Vitamin D

Vitamin D Insufficiency and FL Outcomes

Blood Cancer J; ePub 2017 Aug 25; Tracy, et al

August 30, 2017

Indolent Lymphoma for July/August 2017

  1. Vitamin D Insufficiency and FL Outcomes
  2. Grade 3 Follicular Lymphoma Outcomes Evaluated

There appears to be a link between vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) and early clinical failure in patients with follicular lymphoma, according to an observational prospective cohort study involving 642 individuals. Participants had follicular lymphoma that was diagnosed at a median of 60 years of age between 2002 and 2012. Investigators looked at whether VDI was linked with adverse outcomes. Among the results:

  • At a median follow-up of ~5 years, 46% of patients experienced either an event or treatment failure.
  • 7% had a lymphoma-related death.
  • Overall, patients with VDI were more than twice as likely to experience inferior event-free survival at 1 year; the same was true for overall survival.
  • They were nearly 3 times more likely to experience inferior lymphoma-specific survival.
  • Among patients treated with immunochemotherapy, those with VDI were ~3 times more likely to experience inferior event-free survival; the same was true for overall survival.
  • They were nearly 6 times more likely to experience inferior lymphoma-specific survival.

Citation:Tracy S, Maurer M, Witzig T, et al. Vitamin D insufficiency is associated with an increased risk of early clinical failure in follicular lymphoma. [Published online ahead of print August 25, 2017]. Blood Cancer J. doi:10.1038/bcj.2017.70.

 

Study Rebuts Popular Claim Against Antidepressant Effectiveness

The antidepressants paroxetine and citalopram distinctly outperformed placebo among patients who experienced no adverse effects from the drugs in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-registered, placebo-controlled trials, according to a new mega-analysis published online in Molecular Psychiatry.

The findings reject a widely disseminated theory, reported on in media outlets including Newsweek and 60 Minutes, that such medications exert no actual antidepressant effect.

“It has been suggested that the superiority of antidepressants over placebo in controlled trials is merely a consequence of side effects enhancing the expectation of improvement by making the patient realize that he/she is not on placebo,” wrote researchers from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden. “We explored this hypothesis in a patient-level post hoc analysis.”

Donald Rauh M.D., Ph.D., FAPA
Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology
Board Certified in General Psychiatry and in  Child & Adolescent Psychiatry

Nuts

Association of Nut Consumption with Total and Cause-Specific Mortality

Ying Bao, M.D., Sc.D., Jiali Han, Ph.D., Frank B. Hu, M.D., Ph.D., Edward L. Giovannucci, M.D., Sc.D., Meir J. Stampfer, M.D., Dr.P.H., Walter C. Willett, M.D., Dr.P.H., and Charles S. Fuchs, M.D., M.P.H.

N Engl J Med 2013; 369:2001-2011November 21, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1307352

BACKGROUND

Increased nut consumption has been associated with a reduced risk of major chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, the association between nut consumption and mortality remains unclear.

METHODS

We examined the association between nut consumption and subsequent total and cause-specific mortality among 76,464 women in the Nurses’ Health Study (1980–2010) and 42,498 men in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986–2010). Participants with a history of cancer, heart disease, or stroke were excluded. Nut consumption was assessed at baseline and updated every 2 to 4 years.

RESULTS

During 3,038,853 person-years of follow-up, 16,200 women and 11,229 men died. Nut consumption was inversely associated with total mortality among both women and men, after adjustment for other known or suspected risk factors. The pooled multivariate hazard ratios for death among participants who ate nuts, as compared with those who did not, were 0.93 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 0.96) for the consumption of nuts less than once per week, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.86 to 0.93) for once per week, 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.90) for two to four times per week, 0.85 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.91) for five or six times per week, and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.86) for seven or more times per week (P<0.001 for trend). Significant inverse associations were also observed between nut consumption and deaths due to cancer, heart disease, and respiratory disease.

In two large, independent cohorts of nurses and other health professionals, the frequency of nut consumption was inversely associated with total and cause-specific mortality, independently of other predictors of death. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the International Tree Nut Council Nutrition Research and Education Foundation.)

Source:  http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1307352

Intense Moods, Bipolar Disorder

Bipolar Disorder – going through intense moods

Do you go through intense moods?  Do you feel very happy and energized some days, and very sad and depressed on other days? Do these moods last for a week or more? Do your mood changes make it hard to sleep, stay focused, or go to work?

Some people with these symptoms have bipolar disorder, a serious mental illness. This brochure will give you more information.

What is bipolar disorder?

Bipolar disorder is a serious brain illness. It is also called manic-depressive illness or manic depression. People with bipolar disorder go through unusual mood changes. Sometimes they feel very happy and “up,” and are much more energetic and active than usual. This is called a manic episode. Sometimes people with bipolar disorder feel very sad and “down,” have low energy, and are much less active. This is called depression or a depressive episode.

Bipolar disorder is not the same as the normal ups and downs everyone goes through. The mood swings are more extreme than that and are accompanied by changes in sleep, energy level, and the ability to think clearly. Bipolar symptoms are so strong that they can damage relationships and make it hard to go to school or keep a job. They can also be dangerous. Some people with bipolar disorder try to hurt themselves or attempt suicide.

People with bipolar disorder can get treatment. With help, they can get better and lead successful lives.

Who develops bipolar disorder?

Anyone can develop bipolar disorder. It often starts in a person’s late teen or early adult years. But children and older adults can have bipolar disorder too. The illness usually lasts a lifetime.

Why does someone develop bipolar disorder?

Doctors do not know what causes bipolar disorder, but several things may contribute to the illness. Family genes may be one factor because bipolar disorder sometimes runs in families. However, it is important to know that just because someone in your family has bipolar disorder, it does not mean other members of the family will have it as well. Another factor that may lead to bipolar disorder is the brain structure or the brain function of the person with the disorder. Scientists are finding out more about the disorder by studying it. This research may help doctors do a better job of treating people. Also, this research may help doctors to predict whether a person will get bipolar disorder. One day, doctors may be able to prevent the illness in some people.

What are the symptoms of bipolar disorder?

Bipolar “mood episodes” include unusual mood changes along with unusual sleep habits, activity levels, thoughts, or behavior. People may have manic episodes, depressive episodes, or “mixed” episodes. A mixed episode has both manic and depressive symptoms. These mood episodes cause symptoms that last a week or two or sometimes longer. During an episode, the symptoms last every day for most of the day.

Mood episodes are intense. The feelings are strong and happen along with extreme changes in behavior and energy levels.

People having a manic episode may:

  • Feel very “up” or “high”
  • Feel “jumpy” or “wired”
  • Have trouble sleeping
  • Become more active than usual
  • Talk really fast about a lot of different things
  • Be agitated, irritable, or “touchy”
  • Feel like their thoughts are going very fast
  • Think they can do a lot of things at once
  • Do risky things, like spend a lot of money or have reckless sex

People having a depressive episode may:

  • Feel very “down” or sad
  • Sleep too much or too little
  • Feel like they can’t enjoy anything
  • Feel worried and empty
  • Have trouble concentrating
  • Forget things a lot
  • Eat too much or too little
  • Feel tired or “slowed down”
  • Have trouble sleeping
  • Think about death or suicide

Can someone have bipolar disorder along with other problems?

Yes. Sometimes people having very strong mood episodes may have psychotic symptoms. Psychosis affects thoughts and emotions as well as a person’s ability to know what is real and what is not. People with mania and psychotic symptoms may believe they are rich and famous, or have special powers. People with depression and psychotic symptoms may believe they have committed a crime, they have lost all of their money, or that their lives are ruined in some other way.

Sometimes behavior problems go along with mood episodes. A person may drink too much or take drugs. Some people take a lot of risks, like spending too much money or having reckless sex. These problems can damage lives and hurt relationships. Some people with bipolar disorder have trouble keeping a job or doing well in school.

Is bipolar disorder easy to diagnose?

No. Some people have bipolar disorder for years before the illness is diagnosed. This is because bipolar symptoms may seem like several different problems. Family and friends may notice the symptoms but not realize they are part of a bigger problem. A doctor may think the person has a different illness, like schizophrenia or depression.

People with bipolar disorder often have other health problems as well. This may make it hard for doctors to recognize the bipolar disorder. Examples of other illnesses include substance abuse, anxiety disorders, thyroid disease, heart disease, and obesity.

How is bipolar disorder treated?

Right now, there is no cure for bipolar disorder, but treatment can help control symptoms. Most people can get help for mood changes and behavior problems. Steady, dependable treatment works better than treatment that starts and stops. Treatment options include:

1. Medication. There are several types of medication that can help. People respond to medications in different ways, so the type of medication depends on the patient. Sometimes a person needs to try different medications to see which works best.

Medications can cause side effects. Patients should always tell their doctors about these problems. Also, patients should not stop taking a medication without a doctor’s help. Stopping medication suddenly can be dangerous, and it can make bipolar symptoms worse.

2. Therapy. Different kinds of psychotherapy, or “talk” therapy, can help people with bipolar disorder. Therapy can help them change their behavior and manage their lives. It can also help patients get along better with family and friends. Sometimes therapy includes family members.

3. Other treatments. Some people do not get better with medication and therapy. These people may try electroconvulsive therapy, or ECT. This is sometimes called “shock” therapy. ECT provides a quick electric current that can sometimes correct problems in the brain.

Sometimes people take herbal and natural supplements, such as St. John’s wort or omega-3 fatty acids. Talk to your doctor before taking any supplement. Scientists aren’t sure how these products affect people with bipolar disorder. Some people may also need sleep medications during treatment.

Getting Help

If you’re not sure where to get help, call your family doctor. You can also check the phone book for mental health professionals. Hospital doctors can help in an emergency. Finally, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has an online tool to help you find mental health services in your area. You can find it here: https://findtreatment.samhsa.gov .

How can I help myself if I have bipolar disorder?

You can help yourself by getting treatment and sticking with it. Recovery takes time, and it’s not easy. But treatment is the best way to start feeling better. Here are some tips:

  • Talk with your doctor about your treatment.
  • Stay on your medication.
  • Keep a routine for eating and sleeping.
  • Make sure you get enough sleep.
  • Learn to recognize your mood swings.
  • Ask a friend or relative to help you stick with your treatment.
  • Be patient with yourself. Improvement takes time.

How can I help someone I know with bipolar disorder?

Help your friend or relative see a doctor to get the right diagnosis and treatment. You may need to make the appointment and go to the doctor together. Here are some helpful things you can do:

  • Be patient.
  • Encourage your friend or relative to talk, and listen carefully.
  • Be understanding about mood swings.
  • Include your friend or relative in fun activities.
  • Remind the person that getting better is possible with the right treatment.

I know someone who is in crisis. What do I do?

If you know someone who might hurt himself or herself, or if you’re thinking about hurting yourself, get help quickly. Here are some things you can do:

  • Do not leave the person alone.
  • Call your doctor.
  • Call 911 or go to the emergency room.
  • Call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline, toll-free:
    1-800-273-TALK (8255). The TTY number is 1-800-799-4TTY (4889).

How does bipolar disorder affect friends and family?

When a friend or relative has bipolar disorder, it affects you too. Taking care of someone with bipolar disorder can be stressful. You have to cope with the mood swings and sometimes other problems, such as drinking too much. Sometimes the stress can strain your relationships with other people. Caregivers can miss work or lose free time.

If you are taking care of someone with bipolar disorder, take care of yourself too. Find someone you can talk to about your feelings. Talk with the doctor about support groups for caregivers. If you keep your stress level down, you will do a better job, and it might help your loved one stick to his or her treatment.

For More Information

National Institute of Mental Health
Office of Science Policy, Planning, and Communications
Science Writing, Press, and Dissemination Branch
6001 Executive Boulevard
Room 6200, MSC 9663
Bethesda, MD 20892-9663
Phone: 301-443-4513 or 1-866-615-NIMH (6464) toll-free
TTY: 301-443-8431 or 1-866-415-8051 toll-free
Fax: 301-443-4279
Email: nimhinfo@nih.gov
Website: http://www.nimh.nih.gov

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Mental Health

November 2015
NIH Publication Number TR 15-3679

Source:  https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/bipolar-disorder/index.shtml

STUDY FINDS LINK BETWEEN POLLUTION AND SUICIDE

Scientists at the University of Utah have found a link between short-term exposure to pollution and suicide – particularly for middle-aged men.

Examining the deaths of more than 1,500 men and women in Salt Lake City, Utah between 2000 and 2010, the findings draw an association between suicide and exposure to elements that exist in polluted air – nitrogen dioxide and fine particulate matter, small particles that can range from dust to combustible sources that float invisibly in the air.

The study, published yesterday in The American Journal of Epidemiology, was conducted by Amanda Bakian, an assistant professor of psychiatry at the university, and colleagues in the health sector.

Researchers found that there was a 20% increase in the odds of suicide in people who had short-term exposure to nitrogen dioxide in the two or three days prior to their deaths. A 5% increase in the odds was found in those who had exposure to high concentrations of fine particulate matter within that same time frame.

However, research shows that men were 25% more likely to commit suicide after being exposed to nitrogen dioxide and 6% more likely to do so after having exposure to fine particulate matter, a rate that increased by 20% for middle-aged men following nitrogen dioxide exposure, and 7% after being exposed to fine particulate matter.

“We examined the method of suicide, whether it was violent non-violent, the person’s gender, and the season in which they committed suicide,” Bakian says, “and there was a strong relationship between air pollutants and odds of suicide in men aged 36 to 64 who committed suicide in the spring time, as well as by individuals who died by violent methods.”

The reason is unclear, but Bakian says that there is potential that men in that age group have different exposure levels to air pollutants or have characteristics that are unique to them at that time in their life.

However, Bakian clearly states that research does not prove that pollution causes people to commit suicide. Rather, exposure to higher levels of pollution may increase the odds of suicide through the interaction with a variety of other factors at play.

She emphasises that suicide is complex, and believes that further research needs to be done before a definitive reason for the link can be made. “Clearly not everyone is uniformly susceptible to the effects of air pollution,” she says. “The exposure required to affect the odds varies across individuals and in some individuals, even low to moderate levels of exposure can result in poor outcomes.”

Bakian says there could be personal characteristics that increase the risk, co-occurring medical issues, lifestyle factors or a combination of different characteristics that are unique to men. Alternatively, Bakian says that men may just get more exposure to pollution than women.

According to Bakian, suicide is the eighth cause of death in Utah and the tenth in the United States.

“It is a preventable outcome,” she says. “We hope that finding out more about the correlation may help lead to its prevention, as well as interventions in public health.” Funding for the research provided in part by the university’s Program for Air Quality, Health and Society programme has been expanded to run state-wide.

Source:  BY

http://www.newsweek.com/study-finds-link-between-pollution-and-suicide-306706

Exercise as a Novel Treatment for Drug Addiction

Abstract Physical activity, and specifically exercise, has been suggested as a potential treatment for drug addiction. In this review, we discuss clinical and preclinical evidence for the efficacy of exercise at different phases of the addiction process. Potential neurobiological mechanisms are also discussed focusing on interactions with dopaminergic and glutamatergic signaling and chromatin remodeling in the reward pathway. While exercise generally produces an efficacious response, certain exercise conditions may be either ineffective or lead to detrimental effects depending on the level/type/timing of exercise exposure, the stage of addiction, the drug involved, and the subject population. During drug use initiation and withdrawal, its efficacy may be related to its ability to facilitate dopaminergic transmission, and once addiction develops, its efficacy may be related to its ability to normalize glutamatergic and dopaminergic signaling and reverse druginduced changes in chromatin via epigenetic interactions with BDNF in the reward pathway. We conclude with future directions, including the development of exercise-based interventions alone or as an adjunct to other strategies for treating drug addiction.

Full Article:  Wendy Lynch, Ph.D.

RUNNING MIGHT HELP USERS FIGHT THE DISEASE.

In the U.S., DRUG & ALCOHOL ABUSE IS RAMPANT.

Is this the breakthrough we’ve been searching for?    

I first got drunk at 12 years old.

Young perhaps, but it was Soviet Moscow, where my dad was stationed as an American journalist in the 1980s. I wasn’t very good at drinking, though I tried. When I was 15, I was arrested three times for public drunkenness, twice in one day. Back in the States, while I was still in high school, a litany of drug and alcohol violations got me kicked out of boarding school—with the final incident just hours before my graduation ceremony, my father the keynote speaker (nope, no daddy issues there). In college, the morning I was scheduled to clock in for a new job, I woke up behind the wheel, on a highway in another state, facing the wrong way. Several years later, a DWI and drug charges landed me in the crime log of the newspaper where I worked as a reporter. And so it went.

Fast-forward 17 years and I’m catching my breath near the 14,115-foot summit of Colorado’s Pikes Peak, my race bib fluttering in the wind. Bracing myself at the halfway mark of the grueling mountain marathon, taking in the countless jagged switchbacks I’d just picked across, I couldn’t help but think about the distance I’d put between Then and Now. And the irony: that after nine marathons and thousands of miles, this is how I get high. Standing on a vast rooftop shingled with mountain peaks, the thin air fizzing my brain, I was feeling pretty buzzed. And grateful. I largely have running to thank for my transformation. After years of face-plants (literal and figurative) and a self-image curdled by guilt and self-loathing, a simple pair of running shoes had returned momentum, even joy, to my life and allowed me to evolve into a capable person—a genuine human being…   And I wasn’t alone.

About five years into my running life—mostly solitary back-country road work—I started to come across stories about other troubled souls who had traded in chaos for running shoes: a meth-head-turned-Ironman-competitor; a recovering crack addict who once ran 350 miles in a week; an ex-convict alcoholic who would tackle the equivalent of almost six back-to-back marathons across the Gobi Desert. Later, I’d read about a treatment center in East Harlem that trains rock-bottom people suffering from addiction to finish the New York City Marathon (http://www.runnersworld.com/nyc-marathon) and another in Canada that mandates running, complete with a natural track area on the premises and an annual race named the “Redemption Run.” I wrote a recovery memoir in that time, and when it was released, my in-box swelled with messages from around the country: from other drunks-turned-runners, sober marathoners, freshly quit opioid addicts, the imprisoned, psychiatrists, and drug counselors. Other than some skeptical 12-steppers arguing I’d substituted one addiction for another (I didn’t go the Alcoholics Anonymous route), all were firm believers in the healing power of the run. In something as simple as hitting the road, they, too, had felt a loosening of addictive thoughts and a sparking of positive changes in the brain, and in the heart. But was there much to it beyond our personal stories and a would-be “swapping of vices”?

Full Article:  Special Report_ The Runner’s High _ Runner’s World (1)

Dirty Medicine

DIRTY MEDICINE

May 15, 2013: 9:03 AM ET The epic inside story of long-term criminal fraud at Ranbaxy, the Indian drug company that makes generic Lipitor for millions of Americans. By Katherine Eban

1. The assignment FORTUNE

On the morning of Aug. 18, 2004, Dinesh Thakur hurried to a hastily arranged meeting with his boss at the gleaming offices of Ranbaxy Laboratories in Gurgaon, India, 20 miles south of New Delhi. It was so early that he passed gardeners watering impeccable shrubs and cleaners still polishing the lobby’s tile floors. As always, Thakur was punctual and organized. He had a round face and low-key demeanor, with deep-set eyes that gave him a doleful appearance.

His boss, Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Ranbaxy’s head of research and development, had joined the generic-drug company just two months earlier from GlaxoSmithKline, where he had served as global head of psychiatry for clinical research and development. Tall and handsome with elegant manners, Kumar, known as Raj, had a reputation for integrity. Thakur liked and respected him.

Like Kumar, Thakur had left a brand-name pharmaceutical company for Ranbaxy. Thakur, then 35, an American-trained engineer and a naturalized U.S. citizen, had worked at Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMY) in New Jersey for 10 years. In 2002 a former mentor recruited him to Ranbaxy by appealing to his native patriotism. So he had moved his wife and baby son to Gurgaon to join India’s largest drugmaker and its first multinational pharmaceutical company.

When he stepped into Kumar’s office that morning, Thakur was surprised by his boss’ appearance. He looked weary and uneasy, his eyes puffy and dark. He had returned the previous day from South Africa, where he had met with government regulators. It was clear that the meeting had not gone well.

The two men strolled into the hall to order tea from white-uniformed waiters. As they returned, Kumar said, “We are in big trouble,” and motioned for Thakur to be quiet. Back in his office, Kumar handed him a letter from the World Health Organization. It summarized the results of an inspection that WHO had done at Vimta Laboratories, an Indian company that Ranbaxy hired to administer clinical tests of its AIDS medicine. The inspection had focused on antiretroviral (ARV) drugs that Ranbaxy was selling to the South African government to save the lives of its AIDS-ravaged population.

*See Full Article:  Dirty medicine – Fortune Features copy (4)

Keep Your Brain Sharp as You Age

Use B-Complex Vitamins and DHA to Keep Your Brain Sharp as You Age

brain.images

If you want to keep your marbles as you grow older, it may be worthwhile focusing on two nutrients: B-complex vitamins and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), one of the omega-3 fats found in fish oils. Three recent studies have found that these nutrients play major roles in keeping the brain sharp.

In the first study, A. David Smith, PhD, of Oxford University, England, and his colleagues analyzed data from 168 men and women they treated with either B-vitamins or placebos. The subjects’ brain changes were also tracked with MRIs (magnetic resonance images) of the brain.

The supplements consisted of 800 mcg of folic acid, 500 mcg of vitamin B12, and 20 mg of vitamin B6 daily, which the subjects took for two full years. The study participants had been diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment and brain atrophy – problems likely to develop into Alzheimer’s disease. Smith also measured the subjects’ blood levels of homocysteine, one of the markers of B-vitamin deficiency and a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and Alzheimer’s. People taking the B vitamins experienced an average of 30 percent less brain shrinkage, but some of the patients had more than a 50 percent reduction in brain shrinkage, compared with those in the placebo group. Homocysteine levels also decreased significantly among those taking B vitamins, and the rate of response was related to initial homocysteine levels. People with higher homocysteine levels were more likely to benefit from the B vitamins.

In the second study, Giuseppe Astarita, DSc, of the University of California, Irvine, and his colleagues compared brain and liver levels of DHA in 37 people with Alzheimer’s and 14 without the disease. All of the tissues samples were obtained post mortem. People with Alzheimer’s had lower levels of DHA, which is a precursor for neuroprotective compounds. “There were statistically detectable differences in DHA content in all [brain] regions examined,” Astarita wrote.

Astarita determined that the low levels of DHA were related to a defect in the liver’s ability to convert tetracosahexaenoic acid (THA) to DHA. THA is the immediate metabolic precursor to DHA, and the conversation requires “D-bifunctional protein.” People with Alzheimer’s appear to lack the ability to make this particular protein. The finding “led us to hypothesize that the alteration in brain DHA might result from a systemic deficiency in the biosynthesis of this fatty acid,” Astarita wrote. Although Astarita did not explicitly suggest it, his research left open the possibility of using DHA supplements to bypass this defect.

Finally, Matthew F. Muldoon, MD, of the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania and his colleagues measured blood levels of three omega-3 fats – alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and DHA – in 280 people between the ages of 35 and 54 years. None of the subjects had been taking omega-3 supplements.

People with higher levels of DHA performed better on tests given to gauge reasoning, mental flexibility, memory, and vocabulary. Muldoon wrote that the omega-3s are “emerging as important nutrients for optimal brain development and for possible protection against brain senescense…it is plausible that insufficient dietary intake is related to relatively poor cognitive abilities or performance throughout the lifespan…”

SOURCE: Nutrition Reporter,  Jack Challem. Nov. 2010 Vol.21 No.11

References: Smith DA, Smith SM, de Jager CA, et al. Homocysteine-lowering by B vitamins slows the rate of accelerated brain atrophy in mild cognitive impairment: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS One, 2010;5:e12244. Astarita G, Jung KM, Berchtold NC, et al. Deficient liver biosynthesis of docosahexaenoic acid correlates with cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. PLoS One, 2010;5:e12538. Muldoon MF, Ryan CM, Sheu L, et al. Serum phospholipid docosahexaenoic acid is associated with cognitive functioning during middle adulthood. Journal of Nutrition, 2010;140:848-853. !

The GeneSight Genetic Test

A Review of the Evidence

Assurex Health recently sent me an email inviting me to dine at Legal Seafood to learn about “Clinical Applications of Psychiatric Pharmacogenetics.” I didn’t go, but increasingly I am hearing from colleagues about their experiences at these dinner programs: “What do you think about this GeneSight test? The data looked pretty impressive at this dinner.”

Clearly, the field of pharmacogenetic testing is growing up when companies can afford this kind of promotional money nation-wide. There are now several companies marketing such tests—including Assurex, Genomind, Genelex and others.

We covered this topic last fall (TCPR, October 2014) and concluded that there was not enough good evidence for using genetic testing in routine practice. In the following, I’ll zero in specifically on GeneSight to review the data—so that you’ll be more informed if you choose to dine courtesy of Assurex. Good food and wine tend to dull your critical faculties, and you don’t want a company to hypnotize you into adopting a very expensive test unless it will really help your patients.

The Context of Pharmacogenetic Testing

Humans vary genetically—not only in eye and hair color but in more obscure ways, such as how we metabolize drugs. While the majority of our patients metabolize drugs normally, a small percentage do not. Using the most important enzyme, 2D6, as a benchmark, roughly 5–10% of Caucasians are poor metabolizers, and 1% are ultra-rapid metabolizers (Ingelman-Sundberg, M, Pharmacogenomics J 2005;5(1):6–13). Of the remainder, the majority are “extensive” (or normal) metabolizers. You should know that these frequencies vary among ethnic groups—for example, only about 1% of Asians are slow metabolizers.

Before I discuss GeneSight, an important but often overlooked point is that the recent GeneSight studies were preceded by decades of disappointing clinical studies in this field. Two large reviews of the literature on pharmacogenetics in mood disorders—one in 2007 (Genet Med 2007;9(12):819–825) and one in 2013 (CNS Spectr 2013;18(5):272–284)—could find no association between metabolizer status and response of depressed patients to SSRIs. Tricyclics are a different story, with evidence-based guidelines recommending dosage adjustments based on P450 testing (Hicks JK et al, Clin Pharmacol Ther 93(5):402–408, 2013). But most psychiatrists are not using the new genetic tests for tricyclics, which we rarely prescribe.

The take home point is that there’s a long history of negative or inconclusive studies in the field—so GeneSight’s evidence had better be pretty convincing before we decide to change our clinical practice based on it.

The GeneSight Test

The basic GeneSight test as evaluated in their clinical trials analyzes patient DNA for genes encoding three metabolic enzymes and two serotonin-related proteins. The three enzymes are 2D6, 2C19, and 1A2—all of which are located in the liver and are involved in metabolizing various medications. The other two molecules are SLC6A4 (the serotonin transporter gene) and HTR2A (the serotonin 2A receptor gene). (GeneSight has expanded its testing panel since the clinical trials—you can find the current list on its website, www.genesight.com).

The metabolic enzymes are clearly relevant for metabolism—no surprises there. But why did they include the serotonin genes in the assay? Presumably because they can theoretically affect the antidepressant response. However, there’s no scientific consensus that we have found the right genes yet. The most definitive meta-analysis found no consistent evidence of a relationship between serotonin genes and response to any antidepressant (Am J Psychiatry 2013;170(2):207–217). So GeneSight’s adding these genes appears to serve little use other than to make their assay appear more robust than a simple test of P450 enzymes.

The testing process is quite simple: you use cotton cheek swabs to collect the DNA, the samples are overnighted to Assurex, and results are provided within 36 hours. As a doctor, you’ll be sent a report classifying a list of 38 psychiatric drugs into three possible categories: green bin (“use as directed”), yellow bin (“use with caution”) and red bin (“use with caution and with more frequent monitoring”). An easy example is Paxil, which is metabolized primarily by 2D6. Paxil will presumably show up in the red bin in two cases: if your patient is a poor metabolizer (because Paxil doses could go too high) or if he is an ultra-rapid metabolizer (the dose could be too low).

It all makes sense theoretically. But what about in actual practice?

The GeneSight Evidence

Three clinical studies have been conducted thus far. See the chart on this page for a brief summary of the main findings. There have been two open label studies, and one randomized, “double-blind” study (I’ll explain why I put quotes around that in a second). The methods of the studies are similar. Patients who are taking medications for depression are recruited from a clinic. They are assigned to one of two groups. In the guided group, patients are given the GeneSight test, the prescriber sees the results, and is free to make changes in the patients’ meds based on the results of the test. In the unguided group, patients get the test, but the results are sealed until after the study is over. Patients are periodically evaluated with standard depression scales, and the study length was eight weeks in the open label trials, 10 weeks in the randomized trial. The main outcome is whether patients assigned to the guided group improve more than those assigned to the unguided group.

Open Label Results

The open label studies found a statistically significant effect of using GeneSight to guide treatment. Open label studies are easy to conduct, and they’re great for generating hypotheses, but we shouldn’t rely on them to make clinical decision. Remember gabapentin? Open label studies found it apparently effective for bipolar disorder—but subsequent double-blind studies did not.

GeneSight’s open label studies are vulnerable to various possible biases that might render the results meaningless. Here are some potential problems.

  • Patients were not assigned to groups randomly, but were chosen based on conversations with doctors and researchers. One potential source of bias: doctors may have preferentially assigned more complicated patients to the guided group on the theory that they would be most helped by genetic testing. If so, we wouldn’t really know if the results are applicable to all the patients we see, or just some undefined subset.
  • Patients assigned to the guided group knew they were getting a cutting-edge genetic test that could predict which medication would work best for them. Patients in the other group knew the test results would not be used for their treatment. Clearly, those in the guided group would be more optimistic about their treatment, which is a key component of the non-specific placebo effect.
  • Prescribers knew which patients were being guided by the test, potentially leading to the “cheerleader effect.”
  • The symptom raters knew which patients were in which group, potentially leading to biased ratings, since the raters may have vested interests in GeneSight being successful.

The bottom line is that the open label studies can tell us very little other than that GeneSight appears to have potential—and that it’s time to do the more expensive randomized double-blinded tests.

Randomized Results

The randomized double blind study was not “double” blind in the way drug trials are. The idea behind the double blind is that neither the researchers nor the patients know which group they are assigned to, so that there is no possibility of various biases or placebo effects creeping in. The GeneSight double blind study was blinded only to patients and symptom raters, and not to prescribers, who might have been cheerleading their patients to wellness.

Nonetheless, the results of that study showed a numerical superiority of guided treatment, but it was not statistically significant. For example, the difference in the Ham-D scores had a p value was 0.29—which means that there was a 29% chance that this difference was due to chance. The usual cut-off for statistical significance is 5%, so this result was not close to being significant. It’s possible that if they had recruited more patients, they might have found a significant difference. But for now we have to conclude that there is no convincing evidence that the GeneSight test helps us prescribe more effective medications for our patients

However, there is a bit of a silver lining for GeneSight in this study. In a subanalysis, the author focused on the 13 patients who entered the study taking antidepressants that were classified in the red bin—in other words, “use with caution and with more frequent monitoring.” Six of these were randomized to the guided group, and their doctors used the results to adjust the meds of all of these patients, who ended the study with a 33.1% Ham-D improvement. On the other hand, the seven patients who were assigned to the unguided group were less likely to have their meds changed, and they improved by only 0.8% on the Ham-D. This is intriguing, and raises the possibility that GeneSight might be useful for some patients. But remember—this is based on a subanalysis of 13 patients from an already tiny study.

Table 1: GeneSight Studies
Click here to open pdf

Bottom Line

If we were to hold the GeneSight test to the usual standards we require for making medication decisions, we’d conclude that there’s very little reliable evidence that it works. On the other hand, some of you will probably want to try it out, especially for those patients who have insurance that will cover the cost of the test. If you do order it, reserve it for patients who are most likely to benefit, including patients who have failed to respond to multiple medications (which could be caused by ultra-rapid metabolism, causing drug levels to be too low), and patients who have had lots of side effects (potentially caused by slow metabolism, causing drug levels to he too high).

Daniel Carlat, MD

Editor-in-Chief, Publisher, The Carlat Report.