Abstract
Racemic fluoxetine consists of R- and S-fluoxetine, which are metabolized to R- and S-norfluoxetine, respectively. This study was designed to compare brain levels achieved with R-fluoxetine to those achieved with racemic fluoxetine in healthy subjects using fluorine-19 (19-F) magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). In all, 13 healthy volunteers received study drug for 5 weeks using a dosing schedule designed to achieve steady state for 20 mg/day racemic fluoxetine, 80 mg/day R-fluoxetine, or 120 mg/day R-fluoxetine. The resulting brain drug levels were measured using 19-F MRS. At 5 weeks, the racemate, 80 and 120 mg/day R-fluoxetine groups had mean brain levels of 25.5, 34.9, and 41.4 μM, respectively. In the serum, R-norfluoxetine, which is thought to be an inactive metabolite, accounted for 17, 71, and 63% of the fluoxetine/norfluoxetine concentration, respectively. When the relative proportion of active to total species in serum are taken into account, the data suggest that doses of R-fluoxetine greater than 120 mg/day would be needed to achieve brain levels of active drug comparable to 20 mg/day of racemate. The 120 mg/day R-fluoxetine group experienced a mean increase in QTc interval of 44 ms, with one individual having an increase of 89 ms, which suggests that higher doses may not be tolerable. While these data support the use of MRS to aid in defining the therapeutic dose range for drug development, they also highlight the need for additional studies with concurrent animal models to establish the validity of using serum drug/metabolite ratios to interpret MRS determined brain drug levels.
Similar content being viewed by others
INTRODUCTION
Racemic fluoxetine is an antidepressant with well-documented efficacy (Emslie et al, 2002; Cheer and Goa, 2001), pharmacokinetics (Bergstrom et al, 1992, 1993), and therapeutic dose range (Fava et al, 2002; Schmidt et al, 2002). Despite its widespread use, fluoxetine's inhibition of the cytochrome P450 IID6 isoenzyme (CYP2D6), implicated in drug interactions with certain other medications, and its side effects (eg sexual dysfunction, apathy) have demonstrated the need for antidepressant agents with shorter elimination half-lives, fewer drug–drug interactions, and a more benign side effect profile (Vandel, 2003).
Recently, it has been recognized that component stereoisomers of medications can have markedly different pharmacodynamics and toxic side effect profiles from the racemate (Wade et al, 2002; Tonini et al, 2001). Racemic fluoxetine consists of two stereoisomers, R- and S-fluoxetine (Robertson et al, 1988), which are metabolized to R- and S-norfluoxetine, respectively (Jannuzzi et al, 2002). Both enantiomers of the parent compound are potent inhibitors of the serotonin reuptake pump, although R-fluoxetine also has modest affinity at the 5-HT2A and 5-HT2C receptors compared to S-fluoxetine (Koch et al, 2002; Owens et al, 2001). In contrast, the enantiomers of the metabolite norfluoxetine have more pronounced differences. S-norfluoxetine binds to the transporter with an affinity similar to R- and S-fluoxetine and is therefore regarded as an active metabolite (Koch et al, 2002). R-norfluoxetine has no affinity for the serotonin reuptake pump or other monoaminergic receptors and is therefore regarded as an inactive metabolite (Koch et al, 2002).
Racemic fluoxetine inhibits its own metabolism largely through the action of its metabolite norfluoxetine at the P450 IID6 isoenzyme. The two enantiomers of norfluoxetine also have important differences in their inhibition of this enzyme. S-norfluoxetine is a potent inhibitor and contributes significantly to the half-life of the racemate (Stevens and Wrighton, 1993). R-norfluoxetine appears to be much less active at the IID6 enzyme (Stevens and Wrighton, 1993), which is reflected in R-fluoxetine's half-life of 3.3 vs 6.3 days for S-fluoxetine; and in R-norfluoxetine's half-life of 9.5 vs 23.9 days for S-norfluoxetine (Eli Lilly and Company, December, 1999). In light of these differences between R-fluoxetine and the racemate, development of the R isomer as an antidepressant was begun. Owing to the differences in pharmacokinetics between the two compounds, the therapeutic dose of R-fluoxetine needed to be determined (as per the usual drug development paradigm) before pivotal efficacy trials could begin.
As the chemical structure of fluoxetine contains three chemically identical fluorine atoms and clinically efficacious doses of the racemate accumulate in the central nervous system in micromolar concentrations, brain drug levels can be measured using fluorine-19 (19-F) magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) (Bolo et al, 2000; Henry et al, 2000). Data from previous clinical trials of fluoxetine suggest that 20 mg/day is a well-tolerated, efficacious dose of racemic fluoxetine (Beasley et al, 2000; Schmidt et al, 2002). Although the activity of R-fluoxetine at the 5-HT2A and 2C receptors has been postulated to contribute to its antidepressant effects, the magnitude of that contribution cannot currently be quantified. Therefore, we conservatively hypothesized that in order to demonstrate clinical efficacy, doses of R-fluoxetine would have to produce brain levels of the parent drug comparable to those achieved with 20 mg/day of the racemate. 19-F MRS offers a noninvasive, nonradioactive technique for comparing the brain drug levels achieved by the two compounds.
In light of the differences in elimination half-life and the need to compensate for the absence of an active metabolite, we also hypothesized that significantly higher oral doses of R-fluoxetine would be required to produce brain levels comparable to those achieved with the racemate. To test this hypothesis, healthy volunteers were given either R-fluoxetine or the racemate, as described in the Methods and Materials section. The resulting brain drug levels were measured after 3 and 5 weeks on drug, and again after 1 week off-drug, using 19-F MRS methods. Lastly, since R-fluoxetine has shown some propensity towards prolongation of the QTc interval (Eli Lilly and Company, December, 1999), electrocardiograms (ECGs) were recorded at baseline and throughout the study.
The objectives of the study were (1) to describe the accumulation and initial elimination kinetics of R-fluoxetine compared to the racemate in the CNS; (2) to test the hypothesis that significantly higher oral doses of R-fluoxetine would be required to produce brain levels comparable to those achieved by 20 mg/day of the racemate; and (3) to obtain additional safety data in terms of risk of prolongation of QTc intervals for the 120 mg/day dose of R-fluoxetine. We summarize the results of these analyses in this report.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study was reviewed and approved by the McLean Hospital Institutional Review Board. In all, 15 healthy subjects were recruited via advertisement. Prior to enrollment informed consent was obtained and subjects underwent a semistructured clinical interview to confirm the absence of significant psychiatric and medical illness. A blood sample was collected at the screening visit to determine each subject's genotype for CYP2D6 metabolism and ensure that none of the enrolled subjects were poor metabolizers.
Medication Dosing
Subjects were blindly randomized to receive either (i) 80 mg/day of R-fluoxetine, (ii) 80 mg/day for 1 week followed by 4 weeks of 120 mg/day, or (iii) 60 mg/day of racemic fluoxetine for 1 week followed by 20 mg/day for 4 weeks (Figure 1). This dosing schedule for racemic fluoxetine has previously been shown to approximate steady concentrations of the 20 mg/day dose by 5 weeks (Bergstrom et al, 1993). Subjects were asked to take study drug orally each morning and come into the clinic weekly for the duration of the 6-week study. For dose 35, scheduled for the last day of the fluoxetine regimen, subjects took the medication during the visit; serum samples were obtained both before the dose was taken and 2 h after dosage.
Scanning
Subjects underwent 19-F MRS scans prior to initiating drug (baseline), after 3 weeks on drug, after 5 weeks on drug, and 1 week after drug discontinuation. The magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy methods have been described in detail elsewhere (Christensen et al, 1998, 1999). Sample 19-F MRS spectra are shown in Figure 2 for each treatment group. Spectroscopy data were acquired using a 1.5 T GE Signa Scanner (General Electric, Milwaukee, WI) and a volume head coil (US Asia Instruments, Highland Heights, OH) capable of being tuned to either the proton or fluorine resonance frequency. Quadrature detection, which increases the sensitivity of measurement compared to detection using linear coils, was employed at the 19-F frequency (Claasen-Vujcic et al, 1996). Spectra were acquired using a simple, nonlocalized pulse acquisition method (TR=1 s; number of averages ≈1200; total scan time=20 min). An external reference standard was placed beside the head to optimize data acquisition and normalize the brain signal. The signal intensity was calibrated using a 10 μM solution of racemic fluoxetine, which was scanned immediately after each subject's scan. Preliminary studies of standardized solutions demonstrated that the 19-F MRS resonance frequencies and relaxation times for R- and S-fluoxetine were nearly identical. Brain volume was estimated from structural scans obtained at one of the scanning sessions during the study for each subject. Drug concentrations were determined by dividing the total amount of drug in the brain by the calculated brain volume.
Brain Volume Measurements
Structural scans were obtained for each patient at one of the scanning sessions during the study. The volume of each subject's brain was estimated from analysis of the two-dimensional axial slices of the structural scans using Cine software (Kikinis et al, 1992) running on a Sparc2 workstation (Sun Microsystems, Mountainview, CA). The area of brain calculated from each slice was then multiplied by the slice thickness and the thickness of the skipped region between slices. The measurements for all of the slices were summed to estimate brain volume (Christensen et al, 1998).
Serum Samples
Serum drug level samples were obtained coincident with the spectroscopy scans. Blood was centrifuged using a Beckman (Beckman Coulter Inc., Fullerton, CA) tabletop centrifuge for 20 min. Serum was pipetted into freezer tubes and stored at 0°C. Samples were shipped under dry ice to CoVance Central Laboratory Services (Indianapolis, IN). Samples were analyzed for the R and S enantiomers of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry.
Electrocardiograms
ECGs were obtained at the screening visit, the day of the baseline scan (day 0), day 7, day 14, day 21, day 28, day 35, and 7 days after the last dose. To measure the diurnal variation in QTc, three ECGs, each separated by a minimum of 2 h, were obtained on day 0 and day 35. The ECG tracings were electronically transmitted to an outside reference laboratory and interpreted by a board-certified cardiologist using Bazet's correction (Biomedical Services, St Louis, MO) (Al-Khatib et al, 2003).
Statistical Analyses
We obtained brain and serum drug levels within each of the three medication treatments (R-fluoxetine, 80 mg/day; R-fluoxetine, 120 mg/day; and racemic fluoxetine, 20 mg/day), summarizing these measurements at each assessment time as mean±standard deviation (mean±s.d.) or mean with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The QTc measurements also were summarized as mean±s.d. or mean with 95% CI. Differences among the three treatments in change-from-baseline in the brain drug levels (for each stereoisomer and their respective metabolites), serum drug levels, and QTc measurements were assessed using random effects regression modeling methods, adjusting for clustering within subjects. For some of these modeling analyses, positive skewness was apparent, and these skewed drug-level or QTc measurements were logarithmically transformed prior to analysis. We estimated the slope of the QTc change over the time period week baseline (day 0) to day 35 for each subject and compared these slope estimates among the three treatment groups using ordinary linear regression (t-test) methods. We examined the interaction between treatment group and time at the weeks 3–5 time interval to determine if the QTc peak values occurring then differed significantly between the 120 mg/day subgroup and the other two (80 and 20 mg/day) subgroups considered together. Lastly, random effects regression modeling methods were used to compare the values obtained at baseline to those obtained at day 42 (1 week off study medication).
Statistical significance required two-tailed p<0.05. Analyses employed commercial microcomputer programs (Stata®, Stata Corporation, College Station, TX; and Statview-5®, SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
RESULTS
Of the 15 subjects enrolled, six male and seven female subjects completed the protocol. One subject in the 80 mg/day group was withdrawn from the study for noncompliance with the study protocol, and excluded from data analysis. Of the remaining 14 subjects, one subject who completed the protocol was excluded from the analysis when pretreatment serum and brain drug levels revealed that the subject, who randomized to the racemic fluoxetine group, was taking fluoxetine prior to entry into the study. One subject in the 120 mg/day R-fluoxetine group was withdrawn from the study after week 4 due to termination of the study by the sponsor. This subject was included in data analysis until withdrawal. The age ranges for the three groups were 23–51 (mean=34±12, n=4), 21–45 (mean=32±10, n=4), and 19–47 (mean=32±10, n=4) years for the racemate, 80 mg/day, and 120 mg/day groups, respectively.
The serum accumulation and elimination kinetics of the racemate and R-fluoxetine subgroups for both the individual stereoisomers and their respective metabolites are shown in Table 1 and Figure 3a. Unlike 19-F MRS, the serum samples obtained permitted measurement of the individual stereoisomers and their respective metabolites. At week 5, the compounds active at the reuptake pump (R- and S- fluoxetine and S-norfluoxetine) (Koch et al, 2002) accounted for 83, 29, and 37% of the serum drug/metabolite concentration for the racemate, 80 mg/day, and 120 mg/day of R-fluoxetine groups, respectively. As noted in Table 1, there were no medication group differences at baseline, but as expected, there were impressive racemate vs 80 mg/day and racemate vs 120 mg/day differences at week 5.
The brain accumulations of fluorinated compounds are shown in Table 2 and Figure 3b. At week 5, the brain concentration of fluoxetine plus fluorinated metabolites was 25.5±6.6 μM for the racemate, 34.9±13.8 μM for the 80 mg/day of R-fluoxetine group, and 41.4±12.9 μM for the 120 mg/day of R-fluoxetine group. These week 5 racemate vs 80 mg/day and racemate vs 120 mg/day contrasts, although large, were not statistically significant because of the small sample sizes involved. When corrected by the percent of inactive R-norfluoxetine in the serum (see Discussion below for rationale), the brain concentration of active compounds was 21.2 μM for the racemate (25.5 μM × 83%), 10.1 μM for the 80 mg/day group 34.9 μM × 29%), and 15.3 μM for the 120 mg/day R-fluoxetine group (41.4 μM × 37%).
After 1 week off-drug, the serum concentration of R-fluoxetine had decreased by 38% from the week 5 concentration for the racemic fluoxetine group, vs 53% for the 80 mg/day group and 48% for the 120 mg/day group. The concentration of R-fluoxetine in the brain had decreased by 52% for the racemic fluoxetine group, while the concentration decreased by 54 and 47% from the week 5 concentration for the 80 mg/day and 120 mg/day groups, respectively.
As noted in Methods and Materials, QTc interval data were obtained at each of the scanning dates (baseline, week 3, week 5, and 1 week after drug discontinuation). Table 3 and Figure 4 summarize QTc values for the three groups at each of the scanning dates. As noted in Table 3, the QTc intervals were substantially longer at weeks 3 and 5 compared to baseline, and Figure 4 suggests that most of this difference was due to elevated QTc intervals within the 120 mg/day subgroup. This interaction was statistically significant, when examined by random effects modeling methods (z=2.42, p=0.015).
We also examined the individual subject changes over time in QTc interval over the time period baseline through week 5, by estimating the slope of the QTc vs scan-week regression separately for each subject. These slope data are summarized in Table 3. The average slope within the 120 mg/day subgroup was significantly higher than the mean slope within the racemic fluoxetine group (z=3.36, p=0.001), and also higher than the mean slope within the 80 mg/day subgroup, although the latter difference did not reach statistical significance (z=0.96, p=0.340).
We also examined the elevated QTc interval value for the 120 mg/day subgroup at week 5, to see if this elevation differed significantly from the remaining QTc interval measurements among all three treatment groups. This interaction effect was found to be statistically significant (z=2.51 p=0.012).
Lastly, all three medication groups showed statistically comparable values at 1 week off-drug compared with their baseline values (z=1.03, p=0.300), even the 120 mg/day R-fluoxetine group when examined independent of the other two groups (z=1.36, p=0.170).
DISCUSSION
The differences in serum and brain pharmacokinetics between R-fluoxetine and racemic fluoxetine found in this study were consistent with previously described differences in metabolism of the enantiomers (Stevens and Wrighton, 1993). It is of note that the concentrations achieved in the brain of both racemic fluoxetine (25.5 μM) and 80 and 120 mg/day of R-fluoxetine (34.9 and 41.4 μM, respectively (parent drug plus metabolites)) were approximately 20 times those of the parent compound and metabolites in the serum (0.94, 1.10, and 2.02 μM, respectively) for both compounds. This is consistent with earlier studies of racemic fluoxetine, and most likely reflects the fact that the drugs are relatively lipophilic and also accumulate in vesicles on the basis of pH gradients (Bolo et al, 2000; Strauss et al, 2002). It also highlights the fact that these compounds have a large volume of distribution and their pharmacokinetics are dependent on equilibration across multiple compartments.
The MRS signal observed is also dependent on the kinetics of the fluorinated metabolites that are able to enter and accumulate in the brain (Bolo et al, 2000). The primary metabolites of concern are R- and S-norfluoxetine. As described above, R-norfluoxetine is thought to be inactive at both the reuptake pump and the IID6 isoenzyme, while S-norfluoxetine is active at the reuptake pump and is a more potent inhibitor of the IID6 isoenzyme than its parent compound (Koch et al, 2002). Therefore, knowing the relative contribution of each of these chemical species to the MRS signal would permit a determination of the amount of active drug in the brain.
Direct sampling of brain tissue is not a practical method for determining the relative amount of each chemical species present and the animal data addressing this issue are limited. Wikell and colleagues (1999), however, have measured the concentrations of the S and R enantiomers of citalopram and their metabolite demethylcitalopram in the serum and cortex of rats at steady state. In the serum, the ratio of S- to R-citalopram was 0.94 vs 1.00 for the brain. Similarly, the ratio of S- to R-demethylcitalopram was 0.36 for serum vs 0.28 for cortex. Thus, at least in this model of citalopram pharmacokinetics, the ratio of the stereoisomers in the brain mirrors their relative concentrations in the serum. If fluoxetine and norfluoxetine likewise have brain ratios for the R- and S- enantiomers that are similar to those in the serum, then based on the relative amount of inactive R-norfluoxetine in the serum of the subjects at week 5 (73% for 120 mg/day vs 17% for the racemate). these data suggest that R-fluoxetine will need to be dosed above 120 mg/day (15.3 μM active species in the brain) to have antidepressant efficacy that is comparable to 20 mg/day of the racemate (21.2 μM active species in the brain). It should be noted that these estimates assume that R-norfluoxetine has negligible antidepressant effects at sites other than the serotonin reuptake pump.
While the 19-F MRS data suggest that doses higher than 120 mg/day may be needed, the adverse event (QTc) profile suggests that higher doses may not be tolerated. In the 120 mg/day R-fluoxetine group, there was a statistically significant increase in mean QTc observed at week 5. As a group, the subjects receiving 120 mg/day of R-fluoxetine had a mean increase in QTc of 44 ms between days 0 and 35 on drug. In the most extreme case, one individual had an increase of 89 ms, which exceeds the 60 ms threshold thought to significantly increase risk of Torsades de Pointes syndrome (Noel et al, 2003). In light of these findings, it is possible that doses of R-fluoxetine above 120 mg/day would cause unacceptable prolongation of the QTc interval in vulnerable individuals (Curtis et al, 2003; McConathy and Owens, 2003).
The main limitation of this study is that it provides little information about the concentration of active drug, receptor occupancy, or the degree to which the drug is trapped in vesicles or otherwise bound. The small sample size, which is usually a limitation of such studies, highlights the potential of this method. In this study, despite a small number of subjects, we were able to demonstrate central nervous system accumulation of fluoxetine and its metabolites, with a weighting towards an inactive metabolite in the serum, and a concerning adverse event profile. While these data support the use of MRS to aid in defining the therapeutic dose range for drug development, they also highlight the need for additional studies using concurrent animal models to establish the validity of using serum drug/metabolite ratios to interpret brain drug levels. This type of information, when obtained early in the clinical discovery process, can significantly reduce the number of trials needed to define the therapeutic dose range and contribute to more efficient utilization of resources in early drug discovery.
References
Al-Khatib SM, LaPointe NM, Kramer JM, Califf RM (2003). What clinicians should know about the QT interval. J Am Med Assoc 289: 2120–2127.
Beasley Jr CM, Nilsson ME, Koke SC, Gonzales JS (2000). Efficacy, adverse events, and treatment discontinuations in fluoxetine clinical studies of major depression: a meta-analysis of the 20-mg/day dose. J Clin Psychiatry 61: 722–728.
Bergstrom RF, Beasley Jr CM, Levy NB, Blumenfield M, Lemberger L (1993). The effects of renal and hepatic disease on the pharmacokinetics, renal tolerance, and risk-benefit profile of fluoxetine. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 8: 261–266.
Bergstrom RF, Peyton AL, Lemberger L (1992). Quantification and mechanism of the fluoxetine and tricyclic antidepressant interaction. Clin Pharmacol Ther 51: 239–248.
Bolo NR, Hode Y, Nedelec JF, Laine E, Wagner G, Macher JP (2000). Brain pharmacokinetics and tissue distribution in vivo of fluvoxamine and fluoxetine by fluorine magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Neuropsychopharmacology 23: 428–438.
Cheer SM, Goa KL (2001). Fluoxetine: a review of its therapeutic potential in the treatment of depression associated with physical illness. Drugs 61: 81–110.
Christensen JD, Babb SM, Cohen BM, Renshaw PF (1998). Quantitation of dexfenfluramine/d-norfenfluramine concentration in primate brain using 19F NMR spectroscopy. Magn Reson Med 39: 149–154.
Christensen JD, Yurgelun-Todd DA, Babb SM, Gruber SA, Cohen BM, Renshaw PF (1999). Measurement of human brain dexfenfluramine concentration by 19F magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Brain Res 834: 1–5.
Claasen-Vujcic T, Borsboom HM, Gaykema HJ, Mehlkopf T (1996). Transverse low field RF coils in MRI. Magn Reson Med 36: 111–126.
Curtis LH, Ostbye T, Sendersky V, Hutchison S, Allen LaPointe NM, Al-Khatib SM et al (2003). Prescription of QT-prolonging drugs in a cohort of about 5 million outpatients. Am J Med 114: 135–141.
Eli Lilly and Company (December, 1999). Investigators Brochure, data on file.
Emslie GJ, Heiligenstein JH, Wagner KD, Hoog SL, Ernest DE, Brown E et al (2002). Fluoxetine for acute treatment of depression in children and adolescents: a placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial. J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry 41: 1205–1215.
Fava M, Alpert J, Nierenberg A, Lagomasino I, Sonawalla S, Tedlow J et al (2002). Double-blind study of high-dose fluoxetine versus lithium or desipramine augmentation of fluoxetine in partial responders and nonresponders to fluoxetine. J Clin Psychopharmacol 22: 379–387.
Henry ME, Moore CM, Kaufman MJ, Michelson D, Schmidt ME, Stoddard E et al (2000). Brain kinetics of paroxetine and fluoxetine on the third day of placebo substitution: a fluorine MRS study. Am J Psychiatry 157: 1506–1508.
Jannuzzi G, Gatti G, Magni P, Spina E, Pacifici R, Zuccaro P et al (2002). Plasma concentrations of the enantiomers of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine: sources of variability and preliminary observations on relations with clinical response. Ther Drug Monit 24: 616–627.
Kikinis R, Shenton ME, Gerig G, Martin J, Anderson M, Metcalf D et al (1992). Routine quantitative analysis of brain and cerebrospinal fluid spaces with MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2: 619–629.
Koch S, Perry KW, Nelson DL, Conway RG, Threlkeld PG, Bymaster FP (2002). R-fluoxetine increases extracellular DA, NE, as well as 5-HT in rat prefrontal cortex and hypothalamus: an in vivo microdialysis and receptor binding study. Neuropsychopharmacology 27: 949–959.
McConathy J, Owens MJ (2003). Stereochemistry in drug action. Primary Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry 5: 70–73.
Noel GJ, Natarajan J, Chien S, Hunt TL, Goodman DB, Abels R (2003). Effects of three fluoroquinolones on QT interval in healthy adults after single doses. Clin Pharmacol Ther 3: 292–303.
Owens MJ, Knight DL, Nemeroff CB (2001). Second-generation SSRIs: human monoamine transporter binding profile of escitalopram and R-fluoxetine. Biol Psychiatry 50: 345–350.
Robertson DW, Krushinski JH, Fuller RW, Leander JD (1988). Absolute configurations and pharmacological activities of the optical isomers of fluoxetine, a selective serotonin-uptake inhibitor. J Med Chem 31: 1412–1417.
Schmidt ME, Fava M, Zhang S, Gonzales J, Raute NJ, Judge R (2002). Treatment approaches to major depressive disorder relapse. Part 1: dose increase. Psychother Psychosom 71: 190–194.
Stevens JC, Wrighton SA (1993). Interaction of the enantiomers of fluoxetine and norfluoxetine with human liver cytochromes P450. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 266: 964–971.
Strauss WL, Unis AS, Cowan C, Dawson G, Dager SR (2002). Fluorine magnetic resonance spectroscopy measurement of brain fluvoxamine and fluoxetine in pediatric patients treated for pervasive developmental disorders. Am J Psychiatry 159: 755–760.
Tonini M, Vigneri S, Savarino V, Scarpignato C (2001). Clinical pharmacology and safety profile of esomeprazole, the first enantiomerically pure proton pump inhibitor. Dig Liver Dis 33: 600–606.
Vandel P (2003). Antidepressant drugs in the elderly—role of the cytochrome P450 2D6. World J Biol Psychiatry 4: 74–80.
Wade A, Michael Lemming O, Bang Hedegaard K (2002). Escitalopram 10 mg/day is effective and well tolerated in a placebo-controlled study in depression in primary care. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 17: 95–102.
Wikell C, Apelqvist G, Carlsson B, Hjorth S, Bergqvist PB, Kugelberg FC et al (1999). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to chronic administration of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor citalopram in rats. Clin Neuropharmacol 22: 327–336.
Acknowledgements
This paper was presented in part at the 2001 ACNP meeting in Waikoloa, HI December 9–13. The contributions of Anne Smith and Eileen Connolly with scanning for this study are greatly appreciated. The contributions of Jill Cote in recruiting and monitoring subjects and Sarah Dolgonos for administrative support is also greatly appreciated. This study was supported by Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Henry, M., Schmidt, M., Hennen, J. et al. A Comparison of Brain and Serum Pharmacokinetics of R-Fluoxetine and Racemic Fluoxetine: A 19-F MRS Study. Neuropsychopharmacol 30, 1576–1583 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300749
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.npp.1300749