Dataset Information

Plasma oxytocin changes and anti-obsessive response during serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment: a placebo controlled study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The drug treatments of choice for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) are serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs). However, a correlation between the neuropeptide oxytocin in cerebrospinal fluid and the severity of OCD has previously been shown, and oxytocin and serotonin are interconnected within the brain. Few studies have investigated whether SRIs have any effect on oxytocin; thus, our aim was to explore the possibility that oxytocinergic mechanisms contribute to the anti-obsessive effect of SRIs.

Method

In a randomized, double-blind trial, comparing SRIs (clomipramine and paroxetine) with placebo in 36 adults with OCD (characterized for subtypes), plasma oxytocin was measured with radioimmunoassay after plasma extraction, at baseline, after 1 week, and after 4 weeks of treatment, and related to baseline severity and clinical response after 12 weeks, as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS).

Results

Baseline oxytocin levels correlated positively with baseline Y-BOCS ratings, but only among the future SRI responders. Patients with early onset of OCD had higher baseline oxytocin. During treatment, plasma oxytocin did not differ between SRI and placebo treatment. In SRI responders, plasma oxytocin first decreased and then increased; in non-responders (to SRI as well as to placebo), the reverse was the case. After 4 weeks, treatment responders had attained higher oxytocin levels compared to non-responders. The intra-individual range (i.e., the variability) of plasma oxytocin between measurements was the measure that best differentiated responders from non-responders. This range was higher in responders than non-responders, and lower in patients with autistic traits.

Conclusions

SRIs have highly variable effects on plasma oxytocin between individuals. The associations between baseline oxytocin and OCD severity and between oxytocin changes and treatment response support the notions that oxytocin is involved in OCD pathophysiology, and that the anti-obsessive effects of SRIs are partly exerted through oxytocinergic mechanisms.

SUBMITTER: Humble MB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3877985 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder do not respond adequately to serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Augmentation with antipsychotic drugs can be beneficial in this regard. However, since new relevant randomized controlled trials evaluating new antipsychotics were conducted, a recalculation of the effect sizes appears necessary.MethodsWe meta-analyzed all double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials comparing augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors with antipsychotics to placebo supplementation in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder. The primary outcome was mean change in the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale total score. Secondary outcomes were obsessions, compulsions, response rates, and attrition rates. The data collection process was conducted independently by 2 authors. Hedges's g and risks ratios were calculated as effect sizes. In preplanned meta-regressions, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses, we examined the robustness of the results and explored reasons for potential heterogeneity.ResultsAltogether, 14 double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (n=491) investigating quetiapine (N=4, n=142), risperidone (N=4, n=132), aripiprazole (N=2, n=79), olanzapine (N=2, n=70), paliperidone (N=1, n=34), and haloperidol (N=1, n=34) were incorporated. Augmentation with antipsychotics was significantly more efficacious than placebo in Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale total reduction (N=14, n=478; Hedges's g=-0.64, 95% CI: -0.87 to -0.41; P=<.01). Aripiprazole (Hedges's g=-1.35), haloperidol (Hedges's g=-0.82), and risperidone (Hedges's g=-0.59) significantly outperformed placebo. Antipsychotics were superior to placebo in treating obsessions, compulsions, and achieving response. There was no between-group difference concerning all-cause discontinuation. The nonsignificant meta-regressions suggest no influence of the antipsychotic dose or baseline symptom severity on the meta-analytic results.ConclusionsAccording to our findings, antipsychotic augmentation of serotonin reuptake inhibitors can be regarded as an evidence-based measure in treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Project description:Objective: To characterize executive function in adolescents with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and its relationship to treatment. Methods: Using data from a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of escitalopram in adolescents (N = 51) 12-17 years of age with GAD, we used the self-report version of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-SR) to assess executive function, at baseline, and examined its relationship to treatment response as measured by the Pediatric Anxiety Rating Scale (PARS). Results: For all baseline subscores of the BRIEF-SR, T-scores were significantly elevated in adolescents with GAD compared to an age- and sex-matched normative healthy sample. In escitalopram-treated patients, baseline BRIEF-SR scores for Emotional Control (β = 0.256, 95% credibility interval [CrI]: 0.367 to 0.146, p < 0.001), Working Memory (β = 0.204, CrI: 0.2952 to 0.1134, p < 0.001), Planning/Organizing (β = -0.223, CrI: -0.1021 to -0.3436, p = 0.004), and Task Completion (β = -0.152, CrI: 0.075 to 0.228, p = 0.002) predicted the trajectory of improvement in PARS score over the 8-week trial. For youth who received placebo, only the Inhibit score was significantly, but weakly, associated with response trajectory (β = -0.081, CrI: -0.0167 to -0.1461, p = 0.015). For adolescents who had clinically significant impairment in Emotional Control, Working Memory, Planning/Organizing, and Task Completion (i.e., T-score >65), the trajectory of improvement significantly differed from patients without scores in the clinically significant range. Conclusions: Taken together, these findings point to the potential value of assessing executive function in youth with anxiety disorders as one strategy for guiding treatment selection. These data suggest that executive function may predict treatment response to psychopharmacologic treatment and point to numerous avenues for further personalizing treatment.

Project description:BackgroundAnxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and stress-related disorders frequently co-occur, and patients often present symptoms of several domains. Treatment involves the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), but data on comparative efficacy and acceptability are lacking. We aimed to compare the efficacy of SSRIs, SNRIs, and placebo in multiple symptom domains in patients with these diagnoses over the lifespan through a 3-level network meta-analysis.Methods and findingsWe searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials that aimed to assess the efficacy of SSRIs or SNRIs in participants (adults and children) with diagnosis of any anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, or stress-related disorder in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception to 23 April 2015, with an update on 11 November 2020. We supplemented electronic database searches with manual searches for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials registered in publicly accessible clinical trial registries and pharmaceutical companies' databases. No restriction was made regarding comorbidities with any other mental disorder, participants' age and sex, blinding of participants and researchers, date of publication, or study language. The primary outcome was the aggregate measure of internalizing symptoms of these disorders. Secondary outcomes included specific symptom domains and treatment discontinuation rate. We estimated standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 3-level network meta-analysis with random slopes by study for medication and assessment instrument. Risk of bias appraisal was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017069090). We analyzed 469 outcome measures from 135 studies (n = 30,245). All medications were more effective than placebo for the aggregate measure of internalizing symptoms (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.51, p < 0.001), for all symptom domains, and in patients from all diagnostic categories. We also found significant results when restricting to the most used assessment instrument for each diagnosis; nevertheless, this restriction led to exclusion of 72.71% of outcome measures. Pairwise comparisons revealed only small differences between medications in efficacy and acceptability. Limitations include the moderate heterogeneity found in most outcomes and the moderate risk of bias identified in most of the trials.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that all SSRIs and SNRIs were effective for multiple symptom domains, and in patients from all included diagnostic categories. We found minimal differences between medications concerning efficacy and acceptability. This three-level network meta-analysis contributes to an ongoing discussion about the true benefit of antidepressants with robust evidence, considering the significantly larger quantity of data and higher statistical power when compared to previous studies. The 3-level approach allowed us to properly assess the efficacy of these medications on internalizing psychopathology, avoiding potential biases related to the exclusion of information due to distinct assessment instruments, and to explore the multilevel structure of transdiagnostic efficacy.

Project description:Importance:In 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an advisory warning on the risk of serotonin syndrome with concomitant use of triptans and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) or selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressants, but the true risk of serotonin syndrome in these patients remains unknown. Objective:To assess the risk of serotonin syndrome with concomitant use of triptans and SSRI or SNRI antidepressants. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study used electronic health record data from the Partners Research Data Registry (RPDR) to identify patients who had received an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis compatible with serotonin syndrome who had been coprescribed triptans and SSRI or SNRI antidepressants in the Greater Boston, Massachusetts, area from January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2014 (14 years). Clinical information was extracted to determine whether the case met formal diagnostic criteria and had coprescription within a calendar year. Both conservative and broad case definitions were used to better characterize the spectrum of risk. Data analysis was performed from November 23, 2016, to July 15, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incidence of serotonin syndrome. Results:The RPDR search revealed 47?968 (±3) unique patients who were prescribed triptans during the 14-year period of the study. A total of 19?017 (±3) patients were coprescribed triptans and antidepressants during the study, with a total of 30?928 person-years of exposure. Serotonin syndrome was suspected in 17 patients. Only 2 patients were classified as having definite serotonin syndrome (incidence rate, 0.6 cases per 10?000 person-years of exposure; 95% CI, 0.0-1.5). Five patients were classified as having possible serotonin syndrome (incidence rate with these 5 cases added to the 2 definite cases, 2.3 cases per 10?000 person-years of exposure; 95% CI, 0.6-3.9). The proportion of patients with triptan prescriptions who were coprescribed an SSRI or SNRI antidepressant was relatively stable during the study, ranging from 21% to 29%. Conclusions and Relevance:The risk of serotonin syndrome associated with concomitant use of triptans and SSRIs or SNRIs was low. Coprescription of these drugs is common and did not decrease after the 2006 FDA advisory. Our results cast doubt on the validity of the FDA advisory and suggest that it should be reconsidered.

Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the benefits and harms of reboxetine versus placebo or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the acute treatment of depression, and to measure the impact of potential publication bias in trials of reboxetine.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis including unpublished data.Data sourcesBibliographic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, and Cochrane Library), clinical trial registries, trial results databases, and regulatory authority websites up until February 2009, as well as unpublished data from the manufacturer of reboxetine (Pfizer, Berlin).Eligibility criteriaDouble blind, randomised, controlled trials of acute treatment (six weeks or more) with reboxetine versus placebo or SSRIs in adults with major depression.Outcome measuresRemission and response rates (benefit outcomes), as well as rates of patients with at least one adverse event and withdrawals owing to adverse events (harm outcomes).Data extraction and data synthesisThe procedures for data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were always conducted by one person and checked by another. If feasible, data were pooled by meta-analyses (random effects model). Publication bias was measured by comparing results of published and unpublished trials.ResultsWe analysed 13 acute treatment trials that were placebo controlled, SSRI controlled, or both, which included 4098 patients. Data on 74% (3033/4098) of these patients were unpublished. In the reboxetine versus placebo comparison, no significant differences in remission rates were shown (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.51; P=0.216). Substantial heterogeneity (I(2)=67.3%) was shown in the meta-analysis of the eight trials that investigated response rates for reboxetine versus placebo. A sensitivity analysis that excluded a small inpatient trial showed no significant difference in response rates between patients receiving reboxetine and those receiving placebo (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.56; P=0.071; I(2)=42.1%). Reboxetine was inferior to SSRIs (fluoxetine, paroxetine, and citalopram) for remission rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; P=0.015) and response rates (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01). Reboxetine was inferior to placebo for both harm outcomes (P<0.001 for both), and to fluoxetine for withdrawals owing to adverse events (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.05; P=0.031). Published data overestimated the benefit of reboxetine versus placebo by up to 115% and reboxetine versus SSRIs by up to 23%, and also underestimated harm.ConclusionsReboxetine is, overall, an ineffective and potentially harmful antidepressant. Published evidence is affected by publication bias, underlining the urgent need for mandatory publication of trial data.

Project description:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are a standard of care for the pharmacotherapy of patients suffering from Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). However, only one-half to two-thirds of MDD patients respond to SSRI therapy. Recently, a "multiple omics" research strategy was applied to identify genetic differences between patients who did and did not respond to SSRI therapy. As a first step, plasma metabolites were assayed using samples from the 803 patients in the PGRN-AMPS SSRI MDD trial. The metabolomics data were then used to "inform" genomics by performing a genome-wide association study (GWAS) for plasma concentrations of the metabolite most highly associated with clinical response, serotonin (5-HT). Two genome-wide or near genome-wide significant single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) signals were identified, one that mapped near the TSPAN5 gene and another across the ERICH3 gene, both genes that are highly expressed in the brain. Knocking down TSPAN5 and ERICH3 resulted in decreased 5-HT concentrations in neuroblastoma cell culture media and decreased expression of enzymes involved in 5-HT biosynthesis and metabolism. Functional genomic studies demonstrated that ERICH3 was involved in clathrin-mediated vesicle formation and TSPAN5 was an ethanol-responsive gene that may be a marker for response to acamprosate pharmacotherapy of alcohol use disorder (AUD), a neuropsychiatric disorder highly co-morbid with MDD. In parallel studies, kynurenine was the plasma metabolite most highly associated with MDD symptom severity and application of a metabolomics-informed pharmacogenomics approach identified DEFB1 and AHR as genes associated with variation in plasma kynurenine levels. Both genes also contributed to kynurenine-related inflammatory pathways. Finally, a multiply replicated predictive algorithm for SSRI clinical response with a balanced predictive accuracy of 76% (compared with 56% for clinical data alone) was developed by including the SNPs in TSPAN5, ERICH3, DEFB1 and AHR. In summary, application of a multiple omics research strategy that used metabolomics to inform genomics, followed by functional genomic studies, identified novel genes that influenced monoamine biology and made it possible to develop a predictive algorithm for SSRI clinical outcomes in MDD. A similar pharmaco-omic research strategy might be broadly applicable for the study of other neuropsychiatric diseases and their drug therapy.