Mary Pat Knadler

The Dual Transporter Inhibitor Duloxetine: A Review of its Preclinical Pharmacology, Pharmacokinetic Profile, and Clinical Results in Depression

Major depressive disorder (MDD) poses a significant health problem and is estimated to be the third most costly and disabling disorder in the United States. Pharmacotherapy of depression has been successful, but improvements in response rates, remission rates, side effects, compliance and faster onset of therapeutic action have become prime objectives in drug development. There is considerable support for the hypothesis that dysfunctional serotonergic or noradrenergic neurotransmission may be etiological in depressed patients. Duloxetine is a balanced and potent reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) being studied as an antidepressant medication. In this review, we highlight the preclinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetic profile, and effects of duloxetine in the pharmacotherapy of depression. Evidence for 5-HT and NE reuptake inhibition by duloxetine comes from in vitro and in vivo transporter binding and functional uptake studies. Taken together with efficacy data from in vivo microdialysis, electrophysiological and behavioral studies, it is evident that duloxetine is balanced as a dual serotonin norepinephrine uptake inhibitor in vivo. The clinical efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of MDD has been studied in 6 multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. In these studies, duloxetine was found to be effective in the treatment of emotional/psychological and painful physical symptoms associated with depression. More importantly, duloxetine appears to have better response rates and remission from depressive symptoms, perhaps due to its ability to treat a wider range of symptoms.

Duloxetine: clinical pharmacokinetics and drug interactions.

Duloxetine, a potent reuptake inhibitor of serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine, is effective for the treatment of major depressive disorder, diabetic neuropathic pain, stress urinary incontinence, generalized anxiety disorder and fibromyalgia. Duloxetine achieves a maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of approximately 47 ng/mL (40 mg twice-daily dosing) to 110 ng/mL (80 mg twice-daily dosing) approximately 6 hours after dosing. The elimination half-life of duloxetine is approximately 10-12 hours and the volume of distribution is approximately 1640 L. The goal of this paper is to provide a review of the literature on intrinsic and extrinsic factors that may impact the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine with a focus on concomitant medications and their clinical implications. Patient demographic characteristics found to influence the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine include sex, smoking status, age, ethnicity, cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 genotype, hepatic function and renal function. Of these, only impaired hepatic function or severely impaired renal function warrant specific warnings or dose recommendations. Pharmacokinetic results from drug interaction studies show that activated charcoal decreases duloxetine exposure, and that CYP1A2 inhibition increases duloxetine exposure to a clinically significant degree. Specifically, following oral administration in the presence of fluvoxamine, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and C(max) of duloxetine significantly increased by 460% (90% CI 359, 584) and 141% (90% CI 93, 200), respectively. In addition, smoking is associated with a 30% decrease in duloxetine concentration. The exposure of duloxetine with CYP2D6 inhibitors or in CYP2D6 poor metabolizers is increased to a lesser extent than that observed with CYP1A2 inhibition and does not require a dose adjustment. In addition, duloxetine increases the exposure of drugs that are metabolized by CYP2D6, but not CYP1A2. Pharmacodynamic study results indicate that duloxetine may enhance the effects of benzodiazepines, but not alcohol or warfarin. An increase in gastric pH produced by histamine H(2)-receptor antagonists or antacids did not impact the absorption of duloxetine. While duloxetine is generally well tolerated, it is important to be knowledgeable about the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between duloxetine and drugs that inhibit CYP1A2 or drugs that are metabolized by CYP2D6 enzymes.

In vitro and in vivo evaluations of cytochrome P450 1A2 interactions with duloxetine.

AbstractObjective: To determine whether duloxetine is a substrate, inhibitor or inducer of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2 enzyme, using in vitro and in vivo studies in humans. Methods: Human liver microsomes or cells with expressed CYP enzymes and specific CYP inhibitors were used to identify which CYP enzymes catalyse the initial oxidation steps in the metabolism of duloxetine. The potential of duloxetine to inhibit CYP1A2 activity was determined using incubations with human liver microsomes and phenacetin, the CYP1A2 substrate. The potential for duloxetine to induce CYP1A2 activity was determined using human primary hepatocytes treated with duloxetine for 72 hours. Studies in humans were conducted using fluvoxamine, a potent CYP1A2 inhibitor, and theophylline, a CYP1A2 substrate, as probes. The subjects were healthy men and women aged 18–65 years. Single-dose duloxetine was administered either intravenously as a 10-mg infusion over 30 minutes or orally as a 60-mg dose in the presence or absence of steady-state fluvoxamine (100 mg orally once daily). Single-dose theophylline was given as 30-minute intravenous infusions of aminophylline 250 mg in the presence or absence of steady-state duloxetine (60 mg orally twice daily). Plasma concentrations of duloxetine, its metabolites and theophylline were determined using liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using noncompartmental methods and evaluated using mixed-effects ANOVA. Safety measurements included vital signs, clinical laboratory tests, a physical examination, ECG readings and adverse event reports. Results: The in vitro results indicated that duloxetine is metabolized by CYP1A2; however, duloxetine was predicted not to be an inhibitor or inducer of CYP1A2 in humans. Following oral administration in the presence of fluvoxamine, the duloxetine area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC∞) and the maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) significantly increased by 460% (90% CI 359, 584) and 141% (90% CI 93, 200), respectively. In the presence of fluvoxamine, the oral bioavailability of duloxetine increased from 42.8% to 81.9%. In the presence of duloxetine, the theophylline AUC∞ and Cmax increased by only 13% (90% CI 7, 18) and 7% (90% CI 2,14), respectively. Coadministration of duloxetine with fluvoxamine or theophylline did not result in any clinically important safety concerns, and these combinations were generally well tolerated. Conclusion: Duloxetine is metabolized primarily by CYP1A2; therefore, coadministration of duloxetine with potent CYP1A2 inhibitors should be avoided. Duloxetine does not seem to be a clinically significant inhibitor or inducer of CYP1A2; therefore, dose adjustment of CYP1A2 substrates may not be necessary when they are coadministered with duloxetine.

QT effects of duloxetine at supratherapeutic doses: A placebo and positive controlled study

Background: The electrophysiological effects of duloxetine at supratherapeutic exposures were evaluated to ensure compliance with regulatory criteria and to assess the QT prolongation potential. Methods: Electrocardiograms were collected in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study that enrolled 117 healthy female subjects aged 19 to 74 years. Duloxetine dosages escalated from 60 mg twice daily to 200 mg twice daily; a single moxifloxacin 400 mg dose was used as a positive control. Data were analyzed using 3 QT interval correction methods: mixed-effect analysis of covariance model with RR interval change from baseline as the covariate, the QT Fridericias correction method, and the individual QT correction method. Concentrations of duloxetine and its 2 major metabolites were measured. Results: Compared with placebo, the mean change from baseline in QTc decreased with duloxetine 200 mg twice daily. The upper limits of the 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for duloxetine vs. placebo were <0 msec at each time point by any correction method. No subject had absolute QT Fridericias correction values >445 msec with duloxetine, and the change in QT Fridericias correction from baseline with duloxetine did not exceed 36 msec. No relationship was detected between QTc change and plasma concentrations of duloxetine or its metabolites even though average duloxetine concentrations ranged to more than 5 times those achieved at therapeutic doses. Moxifloxacin significantly prolonged QTc at all time points, regardless of correction method. Conclusions: Duloxetine does not affect ventricular repolarization as assessed by both mean changes and outliers in QT corrected by any method.

Raloxifene reduces atherosclerosis: studies of optimized raloxifene doses in ovariectomized, cholesterol‐fed rabbits

We have previously shown that raloxifene, a selective oestrogen receptor modulator, 35 mg/day inhibits atherosclerosis in ovariectomized, cholesterol‐fed rabbits. This effect was only partial as compared to 17β‐oestradiol 4 mg/day; however, plasma raloxifene concentrations were low relative to those obtained in raloxifene‐treated women. We therefore investigate the effects of raloxifene at higher doses.

Basal Insulin Peglispro Demonstrates Preferential Hepatic Versus Peripheral Action Relative to Insulin Glargine in Healthy Subjects

OBJECTIVE We evaluated the endogenous glucose production (EGP) and glucose disposal rate (GDR) over a range of doses of basal insulin peglispro (BIL) and insulin glargine in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, four-period, incomplete-block, crossover study conducted in eight healthy male subjects. Subjects had 8-h euglycemic clamps performed with primed, continuous infusions of BIL (5.1 to 74.1 mU/min) in three dosing periods and insulin glargine (20 or 30 mU/m2/min) in a fourth period, targeted to achieve 50–100% suppression of EGP. D-[3-3H] glucose was infused to assess rates of glucose appearance and disappearance. RESULTS Mean BIL and insulin glargine concentrations (targeted to reflect the differences in intrinsic affinities of the two basal insulins) ranged from 824 to 11,400 and 212 to 290 pmol/L, respectively, and increased accordingly with increases in dose. Suppression of EGP and stimulation of GDR were observed with increasing concentrations of both insulins. At insulin concentrations where EGP was significantly suppressed, insulin glargine resulted in increased GDR. In contrast, at comparable suppression of EGP, BIL had minimal effect on GDR at lower doses and had substantially less effect on GDR than insulin glargine at higher doses. CONCLUSIONS The novel basal insulin analog BIL has relative hepatopreferential action and decreased peripheral action, compared with insulin glargine, in healthy subjects.

Pharmacokinetics of Duloxetine in Breast Milk and Plasma of Healthy Postpartum Women

AbstractObjective: The purpose of this study was to characterize duloxetine pharmacokinetics in the breast milk and plasma of lactating women and to estimate the duloxetine dose that an infant might consume if breastfed. Methods: This open-label study included six healthy women aged 22–35 years who stopped nursing during and after the study. Duloxetine 40 mg was given orally every 12 hours for 3.5 days; seven plasma and milk samples over 12 hours were obtained after the seventh dose. Plasma and milk samples were analysed using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry methods. Safety measures included vital signs, ECGs, laboratory tests, adverse event monitoring and depression rating scales. Results: The mean steady-state milk-to-plasma duloxetine exposure ratio was 0.25 (90% CI 0.18, 0.35). The amount of duloxetine in the breast milk was 7 μg/day (range 4–15 μg/day). The estimated infant dose was 2 μg/kg/day (range 0.6–3 μg/kg/day), which is 0.14% of the maternal dose. Dizziness, nausea and fatigue were commonly reported adverse events. No clinically important changes in safety measures occurred. Conclusion: Duloxetine is detected in breast milk, and steady-state concentrations in breast milk are about one-fourth of those in maternal plasma. As the safety of duloxetine in infants is unknown, prescribers should carefully assess, on an individual basis, the potential risks of duloxetine exposure to infants and the benefits of nursing an infant when the mother is on duloxetine therapy.

Population pharmacokinetics of orally administered duloxetine in patients: implications for dosing recommendation.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this analysis were to characterize the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine at steady state in patients, estimate the variability, identify significant covariates that may influence duloxetine pharmacokinetics and provide appropriate dosing recommendations for patients on duloxetine treatment. METHODS: The pharmacokinetic meta-analysis dataset was created from one open-label clinical study and four double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Duloxetine concentrations (N = 2002) were obtained from 594 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (n = 223), diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (n = 112), stress urinary incontinence (n = 128) and fibromyalgia (n = 131). Patients were given 20-60 mg/day of oral duloxetine once or twice daily (the highest dose studied was 120 mg/day). A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using a nonlinear mixed-effects modelling method. Covariates including bodyweight, age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, disease condition, dose, dosing regimen and creatinine clearance were tested for their influence on duloxetine pharmacokinetics. The final model was used to predict steady-state duloxetine concentration-time profiles in various patient subgroups. RESULTS: Duloxetine pharmacokinetics in patients were described by a one-compartmental pharmacokinetic model. The interpatient variability in apparent oral clearance (CL/F) was 59% and the interpatient variability in the apparent volume of distribution after oral administration (V(d)/F) was 97%. The residual error was 31%. Sex, smoking status, age and dose had a statistically significant effect on CL/F, whereas the V(d)/F was influenced by ethnicity. CL/F was 40% lower in females than in males and 30% lower in nonsmokers than in smokers. CL/F decreased with increasing dose and age. The V(d)/F in Hispanic patients was twice that of non-Hispanic patients. Simulations showed a considerable overlap in duloxetine exposure between the identified patient subgroups. CONCLUSION: Given the clinically insignificant change in the magnitude of duloxetine steady-state exposure and the considerable overlap in duloxetine exposure between the patient subgroups, specific dose recommendations based on sex, smoking status, age, dose and ethnicity are not warranted.

Hepatic effects of duloxetine-I: non-clinical and clinical trial data.

OBJECTIVE Review nonclinical and clinical trial data for hepatic effects of duloxetine. METHODS Review studies of toxicology, metabolism, mitochondrial effects, and clinical trials. RESULTS Nonclinical studies revealed no treatment-related transaminase elevations and no effects of duloxetine on mitochondrial beta-oxidation in rat hepatocytes. In patients with a normal baseline alanine transaminase (ALT), duloxetine was associated with elevated transaminases >3X ULN in about 1% of patients. ALT and aspartate transaminase values peaked at 8 weeks, alkaline phosphatase steadily increased to maximum value at Week 52 and mean total bilirubin values were not increased. Hepatic-related treatment-emergent adverse events were uncommon. Seven of 23,000 duloxetine- and 2/6000 placebo-treated patients met criteria for modified Hys rule (significant elevation of both ALT and total bilirubin) but were complicated by contributing factors such as excessive alcohol consumption (n=3), gall stones, common bile duct calculus, hepatitis C, and liver adenocarcinoma (n=1 each). CONCLUSIONS Duloxetine has an effect on the liver, manifested by transient, self-limiting transaminase elevations. Rare events characterized as hepatocellular injury, cholestatic injury, or mixed type of hepatic injury have been reported. The pattern of liver effects was different from that in laboratory animals.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Orally Administered Duloxetine in Patients

AbstractObjectives: The objectives of this analysis were to characterize the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine at steady state in patients, estimate the variability, identify significant covariates that may influence duloxetine pharmacokinetics and provide appropriate dosing recommendations for patients on duloxetine treatment. Methods: The pharmacokinetic meta-analysis dataset was created from one open-label clinical study and four double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical studies. Duloxetine concentrations (N = 2002) were obtained from 594 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder (n = 223), diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (n = 112), stress urinary incontinence (n = 128) and fibromyalgia (n = 131). Patients were given 20–60 mg/day of oral duloxetine once or twice daily (the highest dose studied was 120 mg/day). A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using a nonlinear mixed-effects modelling method. Covariates including bodyweight, age, sex, ethnicity, smoking status, disease condition, dose, dosing regimen and creatinine clearance were tested for their influence on duloxetine pharmacokinetics. The final model was used to predict steady-state duloxetine concentration-time profiles in various patient subgroups. Results: Duloxetine pharmacokinetics in patients were described by a one-compartmental pharmacokinetic model. The interpatient variability in apparent oral clearance (CL/F) was 59% and the interpatient variability in the apparent volume of distribution after oral administration (Vd/F) was 97%. The residual error was 31%. Sex, smoking status, age and dose had a statistically significant effect on CL/F, whereas the Vd/F was influenced by ethnicity. CL/F was 40% lower in females than in males and 30% lower in nonsmokers than in smokers. CL/F decreased with increasing dose and age. The Vd/F in Hispanic patients was twice that of non-Hispanic patients. Simulations showed a considerable overlap in duloxetine exposure between the identified patient subgroups. Conclusion: Given the clinically insignificant change in the magnitude of duloxetine steady-state exposure and the considerable overlap in duloxetine exposure between the patient subgroups, specific dose recommendations based on sex, smoking status, age, dose and ethnicity are not warranted.