Meta-analysis of the reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase type A moclobemide and brofaromine for the treatment of depression.
(1/40)
The reversible inhibitors of monoamine oxidase type A (RIMAs) are a newer group of antidepressants that have had much less impact on clinical psychopharmacology than another contemporary class of medications, the selective serotonin reuptake-inhibitors (SSRIs). The RIMAs agents are distinguished from the older monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) by their selectivity and reversibility. As a result, dietary restrictions are not required during RIMA therapy, and hypertensive crises are quite rare. In this article, we describe a series of meta-analyses of studies of the two most widely researched RIMAs, moclobemide (MOC; Aurorex) and brofaromine (BRO). Our findings confirm that both BRO and MOC are as effective as the tricyclic antidepressants, and they are better tolerated. However, BRO is not being studied at present for reasons unrelated to efficacy or side effects. MOC, which is available throughout much of the world (but not the United States), is significantly more effective than placebo and, at the least, comparable to the SSRIs in both efficacy and tolerability. For MOC, higher dosages may enhance efficacy for more severe depressions. We also found evidence that supports clinical impressions that MOC is somewhat less effective, albeit better tolerated, than older MAOIs, such as phenelzine or tranylcypromine. Little evidence has yet emerged to suggest that the RIMAs share older MAOIs' utility for treatment of depressions characterized by prominent reverse neurovegetative features. Based on available evidence, the RIMAs appear to have a limited, but useful, role in the differential therapeutics of the depressive disorders. (+info)
The effects of moclobemide on the pharmacokinetics of the 5-HT1B/1D agonist rizatriptan in healthy volunteers.
(2/40)
AIMS: The new 5-HT1B/1D agonist rizatriptan (MK-0462) has recently been registered for the treatment of migraine. Its primary route of metabolism is via monoamine oxidase-A (MAO-A). Antidepressants such as the MAO-A inhibitor moclobemide may be used in patients with chronic headache syndromes. Hence, this study aimed to investigate the interactions between rizatriptan and moclobemide. METHODS: In a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-period cross-over study 12 healthy, young volunteers (six males, six females) were treated with moclobemide (150 mg twice daily) or placebo for 4 days. On the fourth day, a single dose of rizatriptan (10 mg) was administered, and subsequently blood and urine samples were collected for assay of rizatripan and N-monodesmethyl rizatriptan. Plasma concentrates of 3,4-dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG), a marker of MAO-A inhibition, were also assessed. Supine and standing blood pressure were measured regularly. RESULTS: Both treatments were well tolerated. During moclobemide, the increase in supine diastolic blood pressure following rizatriptan administration was augmented. Inhibition of MAO by moclobemide was inferred from a persistent decrease in DHPG level (43% on average). When rizatriptan was coadministered with moclobemide, the area under the plasma drug concentration-time profiles for rizatriptan and its N-monodesmethyl metabolite increased 2.2-fold (90% CI, 1.93-2.47) and 5.3-fold (90% CI, 4.81-5.91), respectively, when compared with placebo. Peak plasma drug concentrations for rizatriptan and its n-monodesmethyl metabolite increased 1.4-fold (90% CI, 1.11-1.80) and 2.6-fold (90% CI, 2.23-3.14), respectively, and half-lives of both were prolonged. CONCLUSIONS: Moclobemide inhibited the metabolism of rizatriptan and its active N-monodesmethyl metabolite through inhibition of MAO-A. Thus, moclobemide may considerably potentiate rizatriptan action. Concurrent administration of moclobemide and rizatriptan is not recommended. (+info)
Serotonin syndrome caused by overdose with paroxetine and moclobemide.
(3/40)
Well known clinical syndromes can be produced by overdose with more commonly ingested substances such as opiates or tricyclic antidepressants. A case of a much more unusual syndrome presenting to the accident and emergency department resulting from overdose with a combination of tablets is reported. The clinical presentation of serotonin syndrome and its management are described. This resulted from acute ingestion of paroxetine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, and moclobemide, a monoamine oxidase inhibitor. (+info)
Gastric decontamination performed 5 min after the ingestion of temazepam, verapamil and moclobemide: charcoal is superior to lavage.
(4/40)
AIMS: The aim was to study the efficacy of gastric lavage and activated charcoal in preventing the absorption of temazepam, verapamil and moclobemide when gastric decontamination was performed immediately after ingestion of the drugs. METHODS: Nine healthy volunteers took part in a randomized cross-over study with three phases. The subjects were administered single oral doses of 10 mg temazepam, 80 mg verapamil and 150 mg moclobemide. Five minutes later, they were assigned to one of the following treatments: 200 ml water (control), 25 g activated charcoal as a suspension in 200 ml water or gastric lavage. Plasma concentrations and the cumulative excretion into urine of the three drugs were determined up to 24 h. RESULTS: The mean AUC(0,24 h) of temazepam, verapamil and moclobemide was reduced by 95.2% (P < 0.01), 92.8% (P < 0.01) and 99. 7% (P < 0.01), respectively, by activated charcoal compared with control. Gastric lavage did not reduce significantly the AUC(0,24 h) of these drugs. The 24 h cumulative excretion of temazepam, verapamil and moclobemide into urine was reduced significantly (P < 0.05) by charcoal but not by gastric lavage. Charcoal reduced the AUC(0,24 h), Cmax and urinary excretion of all three drugs significantly more than lavage. CONCLUSIONS: Activated charcoal is very effective and gastric lavage can be rather ineffective in preventing the absorption of temazepam, verapamil and moclobemide when the treatment is given very rapidly after ingestion of the drugs, before tablet disintegration has occurred. (+info)
Newer antidepressants: a comparison of tolerability in general practice.
(5/40)
BACKGROUND: An increasing number of antidepressants have been released on the United Kingdom market in recent years, and these are being prescribed more frequently in general practice. Clinical trials suggest that such agents have similar efficacy and the choice of drug is probably based on tolerability, toxicity in overdose, and cost. AIM: To compare the tolerability and safety profile of six, newly marketed antidepressants used in general practice. METHOD: Studies have been conducted for six antidepressants: fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, moclobemide, venlafaxine, and nefazodone, using the technique of prescription-event monitoring. Patients were identified using incident dispensed prescription data. Questionnaires were sent to patients' general practitioners six months after the date of first prescription. Questionnaires asked for date of birth, sex, indication for prescribing each drug, and all events entered in the patients' records after the date of first prescription. RESULTS: Each cohort exceeded 10,000 patients. Nausea/vomiting was the most frequently reported event for all drugs. The difference in incidence rates for drowsiness/sedation, male sexual dysfunction, and hypertension is shown. Mortality data are also reported. CONCLUSION: Frequently reported events were similar for all six drugs but there were clinically and statistically significant differences for less frequently reported events. The adjusted mortality rate was identical between the six drugs. This study provides valuable comparative data for six, widely used antidepressants in general practice. (+info)
A randomized controlled trial comparing moclobemide and moclobemide plus interpersonal psychotherapy in the treatment of dysthymic disorder.
(6/40)
The authors compared the outcomes of 35 outpatients with dysthymic disorder randomized to receive either treatment with moclobemide and interpersonal therapy (IPT) or moclobemide and routine clinical management. Diagnosis was based on the ICD-10 symptom checklist. Patients were evaluated by trained raters using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Ham-D), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Global Assessment of Functioning, and Quality of Life and Satisfaction Questionnaire at baseline, 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Patients in both treatment groups showed statistically significant improvement in all measures across time. There was a nonsignificant trend toward lower scores on Ham-D and MADRS for patients in the moclobemide plus IPT group. Longer, better-powered trials should be carried out to study the efficacy of IPT plus antidepressant medication in the treatment of dysthymic disorder. (+info)
A fatal case of serotonin syndrome after combined moclobemide-citalopram intoxication.
(7/40)
We present a case involving a fatality due to the combined ingestion of two different types of antidepressants. A 41-year-old Caucasian male, with a history of depression and suicide attempts, was found deceased at home. Multiple containers of medication, the MAO-inhibitor moclobemide (Aurorix), the SSRI citalopram (Cipramil), and the benzodiazepine lormetazepam (Noctamid) as active substance, as well as a bottle of whiskey were present at the scene. The autopsy findings were unremarkable, but systematic toxicological analysis (EMIT, radioimmunoassay, high-performance liquid chromatography-diode-array detection [HPLC-DAD], gas chromatography-nitrogen-phosphorus detection, and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry) revealed the following: ethanol (0.23 g/L blood, 0.67 g/L urine), lormetazepam (1.65 microg/mL urine), cotinine (0.63 microg/mL blood, 5.08 microg/mL urine), caffeine (1.20 microg/mL urine), moclobemide (and metabolites), and citalopram (and metabolite). There upon, we developed a new liquid chromatographic separation with optimized DAD, preceded by an automated solid-phase extraction, for the quantitation of the previously mentioned antidepressive drugs. The results obtained for blood and urine, respectively, were as follows: Ro 12-5637 (moclobemide N'-oxide) not detected and 424 microg/mL; Ro 12-8095 (3-keto-moclobemide) 2.26 microg/mL and 49.7 microg/mL; moclobemide 5.62 microg/mL and 204 microg/mL; desmethylcitalopram 0.42 microg/mL and 1.22 microg/mL; and citalopram 4.47 microg/mL and 19.7 microg/mL. The cause of death was attributed to the synergistic toxicity of moclobemide and citalopram, both antidepressants, which, by intentional or accidental combined ingestion, can produce a potentially lethal hyperserotoninergic state. Based on the history of the case and pharmacology of the drugs involved, the forensic pathologists ruled that the cause of death was multiple drug intoxication, resulting in a fatal "serotonin syndrome," and that the manner of death was suicide. (+info)
Effect of MAO-A inhibition on the pharmacokinetics of almotriptan, an antimigraine agent in humans.
(8/40)
AIMS: To assess the effect of a reversible MAO-A inhibitor, moclobemide, on the single-dose pharmacokinetics of almotriptan and assess the clinical consequences of any interaction. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received the following treatments in a randomized, open-label, two-way crossover design (with a 1 week washout between treatments): (A) one 150 mg moclobemide tablet every 12 h for 8 days and one 12.5 mg almotriptan tablet on the morning of day 8; and (B) one 12.5 mg almotriptan tablet on day 8. Plasma almotriptan was quantified by h.p.l.c.-MS-MS, while urinary concentrations were measured by h.p.l.c.-u.v. Vital signs, ECGs, and adverse events were evaluated after almotriptan administration. Treatment effects on pharmacokinetics and vital signs were assessed by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Mean almotriptan AUC was higher (483 +/- 99.9 vs 352 +/- 75.4 ng ml-1 h, P = 0.0001) and oral clearance was lower (26.6 +/- 4.00 vs 36.6 +/- 5.89 l h-1, P = 0.0001) when almotriptan was administered with moclobemide. Mean half-life was longer (4.22 +/- 0.78 vs 3.41 +/- 0.45 h, P = 0.0002) after coadministration with moclobemide. Renal clearance of almotriptan was unaffected by moclobemide. No serious adverse events occurred and no clinically significant vital sign changes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Moclobemide increased plasma concentrations of almotriptan on average by 37%, but the combined administration of these two compounds was well tolerated. The degree of interaction was much less than that seen previously for sumatriptan or zolmitriptan given with moclobemide. (+info)