Abstract
Background
Many drugs with dose-dependent effects on hemodynamic variables are metabolized by cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6). The aim of this study was to compare prescribed dosages and hemodynamic responses of such drugs in relation to pharmacogenetic variability in CYP2D6 metabolism among patients aged ≥ 70 years exposed to polypharmacy.
Materials and Methods
We included 173 patients with detailed information about drug use. The patients were retrospectively subjected to CYP2D6 genotyping, which comprised the most common variant alleles encoding reduced, absent, or increased CYP2D6 metabolism. In order to compare dosages across different CYP2D6-metabolized drugs, all prescribed daily doses were harmonized to the ‘percent of a daily defined dose’ (DDD). The mean harmonized DDD was compared between genotype-predicted normal metabolizers (NMs) and patients with reduced or absent CYP2D6 enzyme activity, defined as intermediate or poor metabolizers (IMs/PMs). Blood pressure, pulse, and patient proportions with orthostatism and bradycardia were also compared between genotype subgroups.
Results
The genotype-predicted phenotype subgroups comprised 79 NMs (45.7%), 75 IMs (43.4%), and 16 PMs (9.2%). There were no differences in dosing of CYP2D6 substrates between NMs and IMs/PMs (p = 0.76). A higher proportion of CYP2D6 IMs/PMs experienced orthostatism (p = 0.03), while there were no significant subgroup differences for the other hemodynamic variables.
Conclusion
In this real-life clinical setting of patients aged ≥ 70 years, dosing of CYP2D6 substrates were not adjusted according to genotype-predicted CYP2D6 metabolism. The increased occurrence of orthostatism in patients with reduced/absent CYP2D6 metabolism may indicate that individualized dosing based on genotype has the potential to prevent adverse effects in these vulnerable patients.
Electronic supplementary material
The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-020-00763-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Key Points
| Pharmacogenetic variation in CYP2D6 metabolism can affect clinical effects as well as adverse effects of many drugs. | |
| We found that patients aged ≥ 70 years with reduced or absent CYP2D6 metabolism received equal doses of CYP2D6-metabolized drugs as patients with normal CYP2D6 metabolism, and had an increased occurrence of orthostatism. |
Introduction
Individual variability in drug response depends on many factors in addition to the prescribed dosage, in particular, age, gender, organ functions, polypharmacy, drug–drug interactions, and pharmacogenetics. In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to the impact of pharmacogenetic differences on clinical and adverse effects of drug treatment [1], and in particular the role of genetic polymorphisms in drug-metabolizing enzymes [2].
Cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) is one of the most well studied genetic polymorphic enzymes involved in drug metabolism. CYP2D6-metabolizing phenotype is closely related to genotype, and patients are generally divided into the following four phenotype subgroups based on genotype: ‘poor metabolizers (PMs),’ ‘intermediate metabolizers (IMs),’ ‘normal metabolizers (NMs)’, and ‘ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs)’ [3]. Population frequencies of the various CYP2D6 phenotype subgroups differ between ethnic groups due to environmentally driven selection of ‘best-fit’ genotypes. In Caucasian populations, the proportion of PMs is higher than in other ethnic groups, while the proportion of UMs is generally higher in southern versus northern world regions [4].
CYP2D6 is involved in the metabolism of about 25% of all clinically used drugs [5]. For drugs where CYP2D6-mediated metabolism is a major eliminating pathway, the systemic exposure (effective dose) is very dependent on CYP2D6 genotype [4]. The relative effective dose may differ up to tenfold across different CYP2D6 genotype subgroups. This implies a great potential for variability in therapeutic response for non-genotype-adjusted dosages [4]. For older people, where secondary eliminating pathways are often reduced (e.g., renal filtration or secretion), the genotype effect could be even more pronounced, making dosage adjustments critical in order to avoid overtreatment.
The usual situation is that PMs are at risk of over-exposure and side effects at standard dosages, but in UMs the potential clinical outcome is the opposite. For psychotropic agents and β-blockers, for instance, increased risk of side effects has been reported in PMs and insufficient clinical response in UMs [6, 7]. However, for some opioid analgesics being defined as prodrugs activated by CYP2D6 (e.g., codeine and tramadol), the potential clinical consequences are the opposite. In the case of codeine, PMs have been reported to obtain insufficient analgesia [8], while several case reports have been published showing respiratory depression in UMs due to increased CYP2D6-mediated bioactivation of codeine to morphine [9, 10].
Older people exposed to polypharmacy have a high risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) [11]. Many CYP2D6-metabolized drugs commonly used by older people exhibit hemodynamic effects, including cardiovascular and psychotropic drugs [4, 12]. It could be hypothesized that older IMs and PMs are at higher risk for ADRs, such as orthostatic hypotension or bradycardia, if dosages are not adequately adjusted. Genotyping is rarely used in clinical practice, and it may be argued that knowledge of the genotype is of limited relevance, since physicians will nevertheless adjust dosages according to the clinical response. It is, however, uncertain if the underlying genotypes are actually reflected by the prescribed dosages when physicians are unaware of the patients’ ability to metabolize CYP2D6 substrate drugs.
The aim of this study was therefore to examine the prescribed dosages of CYP2D6 substrates in relation to genotype in home-dwelling patients aged ≥ 70 years exposed to polypharmacy. Secondarily, we assessed the impact of CYP2D6 genotype on blood pressure and heart rate.
Methods
Study Population and Data Collection
Data were taken from baseline assessments of participants in a recently published cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating drug-related issues in elderly people receiving polypharmacy [13]. In accordance with the inclusion criteria of the RCT, the present observational study comprised home-dwelling patients aged ≥ 70 years, using at least seven daily medications administered by the home nursing service. The rationale for including these patients was based on the hypothesis that they would benefit most of the geriatric intervention studied in the RCT.
Measurements of blood pressure and pulse rate were carried out by a research assistant during a home visit, using a validated, automated blood pressure monitor (UA-767 Plus 30, A&D Medical, San Jose, CA, USA). Supine blood pressure and pulse rate were measured twice, after a minimum of 5 minutes’ rest, and the mean value was used for the analyses. The patient then stood up, and measurements were repeated after 1 min. Comorbidity was assessed by the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) [14], based on a retrospective review of the patients’ medical records. Dementia severity was assessed by the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes (CDR-SOB) [15, 16].
Inclusion of patients was based upon informed consent. Patients unable to give a valid consent due to dementia were included based on informed consent from a close relative, in combination with assent from the patient. The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REK) in Norway and by the Data Protection Official at Oslo University Hospital, and was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki [17].
Identification of CYP2D6 Substrates
Medication charts were obtained from the patients’ family physician (FP), and actual drug use was confirmed by patients and/or caregivers. Drugs were registered according to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system [18]. In order to define a major relevance of CYP2D6 in the metabolism of the various drugs used by the patients, descriptions of metabolic pathways available from the website http://www.pharmgkb.org were applied. We also reviewed summaries of product characteristics (SPCs) to obtain information about the relevance of CYP2D6 in the respective drugs’ metabolism. Co-administration of CYP2D6 inhibitors was also registered.
Genotyping and Phenotype Classification
Venous blood samples collected on tubes with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as anticoagulant were used for determination of CYP2D6 genotype, and the analyses were performed at the Center for Psychopharmacology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway. Briefly, extracted DNA samples were analysed for targeted CYP2D6 variant alleles known to encode absent, reduced, or increased CYP2D6 metabolism using Taqman-based real-time PCR assays. The CYP2D6 genotyping comprised the non-coding variants CYP2D6*3 (rs35742686), CYP2D6*4 (rs3892097), CYP2D6*5 (whole gene deletion), and CYP2D6*6 (rs5030655), the reduced-function variants CYP2D6*9 (rs5030656), CYP2D6*10 (rs1065852), and CYP2D6*41 (rs28371725), as well as copy number analysis to identify multiplication of functional alleles giving rise to ultrarapid metabolism.
The patients were categorized into CYP2D6 metabolizer subgroups based on genotype. PMs were defined as homozygous carriers of non-coding alleles (CYP2D6*3, *4, *5, and *6). IMs were defined as heterozygous carriers of non-coding alleles, homozygous carriers of reduced-function alleles (CYP2D6*9, *10, and *41), or carriers of genotypes with combined reduced-function and non-coding alleles. NMs were defined as homozygous carriers of two fully functional (wild-type) alleles (CYP2D6*1) or carriers of one reduced-function allele combined with a wild-type allele. UMs were defined as carriers of multiple (> 2) copies of alleles encoding normal metabolic activity. This categorization of CYP2D6 metabolizer subgroups for statistical analyses is in accordance with standard practice at the time when the study was conducted, while a modification of the phenotype classification was recently published by members of the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [19].
Outcome Measures
Dosages
Our first aim was to examine the prescribed dosages of CYP2D6-dependent drugs in relation to genotype. As defined by WHO, “the defined daily dose (DDD) is the assumed average maintenance dose per day for a drug used for its main indication in adults” [20]. In order to examine the prescribed daily dosages across a variety of drugs, prescribed dosages for all substrates were calculated as percent of DDD. The average percent of DDD was calculated for each patient for comparisons between CYP2D6 metabolizer subgroups. As differences in CYP2D6 metabolism will affect the response of drugs administered in pharmacologically active forms or prodrugs (e.g., codeine and tramadol) differently, separate comparisons were performed for these two situations.
Hemodynamic Variables
Our second aim was to examine the impact of CYP2D6 genotype on hemodynamic variables. The outcome measures used for these analyses were systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) measured in the supine position, change in SBP after 1 min in standing position, pulse rate, orthostatic hypotension, and bradycardia. Orthostatic hypotension was defined as a fall in SBP of at least 20 mmHg or a fall in DBP of at least 10 mmHg after 1 min in standing position, while bradycardia was defined as a pulse rate < 60/min.
Statistical Analyses
In the study population, UMs using a CYP2D6 substrate only comprised two patients, and this phenotype subgroup was therefore excluded from the statistical analyses. The patients were divided into two CYP2D6 metabolizer subgroups for outcome comparisons, NMs versus IMs and PMs merged into one group.
Since several non-CYP2D6 drugs can affect blood pressure, the use of such drugs from ATC group C01DA (nitrates), C02 (antihypertensives), C03 (diuretics), C07 (β-blocking agents), C08 (calcium channel blockers), C09 (agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system), G04CA (α-adrenoreceptor antagonists), N02A (opioids), N03 (antiepileptics), N04 (anti-parkinson drugs), N05 (psycholeptics), and N06A (antidepressants) was compared between the CYP2D6 metabolizer subgroups. Likewise, to account for non-CYP2D6 drugs that could contribute to bradycardia, the use of such drugs from ATC group C01AA (digitalis glycosides), C01B (antiarrhythmics, class I and III), C07 (β-blocking agents), and C08D (selective calcium channel blockers with direct cardiac effects) were assessed between the genotype subgroups. However, the prescribed DDDs of the non-CYP2D6 drugs were not reviewed, prohibiting quantification of the potential modulation effect of these agents on the hemodynamic variables between the two CYP2D6 metabolizer subgroups.
For non-normally distributed variables, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to test for differences between the CYP2D6 metabolizer subgroups. For normally distributed variables, comparisons were performed using the independent samples t-test. Group differences for categorical variables were tested by Pearson’s chi-square test or Fischer’s exact test, as appropriate. In the case of statistically significant findings by univariate analysis, multivariate logistic regression was performed to account for potential confounders.
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 25.
Results
A blood sample for CYP2D6 genotyping was obtained from 173 Caucasian patients. The genotype-predicted phenotype subgroups comprised 3 UMs (1.7%), 79 NMs (45.7%), 75 IMs (43.4%), and 16 PMs (9.2%). Characteristics of the respective metabolizer subgroups are presented in Table 1. The use of CYP2D6 inhibitors did not differ between metabolizer subgroups. Only weak CYP2D6 inhibitors were in use (i.e., escitalopram, mirabegron, and amiodarone). Although the CYP2D6 inhibitors were all detected in the NM or IM subgroups, both with functional metabolism, drug–drug–genotype interactions and phenoconversion was considered as unlikely due the limited inhibitory potency of the mentioned agents. Thus, the genotype-predicted CYP2D6-metabolizing phenotype was not adjusted for by any co-medications.
Table 1.
Characteristics of participants in different CYP2D6 genotype subgroups
| Characteristics | UM (n = 3) | NM (n = 79) | IM (n = 75) | PM (n = 16) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (SD) | 79.7 (9.0) | 84.1 (7.8) | 82.9 (7.0) | 81.9 (6.5) |
| Female gender, n (%) | 3 (100) | 55 (70) | 48 (64) | 11 (69) |
| Number of CYP2D6 substrate drugs in use, mean (SD) | 1.3 (1.2) | 0.9 (0.9) | 1.0 (0.7) | 0.9 (0.9) |
| Total number of drugs used regularly, mean (SD) | 11.0 (2.7) | 9.4 (2.6) | 10.0 (2.8) | 10.0 (2.8) |
| CIRS sum, mean (SD) | 18.3 (2.1) | 16.6 (4.6) | 16.8 (4.0) | 16.4 (4.0) |
| CDR sum of boxes, mean (SD) | 5.0 (5.0) | 2.4 (3.3) | 2.0 (3.3) | 2.8 (3.6) |
CDR Clinical Dementia Rating Scale, CIRS Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, CYP2D6 cytochrome P450 2D6, IM intermediate metabolizer, NM normal metabolizer, PM poor metabolizer, SD standard deviation, UM ultrarapid metabolizer
Dosages of CYP2D6 Substrates in Relation to Genotype
In the included patient population, a total of 19 different CYP2D6 substrates were in use, including three prodrugs. Their mean prescribed daily dosages and the respective percentage of DDD are presented in the various genotype subgroups in Table 2. Metoprolol was by far the most frequently used CYP2D6 substrate drug, being prescribed to 76 (43.9%) of the patients (Table 2).
Table 2.
Number of prescribed CYP2D6 substrate drugs (decreasing order of frequency), dose mean, and average dosage in percent of DDD by CYP2D6 genotype subgroup
| CYP2D6 substrate | UM (n = 3) | NM (n = 79) | IM (n = 75) | PM (n = 16) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Dose Mean (SD) |
Average % of DDD | n | Dose Mean (SD) |
Average % of DDD | n | Dose Mean (SD) |
Average % of DDD | n | Dose Mean (SD) |
Average % of DDD | |
| Metoprolol | 1 | 100.0 mg | 67 | 34 | 71.0 mg (47.4) | 47 | 34 | 60.3 mg (43.9) | 40 | 7 | 94.6 mg (80.3) | 63 |
| Tamsulosin | 5 | 0.4 mg (0.0) | 100 | 7 | 0.5 mg (0.2) | 114 | 2 | 0.4 mg (0.0) | 100 | |||
| Mirtazapine | 7 | 23.6 mg (8.0) | 79 | 4 | 26.3 mg (7.5) | 88 | ||||||
| Oxycodonea | 6 | 25.8 mg (36.7) | 34 | 2 | 22.5 mg (24.8) | 30 | 2 | 15.0 mg (7.1) | 20 | |||
| Codeinea | 1 | 90.0 mg | 90 | 3 | 60.0 mg (30.0) | 60 | 4 | 30.0 mg (0.0) | 30 | 1 | 90.0 mg | 90 |
| Tramadola | 1 | 300.0 mg | 100 | 7 | 164.3 mg (69.0) | 55 | ||||||
| Donepezil | 1 | 10.0 mg | 133 | 5 | 9.0 mg (2.2) | 120 | ||||||
| Amitriptyline | 3 | 25.0 mg (0.0) | 33 | 2 | 37.5 mg (17.7) | 50 | ||||||
| Venlafaxine | 1 | 150.0 mg | 150 | 2 | 93.8 mg (79.6) | 94 | 2 | 75.0 mg (0.0) | 75 | |||
| Fesoterodine | 2 | 6.0 mg (2.8) | 150 | 2 | 4.0 mg (0.0) | 100 | ||||||
| Mianserin | 1 | 30.0 mg | 50 | 2 | 25.0 mg (7.1) | 42 | 1 | 20.0 mg | 33 | |||
| Carvedilol | 1 | 12.5 mg | 33 | 2 | 37.5 mg (17.7) | 100 | ||||||
| Propranolol | 3 | 46.7 mg (30.6) | 29 | |||||||||
| Amiodarone | 1 | 100.0 mg | 50 | 1 | 100.0 mg | 50 | ||||||
| Risperidone | 1 | 1.0 mg | 20 | 1 | 1.0 mg | 20 | ||||||
| Aripiprazole | 1 | 10.0 mg | 67 | |||||||||
| Doxepin | 1 | 20.0 mg | 20 | |||||||||
| Paroxetine | 1 | 10.0 mg | 50 | |||||||||
| Tolterodine | 1 | 4.0 mg | 100 | |||||||||
Entire material (N = 173)
CYP2D6 cytochrome P450 2D6, DDD defined daily dose, IM intermediate metabolizer, NM normal metabolizer, PM poor metabolizer, SD standard deviation, UM ultrarapid metabolizer
aProdrug
The mean harmonized dosage of CY2D6-metabolized drugs administered in the pharmacologically active form was 58% of DDD for NMs, 59% of DDD for IMs, and 63% of DDD for PMs (Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference in drug dosages of active CY2D6 substrates between NMs and IMs/PMs (p = 0.76).
Table 3.
Average dosage in percent of DDD for users of CYP2D6 substrates (N = 121) by CYP2D6 genotype subgroups
| CYP2D6 substrate | UM (n = 2) | NM (n = 50) | IM (n = 59) | PM (n = 10) | p valuea | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Average % of DDD | n | Average % of DDD | n | Average % of DDD | n | Average % of DDD | ||
| Treatment intensity for users of CYP2D6 substrates (non-prodrugs) | 2 | 88 | 46 | 58 | 51 | 59 | 9 | 63 | 0.76 |
| Treatment intensity for users of CYP2D6 prodrugs | 1 | 90 | 10 | 49 | 13 | 43 | 3 | 43 | 0.74 |
CYP2D6 cytochrome P450 2D6, DDD defined daily dose, IM intermediate metabolizer, NM normal metabolizer, PM poor metabolizer, UM ultrarapid metabolizer
aThe p value is based on comparisons between two groups: NMs versus IMs/PMs (UMs excluded)
For CYP2D6 prodrugs, the mean dosage was 49% of DDD for NMs, 43% of DDD for IMs, and 43% of DDD for PMs (Table 3). There was no statistically significant difference in dosages of the prodrugs between NMs and IMs/PMs (p = 0.74).
Hemodynamic Effects in Users of CYP2D6 Substrates in Relation to Genotype
Table 4 provides an overview of hemodynamic variables in users of CYP2D6 substrates, except from prodrugs, in the various genotype subgroups. There was no statistically significant difference between NMs and IMs/PMs in SBP (p = 0.79), DBP (p = 0.58), or pulse rate (p = 0.34) measured in the supine position. SBP dropped in all groups after 1 min in the standing position, but there was no statistically significant difference between groups (p = 0.15). Nine patients had no measurements of standing blood pressure, and could not be examined for orthostatic hypotension.
Table 4.
Hemodynamic variables for users of drugs inactivated by CYP2D6 (N = 108) by CYP2D6 genotype subgroup
| UM (n = 2) | NM (n = 46) | IM (n = 51) | PM (n = 9) | p valuea | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | n | n | n | ||||||
| Supine SBP, mean (SD) | 2 | 132 (4) | 46 | 135 (22) | 51 | 138 (22) | 9 | 127 (15) | 0.79 |
| Supine DBP, mean (SD) | 2 | 85 (7) | 46 | 74 (12) | 51 | 72 (13) | 9 | 75 (18) | 0.58 |
| Change in SBP after 1 min standing, mean (SD) | 2 | − 20 (10) | 42 | − 7 (19) | 48 | − 14 (22) | 8 | − 12 (19) | 0.15 |
| Orthostatic hypotension, n (%) | 2 | 1 (50) | 42 | 10 (24) | 48 | 21 (44) | 8 | 4 (50) | 0.03 |
| Pulse rate, mean (SD) | 2 | 73 (9) | 46 | 70 (12) | 51 | 67 (13) | 9 | 67 (17) | 0.34 |
| Bradycardia, n (%) | 2 | 0 (0) | 46 | 9 (20) | 51 | 15 (29) | 9 | 3 (33) | 0.22 |
| Number of non-CYP2D6 drugs potentially affecting the risk of orthostatismb, mean (SD) | 2 | 5.0 (1.4) | 42 | 3.9 (1.7) | 48 | 4.1 (1.4) | 8 | 3.9 (1.4) | 0.53 |
| Number of non-CYP2D6 drugs potentially affecting pulse ratec, mean (SD) | 2 | 0.5 (0.7) | 46 | 0.9 (0.5) | 51 | 1.0 (0.6) | 9 | 0.9 (0.6) | 0.43 |
| Co-administration of CYP2D6 inhibitors, n (%)d | 2 | 0 | 46 | 4 (9) | 51 | 7 (14) | 9 | 0 (0) | 0.75 |
Patients using only CYP2D6 prodrugs are excluded
CYP2D6 cytochrome P450 2D6, DBP diastolic blood pressure, IM intermediate metabolizer, NM normal metabolizer, PM poor metabolizer, SBP systolic blood pressure, SD standard deviation, UM ultrarapid metabolizer
aThe p value is based on comparisons between two groups: NMs versus IMs/PMs (UMs excluded)
bComprising drugs from ATC groups C01DA, C02, C03, C07, C08, C09, G04CA, N02A, N03, N04, N05, and N06. Counts are included only for patients having valid measurements of orthostatism
cComprising drugs from ATC groups C01AA, C01B, C07, and C08D
dAmiodarone, mirabegron, escitalopram
The patient proportions with orthostatic hypotension (OH) was significantly higher for merged IMs (OH 44%)/PMs (OH 50%) than for NMs (OH 24%), p = 0.03. All patients with valid measurements of orthostatic hypotension used at least one non-CYP2D6 drug (range 1–8) that could potentially increase the occurrence of orthostatism, but the mean number of such drugs did not differ between the genotype subgroups (p = 0.53). The observed higher occurrence of orthostatism for IMs/PMs was further examined by logistic regression, showing that the difference versus NMs was unaffected by total numbers of drug use and comorbidity (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.6, 95% CI 1.1–6.3; p = 0.04) [Table S1 in the electronic supplementary material (ESM)]. Data on renal and hepatic function were not systematically available for the included patients.
The calculated proportion of patients with bradycardia was also higher for IMs (29%) and PMs (33%) than for NMs (20%), but the association between metabolizer subgroup and bradycardia was not statistically significant (p = 0.22). The mean number of non-CYP2D6 drugs potentially affecting pulse rate did not differ between the genotype subgroups (p = 0.43).
Metoprolol was the most frequently used CYP2D6 substrate (n = 76), which made it interesting to perform subgroup analyses for these patients (Table 5). There were no statistically significant differences between NMs and IMs/PMs for any of the hemodynamic variables in metoprolol-treated patients, but we observed a trend towards higher occurrence of orthostatic hypotension for IMs/PMs compared with NMs (p = 0.07). As above, this finding was further examined by logistic regression (Table S2 in the ESM). The trend towards increased occurrence of orthostatism for IMs/PMs was unaffected by total drug use and comorbidity also for the metoprolol users (adjusted OR 2.8, 95% CI 0.9–8.4).
Table 5.
Hemodynamic variables for users of metoprolol (N = 76) by CYP2D6 genotype subgroup
| UM (n = 1) | NM (n = 34) | IM (n = 34) | PM (n = 7) | p valuea | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | n | n | n | ||||||
| Supine SBP, mean (SD) | 1 | 135 | 34 | 135 (23) | 34 | 137 (23) | 7 | 129 (16) | 0.93 |
| Supine DBP, mean (SD) | 1 | 80 | 34 | 74 (12) | 34 | 71 (14) | 7 | 71 (19) | 0.35 |
| Change in SBP after 1 min standing, mean (SD) | 1 | − 13 | 31 | − 5 (17) | 32 | − 12 (19) | 6 | − 11 (22) | 0.17 |
| Orthostatic hypotension, n (%) | 1 | 0 | 31 | 6 (19) | 32 | 13 (41) | 6 | 2 (33) | 0.07 |
| Pulse rate, mean (SD) | 1 | 67 | 34 | 68 (11) | 34 | 66 (13) | 7 | 63 (18) | 0.42 |
| Bradycardia, n (%) | 1 | 0 | 34 | 8 (24) | 34 | 11 (32) | 7 | 3 (43) | 0.32 |
| Number of non-CYP2D6 drugs in addition to metoprolol potentially affecting the risk of orthostatismb, mean (SD) | 1 | 3 | 34 | 3.1 (1.6) | 34 | 3.2 (1.5) | 7 | 2.9 (1.5) | 0.59 |
| Number of non-CYP2D6 drugs in addition to metoprolol potentially affecting pulse ratec, mean (SD) | 1 | 0 | 34 | 0.1 (0.2) | 34 | 0.2 (0.5) | 7 | 0.1 (0.4) | 0.22 |
| Co-administration of CYP2D6 inhibitors, n (%)d | 1 | 0 | 34 | 4 (12) | 34 | 7 (21) | 7 | 0 | 0.75 |
CYP2D6 cytochrome P450 2D6, DBP diastolic blood pressure, IM intermediate metabolizer, NM normal metabolizer, PM poor metabolizer, SBP systolic blood pressure, SD standard deviation, UM ultrarapid metabolizer
aThe p-value is based on comparisons between two groups; NMs versus IMs/PMs (UMs excluded)
bComprising drugs from ATC groups C01DA, C02, C03, C07, C08, C09, G04CA, N02A, N03, N04, N05, and N06
cComprising drugs from ATC groups C01AA, C01B, C07, and C08D
dAmiodarone, mirabegron, escitalopram
Discussion
There was no difference in the mean prescribed dosage of CYP2D6 substrates between the various CYP2D6-metabolizer subgroups, either for drugs inactivated by CYP2D6 or those activated by CYP2D6 (prodrugs). As CYP2D6 genotype is known to be a major determinant of the exposure of the studied drugs, this may indicate that the physicians’ clinical judgement is insufficient when the aim is to optimize dosages for older patients and avoid ADRs. This is supported by the significant difference in orthostatism between CYP2D6 slow and normal metabolizers. It would have been favorable to study IMs and PMs as separate subgroups, but the limited power did not allow for reasonable statistical comparisons of three CYP2D6 subgroups. However, it was interesting to observe an increased occurrence of orthostatism by a stepwise reduction in CYP2D6 metabolizer phenotype, where 24% of NMs, 44% of IMs, and 50% of PMs had this symptom. As the present study is based on a post-hoc analysis of a limited population size, the potential increased risk of ADRs in older CYP2D6 IMs/PMs should be further investigated prospectively in larger patient populations.
The patients included in our study were aged 70 years or older, multimorbid, and exposed to extensive polypharmacy, and therefore especially vulnerable to ADRs [21]. The fact that all metabolizer subgroups were prescribed lower doses of CYP2D6 substrate drugs than generally recommended, as indicated by the calculated percentage of DDD, could reflect a reduced drug tolerability in the included patient population, or precautious physicians. Other factors than variability in CYP2D6 metabolism may therefore be of similar or greater importance for dose requirements of the identified CYP2D6 substrates. However, taking into account the therapeutic heterogeneity of the CYP2D6 substrates and the significant impact on risk of orthostatism, we consider it likely that older patients with reduced or absent CYP2D6 metabolism should be dosed lower than those with normal metabolism. In line with this, use of CYP2D6 genotyping should be considered as a tool for optimized dosing in older patients receiving complex treatment with multiple drugs.
We have not found other studies evaluating the impact of CYP2D6 polymorphisms on treatment intensities across various CYP2D6 substrates, but prescribed dosages in relation to CYP2D6 genotype of single drugs has, to some extent, been investigated [22–27]. For example, in a large population-based cohort of elderly patients, Bijl et al. found significantly lower maintenance doses of antidepressants in PMs compared with NMs [22]. For metoprolol, which is extensively metabolized by CYP2D6, some studies have found that PMs were prescribed significantly lower doses than NMs [23–25], while others did not find such differences [26, 27].
Despite CYP2D6 PMs obtaining a fivefold higher exposure of metoprolol per dose, the reported findings of the impact of CYP2D6 genotype on hemodynamic variables and side effects are conflicting [28, 29]. While some studies have found associations between CYP2D6 genotype and clinical effects [6, 23, 24, 30, 31], others have not [26, 32–34]. This may partly be explained by the fact that most studies were performed in a naturalistic setting without any controlled dosing protocol. In the present study, the metoprolol dosing was similar regardless of CYP2D6 genotype, with a non-significantly higher proportion of patients with orthostatism in CYP2D6 IMs/PMs versus NMs. Thus, in older CYP2D6 IMs/PMs, it seems rational to initiate metoprolol treatment with a lower dose than usually recommended.
There were relatively few patients using CYP2D6 substrates other than metoprolol with strong hemodynamic effects, such as tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) [35]. We cannot rule out that patients with reduced or absent CYP2D6 metabolism have previously used more CYP2D6 substrates, but that ADRs caused these drugs to be stopped before the initiation of our study.
The most important weakness of our study is that relatively few patients were included, which reduces the statistical power of the comparisons. Further studies should therefore replicate our findings, preferably in larger populations of older patients. In addition, we did not have sufficient data for all participants to include renal or hepatic impairment as covariates in the analyses, and cannot rule out that this could have affected the observed findings. Another aspect is that more refined classification or subgrouping of CYP2D6 genotype-predicted phenotypes by the use of the functional allele enzyme activity scores, which is currently advised to be applied by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), may improve the clinical interpretation of the possible association between CYP2D6 metabolism and treatment outcomes. However, very limited clinical research is performed on the pharmacogenetic impact of drug effects and side effects in the increasing population of home-dwelling older patients. In this context, our findings are novel, and highlight the possible relevance of pharmacogenetic differences for drug response in older patients subjected to polypharmacy.
Conclusions
In a naturalistic clinical setting of older, home-dwelling patients, dosing of CYP2D6 substrates was not adjusted according to genotype-predicted CYP2D6 metabolism. The increased frequency of orthostatism in CYP2D6 IMs/PMs versus NMs may therefore reflect higher exposure of CYP2D6 substrates in the former subgroup, and in particular metoprolol, which was by far the most commonly used CYP2D6 substrate with hemodynamic effects. Further studies should therefore investigate if dose adjustments based on preemptive CYP2D6 genotyping can improve clinical outcomes and reduce side effects in older patients subjected to polypharmacy.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgemets
Open Access funding provided by University of Oslo (incl Oslo University Hospital).
Author Contributions
RR had full access to all data in the study and is responsible for the data integrity and accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: all authors. Acquisition of data: RR. Analysis and interpretation of data: all authors. Statistical analysis: RR. Preparation of the manuscript: RR. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors. Funding acquisition: TBW. Supervision: TBW, EM. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee (the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics in Norway) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Funding
The study was funded by the Research Council of Norway (Grant number 222033/LAB).
Conflict of interest
RR, TBW, JS, HK, and EM declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (REK) in Norway and by the Data Protection Official at Oslo University Hospital.
Data availability
The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to restrictions from the Norwegian Data Protection Officer, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
- 1.Cacabelos R, Cacabelos N, Carril JC. The role of pharmacogenomics in adverse drug reactions. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2019;12:407–442. doi: 10.1080/17512433.2019.1597706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Tornio A, Backman JT. Cytochrome P450 in pharmacogenetics: an update. Adv Pharmacol. 2018;83:3–32. doi: 10.1016/bs.apha.2018.04.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Haslemo T, Eliasson E, Jukic MM, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Molden E. Significantly lower CYP2D6 metabolism measured as the O/N-desmethylvenlafaxine metabolic ratio in carriers of CYP2D6*41 versus CYP2D6*9 or CYP2D6*10: a study on therapeutic drug monitoring data from 1003 genotyped Scandinavian patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2019;85:194–201. doi: 10.1111/bcp.13788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ingelman-Sundberg M. Genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6): clinical consequences, evolutionary aspects and functional diversity. Pharmacogenomics J. 2005;5:6–13. doi: 10.1038/sj.tpj.6500285. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ingelman-Sundberg M, Sim SC, Gomez A, Rodriguez-Antona C. Influence of cytochrome P450 polymorphisms on drug therapies: pharmacogenetic, pharmacoepigenetic and clinical aspects. Pharmacol Ther. 2007;116:496–526. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2007.09.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Wuttke H, Rau T, Heide R, Bergmann K, Bohm M, Weil J, et al. Increased frequency of cytochrome P450 2D6 poor metabolizers among patients with metoprolol-associated adverse effects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72:429–437. doi: 10.1067/mcp.2002.127111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Goryachkina K, Burbello A, Boldueva S, Babak S, Bergman U, Bertilsson L. CYP2D6 is a major determinant of metoprolol disposition and effects in hospitalized Russian patients treated for acute myocardial infarction. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64:1163–1173. doi: 10.1007/s00228-008-0525-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lotsch J, Rohrbacher M, Schmidt H, Doehring A, Brockmoller J, Geisslinger G. Can extremely low or high morphine formation from codeine be predicted prior to therapy initiation? Pain. 2009;144:119–124. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2009.03.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Gasche Y, Daali Y, Fathi M, Chiappe A, Cottini S, Dayer P, et al. Codeine intoxication associated with ultrarapid CYP2D6 metabolism. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2827–2831. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa041888. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Kelly LE, Rieder M, van den Anker J, Malkin B, Ross C, Neely MN, et al. More codeine fatalities after tonsillectomy in North American children. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e1343–e1347. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Fried TR, O’Leary J, Towle V, Goldstein MK, Trentalange M, Martin DK. Health outcomes associated with polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62:2261–2272. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13153. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Rendic S. Summary of information on human CYP enzymes: human P450 metabolism data. Drug Metab Rev. 2002;34:83–448. doi: 10.1081/DMR-120001392. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Romskaug R, Skovlund E, Straand J, Molden E, Kersten H, Pitkala KH, et al. Effect of clinical geriatric assessments and collaborative medication reviews by geriatrician and family physician for improving health-related quality of life in home-dwelling older patients receiving polypharmacy: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5096. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Salvi F, Miller MD, Grilli A, Giorgi R, Towers AL, Morichi V, et al. A manual of guidelines to score the modified cumulative illness rating scale and its validation in acute hospitalized elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56:1926–1931. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01935.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hughes CP, Berg L, Danziger WL, Coben LA, Martin RL. A new clinical scale for the staging of dementia. Br J Psychiatry. 1982;140:566–572. doi: 10.1192/bjp.140.6.566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.O’Bryant SE, Waring SC, Cullum CM, Hall J, Lacritz L, Massman PJ, et al. Staging dementia using Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum of Boxes scores: a Texas Alzheimer’s research consortium study. Arch Neurol. 2008;65:1091–1095. doi: 10.1001/archneur.65.8.1091. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.World Medical Association World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310:2191–2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC classification system; 2018. https://www.whocc.no/atc/structure_and_principles/. Accessed Jan 6, 2020.
- 19.Caudle KE, Sangkuhl K, Whirl-Carrillo M, Swen JJ, Haidar CE, Klein TE, et al. Standardizing CYP2D6 genotype to phenotype translation: consensus recommendations from the clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium and Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group. Clin Transl Sci. 2020;13:116–124. doi: 10.1111/cts.12692. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. DDD: Definition and general considerations. https://www.whocc.no/ddd/definition_and_general_considera/. Accessed Jan 6, 2020.
- 21.Davies EA, O’Mahony MS. Adverse drug reactions in special populations—the elderly. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80:796–807. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bijl MJ, Visser LE, Hofman A, Vulto AG, van Gelder T, Stricker BH, et al. Influence of the CYP2D6*4 polymorphism on dose, switching and discontinuation of antidepressants. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;65:558–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2007.03052.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bijl MJ, Visser LE, van Schaik RH, Kors JA, Witteman JC, Hofman A, et al. Genetic variation in the CYP2D6 gene is associated with a lower heart rate and blood pressure in beta-blocker users. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85:45–50. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2008.172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Rau T, Wuttke H, Michels LM, Werner U, Bergmann K, Kreft M, et al. Impact of the CYP2D6 genotype on the clinical effects of metoprolol: a prospective longitudinal study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85:269–272. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2008.218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Luzum JA, Sweet KM, Binkley PF, Schmidlen TJ, Jarvis JP, Christman MF, et al. CYP2D6 genetic variation and beta-blocker maintenance dose in patients with heart failure. Pharm Res. 2017;34:1615–1625. doi: 10.1007/s11095-017-2104-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sharp CF, Gardiner SJ, Jensen BP, Roberts RL, Troughton RW, Lainchbury JG, et al. CYP2D6 genotype and its relationship with metoprolol dose, concentrations and effect in patients with systolic heart failure. Pharmacogenomics J. 2009;9:175–184. doi: 10.1038/tpj.2009.9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Batty JA, Hall AS, White HL, Wikstrand J, de Boer RA, van Veldhuisen DJ, et al. An investigation of CYP2D6 genotype and response to metoprolol CR/XL during dose titration in patients with heart failure: a MERIT-HF substudy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95:321–330. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2013.193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lymperopoulos A, McCrink KA, Brill A. Impact of CYP2D6 genetic variation on the response of the cardiovascular patient to carvedilol and metoprolol. Curr Drug Metab. 2015;17:30–36. doi: 10.2174/1389200217666151105125425. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Blake CM, Kharasch ED, Schwab M, Nagele P. A meta-analysis of CYP2D6 metabolizer phenotype and metoprolol pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013;94:394–399. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2013.96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Hamadeh IS, Langaee TY, Dwivedi R, Garcia S, Burkley BM, Skaar TC, et al. Impact of CYP2D6 polymorphisms on clinical efficacy and tolerability of metoprolol tartrate. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;96:175–181. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2014.62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Li S, Lin H, Sun W, Wang Y, Ding Y, Zhao H, et al. A meta-analysis of the effect of CYP2D6 polymorphism on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of metoprolol. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;55:483–492. doi: 10.5414/CP202545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Wu D, Li G, Deng M, Song W, Huang X, Guo X, et al. Associations between ADRB1 and CYP2D6 gene polymorphisms and the response to beta-blocker therapy in hypertension. J Int Med Res. 2015;43:424–434. doi: 10.1177/0300060514563151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Zineh I, Beitelshees AL, Gaedigk A, Walker JR, Pauly DF, Eberst K, et al. Pharmacokinetics and CYP2D6 genotypes do not predict metoprolol adverse events or efficacy in hypertension. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004;76:536–544. doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2004.08.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Fux R, Morike K, Prohmer AM, Delabar U, Schwab M, Schaeffeler E, et al. Impact of CYP2D6 genotype on adverse effects during treatment with metoprolol: a prospective clinical study. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2005;78:378–387. doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2005.07.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Lee SY, Ki CS, Hong KS, Kim JW. A case report of a poor metabolizer of CYP2D6 presented with unusual responses to nortriptyline medication. J Korean Med Sci. 2004;19:750–752. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2004.19.5.750. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to restrictions from the Norwegian Data Protection Officer, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.