Search

Suspected adverse drug reactions (ADRs) during treatment with clozapine often prompt therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) in clinical practice. Currently, there is no official recommendation for pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in the context of clozapine therapy. In this case report, we demonstrate and discuss the challenges of interpreting PGx and TDM results highlighting the possibilities and limitations of both analytical methods. A 36-year-old male patient with catatonic schizophrenia was treated with clozapine. He experienced multiple hospitalizations due to elevated creatine kinase (CK) levels (up to 9000 U/L, reference range: 30-200 U/L). With no other medical explanation found, physicians suspected clozapine-induced ADRs. However, plasma levels of clozapine were consistently low or subtherapeutic upon admission, prompting us to conduct a PGx analysis and retrospectively review the patient’s TDM data, progress notes, and discharge reports. We investigated two possible hypotheses to explain the symptoms despite low clozapine plasma levels: Hypothesis i. suggested the formation and accumulation of a reactive intermediate metabolite due to increased activity in cytochrome P450 3A5 and reduced activity in glutathione S-transferases 1, leading to myotoxicity. Hypothesis ii. proposed under-treatment with clozapine, resulting in ineffective clozapine levels, leading to a rebound effect with increased catatonic symptoms and CK levels. After considering both data sources (PGx and TDM), hypothesis ii. appeared more plausible. By comprehensively assessing all available TDM measurements and examining them in temporal correlation with the drug dose and clinical symptoms, we observed that CK levels normalized when clozapine plasma levels were raised to the therapeutic range. This was achieved through hospitalization and closely monitored clozapine intake. Therefore, we concluded that the symptoms were not an ADR due to altered clozapine metabolism but rather the result of under-treatment. Interpreting TDM and PGx results requires caution. Relying solely on isolated PGx or single TDM values can result in misinterpretation of drug reactions. We recommend considering the comprehensive patient history, including treatment, dosages, laboratory values, clinic visits, and medication adherence.

We report the case of a 50-year-old male with major depressive disorder (MDD) to illustrate the challenge of finding effective antidepressant pharmacotherapy and the role that the patient’s genetic makeup may play. Recent treatment attempts before clinic admission included venlafaxine and fluoxetine. Venlafaxine was discontinued due to lack of response, and subsequently switched to fluoxetine based on pharmacogenotyping of the P-glycoprotein transporter (P-gp, encoded by ABCB1) by the outpatient psychiatrist. Despite steady state serum levels within the therapeutic range, the patient did not benefit from fluoxetine either, necessitating admission to our clinic. Here a clinical pharmacist-led medication review including additional pharmacogenetic (PGx) analysis resulted in the change of the antidepressant therapy to bupropion. Under the new regimen, established in the in-patient-setting, the patient remitted. However, based on the assessed pharmacokinetics-related gene variants, including CYPs and ABCB1, non-response to fluoxetine could not be conclusively explained. Therefore, we retrospectively selected the serotonin transporter (SERT1, encoded by SLC6A4) for further genetic analysis of pharmacodynamic variability. The patient presented to be a homozygous carrier of the short allele variant in the 5-HTTLPR (S/S) located within the SLC6A4 promoter region, which has been associated with a reduced expression of the SERT1. This case points out the potential relevance of panel PGx testing considering polymorphisms in genes of pharmacokinetic as well as pharmacodynamic relevance.