Filip Milosavljevic1, Nikola Bukvic1, Zorana Pavlovic2,3, Cedo Miljevic2,4, Vesna Pešic1, Espen Molden5, Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg6, Stefan Leucht7, Marin M Jukic1,6. 1. Department of Physiology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 3. Psychiatry Clinic, Clinical Centre of Serbia, Belgrade. 4. Institute for Mental Health, Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 5. Department of Pharmacokinetics, University of Oslo Pharmacy School, Oslo, Norway. 6. Pharmacogenetics Section, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden. 7. Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität München School of Medicine, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
Importance: Precise estimation of the drug metabolism capacity for individual patients is crucial for adequate dose personalization. Objective: To quantify the difference in the antipsychotic and antidepressant exposure among patients with genetically associated CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 poor (PM), intermediate (IM), and normal (NM) metabolizers. Data Sources: PubMed, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and CENTRAL databases were screened for studies from January 1, 1990, to June 30, 2020, with no language restrictions. Study Selection: Two independent reviewers performed study screening and assessed the following inclusion criteria: (1) appropriate CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 genotyping was performed, (2) genotype-based classification into CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 NM, IM, and PM categories was possible, and (3) 3 patients per metabolizer category were available. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and quality, validity, and risk of bias assessments. A fixed-effects model was used for pooling the effect sizes of the included studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Drug exposure was measured as (1) dose-normalized area under the plasma level (time) curve, (2) dose-normalized steady-state plasma level, or (3) reciprocal apparent total drug clearance. The ratio of means (RoM) was calculated by dividing the mean drug exposure for PM, IM, or pooled PM plus IM categories by the mean drug exposure for the NM category. Results: Based on the data derived from 94 unique studies and 8379 unique individuals, the most profound differences were observed in the patients treated with aripiprazole (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.57; 12 studies; 1038 patients), haloperidol lactate (CYP2D6 PM vs NM RoM, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.40-2.02; 9 studies; 423 patients), risperidone (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.28-1.44; 23 studies; 1492 patients), escitalopram oxalate (CYP2C19 PM vs NM, RoM, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.40-2.89; 4 studies; 1262 patients), and sertraline hydrochloride (CYP2C19 IM vs NM RoM, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.27-1.51; 3 studies; 917 patients). Exposure differences were also observed for clozapine, quetiapine fumarate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, mirtazapine, nortriptyline hydrochloride, fluoxetine hydrochloride, fluvoxamine maleate, paroxetine hydrochloride, and venlafaxine hydrochloride; however, these differences were marginal, ambiguous, or based on less than 3 independent studies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the association between CYP2C19/CYP2D6 genotype and drug levels of several psychiatric drugs was quantified with sufficient precision as to be useful as a scientific foundation for CYP2D6/CYP2C19 genotype-based dosing recommendations.
Importance: Precise estimation of the drug metabolism capacity for individual patients is crucial for adequate dose personalization. Objective: To quantify the difference in the antipsychotic and antidepressant exposure among patients with genetically associated CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 poor (PM), intermediate (IM), and normal (NM) metabolizers. Data Sources: PubMed, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and CENTRAL databases were screened for studies from January 1, 1990, to June 30, 2020, with no language restrictions. Study Selection: Two independent reviewers performed study screening and assessed the following inclusion criteria: (1) appropriate CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 genotyping was performed, (2) genotype-based classification into CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 NM, IM, and PM categories was possible, and (3) 3 patients per metabolizer category were available. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and quality, validity, and risk of bias assessments. A fixed-effects model was used for pooling the effect sizes of the included studies. Main Outcomes and Measures: Drug exposure was measured as (1) dose-normalized area under the plasma level (time) curve, (2) dose-normalized steady-state plasma level, or (3) reciprocal apparent total drug clearance. The ratio of means (RoM) was calculated by dividing the mean drug exposure for PM, IM, or pooled PM plus IM categories by the mean drug exposure for the NM category. Results: Based on the data derived from 94 unique studies and 8379 unique individuals, the most profound differences were observed in the patients treated with aripiprazole (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.57; 12 studies; 1038 patients), haloperidol lactate (CYP2D6 PM vs NM RoM, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.40-2.02; 9 studies; 423 patients), risperidone (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.28-1.44; 23 studies; 1492 patients), escitalopram oxalate (CYP2C19 PM vs NM, RoM, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.40-2.89; 4 studies; 1262 patients), and sertraline hydrochloride (CYP2C19 IM vs NM RoM, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.27-1.51; 3 studies; 917 patients). Exposure differences were also observed for clozapine, quetiapine fumarate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, mirtazapine, nortriptyline hydrochloride, fluoxetine hydrochloride, fluvoxamine maleate, paroxetine hydrochloride, and venlafaxine hydrochloride; however, these differences were marginal, ambiguous, or based on less than 3 independent studies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the association between CYP2C19/CYP2D6 genotype and drug levels of several psychiatric drugs was quantified with sufficient precision as to be useful as a scientific foundation for CYP2D6/CYP2C19 genotype-based dosing recommendations.
Authors: William H Roughan; Adrián I Campos; Luis M García-Marín; Gabriel Cuéllar-Partida; Michelle K Lupton; Ian B Hickie; Sarah E Medland; Naomi R Wray; Enda M Byrne; Trung Thanh Ngo; Nicholas G Martin; Miguel E Rentería Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2021-04-12 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Elizabeth Pavez Loriè; Sarah Baatout; Alexander Choukér; Judith-Irina Buchheim; Bjorn Baselet; Cinzia Dello Russo; Virginia Wotring; Monica Monici; Lucia Morbidelli; Dimitri Gagliardi; Julia Caroline Stingl; Leonardo Surdo; Vincent Lai Ming Yip Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol Date: 2021-12-13
Authors: Jeffrey R Strawn; Ethan A Poweleit; Chakradhara Rao S Uppugunduri; Laura B Ramsey Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-10-01 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Johannes Matthaei; Jürgen Brockmöller; Werner Steimer; Konstanze Pischa; Stefan Leucht; Maria Kullmann; Ole Jensen; Typhaine Ouethy; Mladen Vassilev Tzvetkov; Muhammad Rafehi Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Sony Tuteja; Ramzi G Salloum; Amanda L Elchynski; D Max Smith; Elizabeth Rowe; Kathryn V Blake; Nita A Limdi; Christina L Aquilante; Jill Bates; Amber L Beitelshees; Amber Cipriani; Benjamin Q Duong; Philip E Empey; Christine M Formea; J Kevin Hicks; Pawel Mroz; David Oslin; Amy L Pasternak; Natasha Petry; Laura B Ramsey; Allyson Schlichte; Sandra M Swain; Kristen M Ward; Kristin Wiisanen; Todd C Skaar; Sara L Van Driest; Larisa H Cavallari; Jeffrey R Bishop Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 4.689