Clinically Relevant Interactions between Newer Antidepressants and Second-Generation Antipsychotics

INTRODUCTION: Combinations of newer antidepressants and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) are frequently used by clinicians. Pharmacokinetic drug interaction (PK DI) and poorly understood pharmacodynamic (PD) drug interaction (PD DI) can occur between them. AREAS COVERED: This paper comprehensively reviews PD DI and PK DI studies. EXPERT OPINION: More PK DI studies are needed to better establish dose correction factors after adding fluoxetine and paroxetine to aripiprazole, iloperidone and risperidone. Further PK DI studies and case reports are also needed to better establish the need for dose correction factors after adding i) fluoxetine to clozapine, lurasidone, quetiapine and olanzapine; ii) paroxetine to olanzapine; iii) fluvoxamine to asenapine, aripiprazole, iloperidone, lurasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine and risperidone; iv) high sertraline doses to aripiprazole, clozapine, iloperidone and risperidone: v) bupropion and duloxetine to aripiprazole, clozapine, iloperidone and risperidone; and vi) asenapine to paroxetine and venlafaxine. Possible beneficial PD DI effects occur after adding SGAs to newer antidepressants for treatment-resistant major depressive and obsessive-compulsive disorders. The lack of studies combining newer antidepressants and SGAs in psychotic depression is worrisome. PD DIs between newer antidepressants and SGAs may be more likely for mirtazapine and bupropion. Adding selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and SGAs may increase QTc interval and may very rarely contribute to torsades de pointes

Lack of chart reminder effectiveness on family medicine resident JNC-VI and NCEP III guideline knowledge and attitudes

BACKGROUND: The literature demonstrates that medical residents and practicing physicians have an attitudinal-behavioral discordance concerning their positive attitudes towards clinical practice guidelines (CPG), and the implementation of these guidelines into clinical practice patterns. METHODS: A pilot study was performed to determine if change in a previously identified CPG compliance factor (accessibility) would produce a significant increase in family medicine resident knowledge and attitude toward the guidelines. The primary study intervention involved placing a summary of the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI) and the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (NCEP III) CPGs in all patient (>18 yr.) charts for a period of three months. The JNC VI and NCEP III CPGs were also distributed to each Wayne State family medicine resident, and a copy of each CPG was placed in the preceptor's area of the involved clinics. Identical pre- and post- intervention questionnaires were administered to all residents concerning CPG knowledge and attitude. RESULTS: Post-intervention analysis failed to demonstrate a significant difference in CPG knowledge. A stastically significant post-intervention difference was found in only on attitude question. The barriers to CPG compliance were identified as 1) lack of CPG instruction; 2) lack of critical appraisal ability; 3) insufficient time; 4) lack of CPG accessibility; and 5) lack of faculty modeling. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no significant post intervention changes in CPG knowledge, and only one question that reflected attitude change. Wider resident access to dedicated clinic time, increased faculty modeling, and the implementation of an electronic record/reminder system that uses a team-based approach are compliance factors that should be considered for further investigation. The interpretation of CPG non-compliance will benefit from a causal matrix focused on physician knowledge, attitudes, and behavior. Recent findings in resident knowledge-behavior discordance may direct the future investigation of physician CPG non-compliance away from generalized barrier research, and toward the development of information that maximizes the sense of individual practitioner urgency and certainty

Diagnosis of invasive candidiasis in the ICU

Invasive candidiasis ranges from 5 to 10 cases per 1,000 ICU admissions and represents 5% to 10% of all ICU-acquired infections, with an overall mortality comparable to that of severe sepsis/septic shock. A large majority of them are due to Candida albicans, but the proportion of strains with decreased sensitivity or resistance to fluconazole is increasingly reported. A high proportion of ICU patients become colonized, but only 5% to 30% of them develop an invasive infection. Progressive colonization and major abdominal surgery are common risk factors, but invasive candidiasis is difficult to predict and early diagnosis remains a major challenge. Indeed, blood cultures are positive in a minority of cases and often late in the course of infection. New nonculture-based laboratory techniques may contribute to early diagnosis and management of invasive candidiasis. Both serologic (mannan, antimannan, and betaglucan) and molecular (Candida-specific PCR in blood and serum) have been applied as serial screening procedures in high-risk patients. However, although reasonably sensitive and specific, these techniques are largely investigational and their clinical usefulness remains to be established. Identification of patients susceptible to benefit from empirical antifungal treatment remains challenging, but it is mandatory to avoid antifungal overuse in critically ill patients. Growing evidence suggests that monitoring the dynamic of Candida colonization in surgical patients and prediction rules based on combined risk factors may be used to identify ICU patients at high risk of invasive candidiasis susceptible to benefit from prophylaxis or preemptive antifungal treatment

Comparative Evaluation of RUT, PCR and ELISA Tests for Detection of Infection with Cytotoxigenic H. pylori

Purpose: Helicobacter pylori is one of the most prevalent infectious agents in the world which causes a variety of gastrointestinal diseases including gastritis, peptic ulcer and gastric carcinoma. The objective of this study was to comparatively evaluate invasive (rapid urease test and polymerase chain reaction) and non-invasive (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) tests in diagnosis of infection with cytotoxigenic H. pylori. Methods: Biopsy specimens and sera were collected from 105 patients with gastric disorders. The presence of H. pylori infection in gastric biopsies was evaluated by RUT and PCR methods using chemotaxis signal transduction protein gene (CSTP), Urea C and HP-16srRNA primers. Serum samples were used for the ELISA test. Detection of infection with cag A-positive strains was performed by PCR and cag A-IgG ELISA kit. Results: Patients with at least two out of three positive results were regarded as infected. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive value and accuracy of the three different methods were evaluated. Of the 105 gastric biopsies, H. pylori were positive in 51 patients (48.57%). The best sensitivity (92.16%) belonged to RUT. The sensitivities of other tests including PCR and ELISA test were 88.24% and 90.20%, respectively. PCR showed the best specificity (94.44%), and the specificities of the other tests including RUT and ELISA test, were 90.74 % and 61.11%, respectively. Furthermore, results of PCR and cag A-IgG ELISA showed high prevalence of cag A-positive strain in the study population. Conclusion: Based on our findings, serum ELISA is a rapid noninvasive test for screening of H. pylori infection in the absence of endoscopy indication. In addition, considering the high prevalence of cytotoxigenic H. pylori strains, cag A is suggested as a promising target for PCR and non- invasive ELISA tests for detection of infection with toxigenic strains