Duloxetine selectively inhibits the serotonin (5-HT) and norepinephrine (NE) transporters (5-HTT and NET, respectively), as demonstrated in vitro and in preclinical studies; however, transporter inhibition has not been fully assessed in vivo at the approved dose of 60 mg/d. Here, the in vivo effects of dosing with duloxetine 60 mg once daily for 11 days in healthy subjects were assessed in 2 studies: (1) centrally (n = 11), by measuring concentrations of 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid, 3,4-dihydroxyphenylglycol (DHPG), and NE in cerebrospinal fluid, and (2) versus escitalopram 20 mg/d (n = 32) in a 2-period crossover study by assessing the ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma during orthostatic testing and by pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of reuptake inhibition using subjects' serum in cell lines expressing cloned human 5-HTT or NET. At steady state, duloxetine significantly reduced concentrations of DHPG and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (P < 0.05), but not NE, in cerebrospinal fluid; DHPG was also decreased in plasma and urine. The ΔDHPG/ΔNE ratio in plasma decreased significantly more with duloxetine than escitalopram (65% and 21%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Ex vivo reuptake inhibition of 5-HTT was comparable (EC50 = 44.5 nM) for duloxetine and escitalopram, but duloxetine inhibited NET more potently (EC50 = 116 nM and 1044 nM, respectively). Maximal predicted reuptake inhibition for 5-HTT was 84% for duloxetine and 80% for escitalopram, and that for NET was 67% and 14%, respectively. In summary, duloxetine significantly affected 5-HT and NE turnover in the central nervous system and periphery; these effects presumably occurred via inhibition of reuptake by the 5-HTT and NET, as indicated by effects on functional reuptake inhibition ex vivo.

Aim The effects of atomoxetine (20 and 60?mg twice daily), 400?mg moxifloxacin and placebo on QTc in 131 healthy CYP2D6 poor metabolizer males were compared. Methods Atomoxetine doses were selected to result in plasma concentrations that approximated expected plasma concentrations at both the maximum recommended dose and at a supratherapeutic dose in CYP2D6 extensive metabolizers. Ten second electrocardiograms were obtained for time-matched baseline on days -2 and -1, three time points after dosing on day 1 for moxifloxacin and five time points on day 7 for atomoxetine and placebo. Maximum mean placebo-subtracted change from baseline model-corrected QT (QTcM) on day 7 was the primary endpoint. Results QTcM differences for atomoxetine 20 and 60?mg twice daily were 0.5?ms (upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval 2.2?ms) and 4.2?ms (upper bound of the one-sided 95% confidence interval 6.0?ms), respectively. As plasma concentration of atomoxetine increased, a statistically significant increase in QTc was observed. The moxifloxacin difference from placebo met the a priori definition of non-inferiority. Maximum mean placebo-subtracted change from baseline QTcM for moxifloxacin was 4.8?ms and this difference was statistically significant. Moxifloxacin plasma concentrations were below the concentrations expected from the literature. However, the slope of the plasma concentration-QTc change observed was consistent with the literature. Conclusion Atomoxetine was not associated with a clinically significant change in QTc. However, a statistically significant increase in QTc was associated with increasing plasma concentrations.

A decrease in heart rate variability (HRV) can indicate increased sympathetic nervous system activity and possibly increased norepinephrine levels. In this randomized, placebo- and escitalopram (ESC)-controlled, subject-blind, 2-period, crossover study, 26 healthy subjects 50 to 65 years old received duloxetine (DLX) 60 mg once daily or ESC 20 mg once daily for 11 days, each in sequential study periods separated by a 10-day or more washout period. Continuous electrocardiogram recordings were obtained by Holter monitoring (baseline, day 9, and day 10 of treatment). Duloxetine and ESC did not produce any clinically significant effects on standard measures of HRV, which included SD of normal R-R intervals and the root mean square difference among successive R-R normal intervals index values, mean change in SD of normal R-R intervals, and frequency domain analysis. However, treatment with DLX was associated with significantly less change from baseline in total beats per 24 hours than ESC, which was an unexpected finding compared with previous observations in which vital signs were measured at a specific time point while awake. In conclusion, in healthy adults exposed to DLX or ESC, no clinically significant effects on HRV were observed.

No consistent method is available for finding stable warfarin maintenance doses and fast stabilization of international normalized ratio (INR) values among healthy subjects in experimental warfarin interaction studies. Using data from an earlier study that targeted a stable INR of 1.5–2.0 to test an interaction, we retrospectively evaluated potential dosing algorithms using all methods available to us to decrease the time needed for INR stabilization, which could be useful for future interaction studies in healthy subjects.

Background: Many thorough QT (TQT) studies use a baseline day and double delta analysis to account for potential diurnal variation in QTc. However, little is known about systematic changes in the QTc across contiguous days when normal volunteers are brought into a controlled inpatient environment.Methods: Two separate crossover TQT studies included 2 days of no treatment lead-in days with ECG collection preceding periods of drug treatment. In the first study, there were two pairs of such contiguous days with 10 replicate electrocardiograms (ECGs) collected at six time points, and in the second study, there were four pairs of contiguous days with nine replicate ECGs collected at five time points. These lead-in day pairs provided the opportunity to evaluate any systematic changes across contiguous first and second days of an inpatient environment. Within-patient consistency of change across pairs of days as well as within day, diurnal variation could also be evaluated.Results: Modest (4.2 ms [range 1.9-6.5 ms]) but consistent decreases (significant [P < 0.05] for all 32 comparisons) were observed (probability: <= 5.4 x 10(-16)). Although group behavior with respect to QTc was consistent, individual subjects demonstrated substantial variability across pairs of days. Evidence of diurnal variation was weak and inconsistent. Magnitude of any diurnal variation was less than magnitude of change across days.Conclusions: Subjects show a systematic decrease in QTc from first day to second day of inpatient status and do not demonstrate a significant diurnal pattern. The magnitude of this systematic change is sufficient to influence QTc study interpretation. (PACE 2011; 34:1116-1127)