Search

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to catalog and evaluate response biomarkers correlated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) symptoms to improve clinical trials.MethodsA systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted in April 2020. Seven criteria were applied to focus on original research that includes quantifiable response biomarkers measured alongside ASD symptoms. Interventional studies or human studies that assessed the correlation between biomarkers and ASD-related behavioral measures were included.ResultsA total of 5,799 independent records yielded 280 articles for review that reported on 940 biomarkers, 755 of which were unique to a single publication. Molecular biomarkers were the most frequently assayed, including cytokines, growth factors, measures of oxidative stress, neurotransmitters, and hormones, followed by neurophysiology (e.g., EEG and eye tracking), neuroimaging (e.g., functional MRI), and other physiological measures. Studies were highly heterogeneous, including in phenotypes, demographic characteristics, tissues assayed, and methods for biomarker detection. With a median total sample size of 64, almost all of the reviewed studies were only powered to identify biomarkers with large effect sizes. Reporting of individual-level values and summary statistics was inconsistent, hampering mega- and meta-analysis. Biomarkers assayed in multiple studies yielded mostly inconsistent results, revealing a "replication crisis."ConclusionsThere is currently no response biomarker with sufficient evidence to inform ASD clinical trials. This review highlights methodological imperatives for ASD biomarker research necessary to make definitive progress: consistent experimental design, correction for multiple comparisons, formal replication, sharing of sample-level data, and preregistration of study designs. Systematic "big data" analyses of multiple potential biomarkers could accelerate discovery.

Objective: In this review, the authors update the 2018 position statement of the American Psychiatric Association Council of Research Workgroup on Biomarkers and Novel Treatments on pharmacogenomic (PGx) tools for treatment selection in depression. Methods: The literature was reviewed for new clinical trials and meta-analyses, published from 2017 to 2022, of studies using PGx tools for treatment selection in depression. The blinding and control conditions, as well as primary and secondary outcomes and post hoc analyses, were summarized. Results: Eleven new clinical trials and five meta-analyses were identified; all studies had primary outcome measures related to speed or efficacy of treatment response. Three trials (27%) demonstrated efficacy on the primary outcome measure with statistical significance; the three studies used different PGx tools; one study was open-label and the other two were small single-blind trials. Five trials (45%) did not detect efficacy with statistical significance on either primary or secondary outcome measures. Only one trial (9%) used adverse events as a primary outcome measure. All studies had significant limitations; for example, none adopted a fully blinded study design, only two studies attempted to blind the treating clinician, and none incorporated measures to estimate the effectiveness of the blinds or the influence of lack of blinding on the study results. Conclusions: The addition of these new data do not alter the recommendations of the 2018 report, or the advice of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that the evidence does not support the use of currently available combinatorial PGx tools for treatment selection in major depressive disorder. Priority efforts for future studies and the development and testing of effective tools include fully blinded study designs, inclusion of promising genetic variants not currently included in any commercially available tests, and investigation of other uses of pharmacogenomics, such as estimating the likelihood of rare adverse drug effects, rather than increasing the speed or magnitude of drug response. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Major depressive disorder is a common psychiatric disorder associated with marked suffering, morbidity, mortality, and cost. The World Health Organization projects that by 2030, major depression will be the leading cause of disease burden worldwide. While numerous treatments for major depression exist, many patients do not respond adequately to traditional antidepressants. Thus, more effective treatments for major depression are needed, and targeting certain hormonal systems is a conceptually based approach that has shown promise in the treatment of this disorder. A number of hormones and hormone-manipulating compounds have been evaluated as monotherapies or adjunctive treatments for major depression, with therapeutic actions attributable not only to the modulation of endocrine systems in the periphery but also to the CNS effects of hormones on non-endocrine brain circuitry. The authors describe the physiology of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA), hypothalamic-pituitary thyroid (HPT), and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axes and review the evidence for selected hormone-based interventions for the treatment of depression in order to provide an update on the state of this field for clinicians and researchers. The review focuses on the HPA axis-based interventions of corticotropin-releasing factor antagonists and the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist mifepristone, the HPT axis-based treatments of thyroid hormones (T3 and T4), and the HPG axis-based treatments of estrogen replacement therapy, the progesterone derivative allopregnanolone, and testosterone. While some treatments have largely failed to translate from preclinical studies, others have shown promising initial results and represent active fields of study in the search for novel effective treatments for major depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The authors provide an evidenced-based summary of the literature on the clinical application of psychedelic drugs in psychiatric disorders.Methods: Searches of PubMed and PsycINFO via Ovid were conducted for articles in English, in peer-reviewed journals, reporting on "psilocybin," "lysergic acid diethylamide," "LSD," "ayahuasca," "3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine," and "MDMA," in human subjects, published between 2007 and July 1, 2019. A total of 1,603 articles were identified and screened. Articles that did not contain the terms "clinical trial," "therapy," or "imaging" in the title or abstract were filtered out. The 161 remaining articles were reviewed by two or more authors. The authors identified 14 articles reporting on well-designed clinical trials investigating the efficacy of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), psilocybin, and ayahuasca for the treatment of mood and anxiety disorders, trauma and stress-related disorders, and substance-related and addictive disorders as well as in end-of-life care.Results: The most significant database exists for MDMA and psilocybin, which have been designated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as "breakthrough therapies" for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and treatment-resistant depression, respectively. The research on LSD and ayahuasca is observational, but available evidence suggests that these agents may have therapeutic effects in specific psychiatric disorders.Conclusions: Randomized clinical trials support the efficacy of MDMA in the treatment of PTSD and psilocybin in the treatment of depression and cancer-related anxiety. The research to support the use of LSD and ayahuasca in the treatment of psychiatric disorders is preliminary, although promising. Overall, the database is insufficient for FDA approval of any psychedelic compound for routine clinical use in psychiatric disorders at this time, but continued research on the efficacy of psychedelics for the treatment of psychiatric disorders is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]