Retrospective analysis of mirtazapine dosing in 328 patients with major depressive disorder shows significant pharmacokinetic variability, suggesting personalized monitoring approaches.
Purpose Mirtazapine is a common antidepressant, regularly monitored through therapeutic drug monitoring. The previously published Consensus Guidelines in Neuropsychopharmacology provide data on the therapeutic reference ranges (TRR), dose-related concentrations (DRC), and metabolic ratios (MR). We aimed to investigate these TDM ranges in a real-world naturalistic setting to offer more practical, evidence-based recommendations. Methods In a retrospective single-center cohort study, we screened 361 patients with major depressive disorder undergoing mirtazapine treatment. Following the Consensus Guidelines (Hiemke et al., 2017), we compared three TDM tools in combination: (I) the TRR, (II) the concentration-to-dose (C/D) ratio with DRC factors, and (III) the MR. Results We analyzed 328 patients (mean age 54 ± 16 years; 42% female). Serum levels of mirtazapine were below the TRR in 38% and above in 8%. Women exhibited an 18% higher C/D ratio compared to men, and elderly patients (> 65 years) demonstrated a 27% higher median C/D ratio than younger individuals. DRC values differed from the guideline-recommended ranges, likely due to higher dosing, unexpectedly lower serum values, interindividual pharmacokinetic variability, genetic polymorphisms, or polypharmacy. The median MR was 25% higher in women compared to men. Notably, 13 samples (4%) went beyond the designated MR range (either < 0.2 ng/mL or > 1.2 ng/mL). Conclusions This study provides real-world insights into established DRC values of mirtazapine. Observed age- and sex-related pharmacokinetic differences highlight the need for individualized dosing strategies, while further multicenter studies are needed to confirm their reproducibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nierychlewski et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: