OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between clinical outcome and the recommendations of a pharmacogenetic test (Neuropharmagen) in patients with a variety of psychiatric conditions whose previous treatment regimen had failed. METHODS: This retrospective, naturalistic, multicenter study included adult psychiatric patients (depression, psychosis, anxiety, bipolar, etc.) who had been seen at 3 private clinics. All patients had received pharmacogenetic testing (Neuropharmagen) and were classified depending on whether or not their post-test treatment regimen followed the test recommendations. Clinical severity was assessed with the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) at baseline (pre-test) and 3-month follow-up, and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: 182 patients were available for analysis. After multivariate adjustment, patients whose treatment followed the test recommendations had odds of improvement about 4 times greater than patients whose treatment did not follow the recommendations (adjusted OR=3.86, 95%CI 1.36-10.95; p=0.011). Importantly, psychiatric diagnosis did not significantly affect the odds of improvement. Also, in the subpopulation with baseline CGI-S score >3 (N=170), the rate of stabilization at follow-up (defined as CGI-S≤3) was significantly higher in patients whose treatment followed the pharmacogenetic recommendations (p=0.033). There was no apparent difference in the incidence of adverse events (6 patients in each group). CONCLUSIONS: Non-drug naïve patients whose treatment followed the recommendations of pharmacogenetic testing were more likely to improve their condition than patients whose treatment did not. These results are consistent with previous clinical research on depressed patients, and this study also suggests that this benefit can be extended to psychiatric conditions other than depression.
OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between clinical outcome and the recommendations of a pharmacogenetic test (Neuropharmagen) in patients with a variety of psychiatric conditions whose previous treatment regimen had failed. METHODS: This retrospective, naturalistic, multicenter study included adult psychiatricpatients (depression, psychosis, anxiety, bipolar, etc.) who had been seen at 3 private clinics. All patients had received pharmacogenetic testing (Neuropharmagen) and were classified depending on whether or not their post-test treatment regimen followed the test recommendations. Clinical severity was assessed with the Clinical Global Impression of Severity (CGI-S) at baseline (pre-test) and 3-month follow-up, and adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: 182 patients were available for analysis. After multivariate adjustment, patients whose treatment followed the test recommendations had odds of improvement about 4 times greater than patients whose treatment did not follow the recommendations (adjusted OR=3.86, 95%CI 1.36-10.95; p=0.011). Importantly, psychiatric diagnosis did not significantly affect the odds of improvement. Also, in the subpopulation with baseline CGI-S score >3 (N=170), the rate of stabilization at follow-up (defined as CGI-S≤3) was significantly higher in patients whose treatment followed the pharmacogenetic recommendations (p=0.033). There was no apparent difference in the incidence of adverse events (6 patients in each group). CONCLUSIONS: Non-drug naïve patients whose treatment followed the recommendations of pharmacogenetic testing were more likely to improve their condition than patients whose treatment did not. These results are consistent with previous clinical research on depressedpatients, and this study also suggests that this benefit can be extended to psychiatric conditions other than depression.
Authors: Chad A Bousman; Malcolm Forbes; Mahesh Jayaram; Harris Eyre; Charles F Reynolds; Michael Berk; Malcolm Hopwood; Chee Ng Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Víctor Pérez; Ariana Salavert; Jordi Espadaler; Miquel Tuson; Jerónimo Saiz-Ruiz; Cristina Sáez-Navarro; Julio Bobes; Enrique Baca-García; Eduard Vieta; José M Olivares; Roberto Rodriguez-Jimenez; José M Villagrán; Josep Gascón; Josep Cañete-Crespillo; Montse Solé; Pilar A Saiz; Ángela Ibáñez; Javier de Diego-Adeliño; José M Menchón Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Cathelijne H van der Wouden; Paul C D Bank; Kübra Özokcu; Jesse J Swen; Henk-Jan Guchelaar Journal: Genes (Basel) Date: 2019-05-29 Impact factor: 4.096
Authors: Cathelijne H van der Wouden; Mandy H van Rhenen; Wafa O M Jama; Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg; Volker M Lauschke; Lidija Konta; Matthias Schwab; Jesse J Swen; Henk-Jan Guchelaar Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2019-06-12 Impact factor: 6.875