Impact of the Omics-Based Biomarkers on the Fluvoxamine’s Steady-State Concentration, Efficacy and Safety in Patients with Affective Disorders Comorbid with Alcohol Use Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Fluvoxamine is commonly administered to patients with recurrent depressive disorder. Some of these patients do not show adequate response to the therapy with fluvoxamine, whereas many of them experience dose-dependent adverse drug reactions. Previous research revealed that CYP2D6 is involved in the metabolism of fluvoxamine, the activity of which is highly dependent on the polymorphism of the gene encoding it. Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of polymorphisms of the CYP3A4, CYP2C9, CYP3A5, ABCB1, CYP2C19, SCL6A4, and 5-HTR2A genes on the concentration/dose indicator of fluvoxamine and on the CYP3A expression level obtained by measuring the miR-27b plasma concentration levels in patients suffering from a recurrent depressive disorder. Material and Methods: Our study included 105 patients with recurrent depressive disorder (average age – 37.5 ± 13.2 years). The treatment regimen included fluvoxamine in an average daily dose of 117.6 ± 44.3 mg per week. Therapy efficacy was assessed using the international psychometric scales. Therapy safety was assessed using the UKU Side-Effect Rating Scale. For genotyping and estimation of the microRNA (miRNA) plasma levels, we performed the real-time polymerase chain reaction. The activity of CYP3A was evaluated using the HPLC-MS/MS method by the content of the endogenous substrate of the given isoenzyme and its metabolite in urine (6b-HC/cortisol). Therapeutic drug monitoring has been performed using HPLC-MS/MS. Results: Our study didn’t reveal any statistically significant results in terms of the treatment efficacy and safety of the therapy. We also didn’t reveal a statistical significance for the concentration/dose indicator of fluvoxamine in patients with different genotypes. Analysis of the results of the pharmacotranscriptomic part of the study didn’t demonstrate the statistically significant difference in the miR-27b plasma levels in patients with different genotypes. At the same time, correlation analysis didn’t reveal a statistically significant relationship between the fluvoxamine efficacy profile evaluated by changes in HAMD scale scores and the miR-27b plasma concentration: r s = –0.012, p = 0.63. Also, we didn’t reveal the correlation between the miRNA concentration and safety profile: rs = –0.175, p = 0.30. In addition, we didn’t reveal the relationship between the CYP3A enzymatic activity and the miR-27b plasma concentration: r s = –0.197, p < 0.32. However, the difference in the CYP3A enzymatic activity in carriers of AG and GG genotypes of the 6986A > G polymorphism of CYP3A5 gene has been revealed: (AG) 4.72 [1.18; 8.45] vs (GG) 9.23 [5.12; 15.53], p-value = 0.23. Conclusion: Thus, the effect of genetic polymorphism of the CYP3A4, CYP2C9, CYP2C9, CYP3A5, ABCB1, CYP2C19, CYP2C19, CYP2C19, SCL6A4, 5-HTR2A gene on the efficacy and safety profiles of fluvoxamine was not demonstrated in a group of 105 patients with depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".