MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2523790029 · doi:10.1136/bmj.i5309

Revisiting the drug interaction between tamoxifen and SSRI antidepressants

2016· letter· en· W2523790029 sur OpenAlexaff
David N. Juurlink

Notice bibliographique

RevueBMJ · 2016
Typeletter
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiquePharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Établissements canadiensSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTamoxifenCYP2D6Breast cancerDrugMedicineHarmPharmacologyAntidepressantAttributionPsychologyPsychiatryCancerInternal medicineCytochrome P450AnxietySocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Few topics in therapeutics are more vexing than drug interactions. They number in the thousands, involve confusing terminology, and are rarely supported by evidence stronger than case reports and volunteer studies. It’s not surprising, therefore, that experts disagree on which interactions are serious and which ones are not. And yet their importance is undeniable because they can cause serious morbidity or even death, despite epitomizing, in theory at least, avoidable drug related harm. Over the past decade, few drug interactions have been as controversial as those involving tamoxifen and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants, explored yet again by Donneyong and colleagues in a linked study (doi:10.1136/bmj.i5014). On its surface, the issue seems straightforward: as a prodrug, tamoxifen requires conversion to active metabolites, the most important of which is endoxifen. This process is influenced by cytochrome-P450 isoenzyme 2D6 (CYP2D6), an enzyme characterized bymarked variability from person to person. Some SSRIs but not others inhibit CYP2D6, conceivably attenuating or even abolishing the benefits of tamoxifen. The importance of this potential interaction is amplified by three factors. First, tamoxifen is a monumental treatment, conferring dramatic reductions in breast cancer recurrence and associated mortality. Second, antidepressants are often co-prescribed with tamoxifen for extended periods, in part because depression often coexists with breast cancer and in part to offset vasomotor symptoms induced by tamoxifen. Third, and in contrast with most drug interactions, the consequences are delayed by years and manifest simply as treatment failure, undermining causal attribution at the patient level. Why does the interaction between tamoxifen and SSRIs remain controversial? One reason is that tamoxifen’s pharmacokinetic fate involves processes other than CYP2D6. Another is that studies of the relation between CYP2D6 activity and outcomes in women receiving tamoxifen yield remarkably inconsistent results. Finally, with some exceptions, 11 observational studies show little evidence that use of antidepressants is associated with adverse outcomes in women receiving tamoxifen. Donneyong and colleagues used data from five US health insurance databases to study women already being treated with an SSRI at the outset of treatment with tamoxifen or who received an SSRI later during its course. Over a median follow-up of about two years, they found no difference in overall mortality among women receiving SSRIs that inhibit CYP2D6 (paroxetine and fluoxetine) relative to SSRIs that do not (citalopram, escitalopram, fluvoxamine and sertraline). These findings are unsurprising, if for no other reason than follow-up was too brief for any differential survival to show up. Studying total mortality rather than cancer specific outcomes further diminished the investigators’ ability to discern signal from noise. Consequently, this study does little to disprove a meaningful interaction between tamoxifen and CYP2D6 inhibitors. It does, however, illustrate just how challenging such studies can be. Pharmacoepidemiology is a relative newcomer to the science of drug interactions, with most studies exploring short term toxicities after the co-prescription of drugs with well established interactions. In contrast, the interaction between tamoxifen and CYP2D6 inhibiting SSRIs is characterized by an elusive outcome (treatment failure), a long latent period, and many other factors (including non-adherence, therapeutic switching, CYP2D6 polymorphisms, dose-response effects, variable mechanisms and degrees of inhibition, and a probable endoxifen threshold below which treatment failure is more likely) that collectively attenuate any signal that might exist. For these reasons, the tamoxifen-SSRI interaction is perhaps the most difficult drug interaction to explore using the techniques of pharmacoepidemiology. Where does this leave patients and clinicians? In my view it is premature to dismiss an interaction between tamoxifen and SSRIs, particularly given the stakes and the ease with which harm can bemitigated.We know tamoxifen prevents recurrence and death from breast cancer, that endoxifen is its dominant metabolite, and that CYP2D6 plays an important role in its

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,184
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,003
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,139
Tête enseignante GPT0,461
Écart entre enseignants0,322 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations38
Publié2016
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBMJMême sujetPharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismTravaux en français237 207