Inflammatory processes and schizophrenia: two independent lines of evidence from a study of twins discordant and concordant for schizophrenic disorders

Genetic determinants of antidepressant and antipsychotic drug response

Today, more than 90% of inpatients hospitalized with Major Depression or Schizophrenia are treated with psychotropic drugs. Since none of the treatment options is causal, response rates are modest and the course of recovery is very heterogeneous. Genetic studies on the etiology and pathogenesis of major psychiatric disorders over the past decades have been largely unsuccessful. Likewise, genetic studies to predict response to psychopharmacological treatment have also not been particularly successful. In this project we have recruited 902 inpatients with ICD-10 diagnoses of schizophrenic ("F2 patients") or depressive disorders ("F3 patients"). The study assessed today's acute inpatient treatment regimens with up to 8 repeated measurements regarding the time course of recovery and adverse side effects. The genotyping included 100 candidate genes with genotypic patterns computed from 549 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs). To predict response to psychopharmacological treatment, we relied on a multidimensional approach to analyzing genetic diversity in combination with multilayer Neural Nets (NNs). Central to this new method were the "gene vectors" that (1) assessed the multidimensional genotypic patterns observed with genes; and (2) evaluated the correlations between genes. By means of these methods, we searched for combinations of multidimensional genotypic patterns that were characteristic of treatment responders while being rare among non-responders. The chosen method of approach provided a powerful technique to detail the complex structures of SNP data that are not detectable by conventional association methods. Molecular-genetic NNs enabled correct classification of 100% "non-responders", along with 94.7% correctly classified "responders" among the F2 patients, and 82.6% correctly classified "responders" among the F3 patients. The F2 and F3 classifiers were not disjoint but showed an overlap of 29.6% and 35.7% between the diagnostic groups, thus indicating that clinical diagnoses may not constitute etiologic entities. Our results suggested that patients may have an unspecific physical-genetic disposition that enables, facilitates, impedes or prevents recovery from major psychiatric disorders by setting various thresholds for exogenous triggers that initiate improvement ("recovery disposition"). Even though this disposition is not causally linked to recovery, it can nonetheless be clinically used in the sense of a "surrogate". Indeed, clinicians are also interested in reliable tools that can "do the job", despite the fact that etiology and pathogenesis of the treated disorders remain unknown.

Analysis of genetic diversity in patients with major psychiatric disorders versus healthy controls: A molecular-genetic study of 1698 subjects genotyped for 100 candidate genes (549 SNPs)

BACKGROUND

This study analyzed the extent to which irregularities in genetic diversity separate psychiatric patients from healthy controls.

METHODS

Genetic diversity was quantified through multidimensional "gene vectors" assembled from 4 to 8 polymorphic SNPs located within each of 100 candidate genes. The number of different genotypic patterns observed per gene was called the gene's "diversity index".

RESULTS

The diversity indices were found to be only weakly correlated with their constituent number of SNPs (20.5 % explained variance), thus suggesting that genetic diversity is an intrinsic gene property that has evolved over the course of evolution. Significant deviations from "normal" diversity values were found for (1) major depression; (2) Alzheimer's disease; and (3) schizoaffective disorders. Almost one third of the genes were correlated with each other, with correlations ranging from 0.0303 to 0.7245. The central finding of this study was the discovery of "singular genes" characterized by distinctive genotypic patterns that appeared exclusively in patients but not in healthy controls. Neural Nets yielded nonlinear classifiers that correctly identified up to 90 % of patients. Overlaps between diagnostic subgroups on the genotype level suggested that (1) diagnoses-crossing vulnerabilities are likely involved in the pathogenesis of major psychiatric disorders; (2) clinically defined diagnoses may not constitute etiological entities.

CONCLUSION

Detailed analyses of the variation of genotypic patterns in genes along with the correlation between genes lead to nonlinear classifiers that enable very robust separation between psychiatric patients and healthy controls on the genotype level.

Detailing the effects of polypharmacy in psychiatry: longitudinal study of 320 patients hospitalized for depression or schizophrenia

Current treatment standards in psychiatry are oriented towards polypharmacy, that is, patients receive combinations of several antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, hypnotics, antihistamines, and anticholinergics, along with other somatic treatments. In tandem with the beneficial effects of psychopharmacological drug treatment, patients experience significant adverse reactions which appear to have become more frequent and more severe with the rise of ubiquitous polypharmacy. In this study, we aimed to assess today's acute inpatient treatment of depressive and schizophrenic disorders with focus on therapeutic strategies, medications, adverse side effects, time course of recovery, and efficacy of treatments. Of particular interest was the weighing of the benefits and drawbacks of polypharmacy regimens. We recruited a total of 320 patients hospitalized at three residential mental health treatment centers with a diagnosis of either schizophrenic (ICD-10: "F2x.x"; n = 94; "F2 patients") or depressive disorders (ICD-10: "F3x.x"; n = 226; "F3 patients"). The study protocol included (1) assessment of previous history by means of the SADS Syndrome Check List SSCL-16 (lifetime version); (2) repeated measurements over 5 weeks assessing the time course of improvement by the Hamilton Depression Scale HAM-D and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale PANSS, along with medications and adverse side effects through the Medication and Side Effects Inventory MEDIS; and (3) the collection of blood samples from which DNA and serum were extracted. Polypharmacy was by far the most common treatment regimen (85%) in this study. On average, patients received 4.50 ± 2.68 medications, consisting of 3.30 ± 1.84 psychotropic drugs, plus 0.79 ± 1.13 medications that alleviate adverse side effects, plus 0.41 ± 0.89 other somatic medications. The treating psychiatrists appeared to be the main determining factor in this context, while «previous history» and «severity at baseline» played a minor role, if at all. Adverse drug reactions were found to be an inherent component of polypharmacy and tended to have a 2-3 times higher incidence compared to monotherapy. Severe adverse reactions could not be attributed to a particular drug or drug combination. Rather, the empirical data suggested that severe side effects can be triggered by virtually all combinations of drugs, provided patients have a respective vulnerability. In terms of efficacy, there were no advantages of polypharmacy over monotherapy. The results of this study underlined the fact that polypharmacy regimens are not equally suited for every patient. Specifically, such regimens appeared to have a negative impact on treatment outcome and to obfuscate the "natural" time course of recovery through a multitude of interfering factors. Evidence clearly speaks against starting just every therapeutic intervention in psychiatry with a combination of psychopharmaceuticals. We think that it is time for psychiatry to reconsider its treatment strategies, which are far too one-sidedly fixated on psychopharmacology and pay far too little attention to alternative approaches, especially in mild cases where psychotherapy without concurrent medication should still be an option. Also, regular exercises and sports can definitely be an effective therapeutic means in a considerable number of cases. General practitioners (GPs) are particularly in demand here.

Inflammatory processes linked to major depression and schizophrenic disorders and the effects of polypharmacy in psychiatry: evidence from a longitudinal study of 279 patients under therapy

Over the past 2 decades, polypharmacy has become the de-facto standard of acute treatment in psychiatry where patients with psychiatric disorders receive a multiple medication regimen. There is growing evidence for a potential link between major psychiatric disorders and inflammatory processes. Combining these two aspects aims at avoiding polypharmacy attempts among patients with inflammatory activation through alternative treatment strategies. In this study, we addressed the following questions: (1) to what extent can polypharmacy be explained through the factors "diagnosis", "previous history", "severity at baseline", "age", "gender", and "psychiatrist in charge"; (2) what are the differences between polypharmacy and monotherapy regarding efficacy and side effect profiles; and (3) what amount of between-patient variance is explainable by the natural antibody immunoglobulin M (IgM) within each diagnostic group. This naturalistic longitudinal study was comprised of 279 patients under therapy with a clinical diagnosis of depressive (ICD-10: "F3x.x"; n = 195) or schizophrenic disorders (ICD-10: "F2x.x"; n = 84). The study protocol included (1) assessment of previous history by the SADS Syndrome Check List SSCL-16 (lifetime version); (2) repeated measurements over 5 weeks assessing the time course of improvement by the Hamilton Depression Scale HAM-D and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale PANSS, along with medication and unwanted side effects through the Medication and Side Effects Inventory MEDIS; and (3) the collection of blood samples from which DNA and serum were extracted. The association between inflammatory response system and psychiatric disorders was detailed by fitting multi-layer Neural Net (NN) models to the observed data ("supervised learning"). The same approach was used to set up prediction models of side effects. Our data showed that polypharmacy was omnipresent. Yet the various polypharmacy regimens had no advantage over monotherapy: we even found slightly larger baseline score reductions under monotherapy, independent of primary diagnoses and for comparable baseline severities. Most patients experienced unwanted side effects. The close link between side effects and treatment regimen was revealed by a linear model in which the mere number of drugs explained a significant (p < 0.001) proportion of the observed variance. As to the inflammatory response system: For the F2 patients, our NN model identified a 22.5% subgroup exhibiting a significant correlation of r = 0.746 (p = 0.0004) between global schizophrenia scores and IgM levels, along with a correct prediction of response of 94.4%, thus explaining 55.7% of the observed between-patient variance. For the F3 patients, our NN model identified a 19.6% subgroup exhibiting a significant correlation of r = 0.644 (p = 0.00003) between global depression scores and IgM levels, along a correct prediction of response of 89.6%, thus explaining 41.4% of the observed between-patient variance. Polypharmacy is omnipresent in today's acute treatment of psychiatric disorders. Given the large proportion of patients with unwanted side effects and the strong correlation between side effects and the number of drugs, polypharmacy approaches are not equally suited for every patient. In terms of efficacy, there are no advantages of polypharmacy over monotherapy. Most notably, our study appears to have cleared the way for the reliable identification of a subgroup of patients for whom the inflammatory response system is a promising target of therapeutic intervention.

Exploratory case study of monozygotic twins with 22q11.2DS provides further clues to circumscribe neurocognitive markers of psychotic symptoms

Variation in facial emotion processing abilities may contribute to variability in penetrance for psychotic symptoms in 22q11.2DS. However, the precise nature of the social cognitive dysfunction (i.e., facial expression perception vs. emotion recognition), the potential additional roles of genetic and environmental variabilities, and consequently the possibility of using this neurocognitive marker in clinical monitoring remain unclear. The present case study aimed at testing the hypothesis that when confounding factors are controlled, the presence of psychotic symptoms in 22q11.2DS is associated, at the individual level, with a neural marker of facial expression perception rather than explicit emotional face recognition. Two monozygotic twins with 22q11.2DS discordant for psychiatric manifestations performed (1) a classical facial emotion labelling task and (2) an implicit neural measurement of facial expression perception using a frequency-tagging approach in electroencephalography (EEG). Analysis of the periodic brain response elicited by a change of facial expression from neutrality indicated that the twin with psychotic symptoms did not detect emotion among neutral faces while the twin without the symptoms did. In contrast, both encountered difficulties labelling facial emotion. The results from this exploratory twin study support the idea that impaired facial expression perception rather than explicit recognition of the emotion expressed might be a neurocognitive endophenotype of psychotic symptoms that could be reliable at a clinical level. Although confirmatory studies should be required, it facilitates further discussion on the etiology of the clinical phenotype in 22q11.2DS.