Duloxetine Inhibits Effects of MDMA (“Ecstasy") In Vitro and in Humans in a Randomized Placebo-Controlled Laboratory Study

This study assessed the effects of the serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) transporter inhibitor duloxetine on the effects of 3,4–methylenedioxy­methamphetamine (MDMA, ecstasy) in vitro and in 16 healthy subjects. The clinical study used a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, four-session, crossover design. In vitro, duloxetine blocked the release of both 5-HT and NE by MDMA or by its metabolite 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine from transmitter-loaded human cells expressing the 5-HT or NE transporter. In humans, duloxetine inhibited the effects of MDMA including elevations in circulating NE, increases in blood pressure and heart rate, and the subjective drug effects. Duloxetine inhibited the pharmacodynamic response to MDMA despite an increase in duloxetine-associated elevations in plasma MDMA levels. The findings confirm the important role of MDMA-induced 5-HT and NE release in the psychotropic effects of MDMA. Duloxetine may be useful in the treatment of psychostimulant dependence

The Effects of Cognitive Therapy versus ‘No Intervention’ for Major Depressive Disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used The Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'no intervention' for major depressive disorder. Participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder to be eligible. Altogether, we included 12 trials randomizing a total of 669 participants. All 12 trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (four trials; mean difference -3.05 (95% confidence interval (Cl), -5.23 to -0.87; P<0.006)) compared with 'no intervention'. Trial sequential analysis could not confirm this result. Meta-analysis on the Beck Depression Inventory showed that cognitive therapy significantly reduced depressive symptoms (eight trials; mean difference on -4.86 (95% CI -6.44 to -3.28; P = 0.00001)). Trial sequential analysis on these data confirmed the result. Only a few trials reported on 'no remission', suicide inclination, suicide attempts, suicides, and adverse events without significant differences between the compared intervention groups. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might be an effective treatment for depression measured on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Beck Depression Inventory, but these outcomes may be overestimated due to risks of systematic errors (bias) and random errors (play of chance). Furthermore, the effects of cognitive therapy on no remission, suicidality, adverse events, and quality of life are unclear. There is a need for randomized trials with low risk of bias, low risk of random errors, and longer follow-up assessing both benefits and harms with clinically relevant outcome measures

The effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Cognitive therapy may be an effective treatment option for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane systematic review methodology, with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomized trials, are comparing the effects of cognitive therapy versus 'treatment as usual' for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included eight trials randomizing a total of 719 participants. All eight trials had high risk of bias. Four trials reported data on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and four trials reported data on the Beck Depression Inventory. Meta-analysis on the data from the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression showed that cognitive therapy compared with 'treatment as usual' significantly reduced depressive symptoms (mean difference -2.15 (95% confidence interval -3.70 to -0.60; P<0.007, no heterogeneity)). However, meta-analysis with both fixed-effect and random-effects model on the data from the Beck Depression Inventory (mean difference with both models -1.57 (95% CL -4.30 to 1.16; P = 0.26, I(2) = 0) could not confirm the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression results. Furthermore, trial sequential analysis on both the data from Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Becks Depression Inventory showed that insufficient data have been obtained. DISCUSSION: Cognitive therapy might not be an effective treatment for major depressive disorder compared with 'treatment as usual'. The possible treatment effect measured on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression is relatively small. More randomized trials with low risk of bias, increased sample sizes, and broader more clinically relevant outcomes are needed

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What has been Investigated and What is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications to: 1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and 2) twenty-four alternative products: cytisine (novel outside of central and eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John’s wort), silver acetate, nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOI), opioid antagonist, nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors (NMDA), dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors, and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six criteria are used: relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients), and relative ease of use (ESCUSE). Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials, however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety and being of low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered

The Effect of Interpersonal Psychotherapy and other Psychodynamic Therapies versus ‘Treatment as Usual’ in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Major depressive disorder afflicts an estimated 17% of individuals during their lifetimes at tremendous suffering and costs. Interpersonal psychotherapy and other psychodynamic therapies may be effective interventions for major depressive disorder, but the effects have only had limited assessment in systematic reviews.Cochrane systematic review methodology with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials comparing the effect of psychodynamic therapies versus ‘treatment as usual’ for major depressive disorder. To be included the participants had to be older than 17 years with a primary diagnosis of major depressive disorder. Altogether, we included six trials randomizing a total of 648 participants. Five trials assessed ‘interpersonal psychotherapy’ and only one trial assessed ‘psychodynamic psychotherapy’. All six trials had high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on all six trials showed that the psychodynamic interventions significantly reduced depressive symptoms on the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (mean difference −3.12 (95% confidence interval −4.39 to −1.86;P<0.00001), no heterogeneity) compared with ‘treatment as usual’. Trial sequential analysis confirmed this result.We did not find convincing evidence supporting or refuting the effect of interpersonal psychotherapy or psychodynamic therapy compared with ‘treatment as usual’ for patients with major depressive disorder. The potential beneficial effect seems small and effects on major outcomes are unknown. Randomized trials with low risk of systematic errors and low risk of random errors are needed

Differential effects of systemically administered nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI) on κ-opioid agonists in the mouse writhing assay

The opioid antagonist effects of systemically administered nor-binaltorphimine (nor-BNI) were evaluated against the kappa agonists CI-977, U69,593, U50,488, ethylketocyclazocine (EKC), Mr2034 and bremazocine, the mu agonist morphine and the alkaloid delta agonist BW-373U86 in the acetic acid-induced writhing assay in mice. All eight agonists completely and dose-dependently inhibited writhing. Antagonism of CI-977 was apparent 1 h after administration of 32 mg/kg nor-BNI, peaking after 4 h and was maintained for at least 4 weeks; no antagonist effects of nor-BNI were apparent after 8 weeks. Nor-BNI (32 mg/kg) caused little or no antagonism of morphine or BW-373U86 at 1 h and none at 24 h after nor-BNI administration. Subsequently, dose-effect curves for CI-977, U50,488, U69,593, EKC, Mr2034 and bremazocine were determined 24 h after pretreatment with 3.2, 10 and 32 mg/kg nor-BNI. Pretreatment with 3.2 mg/kg nor-BNI produced significant antagonism of all six kappa agonists, suggesting that their antinociceptive effects were mediated at least in part by nor-BNI-sensitive kappa receptors. At higher doses, nor-BNI dose-depend-ently shifted the agonist dose-effect curves of CI-977, U50,488, U69,593 and bremazocine, but not those of EKC and Mr2034, suggesting that the latter compounds may be producing effects via nor-BNI-insensitive receptors. Mu receptor involvement was demonstrated following a 24 h pretreatment with 32 mg/kg β -FNA in combination with nor-BNI, which significantly increased the degree of antagonism of Mr2034 and EKC from that seen with nor-BNI alone. Hence, SC administered nor-BNI selectively antagonized agonist activity mediated through kappaopioid receptors without differentiating between kappa subtypes. Nor-BNI also enabled the mu agonist activity of proposed kappa agonists to be measured.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/46343/1/213_2005_Article_BF02245071.pd

POPs in a major conurbation in Turkey: ambient air concentrations, seasonal variation, inhalation and dermal exposure, and associated carcinogenic risks

Semi-volatile organic compounds were monitored over a whole year, by collection of gas and particle phases every sixth day at a suburban site in Izmir, Turkey. Annual mean concentrations of 32 polychlorinated biphenyls (∑32PCBs) and 14 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (∑14PAHs) were 348 pg/m3 and 36 ng/m3, respectively, while it was 273 pg/m3 for endosulfan, the dominant compound among 23 organochlorine pesticides (OCPs). Monte Carlo simulation was applied to the USEPA exposure-risk models for the estimation of the population exposure and carcinogenic risk probability distributions for heating and non-heating periods. The estimated population risks associated with dermal contact and inhalation routes to ∑32PCBs, ∑14PAHs, and some of the targeted OCPs (α-hexachlorocyclohexane (α-HCH), β-hexachlorocyclohexane (β-HCH), heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, α-chlordane (α-CHL), γ-chlordane (γ-CHL), and p,p′-dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (p,p′-DDT)) were in the ranges of 1.86 × 10−16–7.29 × 10−9 and 1.38 × 10−10–4.07 × 10−6, respectively. The inhalation 95th percentile risks for ∑32PCBs, ∑14PAHs, and OCPs were about 6, 3, and 4–7 orders of magnitude higher than those of dermal route, respectively. The 95th percentile inhalation risk for ∑32PCBs and OCPs in the non-heating period were 1.8- and 1.2–4.6 folds higher than in the heating period, respectively. In contrast, the 95th percentile risk levels for ∑14PAHs in the heating period were 4.3 times greater than that of non-heating period for inhalation, respectively. While risk levels associated with exposure to PCBs and OCPs did not exceed the acceptable level of 1 × 10−6, it was exceeded for 47 % of the population associated with inhalation of PAHs with a maximum value of about 4 × 10−6