Trial reportClinical drug investigation2012
Randomized open-label drug-drug interaction trial of dextromethorphan/quinidine and paroxetine in healthy volunteers.
Trial report in Clinical drug investigation, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Collecting Metabolite Pharmacokinetics in Drug-Drug Interaction Studies: A Review of Industry Practices and Data Utilization.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2026Pooled it
- Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling of quinidine to establish a CYP3A4, P-gp, and CYP2D6 drug-drug-gene interaction network.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2023Article
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling to Describe the CYP2D6 Activity Score-Dependent Metabolism of Paroxetine, Atomoxetine and Risperidone.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling of the role of CYP2D6 polymorphism for metabolic phenotyping with dextromethorphan.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Article
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model of the CYP2D6 Probe Atomoxetine: Extrapolation to Special Populations and Drug-Drug Interactions.Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2017Article
- Drug-drug interactions and QT prolongation as a commonly assessed cardiac effect - comprehensive overview of clinical trials.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2016Review
- Pseudobulbar affect (PBA) in an incident ALS cohort: results from the Apulia registry (SLAP).Journal of neurology · 2016Article
- Evaluating the safety and efficacy of dextromethorphan/quinidine in the treatment of pseudobulbar affect.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveThe novel combination of dextromethorphan (DM) and quinidine (Q) [DMQ] has been extensively studied in well controlled clinical trials as treatment for pseudobulbar affect (PBA), and is the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved treatment for this indication. The approved dosage of DMQ is DM 20 mg and Q 10 mg twice daily. DM is metabolized via cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6); Q is a CYP2D6 inhibitor used to increase DM plasma concentrations. Paroxetine is both a substrate and inhibitor of CYP2D6. This trial evaluated the effect of DMQ at a dose of DM 30 mg and Q 30 mg twice daily on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of paroxetine 20 mg daily and the effects of paroxetine on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of DMQ in healthy volunteers.
methodsThis was an open-label, randomized, parallel-group, 20-day trial. Drug plasma concentrations were analysed following monotherapy and concomitant (DMQ + paroxetine) therapy. Participants were 27 healthy adults who were randomized in a 1 : 1 fashion to one of two groups. Group 1 received paroxetine 20 mg once daily for 12 days to attain steady state, at which point DMQ 30 mg/30 mg twice daily was added for 8 days. Group 2 received DMQ 30 mg/30 mg twice daily for 8 days to attain steady state, at which point paroxetine 20 mg once daily was added for 12 days. The primary endpoints were the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratio of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) during concomitant therapy versus monotherapy. Safety and tolerability measures including adverse events (AEs) were also assessed.
resultsThe 90% CIs of the AUCs were outside of the predefined range [0.80, 1.25] for all analytes, indicating a drug-drug interaction. In group 1 (n = 14), addition of DMQ to paroxetine resulted in a 30% increase in mean plasma exposure of paroxetine (AUC up to 24 hours). In group 2 (n = 13), addition of paroxetine to DMQ resulted in increases in mean plasma exposure (AUC up to 12 hours) of 50% for DM and 40% for Q, and a decrease of 12.3% for dextrorphan, the metabolite of DM. The incidence of AEs was higher with paroxetine monotherapy and combination therapy, compared with DMQ given alone (30.8% with DMQ alone vs 83.3% following addition of paroxetine, and 78.6% with paroxetine alone vs 64.3% following addition of DMQ). Three subjects discontinued due to AEs, and no serious AEs were reported.
conclusionThe addition of DMQ 30 mg/30 mg twice daily to paroxetine increased steady-state paroxetine plasma concentrations and addition of paroxetine to DMQ 30 mg/30 mg twice daily increased steady-state plasma concentrations of DM and Q, indicating a potential interaction. Thus, patients should be monitored for AEs and dosage adjustment considered when combining these two agents.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.