RATIONALE: Pro-cognitive agents for chronic psychotic disorders (CPDs) might be detected via experimental medicine models, in which neural targets engaged by the drug predict sensitivity to the drug's pro-cognitive effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use an experimental medicine model to test the hypothesis that "target engagement" predicts pro-cognitive effects of the NMDA antagonist, memantine (MEM), in CPDs. METHODS: MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) performance was assessed in CPD (n = 41) and healthy subjects (HS; n = 41) in a double-blind, randomized cross-over design of acute (single dose) MEM (placebo vs. 10 or 20 mg p.o.). Measures of prepulse inhibition (PPI) and mismatch negativity previously reported from this cohort substantiated target engagement. Biomarkers predicting MEM neurocognitive sensitivity were assessed. RESULTS: Testing confirmed MCCB deficits associated with CPD diagnosis, age, and anticholinergic exposure. MEM (20 mg p.o.) reduced MCCB performance in HS. To control for significant test order effects, an "order-corrected MEM effect" (OCME) was calculated. In CPD subjects, greater age, positive MEM effects on PPI, and SNP rs1337697 (within the ionotropic NMDA receptor gene, GRIN3A) predicted greater positive OCME with 20 mg MEM. CONCLUSIONS: An experimental medicine model to assess acute pro-cognitive drug effects in CPD subjects is feasible but not without challenges. A single MEM 20 mg dose had a negative impact on neurocognition among HS. In CPD patients, age, MEM effects on PPI, and rs1337697 predicted sensitivity to the neurocognitive effects of MEM. Any potential clinical utility of these predictive markers for pro-cognitive effects of MEM in subgroups of CPD patients cannot be inferred without a validating clinical trial.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Pro-cognitive agents for chronic psychotic disorders (CPDs) might be detected via experimental medicine models, in which neural targets engaged by the drug predict sensitivity to the drug's pro-cognitive effects. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use an experimental medicine model to test the hypothesis that "target engagement" predicts pro-cognitive effects of the NMDA antagonist, memantine (MEM), in CPDs. METHODS: MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery (MCCB) performance was assessed in CPD (n = 41) and healthy subjects (HS; n = 41) in a double-blind, randomized cross-over design of acute (single dose) MEM (placebo vs. 10 or 20 mg p.o.). Measures of prepulse inhibition (PPI) and mismatch negativity previously reported from this cohort substantiated target engagement. Biomarkers predicting MEM neurocognitive sensitivity were assessed. RESULTS: Testing confirmed MCCB deficits associated with CPD diagnosis, age, and anticholinergic exposure. MEM (20 mg p.o.) reduced MCCB performance in HS. To control for significant test order effects, an "order-corrected MEM effect" (OCME) was calculated. In CPD subjects, greater age, positive MEM effects on PPI, and SNP rs1337697 (within the ionotropic NMDA receptor gene, GRIN3A) predicted greater positive OCME with 20 mg MEM. CONCLUSIONS: An experimental medicine model to assess acute pro-cognitive drug effects in CPD subjects is feasible but not without challenges. A single MEM 20 mg dose had a negative impact on neurocognition among HS. In CPDpatients, age, MEM effects on PPI, and rs1337697 predicted sensitivity to the neurocognitive effects of MEM. Any potential clinical utility of these predictive markers for pro-cognitive effects of MEM in subgroups of CPDpatients cannot be inferred without a validating clinical trial.
Authors: B Willenborg; A Schmoller; J Caspary; U H Melchert; H G Scholand-Engler; K Jauch-Chara; F Hohagen; U Schweiger; K M Oltmanns Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2010-11-24 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Hsun-Hua Chou; Jo A Talledo; Sarah N Lamb; Wesley K Thompson; Neal R Swerdlow Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Robert S Kern; Keith H Nuechterlein; Michael F Green; Lyle E Baade; Wayne S Fenton; James M Gold; Richard S E Keefe; Raquelle Mesholam-Gately; Jim Mintz; Larry J Seidman; Ellen Stover; Stephen R Marder Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2008-01-02 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Ruth S Barr; Melissa A Culhane; Lindsay E Jubelt; Rana S Mufti; Michael A Dyer; Anthony P Weiss; Thilo Deckersbach; John F Kelly; Oliver Freudenreich; Donald C Goff; A Eden Evins Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2007-04-18 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Gregory A Light; Wen Zhang; Yash B Joshi; Savita Bhakta; Jo A Talledo; Neal R Swerdlow Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Neal R Swerdlow; Savita G Bhakta; Jo A Talledo; Daniel M Franz; Erica L Hughes; Brinda K Rana; Gregory A Light Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-11-20 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Neal R Swerdlow; Juliana E Kotz; Yash B Joshi; Jo Talledo; Joyce Sprock; Juan L Molina; Branko Huisa; Steven F Huege; Jairo Alberto Romero; Michael J Walsh; Lisa Delano-Wood; Gregory A Light Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Natalie de la Garrigue; Juliana Glasser; Pejman Sehatpour; Dan V Iosifescu; Elisa Dias; Marlene Carlson; Constance Shope; Tarek Sobeih; Tse-Hwei Choo; Melanie M Wall; Lawrence S Kegeles; James Gangwisch; Megan Mayer; Stephanie Brazis; Heloise M De Baun; Stephanie Wolfer; Dalton Bermudez; Molly Arnold; Danielle Rette; Amir M Meftah; Melissa Conant; Jeffrey A Lieberman; Joshua T Kantrowitz Journal: J Psychiatr Brain Sci Date: 2020-08-06
Authors: Daniel H Wolf; David Zheng; Christian Kohler; Bruce I Turetsky; Kosha Ruparel; Theodore D Satterthwaite; Mark A Elliott; Mary E March; Alan J Cross; Mark A Smith; Stephen R Zukin; Ruben C Gur; Raquel E Gur Journal: Mol Psychiatry Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 13.437