-
BMC Psychiatry Jan 2020Medicinal cannabis has received increased research attention over recent years due to loosening global regulatory changes. Medicinal cannabis has been reported to have...
BACKGROUND
Medicinal cannabis has received increased research attention over recent years due to loosening global regulatory changes. Medicinal cannabis has been reported to have potential efficacy in reducing pain, muscle spasticity, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and intractable childhood epilepsy. Yet its potential application in the field of psychiatry is lesser known.
METHODS
The first clinically-focused systematic review on the emerging medical application of cannabis across all major psychiatric disorders was conducted. Current evidence regarding whole plant formulations and plant-derived cannabinoid isolates in mood, anxiety, sleep, psychotic disorders and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is discussed; while also detailing clinical prescription considerations (including pharmacogenomics), occupational and public health elements, and future research recommendations. The systematic review of the literature was conducted during 2019, assessing the data from all case studies and clinical trials involving medicinal cannabis or plant-derived isolates for all major psychiatric disorders (neurological conditions and pain were omitted).
RESULTS
The present evidence in the emerging field of cannabinoid therapeutics in psychiatry is nascent, and thereby it is currently premature to recommend cannabinoid-based interventions. Isolated positive studies have, however, revealed tentative support for cannabinoids (namely cannabidiol; CBD) for reducing social anxiety; with mixed (mainly positive) evidence for adjunctive use in schizophrenia. Case studies suggest that medicinal cannabis may be beneficial for improving sleep and post-traumatic stress disorder, however evidence is currently weak. Preliminary research findings indicate no benefit for depression from high delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) therapeutics, or for CBD in mania. One isolated study indicates some potential efficacy for an oral cannabinoid/terpene combination in ADHD. Clinical prescriptive consideration involves caution in the use of high-THC formulations (avoidance in youth, and in people with anxiety or psychotic disorders), gradual titration, regular assessment, and caution in cardiovascular and respiratory disorders, pregnancy and breast-feeding.
CONCLUSIONS
There is currently encouraging, albeit embryonic, evidence for medicinal cannabis in the treatment of a range of psychiatric disorders. Supportive findings are emerging for some key isolates, however, clinicians need to be mindful of a range of prescriptive and occupational safety considerations, especially if initiating higher dose THC formulas.
Topics: Adolescent; Anxiety; Cannabidiol; Cannabinoids; Cannabis; Child; Humans; Medical Marijuana
PubMed: 31948424
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-019-2409-8 -
JAMA Psychiatry Mar 2021Precise estimation of the drug metabolism capacity for individual patients is crucial for adequate dose personalization. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
IMPORTANCE
Precise estimation of the drug metabolism capacity for individual patients is crucial for adequate dose personalization.
OBJECTIVE
To quantify the difference in the antipsychotic and antidepressant exposure among patients with genetically associated CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 poor (PM), intermediate (IM), and normal (NM) metabolizers.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed, Clinicaltrialsregister.eu, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and CENTRAL databases were screened for studies from January 1, 1990, to June 30, 2020, with no language restrictions.
STUDY SELECTION
Two independent reviewers performed study screening and assessed the following inclusion criteria: (1) appropriate CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 genotyping was performed, (2) genotype-based classification into CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 NM, IM, and PM categories was possible, and (3) 3 patients per metabolizer category were available.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
The Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines were followed for extracting data and quality, validity, and risk of bias assessments. A fixed-effects model was used for pooling the effect sizes of the included studies.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Drug exposure was measured as (1) dose-normalized area under the plasma level (time) curve, (2) dose-normalized steady-state plasma level, or (3) reciprocal apparent total drug clearance. The ratio of means (RoM) was calculated by dividing the mean drug exposure for PM, IM, or pooled PM plus IM categories by the mean drug exposure for the NM category.
RESULTS
Based on the data derived from 94 unique studies and 8379 unique individuals, the most profound differences were observed in the patients treated with aripiprazole (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.41-1.57; 12 studies; 1038 patients), haloperidol lactate (CYP2D6 PM vs NM RoM, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.40-2.02; 9 studies; 423 patients), risperidone (CYP2D6 PM plus IM vs NM RoM, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.28-1.44; 23 studies; 1492 patients), escitalopram oxalate (CYP2C19 PM vs NM, RoM, 2.63; 95% CI, 2.40-2.89; 4 studies; 1262 patients), and sertraline hydrochloride (CYP2C19 IM vs NM RoM, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.27-1.51; 3 studies; 917 patients). Exposure differences were also observed for clozapine, quetiapine fumarate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, mirtazapine, nortriptyline hydrochloride, fluoxetine hydrochloride, fluvoxamine maleate, paroxetine hydrochloride, and venlafaxine hydrochloride; however, these differences were marginal, ambiguous, or based on less than 3 independent studies.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, the association between CYP2C19/CYP2D6 genotype and drug levels of several psychiatric drugs was quantified with sufficient precision as to be useful as a scientific foundation for CYP2D6/CYP2C19 genotype-based dosing recommendations.
Topics: Antidepressive Agents; Antipsychotic Agents; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2D6; Humans; Pharmacogenomic Variants
PubMed: 33237321
DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.3643 -
Pharmacopsychiatry May 2022Partial response to pharmacotherapy is common in major depressive disorder (MDD) and many patients require alternative pharmacotherapy or augmentation, including... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Partial response to pharmacotherapy is common in major depressive disorder (MDD) and many patients require alternative pharmacotherapy or augmentation, including adjunctive L-methylfolate. Given that L-methylfolate augmentation is rarely included in major clinical practice guidelines, we sought to systematically review evidence for L-methylfolate augmentation in adults with MDD and to examine its efficacy meta-analytically.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed for articles up to December 31, 2020, following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) recommendations. Included studies were published in peer-reviewed, English-language journals and examined L-methylfolate adjunctive therapy in depressive disorders or its effect on antidepressant response. A fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool were conducted.
RESULTS
Qualitative assessment of nine articles (N=6,707 patients) suggests that adjunctive L-methylfolate improved antidepressant response. In the meta-analysis of categorical Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression-17 response, (three studies, 483) adjunctive L-methylfolate was associated with a small effect versus antidepressant monotherapy (relative risk: 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.08 to 1.46, 0.004). A meta-analysis of four studies (507) using a continuous measure of depressive symptoms showed a similar effect of adjunctive L-methylfolate (standardized mean difference=- 0.38, 95% CI=- 0.59 to-0.17, 0.0003).
CONCLUSION
Adjunctive L-methylfolate may have modest efficacy in antidepressant-treated adults with MDD.
Topics: Adult; Antidepressive Agents; Depressive Disorder, Major; Humans; Tetrahydrofolates
PubMed: 34794190
DOI: 10.1055/a-1681-2047 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2023Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic antigen-mediated eosinophilic inflammatory disease isolated to the esophagus. As a clinicopathologic disorder, a diagnosis of EoE requires a constellation of clinical symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologic findings (at least 15 eosinophils/high-powered microscope field (eos/hpf)). Current guidelines no longer require the failure of response to proton pump inhibitor medications to establish a diagnosis of EoE, but continue to suggest the exclusion of other etiologies of esophageal eosinophilia. The treatment goals for EoE are improvement in clinical symptoms, resolution of esophageal eosinophilia and other histologic abnormalities, endoscopic improvement, improved quality of life, improved esophageal function, minimized adverse effects of treatment, and prevention of disease progression and subsequent complications. Currently, there is no cure for EoE, making long-term treatment necessary. Standard treatment modalities include dietary modifications, esophageal dilation, and pharmacologic therapy. Effective pharmacologic therapies include corticosteroids, rapidly emerging biological therapies, and proton pump inhibitor medications.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions for people with eosinophilic esophagitis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP to 3 March 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any medical intervention or food elimination diet for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis, either alone or in combination, to any other intervention (including placebo).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Pairs of review authors independently selected studies and conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We expressed outcomes as a risk ratio (RR) and as the mean or standardized mean difference (MD/SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Our primary outcomes were: clinical, histological, and endoscopic improvement, and withdrawals due to adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: serious and total adverse events, and quality of life.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 41 RCTs with 3253 participants. Eleven studies included pediatric patients while the rest recruited both children and adults. Four studies were in patients with inactive disease while the rest were in patients with active disease. We identified 19 intervention comparisons. In this abstract we present the results of the primary outcomes for the two main comparisons: corticosteroids versus placebo and biologics versus placebo, based on the prespecified outcomes defined of the primary studies. Fourteen studies compared corticosteroids to placebo for induction of remission and the risk of bias for these studies was mostly low. Corticosteroids may lead to slightly better clinical improvement (20% higher), measured dichotomously (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.80; 6 studies, 583 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 4; low certainty), and may lead to slightly better clinical improvement, measured continuously (standard mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.85; 5 studies, 475 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids lead to a large histological improvement (63% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 11.94, 95% CI 6.56 to 21.75; 12 studies, 978 participants; NNTB = 3; high certainty), and may lead to histological improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.42, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.82; 5 studies, 449 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to little to no endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 2.60, 95% CI 0.82 to 8.19; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty), and may lead to endoscopic improvement, measured continuously (SMD 1.33, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.08; 5 studies, 596 participants; low certainty). Corticosteroids may lead to slightly fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.96; 14 studies, 1032 participants; low certainty). Nine studies compared biologics to placebo for induction of remission. Biologics may result in little to no difference in clinical improvement, measured dichotomously (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.52; 5 studies, 410 participants; low certainty), and may result in better clinical improvement, measured continuously (SMD 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; 7 studies, 387 participants; moderate certainty). Biologics result in better histological improvement (55% higher), measured dichotomously (RR 6.73, 95% CI 2.58 to 17.52; 8 studies, 925 participants; NNTB = 2; moderate certainty). We could not draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 1.01, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.66; 6 studies, 370 participants; very low certainty). Biologics may result in little to no difference in endoscopic improvement, measured dichotomously (effect not estimable, low certainty). We cannot draw conclusions for this outcome when measured continuously (SMD 2.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 5.22; 1 study, 11 participants; very low certainty). There may be no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 1.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.74; 8 studies, 792 participants; low certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Corticosteroids (as compared to placebo) may lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported both as dichotomous and continuous outcomes, from the primary study definitions. Corticosteroids lead to a large increase in histological improvement (dichotomous outcome) and may increase histological improvement (continuous outcome) when compared to placebo. Corticosteroids may or may not increase endoscopic improvement (depending on whether the outcome is measured dichotomously or continuously). Withdrawals due to adverse events (dichotomous outcome) may occur less frequently when corticosteroids are compared to placebo. Biologics (as compared to placebo) may not lead to clinical symptom improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome and may lead to an increase in clinical symptom improvement (as a continuous outcome), from the primary study definitions. Biologics lead to a large increase in histological improvement when reported as a dichotomous outcome, but this is uncertain when reported as a continuous outcome, as compared to placebo. Biologics may not increase endoscopic improvement (dichotomous outcome), but this is uncertain when measured as a continuous outcome. Withdrawals due to adverse events as a dichotomous outcome may occur as frequently when biologics are compared to placebo.
Topics: Adult; Child; Humans; Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Biological Products; Chronic Disease; Eosinophilic Esophagitis; Proton Pump Inhibitors; Remission Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37470293
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004065.pub4 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Jun 2021Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric...
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used for acid suppression in the treatment and prevention of many conditions, including gastroesophageal reflux disease, gastric and duodenal ulcers, erosive esophagitis, Helicobacter pylori infection, and pathological hypersecretory conditions. Most PPIs are metabolized primarily by cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) into inactive metabolites, and CYP2C19 genotype has been linked to PPI exposure, efficacy, and adverse effects. We summarize the evidence from the literature and provide therapeutic recommendations for PPI prescribing based on CYP2C19 genotype (updates at www.cpicpgx.org). The potential benefits of using CYP2C19 genotype data to guide PPI therapy include (i) identifying patients with genotypes predictive of lower plasma exposure and prescribing them a higher dose that will increase the likelihood of efficacy, and (ii) identifying patients on chronic therapy with genotypes predictive of higher plasma exposure and prescribing them a decreased dose to minimize the risk of toxicity that is associated with long-term PPI use, particularly at higher plasma concentrations.
Topics: Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Genotype; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Proton Pump Inhibitors
PubMed: 32770672
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2015 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology May 2021Hypophosphataemia is an increasingly recognized side-effect of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and possibly iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose (IIM), which are used to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
Hypophosphataemia is an increasingly recognized side-effect of ferric carboxymaltose (FCM) and possibly iron isomaltoside/ferric derisomaltose (IIM), which are used to treat iron deficiency. The aim of this study was to determine frequency, severity, duration and risk factors of incident hypophosphataemia after treatment with FCM and IIM.
METHODS
A systematic literature search for articles indexed in EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science in years 2005-2020 was carried out using the search terms 'ferric carboxymaltose' OR 'iron isomaltoside'. Prospective clinical trials reporting outcomes on hypophosphataemia rate, mean nadir serum phosphate and/or change in mean serum phosphate from baseline were selected. Hypophosphataemia rate and severity were compared for studies on IIM vs. FCM after stratification for chronic kidney disease. Meta-regression analysis was used to investigate risk factors for hypophosphataemia.
RESULTS
Across the 42 clinical trials included in the meta-analysis, FCM induced a significantly higher incidence of hypophosphataemia than IIM (47%, 95% CI 36-58% vs. 4%, 95% CI 2-5%), and significantly greater mean decreases in serum phosphate (0.40 vs. 0.06 mmol/L). Hypophosphataemia persisted at the end of the study periods (maximum 3 months) in up to 45% of patients treated with FCM. Meta-regression analysis identified low baseline serum ferritin and transferrin saturation, and normal kidney function as significant predictors of hypophosphataemia.
CONCLUSION
FCM is associated with a high risk of hypophosphataemia, which does not resolve for at least 3 months in a large proportion of affected patients. More severe iron deficiency and normal kidney function are risk factors for hypophosphataemia.
Topics: Administration, Intravenous; Anemia, Iron-Deficiency; Disaccharides; Ferric Compounds; Fibroblast Growth Factor-23; Humans; Hypophosphatemia; Maltose; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 33188534
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14643 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Aug 2020Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly used analgesics due to their lack of addictive potential. However, NSAIDs have the potential to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are among the most commonly used analgesics due to their lack of addictive potential. However, NSAIDs have the potential to cause serious gastrointestinal, renal, and cardiovascular adverse events. CYP2C9 polymorphisms influence metabolism and clearance of several drugs in this class, thereby affecting drug exposure and potentially safety. We summarize evidence from the published literature supporting these associations and provide therapeutic recommendations for NSAIDs based on CYP2C9 genotype (updates at www.cpicpgx.org).
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Clinical Decision-Making; Consensus; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9; Drug Interactions; Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Genotype; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenomic Variants; Phenotype; Predictive Value of Tests; Risk Assessment; Risk Factors
PubMed: 32189324
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.1830 -
Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics Dec 2022The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics...
The objective of this study was to evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic (PGx)-guided treatment for drugs with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. A systematic review was conducted using multiple biomedical literature databases from inception to June 2021. Full articles comparing PGx-guided with nonguided treatment were included for data extraction. Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) was used to assess robustness of each study (0-100). Data are reported using descriptive statistics. Of 108 studies evaluating 39 drugs, 77 (71%) showed PGx testing was cost-effective (CE) (N = 48) or cost-saving (CS) (N = 29); 21 (20%) were not CE; 10 (9%) were uncertain. Clopidogrel had the most articles (N = 23), of which 22 demonstrated CE or CS, followed by warfarin (N = 16), of which 7 demonstrated CE or CS. Of 26 studies evaluating human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing for abacavir (N = 8), allopurinol (N = 10), or carbamazepine/phenytoin (N = 8), 15 demonstrated CE or CS. Nine of 11 antidepressant articles demonstrated CE or CS. The median QHES score reflected high-quality studies (91; range 48-100). Most studies evaluating cost-effectiveness favored PGx testing. Limited data exist on cost-effectiveness of preemptive and multigene testing across disease states.
Topics: Humans; Pharmacogenomic Testing; Pharmacogenetics; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Warfarin; Carbamazepine
PubMed: 36149409
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2754 -
Current Neuropharmacology 2023Traditional medicine and biomedical sciences are reaching a turning point because of the constantly growing impact and volume of Big Data. Machine Learning (ML)...
Traditional medicine and biomedical sciences are reaching a turning point because of the constantly growing impact and volume of Big Data. Machine Learning (ML) techniques and related algorithms play a central role as diagnostic, prognostic, and decision-making tools in this field. Another promising area becoming part of everyday clinical practice is personalized therapy and pharmacogenomics. Applying ML to pharmacogenomics opens new frontiers to tailored therapeutical strategies to help clinicians choose drugs with the best response and fewer side effects, operating with genetic information and combining it with the clinical profile. This systematic review aims to draw up the state-of-the-art ML applied to pharmacogenomics in psychiatry. Our research yielded fourteen papers; most were published in the last three years. The sample comprises 9,180 patients diagnosed with mood disorders, psychoses, or autism spectrum disorders. Prediction of drug response and prediction of side effects are the most frequently considered domains with the supervised ML technique, which first requires training and then testing. The random forest is the most used algorithm; it comprises several decision trees, reduces the training set's overfitting, and makes precise predictions. ML proved effective and reliable, especially when genetic and biodemographic information were integrated into the algorithm. Even though ML and pharmacogenomics are not part of everyday clinical practice yet, they will gain a unique role in the next future in improving personalized treatments in psychiatry.
Topics: Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Precision Medicine; Machine Learning; Mental Disorders; Psychiatry
PubMed: 37559539
DOI: 10.2174/1570159X21666230808170123 -
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Apr 2021Numerous algorithms have been developed to guide warfarin dosing and improve clinical outcomes. We reviewed the algorithms available for various populations and the... (Review)
Review
AIMS
Numerous algorithms have been developed to guide warfarin dosing and improve clinical outcomes. We reviewed the algorithms available for various populations and the covariates, performances and risk of bias of these algorithms.
METHODS
We systematically searched MEDLINE up to 20 May 2020 and selected studies describing the development, external validation or clinical utility of a multivariable warfarin dosing algorithm. Two investigators conducted data extraction and quality assessment.
RESULTS
Of 10 035 screened records, 266 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 433 dosing algorithms, 481 external validations and 52 clinical utility assessments. Most developed algorithms were for dose initiation (86%), developed by multiple linear regression (65%) and mostly applicable to Asians (49%) or Whites (43%). The most common demographic/clinical/environmental covariates were age (included in 401 algorithms), concomitant medications (270 algorithms) and weight (229 algorithms) while CYP2C9 (329 algorithms), VKORC1 (319 algorithms) and CYP4F2 (92 algorithms) variants were the most common genetic covariates. Only 26% and 7% algorithms were externally validated and evaluated for clinical utility, respectively, with <2% of algorithm developments and external validations being rated as having a low risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Most warfarin dosing algorithms have been developed in Asians and Whites and may not be applicable to under-served populations. Few algorithms have been externally validated, assessed for clinical utility, and/or have a low risk of bias which makes them unreliable for clinical use. Algorithm development and assessment should follow current methodological recommendations to improve reliability and applicability, and under-represented populations should be prioritized.
Topics: Algorithms; Anticoagulants; Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C9; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Genotype; Humans; Pharmacogenetics; Reproducibility of Results; Vitamin K Epoxide Reductases; Warfarin
PubMed: 33080066
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14608