble with the widely-used helper lipid DOPE to form cationic lipid vesicles for subsequent mRNA complexation and delivery, without the need for prior lipophilic derivatization. Selected CADosomes enabled efficient mRNA delivery in various in vitro cell models, including easy-to-transfect cancer cells (e.g. human cervical carcinoma HeLa cell line) as well as hard-to-transfect primary cells (e.g. primary bovine corneal epithelial cells), outperforming commercially available cationic liposomes and state-of-the-art LNPs. In addition, using the antidepressant nortriptyline as a model compound, we show that CADs can maintain their pharmacological activity upon CADosome incorporation. Furthermore, in vivo proof-of-concept was obtained, demonstrating CADosome-mediated mRNA delivery in the corneal epithelial cells of rabbit eyes, which could pave the way for future applications in ophthalmology. Based on our results, the co-formulation of CADs, helper lipids and mRNA into lipid-based nanocarriers is proposed as a versatile and straightforward approach for the rational development of drug combination therapies.

Pharmacovigilance in hospice/palliative care: Net effect of amitriptyline or nortriptyline on neuropathic pain: UTS/IMPACCT Rapid programme international consecutive cohort.

BACKGROUND: Real-world effectiveness of interventions in palliative care need to be systematically quantified to inform patient/clinical decisions. Neuropathic pain is prevalent and difficult to palliate. Tricyclic antidepressants have an established role for some neuropathic pain aetiologies, but this is less clear in palliative care. AIM: To describe the real-world use and outcomes from amitriptyline or nortriptyline for neuropathic pain in palliative care. DESIGN: An international, prospective, consecutive cohort post-marketing/phase IV/pharmacovigilance/quality improvement study of palliative care patients with neuropathic pain where the treating clinician had already made the decision to use a tricyclic antidepressant. Data were entered at set times: baseline, and days 7 and 14. Likert scales graded benefits and harms. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one sites (inpatient, outpatient, community) participated in six countries between June 2016 and March 2019. Patients had clinician-diagnosed neuropathic pain. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty patients were prescribed amitriptyline (110) or nortriptyline (40) of whom: 85% had cancer; mean age 73.2 years (SD 12.3); mean 0-4 scores for neuropathic pain at baseline were 1.8 (SD 1.0). By day 14, doses of amitriptyline were 57 mg (SD 21) and nortriptyline (48 mg (SD 21). Fifty-two (34.7%) patients had pain improvement by day 14 (amitriptyline (45/110 (43.3%); nortriptyline (7/40 (18.9%)). Thirty-nine (27.7%) had new harms; (amitriptyline 29/104 (27.9%); nortriptyline 10/37 (27.0%); dizziness (n = 23), dry mouth (n = 20), constipation (n = 14), urinary retention (n = 10)). Benefits without harms occurred (amitriptyline (26/104 (25.0%); nortriptyline (4/37 (10.8%)). CONCLUSIONS: Benefits favoured amitriptyline while harms were similar for both medications.

The effect of smoking on the plasma concentration of tricyclic antidepressants: a systematic review.

Smoking is highly prevalent in the psychiatric population, and hospital admittance usually results in partial or complete smoking cessation. Tobacco use is known to affect the metabolism of certain psychoactive drugs, but whether smoking influences the plasma concentration of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) remains unclear. This article investigates the possible effect of smoking on the plasma concentration of TCAs. A systematic review of the literature available on PubMed and EMBASE as of October 2020 was carried out using PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting plasma concentrations of any TCA in both a smoking and a non-smoking group were included and compared. Ten eligible studies were identified and included. In the eight studies investigating the effect of smoking on amitriptyline and/or nortriptyline, five studies found no significant effect. Two studies investigating the effect of smoking on imipramine found a significant effect, and one study investigating the effect of smoking on doxepin found no significant effect. The majority of studies included in this review were influenced by small study populations and other methodical issues. The effect of smoking on the plasma concentration of TCAs is still not entirely clear. There is a possibility that smoking affects the distribution of TCA metabolites, but this is probably not of clinical importance.

Lisdexanfetamina comparada a Metilfenidato ou antidepressivos no tratamento de TDAH em crianças e adolescentes: revisão rápida de evidências / Lisdexamfetamine compared to Methylphenidate or antidepressants for treatment of ADHD: rapid response review of evidence

Lisdexanfetamina e drogas disponíveis no SUS (metilfenidato, bupropiona, amitriptilina, clomipramina, nortriptilina). Indicação: Transtorno do Déficit de Atenção e Hiperatividade (TDAH) em crianças e adolescentes. Pergunta: Lisdexanfetamina é eficaz e segura para melhoria de sintomática, comparada ao placebo e medicações disponíveis no SUS, no tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com TDAH? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foram selecionadas 3 revisões sistemáticas, que atenderam aos critérios de inclusão. Conclusão: Lisdexanfetamina e metilfenidato são mais eficazes que placebo, e similares entre si, para reduzir sintomas em escalas de avaliação. Lisdexanfetamina e metilfenidato têm risco similar ao placebo de abandono do tratamento devido a efeitos adversos. Bupropiona não é mais eficaz que placebo para alívio sintomático. Lisdexanfetamina tem efeitos adversos de redução do apetite e insônia/ dificuldades do sono. Não foram encontradas evidências na literatura sobre os efeitos terapêuticos de amitriptilina, clomipramina e nortriptilina no tratamento de crianças e adolescentes com TDAH

Lisdexamfetamine and drugs available in the Brazilian Public Health System (BPHS) (methylphenidate, bupropion, amitriptyline, clomipramine, nortriptyline, bupropion). Indication: Children and adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Question: Lisdexamfetamine is effective and safe for symptomatic improvement, compared to placebo and drugs available in the BPHS, for treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD? Methods: Rapid response review of evidence (overview) of systematic reviews, with bibliographic search in the PUBMED database, using a structured strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Results: 3 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria and were selected. Conclusion: Lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate are more effective than placebo, and similar to each other, to reduce symptoms on rating scales. Lisdexamfetamine and methylphenidate are not different from placebo in the risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects. Bupropion is no more effective than placebo for symptomatic relief. Lisdexamfetamine has adverse effects of decreased appetite and insomnia/sleep troubles. No evidence was found in the literature about therapeutic effects of amitriptyline, clomipramine and nortriptyline for treatment of children and adolescents with ADHD

Eficácia e segurança de Duloxetina comparado a outros antidepressivos disponíveis no SUS para o tratamento de depressão maior: revisão rápida de evidências / Effectiveness and safety of Duloxetine compared to other antidepressant agents available in Brazilian Public Health for treatment of major depression: rapid response review of evidence

Tecnologia: Duloxetina e outros antidepressivos disponíveis no Sistema Único de Saúde (amitriptilina, nortriptilina, clomipramina, fluoxetina e bupropiona). Indicação: Tratamento do primeiro episódio depressivo no transtorno de depressão maior em adultos. Pergunta: A duloxetina é mais eficaz e tolerável que a amitriptilina, nortriptilina, clomipramina, fluoxetina e bupropiona para o tratamento do primeiro episódio de depressão maior em adultos? Métodos: Revisão rápida de evidências (overview) de revisões sistemáticas, com levantamento bibliográfico realizado na base de dados PUBMED, utilizando estratégia estruturada de busca. A qualidade metodológica das revisões sistemáticas foi avaliada com AMSTAR-2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Resultados: Foi selecionada 1 revisão sistemática, que atendia aos critérios de inclusão. Conclusão: Os antidepressivos, comparados ao placebo, tinham maior taxa de resposta, taxa de remissão e taxa de descontinuação devido a efeitos colaterais, no tratamento de curto prazo. Duloxetina tinha taxa de resposta similar a amitriptilina, clomipramina, fluoxetina e bupropiona. Duloxetina e amitriptilina tinham maior taxa de remissão que fluoxetina. Comparando-se as taxas de abandono de tratamento devido a efeitos colaterais, clomipramina era menos seguro, amitriptilina, bupropiona e duloxetina eram parecidos entre si, e fluoxetina era o antidepressivo mais seguro

Technology: Duloxetine and other antidepressants available in the Brazilian Public Health System (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, clomipramine, fluoxetine and bupropion). Indication: Treatment of the first depressive episode in adult major depressive disorder. Question: Is duloxetine more effective and tolerable than amitriptyline, nortriptyline, clomipramine, fluoxetine and bupropion for the treatment of first episode of major depression in adults? Methods: Rapid response review of evidence (overview) from systematic reviews, with a bibliographic search in the PUBMED database, using a structured strategy. The methodological quality of systematic reviews was assessed with AMSTAR-2 (Methodological Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews). Results: One systematic review was selected, which met the inclusion criteria. Conclusion: In short-term treatment, antidepressants, compared to placebo, had a higher rate of response, rate of remission and rate drop-out due to side effects. Duloxetine had a similar response rate to amitriptyline, clomipramine, fluoxetine and bupropion. Duloxetine and amitriptyline had higher remission rates than fluoxetine. Comparing rates of dropout due to side effects, clomipramine had the worst rates, amitriptyline, bupropion, and duloxetine were similar to each other, and fluoxetine had the better rates

A novel somatic mutation in GNB2 provides new insights to the pathogenesis of Sturge-Weber syndrome.

Sturge-Weber syndrome (SWS) is a neurocutaneous disorder characterized by vascular malformations affecting skin, eyes and leptomeninges of the brain, which can lead to glaucoma, seizures and intellectual disability. The discovery of a disease-causing somatic missense mutation in the GNAQ gene, encoding an alpha chain of heterotrimeric G-proteins, has initiated efforts to understand how G-proteins contribute to SWS pathogenesis. The mutation is predominantly detected in endothelial cells and is currently believed to affect downstream MAPK signalling. In this study of six Norwegian patients with classical SWS, we aimed to identify somatic mutations through deep sequencing of DNA from skin biopsies. Surprisingly, one patient was negative for the GNAQ mutation, but instead harbored a somatic mutation in GNB2 (NM_005273.3:c.232A>G, p.Lys78Glu), which encodes a beta chain of the same G-protein complex. The positions of the mutant amino acids in the G-protein are essential for complex reassembly. Therefore, failure of reassembly and continuous signalling is a likely consequence of both mutations. Ectopic expression of mutant proteins in endothelial cells revealed that expression of either mutant reduced cellular proliferation, yet regulated MAPK signalling differently, suggesting that dysregulated MAPK signalling cannot fully explain the SWS phenotype. Instead, both mutants reduced synthesis of Yes-associated protein (YAP), a transcriptional co-activator of the Hippo signalling pathway, suggesting a key role for this pathway in the vascular pathogenesis of SWS. The discovery of the GNB2 mutation sheds novel light on the pathogenesis of SWS and suggests that future research on targets of treatment should be directed towards the YAP, rather than the MAPK, signalling pathway.

Antidepressants for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: Whilst the pharmacological profiles and mechanisms of antidepressants are varied, there are common reasons why they might help people to stop smoking tobacco. Firstly, nicotine withdrawal may produce depressive symptoms and antidepressants may relieve these. Additionally, some antidepressants may have a specific effect on neural pathways or receptors that underlie nicotine addiction. OBJECTIVES: To assess the evidence for the efficacy, safety and tolerability of medications with antidepressant properties in assisting long-term tobacco smoking cessation in people who smoke cigarettes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Specialized Register, which includes reports of trials indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO, clinicaltrials.gov, the ICTRP, and other reviews and meeting abstracts, in May 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that recruited smokers, and compared antidepressant medications with placebo or no treatment, an alternative pharmacotherapy, or the same medication used in a different way. We excluded trials with less than six months follow-up from efficacy analyses. We included trials with any follow-up length in safety analyses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data and assessed risk of bias using standard Cochrane methods. We also used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. The primary outcome measure was smoking cessation after at least six months follow-up, expressed as a risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence available in each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a fixed-effect model. Similarly, we presented incidence of safety and tolerance outcomes, including adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), psychiatric AEs, seizures, overdoses, suicide attempts, death by suicide, all-cause mortality, and trial dropout due to drug, as RRs (95% CIs). MAIN RESULTS: We included 115 studies (33 new to this update) in this review; most recruited adult participants from the community or from smoking cessation clinics. We judged 28 of the studies to be at high risk of bias; however, restricting analyses only to studies at low or unclear risk did not change clinical interpretation of the results. There was high-certainty evidence that bupropion increased long-term smoking cessation rates (RR 1.64, 95% CI 1.52 to 1.77; I2 = 15%; 45 studies, 17,866 participants). There was insufficient evidence to establish whether participants taking bupropion were more likely to report SAEs compared to those taking placebo. Results were imprecise and CIs encompassed no difference (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.48; I2 = 0%; 21 studies, 10,625 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded one level due to imprecision). We found high-certainty evidence that use of bupropion resulted in more trial dropouts due to adverse events of the drug than placebo (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.56; I2 = 19%; 25 studies, 12,340 participants). Participants randomized to bupropion were also more likely to report psychiatric AEs compared with those randomized to placebo (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.37; I2 = 15%; 6 studies, 4439 participants). We also looked at the safety and efficacy of bupropion when combined with other non-antidepressant smoking cessation therapies. There was insufficient evidence to establish whether combination bupropion and nicotine replacement therapy (NRT) resulted in superior quit rates to NRT alone (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.51; I2 = 52%; 12 studies, 3487 participants), or whether combination bupropion and varenicline resulted in superior quit rates to varenicline alone (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.55; I2 = 15%; 3 studies, 1057 participants). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low and moderate, respectively; in both cases due to imprecision, and also due to inconsistency in the former. Safety data were sparse for these comparisons, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions. A meta-analysis of six studies provided evidence that bupropion resulted in inferior smoking cessation rates to varenicline (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.79; I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 6286 participants), whilst there was no evidence of a difference in efficacy between bupropion and NRT (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.09; I2 = 18%; 10 studies, 8230 participants). We also found some evidence that nortriptyline aided smoking cessation when compared with placebo (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.78; I2 = 16%; 6 studies, 975 participants), whilst there was insufficient evidence to determine whether bupropion or nortriptyline were more effective when compared with one another (RR 1.30 (favouring bupropion), 95% CI 0.93 to 1.82; I2 = 0%; 3 studies, 417 participants). There was no evidence that any of the other antidepressants tested (including St John's Wort, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs)) had a beneficial effect on smoking cessation. Findings were sparse and inconsistent as to whether antidepressants, primarily bupropion and nortriptyline, had a particular benefit for people with current or previous depression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-certainty evidence that bupropion can aid long-term smoking cessation. However, bupropion also increases the number of adverse events, including psychiatric AEs, and there is high-certainty evidence that people taking bupropion are more likely to discontinue treatment compared with placebo. However, there is no clear evidence to suggest whether people taking bupropion experience more or fewer SAEs than those taking placebo (moderate certainty). Nortriptyline also appears to have a beneficial effect on smoking quit rates relative to placebo. Evidence suggests that bupropion may be as successful as NRT and nortriptyline in helping people to quit smoking, but that it is less effective than varenicline. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the other antidepressants tested, such as SSRIs, aid smoking cessation, and when looking at safety and tolerance outcomes, in most cases, paucity of data made it difficult to draw conclusions. Due to the high-certainty evidence, further studies investigating the efficacy of bupropion versus placebo are unlikely to change our interpretation of the effect, providing no clear justification for pursuing bupropion for smoking cessation over front-line smoking cessation aids already available. However, it is important that where studies of antidepressants for smoking cessation are carried out they measure and report safety and tolerability clearly.

Hollow Fiber Liquid-Phase Microextraction At-Line Coupled to Capillary Electrophoresis for Direct Analysis of Human Body Fluids.

A simple and cheap all-in-one concept for at-line coupling of hollow fiber liquid-phase microextraction (HF-LPME) to commercial capillary electrophoresis (CE) is demonstrated, which enables the direct analysis of complex samples. A disposable microextraction device compatible with injection systems of Agilent CE instruments is proposed, which consists of a short segment of a porous HF attached to a tapered polypropylene holder. The holder maintains a constant position of the HF in a CE vial during extraction and simultaneously guides the injection end of a separation capillary into the HF lumen for automated CE injection and analysis. In a typical analytical procedure, the HF is impregnated with a water-immiscible solvent, its lumen is filled with 5 µL of an aqueous acceptor solution, and the microextraction device is placed in a 2 mL glass CE vial containing 550 µL of a donor solution. The vial is agitated at 750 rpm for 10 min, and the resulting acceptor solution is injected directly from the HF lumen into the commercial CE. No additional manual handling is required, except for the transfer of the CE vial to the CE autosampler. Multiple complex samples can be simultaneously pretreated in a multiple-well plate format, thus significantly reducing the total analysis time. Suitability of the analytical method is demonstrated by the direct determination of model basic drugs (nortriptyline, haloperidol, loperamide, and papaverine) in physiological solutions, urine, and dried blood spot (DBS) samples. Repeatability of the method is better than 12.8% (%RSD), extraction recoveries range between 34 and 76%, and enrichment factors are 37-84. The method is linear in a range of 2 orders of magnitude (R2 ≥ 0.9977) with limits of detection of 0.7-1.55 µg/L. The method has a high potential for the direct analysis of DBS samples since DBS elution and HF-LPME are performed simultaneously during the 10 min agitation. The manual DBS handling is thus reduced to inserting the DBS punch into the CE vial only. Moreover, the universal character of the HF-LPME might extend the applicability of the method to a wide range of analytes/matrices, and combination with other commercial detectors might improve the selectivity/sensitivity of the CE analysis.