Frontiers in Psychiatry is proud to present our Case Reports series. Our case reports aim to highlight unique cases of patients that present with an unexpected/unusual diagnosis, treatment outcome, or clinical course. Case reports provide insight into the differential diagnosis, decision-making, and clinical management of unusual cases and are a valuable educational tool.This Research Topic will only accept Case Reports or Community Case Studies, but also relevant Opinions and Perspectives may be considered, all manuscripts must be original with the aim to significantly advance the field to be considered. We welcome contributions that cover all aspects of Psychopharmacology.

Views

Article Views

Article Downloads

Frontiers in Psychiatry

Psychopharmacology

Case Reports in Psychopharmacology: Volume II

Editorial: Case reports in psychopharmacology, volume II

Clinical pharmacist recommendations in daily interdisciplinary ward rounds at a psychiatric hospital: a retrospective pre-post study on drug-related problems focused in somatic comorbidities

This case report describes a patient with major depressive disorder (MDD) who developed acute hepatocellular liver injury after being treated with sertraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). The diagnosis of MDD was made two years prior, and the patient had previously responded partially to escitalopram and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Upon switching to sertraline 50 mg daily, the patient presented with severe symptoms indicative of acute liver injury, including elevated liver enzymes, jaundice, and gastrointestinal distress. Following the discontinuation of sertraline, the patient’s liver function tests gradually normalized over a 90-day period, confirming the diagnosis of sertraline-induced hepatotoxicity. This case underscores the importance of continuous monitoring for potential liver injury in patients treated with sertraline. The findings contribute to the existing body of evidence on the hepatotoxic risks associated with SSRIs and highlight the need for personalized treatment strategies to mitigate adverse effects and enhance patient safety. Further research is needed to explore the long-term safety and efficacy of sertraline, particularly in vulnerable populations.

This case report describes a patient with major depressive disorder (MDD) who developed acute hepatocellular liver injury after being treated with sertraline, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). The diagnosis of MDD was made two years prior, and the patient had previously responded partially to escitalopram and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT). Upon switching to sertraline 50 mg daily, the patient presented with severe symptoms indicative of acute liver injury, including elevated liver enzymes, jaundice, and gastrointestinal distress. Following the discontinuation of sertraline, the patient&#x2019;s liver function tests gradually normalized over a 90-day period, confirming the diagnosis of sertraline-induced hepatotoxicity. This case underscores the importance of continuous monitoring for potential liver injury in patients treated with sertraline. The findings contribute to the existing body of evidence on the hepatotoxic risks associated with SSRIs and highlight the need for personalized treatment strategies to mitigate adverse effects and enhance patient safety. Further research is needed to explore the long-term safety and efficacy of sertraline, particularly in vulnerable populations.

Sertraline induced acute hepatocellular liver injury in patient with major depressive disorder: a case report

Major depressive disorder is a mental disorder affecting millions of people worldwide. A considerable proportion of patients demonstrate a lack of response to conventional treatment. With the recent introduction of esketamine, a new treatment option has been approved for treatment-resistant depression. Although the medication is efficacious in a substantial portion of cases, rare, but possibly serious, adverse effects may occur. This case series shows two cases of rhabdomyolysis, a destruction of muscle tissue with elevated creatine kinase levels, after administration of esketamine. The first case presented is about a 33 year old male patient who suffered from a severe episode of a depressive disorder. He got nasal esketamine as an emergency treatment. While there was an initial improvement regarding the depressive symptoms, the patient developed muscle pain and fatigue after the administration of the fourth dose, with creatine kinase (CK) levels above 22,000 U/L, indicating rhabdomyolysis. Following the discontinuation of esketamine and the implementation of supportive care, the CK levels returned to normal and the depressive symptoms abated. The second case is about a 22-year-old male patient who also suffered from a severe depressive episode and got eketamine as an emergency treatment. Following the tenth dose, the patient exhibited muscle weakness and elevated CK levels (8,032 U/L), which persisted even after dose reduction. Esketamine administration was stopped, and the following monitoring demonstrated a slow return to normal levels of CK and liver enzymes. In both cases, there was no known medical history and both patients developed rhabdomyolysis after administration of esketamine. The temporal connection suggests a possible causal relationship. We found no literature on esketamine-induced rhabdomyolysis following the administration of nasal esketamine. However, these two cases emphasize the need of monitoring for laboratory changes like elevated CK-levels in patients receiving esketamine, especially considering its growing use in treatment-resistant depression.

Major depressive disorder is a mental disorder affecting millions of people worldwide. A considerable proportion of patients demonstrate a lack of response to conventional treatment. With the recent introduction of esketamine, a new treatment option has been approved for treatment-resistant depression. Although the medication is efficacious in a substantial portion of cases, rare, but possibly serious, adverse effects may occur. This case series shows two cases of rhabdomyolysis, a destruction of muscle tissue with elevated creatine kinase levels, after administration of esketamine. The first case presented is about a 33 year old male patient who suffered from a severe episode of a depressive disorder. He got nasal esketamine as an emergency treatment. While there was an initial improvement regarding the depressive symptoms, the patient developed muscle pain and fatigue after the administration of the fourth dose, with creatine kinase (CK) levels above 22,000 U/L, indicating rhabdomyolysis. Following the discontinuation of esketamine and the implementation of supportive care, the CK levels returned to normal and the depressive symptoms abated. The second case is about a 22-year-old male patient who also suffered from a severe depressive episode and got eketamine as an emergency treatment. Following the tenth dose, the patient exhibited muscle weakness and elevated CK levels (8,032 U/L), which persisted even after dose reduction. Esketamine administration was stopped, and the following monitoring demonstrated a slow return to normal levels of CK and liver enzymes. In both cases, there was no known medical history and both patients developed rhabdomyolysis after administration of esketamine. The temporal connection suggests a possible causal relationship. We found no literature on esketamine-induced rhabdomyolysis following the administration of nasal esketamine. However, these two cases emphasize the need of monitoring for laboratory changes like elevated CK-levels in patients receiving esketamine, especially considering its growing use in treatment-resistant depression.

Case report: two cases of rhabdomyolysis following esketamine treatment

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is being investigated in controlled clinical trials for use as an adjunct medication treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. MDMA is metabolized by N-demethylation, primarily by CYP2D6, to its main inactive metabolite, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine. It is also metabolized to a lesser extent by CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4 to its active metabolite, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine. Considering the extensive hepatic metabolism and excretion, MDMA use in psychiatry raises concerns over drug-induced liver injury (DILI), a rare but dangerous event. Majority of the drugs withdrawn from the market for liver injury caused death or transplantation at frequencies under 0.01%. Unfortunately, markers for liver injury were not measured in most published clinical trials. At the same time, no visible DILI-related symptoms and adverse events were observed. Idiosyncratic DILI cases are rarely registered during clinical trials due to their rare nature. In this study, we surveyed a larger, over 1,500, and a more diverse set of reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and found 23 cases of hepatic injury and hepatic failure, in which MDMA was reported to be taken in addition to one or more substances. Interestingly, 22 out of 23 cases had one or more listed drugs with a known DILI concern based on the FDA’s DILIrank dataset. Furthermore, only one report had MDMA listed as the primary suspect. Considering the nearly 20 million doses of MDMA used annually, this single report is insufficient for establishing a significant association with DILI.

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is being investigated in controlled clinical trials for use as an adjunct medication treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder. MDMA is metabolized by N-demethylation, primarily by CYP2D6, to its main inactive metabolite, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxymethamphetamine. It is also metabolized to a lesser extent by CYP1A2, CYP2B6, and CYP3A4 to its active metabolite, 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine. Considering the extensive hepatic metabolism and excretion, MDMA use in psychiatry raises concerns over drug-induced liver injury (DILI), a rare but dangerous event. Majority of the drugs withdrawn from the market for liver injury caused death or transplantation at frequencies under 0.01%. Unfortunately, markers for liver injury were not measured in most published clinical trials. At the same time, no visible DILI-related symptoms and adverse events were observed. Idiosyncratic DILI cases are rarely registered during clinical trials due to their rare nature. In this study, we surveyed a larger, over 1,500, and a more diverse set of reports from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and found 23 cases of hepatic injury and hepatic failure, in which MDMA was reported to be taken in addition to one or more substances. Interestingly, 22 out of 23 cases had one or more listed drugs with a known DILI concern based on the FDA&#x2019;s DILIrank dataset. Furthermore, only one report had MDMA listed as the primary suspect. Considering the nearly 20 million doses of MDMA used annually, this single report is insufficient for establishing a significant association with DILI.

Hepatic injury and hepatic failure adverse events in 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine users reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System

IntroductionThe standard approach to treatment in psychiatry is known as “treatment as usual” (TAU), in which the same types of treatment are administered to a group of patients. TAU often requires numerous dose adjustments and medication changes due to ineffectiveness and/or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This process is not only time-consuming but also costly. Antipsychotic medications are commonly used to treat various psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders. Some of the inter-individual differences in efficacy and ADRs observed in psychopharmacotherapy can be explained by genetic variability in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotics. A better understanding of (in)efficacy and possible ADRs can be achieved by pharmacogenetic analysis of genes involved in the metabolism of antipsychotics. Most psychotropic drugs are metabolized by genetically variable CYP2D6, CYP1A2, CYP3A4, and CYP2C19 enzymes. To demonstrate the utility of pharmacogenetic testing for tailoring antipsychotic treatment, in this paper, we present the case of a patient in whom a pharmacogenetic approach remarkably altered an otherwise intolerant or ineffective conventional TAU with antipsychotics.</sec>MethodsIn this case report, we present a 60-year-old patient with psychotic symptoms who suffered from severe extrapyramidal symptoms and a malignant neuroleptic syndrome during treatment with risperidone, fluphenazine, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and olanzapine. Therefore, we performed a pharmacogenetic analysis by genotyping common functional variants in genes involved in the pharmacokinetic pathways of prescribed antipsychotics, namely, CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP1A2, ABCB1, and ABCG2. Treatment recommendations for drug–gene pairs were made according to available evidence-based pharmacogenetic recommendations from the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) or Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC).</sec>ResultsPharmacogenetic testing revealed a specific metabolic profile and pharmacokinetic phenotype of the patient, which in retrospect provided possible explanations for the observed ADRs. Based on the pharmacogenetic results, the choice of an effective and safe medication proved to be much easier. The psychotic symptoms disappeared after treatment, while the negative symptoms persisted to a lesser extent.</sec>ConclusionWith the case presented, we have shown that taking into account the pharmacogenetic characteristics of the patient can explain the response to antipsychotic treatment and associated side effects. In addition, pharmacogenetic testing enabled an informed choice of the most appropriate drug and optimal dose adjustment. This approach makes it possible to avoid or minimize potentially serious dose-related ADRs and treatment ineffectiveness. However, due to the complexity of psychopathology and the polypharmacy used in this field, it is of great importance to conduct further pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic studies to better assess gene–drug and gene–gene–drug interactions.</sec>

Introduction: The standard approach to treatment in psychiatry is known as “treatment as usual” (TAU), in which the same types of treatment are administered to a group of patients. TAU often requires numerous dose adjustments and medication changes due to ineffectiveness and/or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This process is not only time-consuming but also costly. Antipsychotic medications are commonly used to treat various psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia and mood disorders. Some of the inter-individual differences in efficacy and ADRs observed in psychopharmacotherapy can be explained by genetic variability in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotics. A better understanding of (in)efficacy and possible ADRs can be achieved by pharmacogenetic analysis of genes involved in the metabolism of antipsychotics. Most psychotropic drugs are metabolized by genetically variable CYP2D6, CYP1A2, CYP3A4, and CYP2C19 enzymes. To demonstrate the utility of pharmacogenetic testing for tailoring antipsychotic treatment, in this paper, we present the case of a patient in whom a pharmacogenetic approach remarkably altered an otherwise intolerant or ineffective conventional TAU with antipsychotics.Methods: In this case report, we present a 60-year-old patient with psychotic symptoms who suffered from severe extrapyramidal symptoms and a malignant neuroleptic syndrome during treatment with risperidone, fluphenazine, aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, and olanzapine. Therefore, we performed a pharmacogenetic analysis by genotyping common functional variants in genes involved in the pharmacokinetic pathways of prescribed antipsychotics, namely, CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP1A2, ABCB1, and ABCG2. Treatment recommendations for drug–gene pairs were made according to available evidence-based pharmacogenetic recommendations from the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) or Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC).Results: Pharmacogenetic testing revealed a specific metabolic profile and pharmacokinetic phenotype of the patient, which in retrospect provided possible explanations for the observed ADRs. Based on the pharmacogenetic results, the choice of an effective and safe medication proved to be much easier. The psychotic symptoms disappeared after treatment, while the negative symptoms persisted to a lesser extent.Conclusion: With the case presented, we have shown that taking into account the pharmacogenetic characteristics of the patient can explain the response to antipsychotic treatment and associated side effects. In addition, pharmacogenetic testing enabled an informed choice of the most appropriate drug and optimal dose adjustment. This approach makes it possible to avoid or minimize potentially serious dose-related ADRs and treatment ineffectiveness. However, due to the complexity of psychopathology and the polypharmacy used in this field, it is of great importance to conduct further pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic studies to better assess gene–drug and gene–gene–drug interactions.

Case report: Avoiding intolerance to antipsychotics through a personalized treatment approach based on pharmacogenetics

Background and aimLithium is considered to be the first-line treatment for bipolar disorder, and paliperidone was approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and acute bipolar manic/mixed episodes. However, both agents have been associated with thyroid dysfunction and cardiovascular adverse effects like subclinical hypothyroidism, bradycardia, and sinus arrest, even at therapeutic doses.</sec>Case presentationHere, we reported a case of a 17-year-old Han Chinese female who developed symptomatic hypothyroidism, sinus bradycardia, and sinus arrest while being treated with lithium and paliperidone for bipolar disorder with psychotic features including auditory hallucinations. Her workup suggested that these adverse effects might be related to the combined lithium and paliperidone treatment, although other causes could not be ruled out. After discontinuing both medications, her thyroid function and heart rhythm normalized over 20 days.</sec>ConclusionTo our knowledge, hypothyroidism, sinus bradycardia, and sinus arrest associated with the combined use of lithium and paliperidone had not been reported previously. Further research is warranted to elucidate the potential risks and benefits of this combination therapy for bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms.</sec>

Background and aim: Lithium is considered to be the first-line treatment for bipolar disorder, and paliperidone was approved for the treatment of schizophrenia and acute bipolar manic/mixed episodes. However, both agents have been associated with thyroid dysfunction and cardiovascular adverse effects like subclinical hypothyroidism, bradycardia, and sinus arrest, even at therapeutic doses.Case presentation: Here, we reported a case of a 17-year-old Han Chinese female who developed symptomatic hypothyroidism, sinus bradycardia, and sinus arrest while being treated with lithium and paliperidone for bipolar disorder with psychotic features including auditory hallucinations. Her workup suggested that these adverse effects might be related to the combined lithium and paliperidone treatment, although other causes could not be ruled out. After discontinuing both medications, her thyroid function and heart rhythm normalized over 20 days.Conclusion: To our knowledge, hypothyroidism, sinus bradycardia, and sinus arrest associated with the combined use of lithium and paliperidone had not been reported previously. Further research is warranted to elucidate the potential risks and benefits of this combination therapy for bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms.

Hypothyroidism and sinus dysfunction associated with lithium-paliperidone combination therapy for bipolar disorder with psychotic symptoms: a case report