Inclusion of genetic variants in an ensemble of gradient boosting decision trees does not improve the prediction of citalopram treatment response

Predicting escitalopram treatment response from pre-treatment and early response resting state fMRI in a multi-site sample: A CAN-BIND-1 report

•

Baseline measures alone not able to predict escitalopram response above default.

•

This poor baseline performance contradicts results from smaller studies.

•

Accuracy improved using change in functional connectivity from baseline to week 2.

•

Measures of early change following treatment may be crucial for accurate prediction.

Many previous intervention studies have used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data to predict the antidepressant response of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD); however, practical constraints have limited many of those attempts to small, single centre studies which may not adequately reflect how these models will generalize when used in clinical practice. Not only does the act of collecting data at multiple sites generally increase sample sizes (a critical point in machine learning development) it also generates a more heterogeneous dataset due to systematic differences in scanners at different sites, and geographical differences in patient populations. As part of the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (CAN-BIND-1) study, 144 MDD patients from six sites underwent resting state fMRI prior to starting escitalopram treatment, and again two weeks after the start. Here, we consider ways to use machine learning techniques to produce models that can predict response (measured at eight weeks after initiation), based on various parcellations, functional connectivity (FC) metrics, dimensionality reduction algorithms, and base learners, and also whether to use scans from one or both time points. Models that use only baseline (pre-treatment) or only week 2 (early-response) whole-brain FC features consistently failed to perform significantly better than default models. Utilizing the change in FC between these two time points, however, yielded significant results, with the best performing analytical pipeline achieving 69.6% (SD 10.8) accuracy. These results appear contrary to findings from many smaller single-site studies, which report substantially higher predictive accuracies from models trained on only baseline resting state FC features, suggesting these models may not generalize well beyond data used for development. Further, these results indicate the potential value of collecting data both before and shortly after treatment initiation.

Genophenotypic Factors and Pharmacogenomics in Adverse Drug Reactions

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) rank as one of the top 10 leading causes of death and illness in developed countries. ADRs show differential features depending upon genotype, age, sex, race, pathology, drug category, route of administration, and drug–drug interactions. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) provides the physician effective clues for optimizing drug efficacy and safety in major problems of health such as cardiovascular disease and associated disorders, cancer and brain disorders. Important aspects to be considered are also the impact of immunopharmacogenomics in cutaneous ADRs as well as the influence of genomic factors associated with COVID-19 and vaccination strategies. Major limitations for the routine use of PGx procedures for ADRs prevention are the lack of education and training in physicians and pharmacists, poor characterization of drug-related PGx, unspecific biomarkers of drug efficacy and toxicity, cost-effectiveness, administrative problems in health organizations, and insufficient regulation for the generalized use of PGx in the clinical setting. The implementation of PGx requires: (i) education of physicians and all other parties involved in the use and benefits of PGx; (ii) prospective studies to demonstrate the benefits of PGx genotyping; (iii) standardization of PGx procedures and development of clinical guidelines; (iv) NGS and microarrays to cover genes with high PGx potential; and (v) new regulations for PGx-related drug development and PGx drug labelling.