Bioavailability of pharmaceuticals in waters close to wastewater treatment plants: use of fish bile for exposure assessment.

Pharmaceuticals are ubiquitous in surface waters as a consequence of discharges from municipal wastewater treatment plants. However, few studies have assessed the bioavailability of pharmaceuticals to fish in natural waters. In the present study, passive samplers and rainbow trout were experimentally deployed next to three municipal wastewater treatment plants in Finland to evaluate the degree of animal exposure. Pharmaceuticals from several therapeutic classes (in total 15) were analyzed by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in extracts of passive samplers and in bile and blood plasma of rainbow trout held at polluted sites for 10 d. Each approach indicated the highest exposure near wastewater treatment plant A and the lowest near that of plant C. Diclofenac, naproxen, and ibuprofen were found in rainbow trout, and their concentrations in bile were 10 to 400 times higher than in plasma. The phase I metabolite hydroxydiclofenac was also detected in bile. Hence, bile proved to be an excellent sample matrix for the exposure assessment of fish. Most of the monitored pharmaceuticals were found in passive samplers, implying that they may overestimate the actual exposure of fish in receiving waters. Two biomarkers, hepatic vitellogenin and cytochrome P4501A, did not reveal clear effects on fish, although a small induction of vitellogenin mRNA was observed in trout caged near wastewater treatment plants B and C.

Assessment of infant dose through milk in a lactating woman taking amisulpride and desvenlafaxine for treatment-resistant depression.

This study presents the case of a 35-year-old breastfeeding mother who delivered her fourth child 5 months previously and was prescribed 100 mg amisulpride twice daily and 250 mg desvenlafaxine in the morning for treatment-resistant depression. Arriving at this regimen took approximately 2 months postbirth. Because she was keen to continue breastfeeding her infant, and published data on the use of amisulpride and desvenlafaxine were very limited, the clinical team sought assistance from the therapeutic drug monitoring laboratory to quantify infant dose-exposure to guide consideration of continuing breastfeeding. A sampling schedule for milk and plasma from mother and plasma from her infant was agreed and drug concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. Absolute (theoretic) infant dose (µg/kg/d) was calculated as the product of the average concentration in milk and an assumed milk intake of 0.15 L/kg/day (294 mg/kg/day for desvenlafaxine and 183 mg/kg/day for amisulpride), and relative infant dose was estimated as absolute infant dose expressed as a percentage of the maternal dose in µg/kg/day (7.8% for desvenlafaxine and 6.1% for amisulpride). Consistent with the infant being partially breastfed, the ratio of drug in the infant's plasma to that in mother's plasma was lower at 1.7% for desvenlafaxine and 3.9% for amisulpride. A pediatric assessment of the infant found achievement of expected developmental progress for age and no detectable drug-related adverse effects. Assessing the safety of breastfeeding was difficult because it involved simultaneous use of two drugs for which there was limited previous experience. However, after discussion of the infant dose-exposure data and lack of adverse effects, the mother elected to continue partial breastfeeding for the next few months. The clinical team plans a reassessment of the infant's progress in 3 months.

Comparison of pharmacokinetic profiles of brand-name and generic formulations of citalopram and venlafaxine: a crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Generic drugs are lower-cost versions of patent-expired brand-name medications. Bioequivalence is decreed when the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the generic to the reference compound for the area under the curve and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) fall within a 0.80 to 1.25 range. The aim of the present pilot study was to compare the pharmacokinetic profiles of brand-name and generic formulations of citalopram and extended-release venlafaxine. METHOD: Effexor XR/Novo-venlafaxine XR 75 mg and Celexa/Gen-citalopram 40 mg were studied in a randomized crossover design. Healthy male volunteers took either Effexor XR or Novo-venlafaxine XR for 4 days, a 4-day washout was allowed, and then participants took the other venlafaxine formulation for 4 days. This was followed by a washout of at least 7 days. The participants then took Celexa or Gen-citalopram for 8 days, a 14-day washout was allowed, and then participants took the other citalopram formulation for 8 days. In each of the study phases, the sequence of treatment (brand-name x generic) was randomly assigned. Plasma levels of drugs were measured at fixed intervals after participants took the drugs and at steady state. The study was conducted from November 2007 through July 2008. RESULTS: Twelve participants completed the venlafaxine study. Nine of the participants, plus 3 new participants, were then enrolled in the citalopram study, to maintain a total of 12. The plasma levels of citalopram were similar after ingestion of the brand-name and generic drugs. After ingestion of venlafaxine, the C(max) values were 36 +/- 6 ng/mL and 52 +/- 8 ng/mL in the brand-name and generic groups, respectively. The ratio of the log-transformed values of C(max) was 150% and, therefore, not within the acceptable 80% to 125% range. The concentration of the active metabolite of venlafaxine (O-desmethyl-venlafaxine [ODV]) was also significantly increased in the generic group (+43% higher in the generic group at 3 h; +48% higher at 5 h; p < .05). No differences were seen at steady state for either ODV or venlafaxine. Participants taking Novo-venlafaxine reported 3 times more side effects than those taking Effexor XR. Pill contents were identical in the 2 groups, but extraction of venlafaxine occurred more readily with the generic formulation than with the brand-name formulation, which required an additional sonication. CONCLUSION: Gen-citalopram appeared to be bioequivalent to Celexa, whereas Novo-venlafaxine XR was not bioequivalent to Effexor XR. Consequently, the Novo-venlafaxine formulation released its active ingredient more rapidly and outside the acceptable norm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00676039.

An assessment of drug-drug interactions: the effect of desvenlafaxine and duloxetine on the pharmacokinetics of the CYP2D6 probe desipramine in healthy subjects.

A number of antidepressants inhibit the activity of the cytochrome P450 2D6 enzyme system, which can lead to drug-drug interactions. Based on its metabolic profile, desvenlafaxine, administered as desvenlafaxine succinate, a new serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is not expected to have an impact on activity of CYP2D6. This single-center, randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of multiple doses of desvenlafaxine (100 mg/day, twice the recommended therapeutic dose for major depressive disorder in the United States) and duloxetine (30 mg b.i.d.) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a single dose of desipramine (50 mg). A single dose of desipramine was given first to assess its PK. Desvenlafaxine or duloxetine was then administered, in a crossover design, so that steady-state levels were achieved; a single dose of desipramine was then coadministered. The geometric least-square mean ratios (coadministration versus desipramine alone) for area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentrations (C(max)) of desipramine and 2-hydroxydesipramine were compared using analysis of variance. Relative to desipramine alone, increases in AUC and C(max) of desipramine associated with duloxetine administration (122 and 63%, respectively) were significantly greater than those associated with desvenlafaxine (22 and 19%, respectively; P < 0.001). Duloxetine coadministered with desipramine was also associated with a decrease in 2-hydroxydesipramine C(max) that was significant compared with the small increase seen with desvenlafaxine and desipramine (-24 versus 9%; P < 0.001); the difference between changes in 2-hydroxydesipramine AUC did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.054). Overall, desvenlafaxine had a minimal impact on the PK of desipramine compared with duloxetine, suggesting a lower risk for CYP2D6-mediated drug interactions.