Research on a 'drug-centred' approach to psychiatric drug treatment: assessing the impact of mental and behavioural alterations produced by psychiatric drugs

Drug development in psychopharmacology: Insights from evolutionary psychiatry

In the last decade, no other branch of clinical pharmacology has been subject to as much criticism of failed innovation and unsatisfactory effectiveness as psychopharmacology. Evolutionary psychiatry can offer original insights on the problems that complicate pharmacological research. Considering that invalid phenotyping is a major obstacle to drug development, an evolutionary perspective suggests targeting clinical phenotypes related to evolved behavior systems because they are more likely to map onto the underlying biology than constructs based on predetermined diagnostic criteria. Because of their emphasis on symptom remission, pharmacological studies of psychiatric populations rarely include functional capacities as the primary outcome measure and neglect the impact of social context on the effects of psychiatric drugs. Evolutionary psychiatry explains why it is appropriate to replace symptoms with functional capacities as the primary target of psychiatric therapies and why social context should be a major focus of studies assessing the effectiveness of drugs currently used and new drugs under development. When the focus of research shifts to those questions that go beyond the "disease-based" concept of drug action, evolutionary psychiatry clearly emerges as a reference framework to assess drug effectiveness and to optimize clinicians' decisions about prescribing, deprescribing, and non-prescribing.

Targeted Treatment of Schizophrenia Symptoms as They Manifest, or Continuous Treatment to Reduce the Risk of Psychosis Recurrence

Current pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia employs drugs that interfere with dopamine neurotransmission, aiming to suppress acute exacerbation of psychosis and maintenance treatment to reduce the risk of psychosis recurrence. According to this treatment scheme, available psychotropic drugs intended to treat negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, or anxiety are administered as add-ons to treatment with antipsychotics. However, an alternative treatment scheme proposes a targeted or intermittent treatment approach, by which antipsychotic drugs are administered upon psychosis exacerbation and discontinued upon remission or stabilization, while negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, or anxiety are treated with specific psychotropics as monotherapy. Along these lines, antipsychotics are renewed only in the event of recurrence of psychotic symptoms. This 50-year-old debate between targeted and continuous treatment schemes arises from disagreements about interpreting scientific evidence and discordant views regarding benefit/risk assessment. Among the debate's questions are: (1) what is the percentage of individuals who can maintain stability without antipsychotic maintenance treatment, and what is the percentage of those who exacerbate despite antipsychotic treatment? (2) how to interpret results of placebo-controlled 9- to 18-month-long maintenance trials in a life-long chronic disorder, and how to interpret results of the targeted trials, some of which are open label or not randomized; (3) how to weigh the decreased risk for psychotic recurrence vs the almost certainty of adverse effects on patient's quality of life. Patients' profiles, preferences, and circumstances of the care provision should be considered as the targeted vs continuous treatment options are considered.

Do DSM classifications help or hinder drug development?

Development and regulatory approval of psychotropic drugs targets individuals with syndromes described in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). This helps drug developers and regulators to communicate with prescribers, and prescribers to match a specific psychotropic with the individual patient(s) most likely to benefit from it. However, this practice has been criticized on the grounds that DSM syndromes are too heterogenous biologically, and the effects of psychotropics are too nonspecific to allow for an effective match. This review considers the advantages and disadvantages of the current practice and the possible alternatives. It concludes that efforts should be made to explore psychotropic development transdiagnostically, free of the DSM boundaries. However, currently there exists no alternative diagnostic system that is clearly superior to the DSM in terms of communications between the stakeholders in drug development.


Suffering and Salutogenesis: A Conceptual Analysis of Lessons for Psychiatry From Existential Positive Psychology (PP2.0) in the Setting of the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a widespread effect on the thoughts, emotions and behavior of millions of people all around the world. In this context, a large body of scientific literature examining the mental health impact of this global crisis has emerged. The majority of these studies have framed this impact in terms of pre-defined categories derived from psychiatric nosology, such as anxiety disorders, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder. These constructs often fail to capture the complexity of the actual experiences of the individuals being studied; more specifically, they describe these experiences exclusively in terms of disease, while neglecting their potentially adaptive or “salutogenic” aspects. Similarly, discussion of psychological assistance for these individuals has largely been confined to a reiteration of “evidence-based” psychological or pharmacological techniques which can be delivered using remote access technology. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, these approaches are likely to be of mixed efficacy. Conversely, “negative emotions” or distressing psychological experiences may actually be functional in the setting of a disaster or crisis, serving to minimize harm, maximize social coherence and compliance, and facilitate adherence to safety measures. The limitations of the “conventional” approach are, to a certain degree, inherent to the prevailing medical model of mental health. Beyond these considerations lies the concept of “salutogenesis,” a term which refers to the innate capacity of individuals to create and maintain health and well-being in the face of adversity. Using principles derived from the second wave of positive psychology (PP2.0), particularly its emphasis on the totality of human experience and the possibility of deriving meaning and character growth from suffering, this paper conceptually analyses the relevant aspects of salutogenesis and PP2.0, and proposes an alternate approach for addressing mental health concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Such an approach, while acknowledging the utility of the conventional medical-psychotherapeutic model in specific cases, reduces the risk of medicalizing human experience, and provides individuals and communities with opportunities for growth and adaptation. The benefits of this proposal could potentially extend far beyond the current crisis, offering an opportunity for the field of psychiatry and mental health research to move away from a purely “disease-centered” model.

Esketamine clinical trials: reply to Maju et al

Maju et al. provided clarifications on important and controversial issues related to esketamine clinical trial data, in response to a vivid debate triggered by the marketing authorisation recently granted by this new medicine. In this commentary, we reply to their comments attempting to critically discuss the evidence base needed to obtain regulatory approval.

The antidepressant standoff: why it continues and how to resolve it

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant medications (ADMs) are widely used and long-term use is increasing. Given this extensive use and recommendation of ADMs in guidelines, one would expect ADMs to be universally considered effective. Surprisingly, that is not the case; fierce debate on their benefits and harms continues. This editorial seeks to understand why the controversy continues and how consensus can be achieved.

METHODS

'Position' paper. Critical analysis and synthesis of relevant literature.

RESULTS

Advocates point at ADMs impressive effect size (number needed to treat, NNT = 6-8) in acute phase treatment and continuation/maintenance ADM treatment prevention relapse/recurrence in acute phase ADM responders (NNT = 3-4). Critics point at the limited clinically significant surplus value of ADMs relative to placebo and argue that effectiveness is overstated. We identified multiple factors that fuel the controversy: certainty of evidence is low to moderate; modest efficacy on top of strong placebo effects allows critics to focus on small net efficacy and advocates on large gross efficacy; ADM withdrawal symptoms masquerade as relapse/recurrence; lack of association between ADM treatment and long-term outcome in observational databases. Similar problems affect psychological treatments as well, but less so. We recommend four approaches to resolve the controversy: (1) placebo-controlled trials with relevant long-term outcome assessments, (2) inventive analyses of observational databases, (3) patient cohort studies including effect moderators to improve personalized treatment, and (4) psychological treatments as universal first-line treatment step.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the public health significance of depression and increased long-term ADM usage, new approaches are needed to resolve the controversy.

Esketamine for treatment resistant depression: a trick of smoke and mirrors?

In March 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a nasal spray formulation of esketamine for the treatment of resistant depression in adults. Esketamine is the S-enantiomer of ketamine, an FDA-approved anaesthetic, known to cause dissociation and, occasionally, hallucinations. While ketamine has not been approved for depression in the USA or in any other country, it has been used off-label in cases of severe depression. This commentary critically reviewed the evidence on esketamine submitted to the FDA, aiming to draw implications for clinical practice, research and regulatory science.

Safety of psychotropic medicines: contribution from observational evidence

The risks associated with psychotropic drugs use should be accurately documented at the population level in view of the growing number of persons exposed to these drugs. The strengths of observational studies regarding the identification of drug-related harms mirror the limitations of randomised controlled trials and vice-versa. Observational studies can be carried out in large samples of unselected participants treated in real-life conditions and who may be followed up over long periods. Serious adverse effects undetected during pre-marketing clinical trials may be observed only in post-marketing use, such as metabolic effects of second-generation antipsychotics. Observational studies play a key role in the identification of teratogenic risks, such as those induced by prenatal exposure to anticonvulsants. These studies are the main source of information to investigate the long-term effects of drugs, such as the possible increased risk of dementia in benzodiazepine users. They may also contribute to the accurate assessment at population level of risks overestimated by studies carried out in non-representative samples, such as the risk of congenital heart diseases in babies prenatally exposed to lithium. Owing to the lack of random allocation of drugs, confounding by indication or by disease severity are the major sources of biases in observational studies exploring drug safety. An adverse outcome may be wrongly imputed to drug exposure while it is a symptom/outcome of the disease motivating the decision to prescribe. Such a bias may occur in studies investigating the link between exposure to antidepressants and suicidality. As several methods have been developed to lessen the impact of such biases, pharmaco-epidemiological studies based upon stringent methodological designs should be regarded as a valid approach for assessing psychotropic drug safety.