Antipsychotics in anxiety disorders: an oxymoron or a reflection of non-adequate nomenclature?

The future of psychopharmacology: a critical appraisal of ongoing phase 2/3 trials, and of some current trends aiming to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents

Despite considerable progress in pharmacotherapy over the past seven decades, many mental disorders remain insufficiently treated. This situation is in part due to the limited knowledge of the pathophysiology of these disorders and the lack of biological markers to stratify and individualize patient selection, but also to a still restricted number of mechanisms of action being targeted in monotherapy or combination/augmentation treatment, as well as to a variety of challenges threatening the successful development and testing of new drugs. In this paper, we first provide an overview of the most promising drugs with innovative mechanisms of action that are undergoing phase 2 or 3 testing for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, anxiety and trauma-related disorders, substance use disorders, and dementia. Promising repurposing of established medications for new psychiatric indications, as well as variations in the modulation of dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin receptor functioning, are also considered. We then critically discuss the clinical trial parameters that need to be considered in depth when developing and testing new pharmacological agents for the treatment of mental disorders. Hurdles and perils threatening success of new drug development and testing include inadequacy and imprecision of inclusion/exclusion criteria and ratings, sub-optimally suited clinical trial participants, multiple factors contributing to a large/increasing placebo effect, and problems with statistical analyses. This information should be considered in order to de-risk trial programmes of novel agents or known agents for novel psychiatric indications, increasing their chances of success.

A review of the current nomenclature for psychotropic agents and an introduction to the Neuroscience-based Nomenclature

Neuroscience based Nomenclature (NbN) is a new system of classifying psychotropic drugs by their pharmacological profile. The NbN was developed to replace the current indication-based nomenclature and to provide an up-to-date and more useful framework to better inform pharmacological decisions. NbN provides updated relevant and specific scientific, regulatory and clinical information, aiming to support rational and lucid prescribing. This pharmacologically driven nomenclature, which highlights pharmacological domains and modes of action, may also increase drug adherence as it clarifies the rationale for selecting a specific psychotropic agent.

A proposal for an updated neuropsychopharmacological nomenclature

Current psychopharmacological nomenclature remains wedded in an earlier period of scientific understanding, failing to reflect contemporary developments and knowledge, does not aid clinicians in selecting the best medication for a given patient, and tends to confuse patients by prescribing a drug that does not reflect their identified diagnosis (e.g. prescribe "antipsychotics" to depression). Four major colleges of Neuropsychopharmacology (ECNP, ACNP, Asian CNP, and CINP) proposed a new template comprising a multi-axial pharmacologically-driven nomenclature tested by four surveys. The template has five axes: 1-class (primary pharmacological target and relevant mechanism); 2-family (reflecting the relevant neurotransmitter and mechanism); 3-neurobiological activities; 4-efficacy and major side effects; and 5-approved indications. The results of the surveys suggest that the clinicians found the available indication-based nomenclature system dissatisfactory, non-intuitive, confusing, and doubt-inducing for them and the patients. The proposed five-axis template seeks to upend current usage by placing pharmacology rather than indication as the primary axes, with the proposed nomenclature relating primarily to Axis 1-the class, and usage of the other axes would largely depend upon the extent to which the clinician seeks to deepen the scientific and clinical base of his involvement. A significant proportion of the participants in the four surveys were in favour of the proposed system, a similar number wanted to consider the idea further, and only a small proportion (8.6%) were against it. The proposed five-axis pharmacology based nomenclature template is a system which might refresh and reflect the current scientific concepts of neuropsychopharmacology.