Explore the vast range of titles available.

Bacteria in the gut can modulate the availability and efficacy of therapeutic drugs. However, the systematic mapping of the interactions between drugs and bacteria has only started recently 1 and the main underlying mechanism proposed is the chemical transformation of drugs by microorganisms (biotransformation). Here we investigated the depletion of 15 structurally diverse drugs by 25 representative strains of gut bacteria. This revealed 70 bacteria–drug interactions, 29 of which had not to our knowledge been reported before. Over half of the new interactions can be ascribed to bioaccumulation; that is, bacteria storing the drug intracellularly without chemically modifying it, and in most cases without the growth of the bacteria being affected. As a case in point, we studied the molecular basis of bioaccumulation of the widely used antidepressant duloxetine by using click chemistry, thermal proteome profiling and metabolomics. We find that duloxetine binds to several metabolic enzymes and changes the metabolite secretion of the respective bacteria. When tested in a defined microbial community of accumulators and non-accumulators, duloxetine markedly altered the composition of the community through metabolic cross-feeding. We further validated our findings in an animal model, showing that bioaccumulating bacteria attenuate the behavioural response of Caenorhabditis elegans to duloxetine. Together, our results show that bioaccumulation by gut bacteria may be a common mechanism that alters drug availability and bacterial metabolism, with implications for microbiota composition, pharmacokinetics, side effects and drug responses, probably in an individual manner. An analysis of the interactions between 15 drugs and 25 gut bacterial strains shows that bioaccumulation of drugs within bacterial cells is another mechanism through which gut microorganisms can alter drug availability and efficacy.

Duloxetine (DLX) is dual serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor suffering from limited bioavailability (≈ 40%) due to extensive hepatic metabolism. This work aims to formulate and evaluate DLX intranasal thermoreversible cubosomal gels to enhance its bioavailability and ensure efficient brain targeting. Cubo-gels were prepared by 3 central composite design with three independent factors, lipid ratio (glycerol monooleate: glycerol tripalmitate), Pluronic F127%, and Pluronic F68%. The prepared formulations were evaluated for their particle size (PS), gelling temperature (GT), entrapment efficiency (EE%), and in vitro release. The cubo-gel with the highest desirability (0.88) was chosen as the optimized formulation. DLX cubo-gel was evaluated using differential scanning calorimetry, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, X-ray powder diffraction, and transmission electron microscopy. Cytotoxicity study, ex vivo permeation study and in vivo bio-distribution study were conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of brain targeting. The optimum cubo-gel was composed of 3.76 lipid ratio, 20% w/v PF127, and 5% w/v PF68. It had PS of 265.13 ± 9.85 nm, GT of 32 ± 0.05°C, EE% of 98.13 ± 0.50%, and showed controlled release behavior where 33% DLX was released within 6 hrs. The plain in situ cubo-gel had a significantly higher IC compared to DLX solution and DLX-loaded in situ cubo-gel. The ex vivo permeation study showed 1.27 enhancement in the drug permeation from DLX in situ cubo-gel. According to the in vivo bio-distribution study in plasma and brain, the intranasal DLX in situ cubo-gel showed a 1.96 fold improvement in brain bioavailability compared to the intranasal solution. Its BTE% and DTP% were 137.77 and 10.5, respectively, indicating efficient brain targeting after intranasal administration. Accordingly, intranasal DLX in situ cubo-gel can be considered as an innovative nano-carrier delivery system for bioavailability enhancement and efficient brain targeting of DLX to maximize its effect.

Background: Serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) are widely used in medical practice. Their discontinuation has been associated with a wide range of symptoms. The aim of this paper is to identify the occurrence, frequency, and features of withdrawal symptoms after SNRI discontinuation. Methods: PRISMA guidelines were followed to conduct a systematic review. Electronic databases included PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MEDLINE from the inception of each database to June 2017. Titles, abstracts, and topics were searched using a combination of the following terms: “duloxetine” OR “venlafaxine” OR “desvenlafaxine” OR “milnacipran” OR “levomilnacipran” OR “SNRI” OR “second generation antidepressant” OR “serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor” AND “discontinuation” OR “withdrawal” OR “rebound.” Only published trials in the English language were included. Results: Sixty-one reports met the criteria for inclusion. There were 22 double-blind randomized controlled trials, 6 studies where patients were treated in an open fashion and then randomized to a double-blind controlled phase, 8 open trials, 1 prospective naturalistic study, 1 retrospective study, and 23 case reports. Withdrawal symptoms occurred after discontinuation of any type of SNRI. The prevalence of withdrawal symptoms varied across reports and appeared to be higher with venlafaxine. Symptoms typically ensued within a few days from discontinuation and lasted a few weeks, also with gradual tapering. Late onset and/or a longer persistence of disturbances occurred as well. Conclusions: Clinicians need to add SNRI to the list of drugs potentially inducing withdrawal symptoms upon discontinuation, together with other types of psychotropic drugs. The results of this study challenge the use of SNRI as first-line treatment for mood and anxiety disorders.

Major depressive disorder is one of the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents. However, whether to use pharmacological interventions in this population and which drug should be preferred are still matters of controversy. Consequently, we aimed to compare and rank antidepressants and placebo for major depressive disorder in young people. We did a network meta-analysis to identify both direct and indirect evidence from relevant trials. We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LiLACS, regulatory agencies' websites, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind randomised controlled trials up to May 31, 2015, for the acute treatment of major depressive disorder in children and adolescents. We included trials of amitriptyline, citalopram, clomipramine, desipramine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, imipramine, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of less than ten patients were excluded. We extracted the relevant information from the published reports with a predefined data extraction sheet, and assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and tolerability (discontinuations due to adverse events). We did pair-wise meta-analyses using the random-effects model and then did a random-effects network meta-analysis within a Bayesian framework. We assessed the quality of evidence contributing to each network estimate using the GRADE framework. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015016023. We deemed 34 trials eligible, including 5260 participants and 14 antidepressant treatments. The quality of evidence was rated as very low in most comparisons. For efficacy, only fluoxetine was statistically significantly more effective than placebo (standardised mean difference −0·51, 95% credible interval [CrI] −0·99 to −0·03). In terms of tolerability, fluoxetine was also better than duloxetine (odds ratio [OR] 0·31, 95% CrI 0·13 to 0·95) and imipramine (0·23, 0·04 to 0·78). Patients given imipramine, venlafaxine, and duloxetine had more discontinuations due to adverse events than did those given placebo (5·49, 1·96 to 20·86; 3·19, 1·01 to 18·70; and 2·80, 1·20 to 9·42, respectively). In terms of heterogeneity, the global I2 values were 33·21% for efficacy and 0% for tolerability. When considering the risk–benefit profile of antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depressive disorder, these drugs do not seem to offer a clear advantage for children and adolescents. Fluoxetine is probably the best option to consider when a pharmacological treatment is indicated. National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program).

ObjectiveOne of the complications of chemotherapy is peripheral neuropathy. Various studies have shown that potent norepinephrine and serotonin reuptake inhibitors such as gabapentin, venlafaxine and duloxetine have therapeutic effects on neuropathy. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of venlafaxine vs. duloxetine on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.MethodsIn this clinical trial, cancer patients who were suffering from chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy comprised the study population. They were randomly assigned to three pharmacotherapy groups including venlafaxine, duloxetine and placebo. Cranial, sensory, motor neuropathies as well as neuropathic pain were evaluated on day 1, week 2, and week 4 after enrollment.ResultsGrade of cranial, motor, sensory and neuropathic pain decreased significantly in venlafaxine and duloxetine groups. This reduction was more considerable in duloxetine group compared to venlafaxine group (P < 0.05).ConclusionDuloxetine seems to be more effective than venlafaxine in decreasing the symptoms of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Duloxetine was more effective than venlafaxine in decreasing motor neuropathy and neuropathic pain grade.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the risk of adverse maternal and infant outcomes following in utero exposure to duloxetine.DesignCohort study nested in the Medicaid Analytic eXtract for 2004-13.SettingPublicly insured pregnancies in the United States.ParticipantsPregnant women 18 to 55 years of age and their liveborn infants.InterventionsDuloxetine exposure during the etiologically relevant time window, compared with no exposure to duloxetine, exposure to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, exposure to venlafaxine, and exposure to duloxetine before but not during pregnancy.Main outcome measuresCongenital malformations overall, cardiac malformations, preterm birth, small for gestational age infant, pre-eclampsia, and postpartum hemorrhage.ResultsCohort sizes ranged from 1.3 to 4.1 million, depending on the outcome. The number of women exposed to duloxetine varied by cohort and exposure contrast and was around 2500-3000 for early pregnancy exposure and 900-950 for late pregnancy exposure. The base risk per 1000 unexposed women was 36.6 (95% confidence interval 36.3 to 36.9) for congenital malformations overall, 13.7 (13.5 to 13.9) for cardiovascular malformations, 107.8 (107.3 to 108.3) for preterm birth, 20.4 (20.1 to 20.6) for small for gestational age infant, 33.6 (33.3 to 33.9) for pre-eclampsia, and 23.3 (23.1 to 23.4) for postpartum hemorrhage. After adjustment for measured potential confounding variables, all baseline characteristics were well balanced for all exposure contrasts. In propensity score adjusted analyses versus unexposed pregnancies, the relative risk was 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.33) for congenital malformations overall and 1.29 (0.99 to 1.68) for cardiovascular malformations. For preterm birth, the relative risk was 1.01 (0.92 to 1.10) for early exposure and 1.19 (1.04 to 1.37) for late exposure. For small for gestational age infants the relative risks were 1.14 (0.92 to 1.41) and 1.20 (0.83 to 1.72) for early and late pregnancy exposure, respectively, and for pre-eclampsia they were 1.12 (0.96 to 1.31) and 1.04 (0.80 to 1.35). The relative risk for postpartum hemorrhage was 1.53 (1.08 to 2.18). Results from sensitivity analyses were generally consistent with the findings from the main analyses.ConclusionsOn the basis of the evidence available to date, duloxetine is unlikely to be a major teratogen but may be associated with an increased risk of postpartum hemorrhage and a small increased risk of cardiac malformations. While continuing to monitor the safety of duloxetine as data accumulate over time, these potential small increases in risk of relatively uncommon outcomes must be weighed against the benefits of treating depression and pain during pregnancy in a given patient.Trial registrationEUPAS 15946.

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is one of the most prevalent chronic complications of diabetes. The lifetime prevalence of DPN is thought to be >50%, and 15%–25% of patients with diabetes experience neuropathic pain, referred to as “painful DPN.” Appropriate treatment of painful DPN is important because this pain contributes to a poor quality of life by causing sleep disturbance, anxiety, and depression. The basic principle for the management of painful DPN is to control hyperglycemia and other modifiable risk factors, but these may be insufficient for preventing or improving DPN. Because there is no promising diseasemodifying medication for DPN, the pain itself needs to be managed when treating painful DPN. Drugs for neuropathic pain, such as gabapentinoids, serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, alpha-lipoic acid, sodium channel blockers, and topical capsaicin, are used for the management of painful DPN. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved pregabalin, duloxetine, tapentadol, and the 8% capsaicin patch as drugs for the treatment of painful DPN. Recently, spinal cord stimulation using electrical stimulation is approved by the FDA for the treatment for painful DPN. This review describes the currently available pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for painful DPN.

Residual pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) often causes patient dissatisfaction. Patients with preoperative central sensitization (CS) are especially susceptible to chronic pain after TKA. Although duloxetine and pregabalin are known to relieve pain in CS patients, there is limited evidence on the precise effectiveness and safety of increasing the dosage or combining these medications. To address this gap, we designed a randomized, triple-blind clinical trial to assess the efficacy and safety of increasing the maximum dosage or combining these drugs for patients who do not respond to standard doses. Patients scheduled to undergo primary unilateral TKA will be screened for CS using the central sensitization inventory (CSI). CS patients will then be randomly assigned to Groups 1-5, while non-CS patients will be assigned to Group 6. All groups will receive multimodal analgesia. Groups 1 and 6 will receive a placebo. During the initial 6-week period, Groups 2 and 3 will take 60 mg/day of duloxetine, while Groups 4 and 5 will take 300 mg/day of pregabalin. Subsequently, non-responders will enter a 6-week period of high-dose/combination therapy. Group 2 will receive 120 mg/day of duloxetine, Group 3 and 4 will receive a combination of 60 mg/day of duloxetine and 300 mg/day of pregabalin, and Group 5 will receive 600 mg/day of pregabalin. The primary outcome will be to compare residual pain intensity at 6 months between the high-dose monotherapy groups (Groups 2, 5 pooled) and the combination therapy groups (Groups 3, 4 pooled), which will be measured using the brief pain inventory (BPI) 24-hour average pain change. Secondary outcomes will assess pain and functionality. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of increasing medication to the highest dose or combining two medications in patients with CS who have not responded well to standard doses of duloxetine or pregabalin after TKA. The goal is to provide clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for choosing an appropriate pain management strategy for these patients. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2400081990. Registered on 18 March 2024.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a dose-limiting adverse reaction in cancer patients treated with several cytotoxic anticancer agents including paclitaxel. Duloxetine, an antidepressant known as a serotonin-noradrenalin reuptake inhibitor, is the only agent that has moderate evidence for the use to treat painful CIPN. The present retrospective cohort study aimed to analyze risk factors for paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN), and investigate ongoing prescription drug use for PIPN in Japan. Female breast and gynecologic cancer patients who underwent paclitaxel-based chemotherapy at a single center in Japan between January 2016 and December 2019 were enrolled in this study. Patients’ information obtained from electronic medical records were statistically analyzed to test possible risk factors on PIPN diagnosis. Patients’ age, total paclitaxel dose, the history of female hormone-related diseases, hypertension and body mass index (BMI), but not additional platinum agents, were significantly associated with increased PIPN diagnosis. Drugs prescribed for PIPN included duloxetine, pregabalin, mecobalamin and Goshajinkigan, a polyherbal medicine, regardless of poor evidence for their effectiveness against CIPN, and were greatly different between breast and gynecologic cancer patients diagnosed with PIPN at the departments of Surgery and Gynecology, respectively. Thus, older age, greater total paclitaxel dose, the history of estrogen-related diseases, hypertension and BMI are considered risk factors for PIPN in paclitaxel-based chemotherapy of female cancer patients. It appears an urgent need to establish a guideline of evidence-based pharmacotherapy for PIPN.

Purpose Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is one of the major side effects and main reasons for affecting quality of life and dose reduction or even discontinuation of treatment in breast cancer patients. One of the most widely prescribed chemotherapies is the “taxanes.” Considering that duloxetine has been used in treating neuropathies in recent years, this study aimed to investigate its effectiveness in preventing taxane-related neuropathy. Material and methods This is a randomized controlled trial on 47 patients: 24 received a placebo and 23 received duloxetine at 30 mg daily in the first week following the injection of paclitaxel and 60 mg during the second week in each chemotherapy cycle. Patients objective (nerve conduction velocity (NCV) values) and subjective symptoms (visual analog scale including; neuropathy, paresthesia, pain, cold sensitivity, and numbness), the grades of the patients’ neuropathy (calculated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v.5), and the presence of complications, before and after each chemotherapy cycle, were recorded. Results The placebo group experienced significantly higher occurrences of new neuropathy (8/23 in duloxetine vs 16/24 in placebo, P  = 0.029) in NCV by tibial nerve latency (− 0.28% vs 19.87%, P  = 0.006), tibial amplitude (4.40% vs − 10.88%, P  = 0.049), and median nerve latency (8.72% vs 31.16%, P  = 0.039); administration of duloxetine significantly reduced the scores of neuropathies ( P  < 0.001), pain ( P  = 0.027), during chemotherapy, and 6 weeks later; however, no significant effect was observed on paresthesia, numbness, cold sensitivity, and other NCV measurements. Conclusions Paclitaxel can cause neuropathy, lasting for a long time. Our study showed duloxetine is potentially an effective medication that can prevent subjective and objective neuropathy.