Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

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.

Genetic testing in psychopharmacology

Pharmacogenetic Testing in Clinical Psychiatry

GENETIC.download

Associate Professor of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, Pittsburgh, PA

Dr. Howland has disclosed that he has no relevant financial or other interests in any commerical companies pertaining to this educational activity.

“Personalized medicine” is a buzzword in healthcare and stems from the idea that treatments can be designed specifically for a patient, based on his or her own biological characteristics.

In psychiatry, personalization is largely based on “,” the selection of medications based on genetic factors associated with drug response and tolerability. Could your patient’s genetic code predict which medications you prescribe?

It’s important to point out that some genes affect pharmacokinetics while others involve pharmacodynamic processes. Pharmacokinetics refers to how quickly and efficiently a drug reaches its target and how quickly it leaves the body: drug absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion. Clinically, the most important contributor is the cytochrome P-450 (CYP450) system, which accounts for the metabolism of approximately 60% of prescribed drugs.

Multiple CYP450 enzymes exist and are classified according to a standardized nomenclature. The major enzymes of interest in clinical psychopharmacology are 1A2, 2B6, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, and 3A4. For instance, fluoxetine is a substrate of 2D6; increased activity of this enzyme means lower blood levels of fluoxetine, while decreased activity corresponds to higher blood levels.

Pharmacodynamics, on the other hand, refers to the mechanism of action of a drug at its particular target(s). Whenever you prescribe a psychotropic drug, you are (most likely) thinking about the drug’s targets: receptors, transporters, or enzymes. Each of these directly or indirectly regulates the synthesis, transmission, or degradation of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine. Similar to the enzymes mentioned above, pharmacodynamic targets exist as proteins produced by different genes. Slight variations in the coding for a particular gene are referred to as polymorphisms, and these can alter the amount, structure, binding, or function of these proteins. In turn, these differences in the protein targets can influence the therapeutic or adverse effects of the drugs you prescribe.

For a well-known example of pharmacodynamic variation, consider the serotonin reuptake transporter (SERT). SERT regulates the reuptake of serotonin into neurons, and is the main site of action of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant drugs. Multiple genetic polymorphisms in SERT have been identified. Some research suggests that patients carrying certain SERT polymorphisms (such as the S or “short” allele) may respond less well to SSRI drugs and may experience more adverse effects of SSRIs, but the correlation is not absolute.

Polymorphisms of other genes involved in the pharmacodynamics of drug response, such as serotonin (5-HT) receptors, dopamine receptors, and other transporters, have been studied. But no single genetic difference, as of now, is significant enough to predict an outcome when you prescribe a drug.

Pharmacogenetic Tools

In recent years, numerous products have come on the market to analyze genetic polymorphisms. The first commercially available product was the AmpliChip CYP450 Test, developed by Roche Diagnostics and approved by the FDA in 2004. Using a small blood sample from the patient, it analyzes genetic polymorphisms associated with two metabolizing enzymes (2D6 and 2C19). Based on the patient’s 2D6 and 2C19 polymorphisms, his or her 2D6 metabolic activity is characterized as poor, intermediate, extensive, or ultra-rapid, and 2C19 activity as poor or extensive. This information can theoretically be used to make clinical decisions about drugs that are 2D6 or 2C19 substrates.

Many newer pharmacogenetic tests, based on similar technology, are currently available on the market. The most popular ones include Genecept and GeneSight. These tests analyze the majority of the known 450 enzyme polymorphisms, as well as various combinations of pharmacodynamic genes.

Laboratory Tests are Under-regulated by FDA

Despite their ready availability, does pharmacogenetic testing make sense for your patient? Does it really matter whether the patient in front of you is a “fast” or a “slow” metabolizer of a drug you are prescribing?

The answer to these key questions comes down to data, which I’ll review later in this article. But first, it’s important to know a bit about how these tests are regulated (or, more accurately, under-regulated). We are all familiar with the standards used by the FDA to approve medications: companies must submit double-blind, placebo-controlled trials and the FDA carefully scrutinizes the data before finally rendering a decision about approval.

Not so with laboratory tests. In fact, there are no specific federal requirements for laboratories to establish or verify the clinical validity of their tests, and laboratories generally do not have the capability to develop evidence of clinical utility. The bottom line is that the availability of a test should not be assumed to be proof that it has been proven to enhance clinical outcomes. Partly because of this problem, the FDA is currently developing draft guidelines on the regulation of laboratory tests, which would include pharmacogenetic test products.

What Does The Data Show?

Seven years ago, the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) reviewed existing studies to determine if testing for 450 polymorphisms in patients taking SSRIs leads to improvement in outcomes or  if testing results are useful in medical, personal, or public health decision-making (Thakur M et al, Genet Med 2007;9(12):826–835). The review revealed few high-quality, clinical studies. Several studies included non-randomized design, small numbers of subjects, and a failure to account for other genetic factors that may influence SSRI response or tolerability. There were no prospective studies of P450 genotyping and its relationship to clinical outcomes. There was no correlation between P450 polymorphisms and SSRI drug levels, efficacy, or tolerability. There were no data regarding whether testing leads to improved depression outcomes; whether testing influences medical, personal, or public health decision-making; or whether any harms are associated with testing itself or with subsequent management decisions. A more recent study found no clear benefit of testing for pharmacodynamic targets (de Leon J, Pharmacol Res 2009;59(2):81–89).

All this negative data has not dissuaded testing companies from marketing their products to us, sometimes aggressively so. The “GeneSight Psychotropic” test, offered by Assurex Health, detects genetic polymorphisms associated with six metabolic enzymes (1A2, 2B6, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, and 3A4) and two pharmacodynamic genes (5HT2A and SERT). They claim that the results are potentially relevant to the use of 22 antidepressant drugs and 16 antipsychotic drugs.

The testing process is quite simple: blood samples or mouth swabs are sent to a central laboratory for analysis, and the results (available in 36 hours) categorize each of these 38 drugs into one of three groups: 1) little or no gene-drug interaction; 2) moderate gene-drug interaction; and 3) severe gene-drug interaction. For a particular patient, the use of drugs within each group is characterized as “use as directed” (referred to as “green bin” drugs), “use with caution” (“yellow bin”), and “use with caution and with more frequent monitoring” (“red bin”). The “green bin” drugs require no special dosing considerations for the patient. For drugs within the yellow and red “bins,” additional comments about their potential use are provided in the laboratory report. These comments might explain expected changes in drug blood levels (such as too high or too low) or expected clinical effects (such as reduced efficacy or increased side effects).

Does this information lead to better clinical outcomes? Two open-label studies have reported that GeneSight Psychotropic was effective for managing patients with depression (Hall-Flavin DK et al, Transl Psychiatry2012;2:e172; Hall-Flavin DK et al, Pharmacogenet Genomics 2013;23(10):535–548). In each study, a pharmacogenetic testing report was used to guide the selection and dosing of medication for one patient cohort, but not for the other cohort. The guided group in each study had greater depression symptom improvements. However, there were methodological problems. Patients were not randomly assigned to the groups. Also, prescribers and patients in each group were not fully blinded—potentially leading to a placebo effect that could artificially improve the outcomes for those who got the testing. Moreover, although these studies were funded by Mayo Clinic research grants, most of the authors have significant financial relationships with Assurex Health, which could have further biased the outcomes.

The company subsequently funded a prospective double-blind randomized trial, comparing the use of GeneSight Psychotropic to treatment without these test results. There was a slightly greater improvement in depression scores with guided treatment, but the difference between groups was not statistically significant (Winner JG et al, Discov Med 2013;16(89):219–227). The overall likelihood of medication switches, augmentations, or dose-adjustments did not differ between groups. However, a subanalysis showed that GeneSight subjects taking a “red bin” medication at baseline were significantly more likely to have this medication changed and, afterward, had significantly improved depression scores than unguided subjects taking a “red bin” medication. Overall, not very impressive results.

Assurex Health has commercialized two other pharmacogenetics products: GeneSight ADHD (released in May 2012) and GeneSight Analgesic (released in April 2014). Using the three-bin categorization scheme described previously, GeneSight ADHD classifies eight stimulant and non-stimulant drugs used for treating ADHD and GeneSight Analgesic classifies 22 opioid and non-opioid drugs. I am unaware of any published literature on clinical outcomes associated with the use of these tests.

Larger multi-center studies of genetic testing are currently underway. Cost-effectiveness will need to be assessed, as these tests are not cheap (eg, GeneSight Psychotropic is approximately $3,800) although they are sometimes covered by insurance. Forthcoming FDA guidelines will likely encourage, if not require, the assessment of clinical validity and utility of these tests before future tests go to market.

TCPR’s Verdict: Pharmacogenetic testing is intriguing, expensive, and unlikely to be clinically useful. Until we see better evidence, buyer beware!

Source:

TCPR, October 2014, Vol 12, Issue 10, 

Delaying the onset of Alzheimer’s Disease

Giving long-term high doses of docosahexaenoic acid to carriers of the apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4) allele before the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia may reduce the risk for AD, or delay the onset of symptoms, and should be studied, according to an expert review.

While the review of landmark observational and clinical trials that assessed supplementation with ω-3 fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),revealed it was not beneficial in symptomatic AD, several observational and clinical trials of ω-3 supplementation in the pre-dementia stage of AD suggested it may slow early memory decline in APOE4 carriers, reported Hussein Yassine, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Results were mixed in patients with mild or no cognitive impairment, they wrote in JAMA Neurology.

DHA is critical to the formation of neuronal synapses and membrane fluidity, the authors explained.

“We hypothesize that DHA supplementation in APOE4 carriers can result in beneficial outcomes if the timing of the intervention precedes the onset of dementia. Given the safety profile, availability, and affordability of DHA, refining an interventional prevention study in APOE4 carriers is warranted,” they noted, adding that advanced brain imaging techniques could be used to identify optimal timing of DHA supplementation and treatment efficacy could be evaluated using specific biomarkers.

Their review of original articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of ω-3 studies in AD showed that most associated higher levels of seafood, ω-3 consumption, or ω-3 blood levels with decreased incidence of AD, better cognitive measures, or preserved brain volume in AD-vulnerable regions.

One summary of 21 studies in a meta-analysis of of 181,580 participants, with 4,438 dementia cases identified over follow-up of 2 to 21 years, concluded that a single weekly serving of fish was associated with significantly lower risk for AD dementia.

A 2015 meta-analysis concluded that ω-3 supplementation significantly improved episodic memory in cognitively healthy older individuals.

“These studies indicate that APOE4 is a modifiable AD risk factor, and that the effect of APOE4 on AD pathologic changes can be attenuated with DHA supplementation,” Yassine’s group said.

Individuals with a single ε4 allele are three to four times more likely to develop AD as those without an ε4 allele, and people with two ε4 alleles have a 12-fold higher risk of developing AD, the researchers pointed out.

In an email to MedPage Today, Yassine stressed that the review was not intended to act as a recommendation for DHA supplementation. It was done “to stimulate interest in refining the role of high-dose DHA supplementation in a population at increased risk of AD using appropriately designed interventions. We think that long-term high-dose DHA supplementation in APOE4 carriers who are not avid seafood consumers may result in reducing AD incidence. This is evident from some of the epidemiology studies, but was difficult to demonstrate in randomized clinical trials given the limitations of trial designs.”

His group proposed that APOE4 carriers be classified into three stages based on disease severity.

In the earliest pre-dementia phase of the disease (stage I), participants would have evidence of brain imaging changes in areas vulnerable to AD. However, no cognitive changes, or only subtle ones, would be detectable.

“In this stage, brain DHA metabolism is altered by APOE4, and brain imaging or CSF biomarkers can be used to select at-risk individuals and monitor the efficacy of supplementation,” they explained.

It is for patients in an early prodromal stage of disease (stage II) that long-term high dose DHA supplementation could slow cognitive decline, the researchers stated. Patients in this group would have evidence of memory and/or executive decline but no significant impairment in activities of daily living.

Stage III would represent clinical AD with impairments in multiple cognitive domains. DHA supplementation would probably not be beneficial in this group.

Steven DeKosky, MD, of the McKnight Brain Institute in Gainesville, Fla., agreed that “it is almost surely correct that DHA won’t help much if at all in people with full-blown disease.”

But he cautioned that “the jury is still out on pre-AD. There isn’t much to say to clinicians about how they should act on this information other than to know that we somehow have to get a trial going to prove if it does help or not,” he told MedPage Today.

“This frequently gets translated into ‘My doctor said I should take DHA supplements,'” noted DeKosky, who was not involved in the review.

Calling the hypothesis “thoughtful,” DeKosky predicted that getting “evidence [of DHA supplementation’s value] for the jury” would not be easy. Such a study would have to run long enough to demonstrate the DHA supplementation is effective in delaying onset or emergence of signs or symptoms of AD, he stated.

“Given that DHA is not patented, no pharma will fund a study that long since many companies could sell it,” DeKosky said. “But that would be the evidence we would need.”

Yassine’s group plan to identify whether APOE4 carriers in the pre-dementia stage have measurable changes in brain DHA homeostasis, using novel imaging methods or cerebrospinal fluid DHA levels as an index of brain DHA. Then they will test to see whether high-dose DHA supplementation can offset these changes before the onset of AD dementia, Yassine explained.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, the LK Whittier Foundation, and Huntington Medical Research Institute.

Yassine disclosed no relevant relationships with industry. One co-author disclosed relevant relationships with Baxter, Eli Lilly, Forum, Lundbeck, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, TauRx, and Biogen, AC Immune, Accera, Avraham, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerespir, Cognition, Forum, Merck, Neurim, Roche, Stemedica, Takeda, TauRx, vTv, and Toyama/FujiFilm.
* by Kristin Jenkins 
Contributing Writer, MedPage Today 

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and DHA supplementation

by Kristin Jenkins 
Contributing Writer, MedPage Today 

Giving long-term high doses of docosahexaenoic acid to carriers of the apolipoprotein E ε4 (APOE4) allele before the onset of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia may reduce the risk for AD, or delay the onset of symptoms, and should be studied, according to an expert review.

While the review of landmark observational and clinical trials that assessed supplementation with ω-3 fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA),revealed it was not beneficial in symptomatic AD, several observational and clinical trials of ω-3 supplementation in the pre-dementia stage of AD suggested it may slow early memory decline in APOE4 carriers, reported Hussein Yassine, MD, of the Keck School of Medicine at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and colleagues.

Results were mixed in patients with mild or no cognitive impairment, they wrote in JAMA Neurology.

DHA is critical to the formation of neuronal synapses and membrane fluidity, the authors explained.

“We hypothesize that DHA supplementation in APOE4 carriers can result in beneficial outcomes if the timing of the intervention precedes the onset of dementia. Given the safety profile, availability, and affordability of DHA, refining an interventional prevention study in APOE4 carriers is warranted,” they noted, adding that advanced brain imaging techniques could be used to identify optimal timing of DHA supplementation and treatment efficacy could be evaluated using specific biomarkers.

Their review of original articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses of ω-3 studies in AD showed that most associated higher levels of seafood, ω-3 consumption, or ω-3 blood levels with decreased incidence of AD, better cognitive measures, or preserved brain volume in AD-vulnerable regions.

One summary of 21 studies in a meta-analysis of of 181,580 participants, with 4,438 dementia cases identified over follow-up of 2 to 21 years, concluded that a single weekly serving of fish was associated with significantly lower risk for AD dementia.

A 2015 meta-analysis concluded that ω-3 supplementation significantly improved episodic memory in cognitively healthy older individuals.

“These studies indicate that APOE4 is a modifiable AD risk factor, and that the effect of APOE4 on AD pathologic changes can be attenuated with DHA supplementation,” Yassine’s group said.

Individuals with a single ε4 allele are three to four times more likely to develop AD as those without an ε4 allele, and people with two ε4 alleles have a 12-fold higher risk of developing AD, the researchers pointed out.

In an email to MedPage Today, Yassine stressed that the review was not intended to act as a recommendation for DHA supplementation. It was done “to stimulate interest in refining the role of high-dose DHA supplementation in a population at increased risk of AD using appropriately designed interventions. We think that long-term high-dose DHA supplementation in APOE4 carriers who are not avid seafood consumers may result in reducing AD incidence. This is evident from some of the epidemiology studies, but was difficult to demonstrate in randomized clinical trials given the limitations of trial designs.”

His group proposed that APOE4 carriers be classified into three stages based on disease severity.

In the earliest pre-dementia phase of the disease (stage I), participants would have evidence of brain imaging changes in areas vulnerable to AD. However, no cognitive changes, or only subtle ones, would be detectable.

“In this stage, brain DHA metabolism is altered by APOE4, and brain imaging or CSF biomarkers can be used to select at-risk individuals and monitor the efficacy of supplementation,” they explained.

It is for patients in an early prodromal stage of disease (stage II) that long-term high dose DHA supplementation could slow cognitive decline, the researchers stated. Patients in this group would have evidence of memory and/or executive decline but no significant impairment in activities of daily living.

Stage III would represent clinical AD with impairments in multiple cognitive domains. DHA supplementation would probably not be beneficial in this group.

Steven DeKosky, MD, of the McKnight Brain Institute in Gainesville, Fla., agreed that “it is almost surely correct that DHA won’t help much if at all in people with full-blown disease.”

But he cautioned that “the jury is still out on pre-AD. There isn’t much to say to clinicians about how they should act on this information other than to know that we somehow have to get a trial going to prove if it does help or not,” he told MedPage Today.

“This frequently gets translated into ‘My doctor said I should take DHA supplements,'” noted DeKosky, who was not involved in the review.

Calling the hypothesis “thoughtful,” DeKosky predicted that getting “evidence [of DHA supplementation’s value] for the jury” would not be easy. Such a study would have to run long enough to demonstrate the DHA supplementation is effective in delaying onset or emergence of signs or symptoms of AD, he stated.

“Given that DHA is not patented, no pharma will fund a study that long since many companies could sell it,” DeKosky said. “But that would be the evidence we would need.”

Yassine’s group plan to identify whether APOE4 carriers in the pre-dementia stage have measurable changes in brain DHA homeostasis, using novel imaging methods or cerebrospinal fluid DHA levels as an index of brain DHA. Then they will test to see whether high-dose DHA supplementation can offset these changes before the onset of AD dementia, Yassine explained.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Alzheimer’s Association, the National Institute on Aging, the LK Whittier Foundation, and Huntington Medical Research Institute.

Yassine disclosed no relevant relationships with industry. One co-author disclosed relevant relationships with Baxter, Eli Lilly, Forum, Lundbeck, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, TauRx, and Biogen, AC Immune, Accera, Avraham, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cerespir, Cognition, Forum, Merck, Neurim, Roche, Stemedica, Takeda, TauRx, vTv, and Toyama/FujiFilm.

Study Suggests ADHD Medications May Reduce Risk for Subsequent, Concurrent Depression

Happy girl laughing against a colorful tiles background. Concept of joy

Previous studies suggest that depression occurs in youth with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) at a higher rate than youth without ADHD, but the effects of ADHD medication on the development of depression are unclear. A study in Biological Psychiatry now suggests that individuals taking ADHD medications may be at reduced risk for subsequent and concurrent depression.

Zheng Chang, Ph.D., of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden, and colleagues used several population-based registers in Sweden to identify 38,752 patients with ADHD who were born between 1960 and 1998 and were living in Sweden in 2009.

The researchers tracked the individuals from January 2006 through December 2009 to assess the association between ADHD medication (methylphenidate, amphetamine, dexamphetamine, and atomoxetine) and depression. The primary outcome was occurrence of depression between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009, including diagnoses from both hospital admissions and outpatient visits for depression. A total of 2,987 patients experienced depression events in 2009.

After adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical confounders, the researchers found that ADHD medication was associated with a reduced risk of depression (hazard ratio = 0.58). For each year an individual was taking ADHD medication during the study period, there was a 21% decrease in the rate of depression in 2009. In addition, the analysis showed that concomitant occurrence of depression was 36% less common during periods when patients received ADHD medications compared with periods when they did not receive medication.

“[O]ur study provided new evidence that ADHD medication does not increase the risk of later depression, but rather is associated with a reduced risk for subsequent and concurrent depression,” the researchers wrote. “Ascertaining the effect of ADHD medication on the development of depression can provide critical information to clinicians treating youths with ADHD.”

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

 

Fish Oil During Pregnancy Reduces Asthma

Pregnant-womanBACKGROUND

Reduced intake of n−3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs) may be a contributing factor to the increasing prevalence of wheezing disorders. We assessed the effect of supplementation with n−3 LCPUFAs in pregnant women on the risk of persistent wheeze and asthma in their offspring.
METHODS:   We randomly assigned 736 pregnant women at 24 weeks of gestation to receive 2.4 g of n−3 LCPUFA (fish oil) or placebo (olive oil) per day. Their children formed the Copenhagen Prospective Studies on Asthma in Childhood2010 (COPSAC2010) cohort and were followed prospectively with extensive clinical phenotyping. Neither the investigators nor the participants were aware of group assignments during follow-up for the first 3 years of the children’s lives, after which there was a 2-year follow-up period during which only the investigators were unaware of group assignments. The primary end point was persistent wheeze or asthma, and the secondary end points included lower respiratory tract infections, asthma exacerbations, eczema, and allergic sensitization.
RESULTS:  A total of 695 children were included in the trial, and 95.5% completed the 3-year, double-blind follow-up period. The risk of persistent wheeze or asthma in the treatment group was 16.9%, versus 23.7% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, corresponding to a relative reduction of 30.7%. Prespecified subgroup analyses suggested that the effect was strongest in the children of women whose blood levels of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexaenoic acid were in the lowest third of the trial population at randomization: 17.5% versus 34.1%. Analyses of secondary end points showed that supplementation with n−3 LCPUFA was associated with a reduced risk of infections of the lower respiratory tract (31.7% vs. 39.1%; hazard ratio, 0.75, but there was no statistically significant association between supplementation and asthma exacerbations, eczema, or allergic sensitization.
CONCLUSIONS:   Supplementation with n−3 LCPUFA in the third trimester of pregnancy reduced the absolute risk of persistent wheeze or asthma and infections of the lower respiratory tract in offspring by approximately 7 percentage points, or one third. (Funded by the Lundbeck Foundation and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00798226.)

 

SOURCE:   Fish OIl & Asthma NEJM

Hans Bisgaard, M.D., D.M.Sc., Jakob Stokholm, M.D., Ph.D., Bo L. Chawes, M.D., Ph.D., D.M.Sc., Nadja H. Vissing, M.D., Ph.D., Elin Bjarnadóttir, M.D., Ann-Marie M. Schoos, M.D., Ph.D., Helene M. Wolsk, M.D., Tine M. Pedersen, M.D., Rebecca K. Vinding, M.D., Sunna Thorsteinsdóttir, M.D., Nilofar V. Følsgaard, M.D., Ph.D., Nadia R. Fink, M.D., Jonathan Thorsen, M.D., Anders G. Pedersen, Ph.D., Johannes Waage, Ph.D., Morten A. Rasmussen, Ph.D., Ken D. Stark, Ph.D., Sjurdur F. Olsen, M.D., D.M.Sc., and Klaus Bønnelykke, M.D., Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2016; 375:2530-2539December 29, 2016DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1503734