Article

Prediction of response to paroxetine and venlafaxine by serotonin-related genes in obsessive-compulsive disorder in a randomized, double-blind trial.

Department of Psychiatry, the Rudolf Magnus Institute of Neuroscience, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 5.14). 05/2007; 68(5):747-53. DOI: 10.4088/JCP.v68n0512
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) are the most effective pharmacologic treatment currently available for patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Still, up to 40% to 60% of OCD patients do not respond to SRI treatment. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether polymorphisms of the serotonin transporter (5-HTT), 5-HT1B, and 5-HT2A receptor genes affect the efficacy of SRI treatment in OCD.
91 outpatients with OCD according to DSM-IV criteria consented to the study and were randomly assigned in a 12-week, double-blind trial to receive dosages titrated upward to 300 mg/day of venlafaxine or 60 mg/day of paroxetine. Primary efficacy was assessed by the change from baseline on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (YBOCS), and response was defined as a > or = 25% reduction on the YBOCS. Responders and nonresponders were stratified according to 5-HTT, 5-HT1B, and 5-HT2A genotypes and differentiated in paroxetine-or venlafaxine-treated groups. The study was conducted from August 1998 to July 2002.
In the whole group, 64% of responders carried the S/L genotype of the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism (chi2 = 7.17, df = 2, p = .028). In the paroxetine-treated patients, the majority of responders carried the G/G genotype of the 5-HT2A polymorphism (chi2 = 8.66, df = 2, p = .013), whereas in the venlafaxine-treated patients, the majority of responders carried the S/L genotype of the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism (chi2 = 9.72, df = 2, p = .008).
The results of this study suggest that response in venlafaxine-treated OCD patients is associated with the S/L genotype of the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism and in paroxetine-treated OCD patients with the G/G genotype of the 5-HT2A polymorphism.

Full-text

Available from: Damiaan Denys, Jun 11, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
120 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several studies have examined the predictors of treatment response in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Only limited information is available on the predictors of response to antipsychotic augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs). Data from placebo-controlled studies of augmentation with quetiapine were combined in a best subsets logistic regression to derive a predictive model for Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (YBOCS) change and the YBOCS endpoint. Data from the YBOCS checklist and a variety of clinical and demographic variables previously shown to predict treatment outcome in OCD were analysed. In univariate analyses, the failure of fewer previous SRI trials was associated with the YBOCS response. In the multivariate model, for YBOCS change, 45% of the variance was attributed to the fact that patients had failed fewer previous SRI treatments, had higher baseline obsession scores, and ordering and arranging compulsions. For the YBOCS endpoint scores, 50% of the variance was attributed to the fact that patients had fewer failed SRI trials, higher baseline compulsion scores, and counting/ordering and arranging compulsions. These data indicate a number of predictors of response to augmentation of SRIs in treatment-refractory OCD. These include fewer previously failed SRI trials and generally higher overall baseline scores for obsessions and compulsions as well as counting/ordering and arranging compulsions. Other factors are, however, also likely to play an important role in predicting outcome.
    International clinical psychopharmacology 07/2012; 27(6):321-5. DOI:10.1097/YIC.0b013e3283576881 · 3.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) current standard pharmacotherapies may be of limited efficacy. Non-conventional interventions such as Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM), self-help techniques, and lifestyle interventions are commonly used by sufferers of OCD, however to date no systematic review of this specific area exists. We conducted a systematic review of studies using CAM, self-help, and lifestyle interventions for treatment of OCD and trichotillomania (TTM). PubMed, PsycINFO, China Academic Journals Full-text Database, The Cochrane Library and CINAHL were searched (up to Jan 11th 2011), for controlled clinical trials using non-conventional interventions for OCD. A quality analysis using a purpose-designed scale and an estimation of effect sizes (Cohen's d) where data was available, were also calculated. The literature search revealed 14 studies that met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality of nutraceutical studies (nutrients and herbal medicines) were rated as high (mean 8.6/10), whereas mind-body or self-help studies were poorer (mean 6.1/10). In OCD, tentative evidentiary support from methodologically weak studies was found for mindfulness meditation (d=0.63), electroacupuncture (d=1.16), and kundalini yoga (d=1.61). Better designed studies using the nutrient glycine (d=1.10), and traditional herbal medicines milk thistle (insufficient data for calculating d) and borage (d=1.67) also revealed positive results. A rigorous study showed that N-acetylcysteine (d=1.31) was effective in TTM, while self-help technique "movement decoupling" also demonstrated efficacy (d=0.94). Mixed evidence was found for myo-inositol (mean d=0.98). Controlled studies suggest that St John's wort, EPA, and meridian-tapping are ineffective in treating OCD. While several studies were positive, these were un-replicated and commonly used small samples. This precludes firm confidence in the strength of clinical effect. Preliminary evidence however is encouraging, and more rigorous research of some of the more hypothesis-based interventions in the treatment of OCD and TTM may be indicated.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 05/2011; 138(3):213-21. DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2011.04.051 · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source