Michael J McCarthy1,2, Yucui Chen1,2, Anna Demodena1, Eileen Fisher3,4, Shahrokh Golshan1,2, Trisha Suppes3,4, John R Kelsoe1,2. 1. Mental Health Service, VA San Diego Healthcare System, San Diego, California. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, California. 3. Bipolar and Depression Research Program, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California. 4. Stanford University Department of Psychiatry, Stanford, California.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Novel technologies make it possible to incorporate pharmacogenetic testing into the medical management of depression. However, previous studies indicate that there may be a subset of subjects who have concerns about genetic testing and may be psychologically vulnerable. If so, pharmacogenetic testing in depressed subjects could negatively impact their mental health and undermine treatment goals. METHODS: In this study, we developed a standardized instrument to assess motivations and attitudes around pharmacogenetic testing in a cohort of 170 depressed Veterans participating in a multi-center clinic trial. RESULTS: Testing reveals that subjects were largely positive about the use of genetic testing to guide pharmacological treatment and help plan their future. Most subjects showed only modest concerns about the impact on family, inability to cope with the results, and fear of discrimination. The severity of depression did not predict the concern expressed about negative outcomes. However, non-Caucasian subjects were more likely on average to endorse concerns about poor coping and fear of discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that while the overall risk is modest, some patients with depression may face psychosocial challenges in the context of pharmacogenetic testing. Future work should identify factors that predict distress and aim to tailor test results to different populations.
BACKGROUND: Novel technologies make it possible to incorporate pharmacogenetic testing into the medical management of depression. However, previous studies indicate that there may be a subset of subjects who have concerns about genetic testing and may be psychologically vulnerable. If so, pharmacogenetic testing in depressed subjects could negatively impact their mental health and undermine treatment goals. METHODS: In this study, we developed a standardized instrument to assess motivations and attitudes around pharmacogenetic testing in a cohort of 170 depressed Veterans participating in a multi-center clinic trial. RESULTS: Testing reveals that subjects were largely positive about the use of genetic testing to guide pharmacological treatment and help plan their future. Most subjects showed only modest concerns about the impact on family, inability to cope with the results, and fear of discrimination. The severity of depression did not predict the concern expressed about negative outcomes. However, non-Caucasian subjects were more likely on average to endorse concerns about poor coping and fear of discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that while the overall risk is modest, some patients with depression may face psychosocial challenges in the context of pharmacogenetic testing. Future work should identify factors that predict distress and aim to tailor test results to different populations.
Authors: Daniel K Hall-Flavin; Joel G Winner; Josiah D Allen; Joseph M Carhart; Brian Proctor; Karen A Snyder; Maureen S Drews; Linda L Eisterhold; Jennifer Geske; David A Mrazek Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Chad A Bousman; Katarina Arandjelovic; Serafino G Mancuso; Harris A Eyre; Boadie W Dunlop Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Hicham M Ibrahim; Thomas J Carmody; Bruce Arnow; Daniel N Klein; John C Markowitz; Philip T Ninan; Susan Kornstein; Rachel Manber; Michael E Thase; James H Kocsis; Martin B Keller Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Paul Bradley; Michael Shiekh; Vishaal Mehra; Keith Vrbicky; Stacey Layle; Marilyn C Olson; Alejandra Maciel; Ali Cullors; Jorge A Garces; Andrew A Lukowiak Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Jakob Grove; Stephan Ripke; Thomas D Als; Manuel Mattheisen; Raymond K Walters; Hyejung Won; Jonatan Pallesen; Esben Agerbo; Ole A Andreassen; Richard Anney; Swapnil Awashti; Rich Belliveau; Francesco Bettella; Joseph D Buxbaum; Jonas Bybjerg-Grauholm; Marie Bækvad-Hansen; Felecia Cerrato; Kimberly Chambert; Jane H Christensen; Claire Churchhouse; Karin Dellenvall; Ditte Demontis; Silvia De Rubeis; Bernie Devlin; Srdjan Djurovic; Ashley L Dumont; Jacqueline I Goldstein; Christine S Hansen; Mads Engel Hauberg; Mads V Hollegaard; Sigrun Hope; Daniel P Howrigan; Hailiang Huang; Christina M Hultman; Lambertus Klei; Julian Maller; Joanna Martin; Alicia R Martin; Jennifer L Moran; Mette Nyegaard; Terje Nærland; Duncan S Palmer; Aarno Palotie; Carsten Bøcker Pedersen; Marianne Giørtz Pedersen; Timothy dPoterba; Jesper Buchhave Poulsen; Beate St Pourcain; Per Qvist; Karola Rehnström; Abraham Reichenberg; Jennifer Reichert; Elise B Robinson; Kathryn Roeder; Panos Roussos; Evald Saemundsen; Sven Sandin; F Kyle Satterstrom; George Davey Smith; Hreinn Stefansson; Stacy Steinberg; Christine R Stevens; Patrick F Sullivan; Patrick Turley; G Bragi Walters; Xinyi Xu; Kari Stefansson; Daniel H Geschwind; Merete Nordentoft; David M Hougaard; Thomas Werge; Ole Mors; Preben Bo Mortensen; Benjamin M Neale; Mark J Daly; Anders D Børglum Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2019-02-25 Impact factor: 38.330