RESUMEN
Methadone is a mu (µ) opioid receptor agonist used clinically in adults and children to manage opioid use disorder, neonatal abstinence syndrome, and acute and chronic pain. It is typically marketed as a racemic mixture of R- and S-enantiomers. R-methadone has 30-to 50-fold higher analgesic potency than S-methadone, and S-methadone has a greater adverse effect (prolongation) on the cardiac QTc interval. Methadone undergoes stereoselective metabolism. CYP2B6 is the primary enzyme responsible for catalyzing the metabolism of both enantiomers to the inactive metabolites, S- and R-2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine (S- and R-EDDP). Genetic variation in the CYP2B6 gene has been investigated in the context of implications for methadone pharmacokinetics, dose, and clinical outcomes. Most CYP2B6 variants result in diminished or loss of CYP2B6 enzyme activity, which can lead to higher plasma methadone concentrations (affecting S- more than R-methadone). However, the data do not consistently indicate that CYP2B6-based metabolic variability has a clinically significant effect on methadone dose, efficacy, or QTc prolongation. Expert analysis of the published literature does not support a change from standard methadone prescribing based on CYP2B6 genotype (updates at www.cpicpgx.org).
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: We previously reported that postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α-positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant anastrozole 1 mg/day (ANA1) with estrone (E1) ≥1.3 pg/mL and estradiol (E2) ≥0.5 pg/mL [inadequate estrogen suppression (IES)] had a threefold increased risk of a breast cancer event. The objective of this study was to determine if increasing anastrozole to 10 mg/day (ANA10) could result in adequate estrogen suppression (AES: E1 <1.3 pg/mL and/or E2 <0.5 pg/mL) among those with IES on ANA1. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with estrogen receptor-α-positive breast cancer planning to receive adjuvant ANA1 were eligible. E1 and E2 were assessed pre- and post-8 to 10 weeks of ANA1. Those with IES were switched to 8- to 10-week cycles of ANA10 followed by letrozole 2.5 mg/day. E1 and E2 were assessed after each cycle. Anastrozole concentrations were measured post-ANA1 and post-ANA10. Primary analyses included patients who documented taking at least 80% of the planned treatment (adherent cohort). RESULTS: In total, 132 (84.6%) of 156 eligible patients were ANA1 adherent. IES occurred in 40 (30.3%) adherent patients. Twenty-five (78.1%) of 32 patients who began ANA10 were adherent, and AES was achieved in 19 (76.0%; 90% confidence interval, 58.1%-89.0%) patients. Anastrozole concentrations post-ANA1 and post-ANA10 did not differ by estrogen suppression status among adherent patients. AES was maintained/attained in 21 (91.3%) of 23 letrozole-adherent patients. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 30% of ANA1-adherent patients had IES. Among those who switched to ANA10 and were adherent, 76% had AES. Further studies are required to validate emerging data that ANA1 results in IES for some patients and to determine the clinical benefit of switching to ANA10 or an alternative aromatase inhibitor.
Asunto(s)
Anastrozol , Neoplasias de la Mama , Nitrilos , Posmenopausia , Triazoles , Humanos , Anastrozol/administración & dosificación , Anastrozol/uso terapéutico , Anastrozol/efectos adversos , Femenino , Neoplasias de la Mama/tratamiento farmacológico , Neoplasias de la Mama/patología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Triazoles/administración & dosificación , Triazoles/efectos adversos , Nitrilos/administración & dosificación , Nitrilos/efectos adversos , Estrógenos/administración & dosificación , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/administración & dosificación , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/efectos adversos , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/uso terapéutico , Estudios Prospectivos , Estradiol/administración & dosificación , Estrona/sangre , Estrona/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de la Aromatasa/administración & dosificación , Inhibidores de la Aromatasa/efectos adversosRESUMEN
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are the first-line pharmacologic treatment for anxiety and depressive disorders in children and adolescents. Many patients experience side effects that are difficult to predict, are associated with significant morbidity, and can lead to treatment discontinuation. Variation in SSRI pharmacokinetics could explain differences in treatment outcomes, but this is often overlooked as a contributing factor to SSRI tolerability. This study evaluated data from 288 escitalopram-treated and 255 sertraline-treated patients ≤ 18 years old to develop machine learning models to predict side effects using electronic health record data and Bayesian estimated pharmacokinetic parameters. Trained on a combined cohort of escitalopram- and sertraline-treated patients, a penalized logistic regression model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.77 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.66-0.88), with 0.69 sensitivity (95% CI: 0.54-0.86), and 0.82 specificity (95% CI: 0.72-0.87). Medication exposure, clearance, and time since the last dose increase were among the top features. Individual escitalopram and sertraline models yielded an AUROC of 0.73 (95% CI: 0.65-0.81) and 0.64 (95% CI: 0.55-0.73), respectively. Post hoc analysis showed sertraline-treated patients with activation side effects had slower clearance (P = 0.01), which attenuated after accounting for age (P = 0.055). These findings raise the possibility that a machine learning approach leveraging pharmacokinetic data can predict escitalopram- and sertraline-related side effects. Clinicians may consider differences in medication pharmacokinetics, especially during dose titration and as opposed to relying on dose, when managing side effects. With further validation, application of this model to predict side effects may enhance SSRI precision dosing strategies in youth.