After a 12-year search for the antipsychotic receptor, the binding site was discovered and labelled by [3H]haloperidol in 1975. Of the various neurotransmitters, dopamine was the most potent in inhibiting the binding of [3H]haloperidol, indicating that the antipsychotic receptor was a dopamine receptor, now named the dopamine D2 receptor, a major targeting site in schizophrenia. All antipsychotic drugs, including traditional and newer antipsychotics, either bind to D2 in direct relation to their clinical potencies or hinder normal dopamine neurotransmission, as in the case of partial dopamine agonists. In fact, the antipsychotic concentrations found in the plasma water of treated patients closely match the predicted therapeutic absolute concentrations, adjusted for the 60-75% D2 occupancy needed for clinical efficacy. Antipsychotics that elicit low or no Parkinsonism or prolactinaemia are loosely attached to D2 and rapidly dissociate from D2, whereas those eliciting Parkinsonism stay tightly attached to D2 for many hours. Because animal models of psychosis (amfetamine sensitisation, brain lesions) all show a marked elevation in the number of high-affinity states of D2, the antipsychotics are thought to specifically target these D2High states in psychosis in general and schizophrenia in particular.

/pdf/targeting-the-dopamine-d2-receptor-in-schizophrenia-3b4i2qisyd.pdf

Targeting the dopamine D2 receptor in schizophrenia

Atypical neuroleptics have low affinity for dopamine D2 receptors or are selective for D4 receptors

In the past, the information about the dose-clinical effectiveness of typical antipsychotics was not complete and this led to the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects. This, together with the intention of improving patients' quality of life and therapeutic compliance, resulted in the development of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs). This review will concentrate on the pharmacokinetics and metabolism of clozapine, risperidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, amisulpride, ziprasidone, aripiprazole and sertindole, and will discuss the main aspects of their pharmacodynamics. In psychopharmacology, therapeutic drug monitoring studies have generally concentrated on controlling compliance and avoiding adverse effects by keeping long-term exposure to the minimal effective blood concentration. The rationale for using therapeutic drug monitoring in relation to SGAs is still a matter of debate, but there is growing evidence that it can improve efficacy, especially when patients do not respond to therapeutic doses or when they develop adverse effects. Here, we review the literature concerning the relationships between plasma concentrations of SGAs and clinical responses by dividing the studies on the basis of the length of their observation periods. Studies with clozapine evidenced a positive relationship between plasma concentrations and clinical response, with a threshold of 350-420 ng/mL associated with good clinical response. The usefulness of therapeutic drug monitoring is well established because high plasma concentrations of clozapine can increase the risk of epileptic seizures. Plasma clozapine concentrations seem to be influenced by many factors such as altered cytochrome P450 1A4 activity, age, sex and smoking. The pharmacological effects of risperidone depend on the sum of the plasma concentrations of risperidone and its 9-hydroxyrisperidone metabolite, so monitoring the plasma concentrations of the parent compound alone can lead to erroneous interpretations. Despite a large variability in plasma drug concentrations, the lack of studies using fixed dosages, and discrepancies in the results, it seems that monitoring the plasma concentrations of the active moiety may be useful. However, no therapeutic plasma concentration range for risperidone has yet been clearly established. A plasma threshold concentration for parkinsonian side effects has been found to be 74 ng/mL. Moreover, therapeutic drug monitoring may be particularly useful in the switch between the oral and the long-acting injectable form. The reviewed studies on olanzapine strongly indicate a relationship between clinical outcomes and plasma concentrations. Olanzapine therapeutic drug monitoring can be considered very useful in assessing therapeutic efficacy and controlling adverse events. A therapeutic range of 20-50 ng/mL has been found. There is little evidence in favour of the existence of a relationship between plasma quetiapine concentrations and clinical responses, and an optimal therapeutic range has not been identified. Positron emission tomography studies of receptor blockade indicated a discrepancy between the time course of receptor occupancy and plasma quetiapine concentrations. The value of quetiapine plasma concentration monitoring in clinical practice is still controversial. Preliminary data suggested that a therapeutic plasma amisulpride concentration of 367 ng/mL was associated with clinical improvement. A therapeutic range of 100-400 ng/mL is proposed from non-systematic clinical experience. There is no direct evidence concerning optimal plasma concentration ranges of ziprasidone, aripiprazole or sertindole.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of atypical antipsychotics: a critical review of the relationship between plasma concentrations and clinical response.

Rationale: Monitoring plasma clozapine concentrations may play a useful role in the management of patients with schizophrenia, but information on the relationship between the plasma levels of the drug and response is still controversial. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between plasma concentrations of clozapine and its weakly active metabolite norclozapine and clinical response in patients with schizophrenia resistant to conventional neuroleptics. Methods: Forty-five patients, 35 males and ten females, aged 19–65 years, were given clozapine at a dosage up to 500 mg/day for 12 weeks. Steady-state plasma concentrations of clozapine and norclozapine were measured at week 12 by a specific HPLC assay. Psychopathological state was assessed at baseline and at week 12 by using the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, and patients were considered responders if they showed a greater than 20% reduction in total BPRS score compared with baseline and a final BPRS score of 35 or less. Results: Mean plasma clozapine concentrations were higher in responders (n=18) than in non-responders (n=27) (472±220 versus 328±128 ng/ml, P<0.01), whereas plasma norclozapine levels did not differ between the two groups (201±104 versus 156±64 ng/ml, NS). A significant positive correlation between plasma levels and percent decrease in total BPRS score was found for clozapine (r

 s=0.371, P<0.02), but not for norclozapine (r

 s=0.162, NS). A cutoff value at a clozapine concentration of about 350 ng/ml differentiated responders from non-responders with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 70%. At a cutoff of 400 ng/ml, sensitivity was 67% and specificity 78%. The incidence of side effects was twice as high at clozapine concentrations above 350 ng/ml compared with lower concentrations (38% versus 17%). Conclusions: These results suggest that plasma clozapine levels are correlated with clinical effects, although there is considerable variability in the response achieved at any given drug concentration. Because many patients respond well at plasma clozapine concentrations in a low range, aiming initially at plasma clozapine concentrations of 350 ng/ml or greater would require in some patients use of unrealistically high dosages and imply an excessive risk of side effects. Increasing dosage to achieve plasma levels above 350–400 ng/ml may be especially indicated in patients without side effects who failed to exhibit amelioration of psychopathology at standard dosages or at lower drug concentrations.

Relationship between plasma concentrations of clozapine and norclozapine and therapeutic response in patients with schizophrenia resistant to conventional neuroleptics

Atypical antipsychotics are expected to be better tolerated than older antipsychotics because of their lower propensity to cause certain adverse effects. All atypical drugs have been shown to cause fewer acute extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS) than a standard typical agent (usually haloperidol) and some (clozapine, sertindole and quetiapine) appear to cause these effects no more often than placebo. In the longer term, clozapine, olanzapine and (less robustly) other atypical antipsychotics are thought to cause less tardive dyskinesia than typical antipsychotics. Problems caused by hyperprolactinaemia occur less often with some atypical antipsychotics than with typical drugs although risperidone and amisulpride appear to have no advantages in this respect. Other adverse effects may occur as frequently with some atypical antipsychotics as with some typical drugs. Clozapine, risperidone and quetiapine are known to cause postural hypotension; clozapine, olanzapine and quetiapine are clearly sedative; and anticholinergic effects are commonly seen with clozapine, and, much less frequently, with olanzapine. Some adverse effects are more frequent with atypical drugs. Idiosyncratic effects seem particularly troublesome with clozapine and, to a lesser extent, sertindole, olanzapine and zotepine. Bodyweight gain is probably more problematic with atypical antipsychotics than with typical drugs. Overall tolerability, as judged by withdrawals from therapy, is not clearly proven to be better with atypical drugs, although some individual trials do indicate an advantage with atypical agents. Differences in tolerability between individual atypical antipsychotics have not been clearly shown. The tolerability profile of atypical drugs certainly benefits from a lower incidence of acute EPS effects, along with less certain or less uniform benefits in symptomatic hyperprolactinaemia or tardive dyskinesia. Other, perhaps more trivial, adverse effects militate against their good tolerability, and effects such as bodyweight gain may severely reduce tolerability. Without clear advantages in tolerability in patient groups used in trials, drug choice in regard to adverse effects should continue to be on a patient to patient basis.

Tolerability of Atypical Antipsychotics

Serum clozapine (S-Cloza) and serum desmethyl-clozapine concentrations (S-Descloza) were measured in 30 chronic schizophrenic in- and outpatients on a variable dose regimen. All patients were in steady state with respect to clozapine therapy and in a stable condition with respect to psychotic illness. The 24-h clozapine dose (median with interquartile range in parenthesis) was 350 (228–425) mg/24 h (range 100–700). There was a weak positive correlation between doses and the BPRS total score (r=0.44,P<0.05). The median S-Cloza was 1076 (706–1882) nmol/l (range 196–5581 corresponding to 64–1824 ng/ml). The S-Cloza was linearly correlated to dose but with a high interindividual variation at equal doses, e.g. a factor of 8 at 400 mg/24 h, but a low intraindividual variability of 20%. The S-Descloza averaged 77% of the S-Cloza and was highly correlated to S-Cloza (r=0.90;P<0.001). The S-Descloza/dose ratio increased with age and duration of treatment. The side effects registered were EEG abnormalities (83%), tachycardia (23%), increased liver enzyme activity (60%), orthostatic hypotension (17%), and moderate leucocytosis (17%). Only EEG changes were correlated to S-Cloza (r=0.43;P<0.05). The score values of the UKU Side Effect Scale were weakly (r=0.36) correlated to S-Cloza. No side effects were correlated to S-Descloza, doses, or treatment duration. The frequency of side effects was higher than in studies using lower mean doses indicating a correlation between doses or S-Cloza and the frequency of side effects. It is concluded that clozapine fulfils the criteria for therapeutic drug monitoring. TDM may contribute to finding the lowest effective dose with the fewest possible side effects.

N A Rasmussen

Papers

Clozapine serum levels and side effects during steady state treatment of schizophrenic patients: a cross-sectional study.