Taking personalized medicine seriously: Biomarker approaches in phase IIb/III studies in major depression and schizophrenia

The success rate in the development of psychopharmacological compounds is insufficient. Two main reasons for failure have been frequently identified: 1) treating the wrong patients and 2) using the wrong dose. This is potentially based on the known heterogeneity among patients, both on a syndromal and a biological level. A focus on personalized medicine through better characterization with biomarkers has been successful in other therapeutic areas. Nevertheless, obstacles toward this goal that exist are 1) the perception of a lack of validation, 2) the perception of an expensive and complicated enterprise, and 3) the perception of regulatory hurdles. The authors tackle these concerns and focus on the utilization of biomarkers as predictive markers for treatment outcome. The authors primarily cover examples from the areas of major depression and schizophrenia. Methodologies covered include salivary and plasma collection of neuroendocrine, metabolic, and inflammatory markers, which identified subgroups of patients in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety. A battery of vegetative markers, including sleep-electroencephalography parameters, heart rate variability, and bedside functional tests, can be utilized to characterize the activity of a functional system that is related to treatment refractoriness in depression (e.g., the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system). Actigraphy and skin conductance can be utilized to classify patients with schizophrenia and provide objective readouts for vegetative activation as a functional marker of target engagement. Genetic markers, related to folate metabolism, or folate itself, has prognostic value for the treatment response in patients with schizophrenia. Already, several biomarkers are routinely collected in standard clinical trials (e.g., blood pressure and plasma electrolytes), and appear to be differentiating factors for treatment outcome. Given the availability of a wide variety of markers, the further development and integration of such markers into clinical research is both required and feasible in order to meet the benefit of personalized medicine. This article is based on proceedings from the "Taking Personalized Medicine Seriously-Biomarker Approaches in Phase IIb/III Studies in Major Depression and Schizophrenia" session, which was held during the 10th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society for Clinical Trials Meeting (ISCTM) in Washington, DC, February 18 to 20, 2014.

Early Improvement As a Predictor of Later Response to Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia: A Diagnostic Test Review

OBJECTIVE How long clinicians should wait before considering an antipsychotic ineffective and changing treatment in schizophrenia is an unresolved clinical question. Guidelines differ substantially in this regard. The authors conducted a diagnostic test meta-analysis using mostly individual patient data to assess whether lack of improvement at week 2 predicts later nonresponse. METHOD The search included EMBASE, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and reference lists of relevant articles, supplemented by requests to authors of all relevant studies. The main outcome was prediction of nonresponse, defined as <50% reduction in total score on either the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) or Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) (corresponding to at least much improved) from baseline to endpoint (4-12 weeks), by <20% PANSS or BPRS improvement (corresponding to less than minimally improved) at week 2. Secondary outcomes were absent cross-sectional symptomatic remission and <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at endpoint. Potential moderator variables were examined by meta-regression. RESULTS In 34 studies (N=9,460) a <20% PANSS or BPRS reduction at week 2 predicted nonresponse at endpoint with a specificity of 86% and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90%. Using data for observed cases (specificity=86%, PPV=85%) or lack of remission (specificity=77%, PPV=88%) yielded similar results. Conversely, using the definition of <20% reduction at endpoint yielded worse results (specificity=70%, PPV=55%). The test specificity was significantly moderated by a trial duration of <6 weeks, higher baseline illness severity, and shorter illness duration. CONCLUSIONS Patients not even minimally improved by week 2 of antipsychotic treatment are unlikely to respond later and may benefit from a treatment change.

Subtyping schizophrenia: A comparison of positive/negative and system-specific approaches

BACKGROUND Schizophrenia is a heterogeneous disorder. Over the years, different approaches have been proposed to approach this heterogeneity by categorizing symptom patterns. The study aimed to compare positive/negative and system-specific approaches to subtyping. METHODS We used the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and Bern Psychopathology Scale (BPS), which consists of subscales for three domains (language, affect and motor behavior) that are hypothesized to be related to specific brain circuits, to assess cross-sectional psychopathological characteristics in a sample of 100 inpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. We then categorized participants into positive/negative and system-specific subgroups to allow comparisons of the two approaches. RESULTS The analyses revealed correlations between the PANSS positive subscore and the BPS affective subscore (r=.446, p<.001) and between the PANSS negative subscore and the BPS motor behavior subscore (r=.227, p=.023). As regards the positive and negative subtype, more participants were classified as positive in the language-dominant subtype (30.3%) and affect-dominant subtype (30.3%), whereas more were classified as negative in the motor behavior-dominant subtype (44.4%). However, most patients met the criteria for the mixed subtype. CONCLUSIONS The results suggest that the positive/negative and system-specific approaches can be regarded as complementary. Future studies should examine both approaches in a longitudinal assessment of psychopathological symptoms and link them with qualitative-phenomenological approaches.

Psychomotor symptoms of schizophrenia map on the cerebral motor circuit

Schizophrenia is a devastating disorder thought to result mainly from cerebral pathology. Neuroimaging studies have provided a wealth of findings of brain dysfunction in schizophrenia. However, we are still far from understanding how particular symptoms can result from aberrant brain function. In this context, the high prevalence of motor symptoms in schizophrenia such as catatonia, neurological soft signs, parkinsonism, and abnormal involuntary movements is of particular interest. Here, the neuroimaging correlates of these motor symptoms are reviewed. For all investigated motor symptoms, neural correlates were found within the cerebral motor system. However, only a limited set of results exists for hypokinesia and neurological soft signs, while catatonia, abnormal involuntary movements and parkinsonian signs still remain understudied with neuroimaging methods. Soft signs have been associated with altered brain structure and function in cortical premotor and motor areas as well as cerebellum and thalamus. Hypokinesia is suggested to result from insufficient interaction of thalamocortical loops within the motor system. Future studies are needed to address the neural correlates of motor abnormalities in prodromal states, changes during the course of the illness, and the specific pathophysiology of catatonia, dyskinesia and parkinsonism in schizophrenia.

Factor structure of the Bern Psychopathology Scale in a sample of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

BACKGROUND The Bern Psychopathology Scale (BPS) is based on a system-specific approach to classifying the psychopathological symptom pattern of schizophrenia. It consists of subscales for three domains (language, affect and motor behaviour) that are hypothesized to be related to specific brain circuits. The aim of the study was to examine the factor structure of the BPS in patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. METHODS One hundred and forty-nine inpatients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders were recruited at the Department of Psychiatry II, Ulm University, Germany (n=100) and at the University Hospital of Psychiatry, Bern, Switzerland (n=49). Psychopathology was assessed with the BPS. The VARCLUS procedure of SAS(®) (a type of oblique component analysis) was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS Six clusters were identified (inhibited language, inhibited motor behaviour, inhibited affect, disinhibited affect, disinhibited language/motor behaviour, inhibited language/motor behaviour) which explained 40.13% of the total variance of the data. A binary division of attributes into an inhibited and disinhibited cluster was appropriate, although an overlap was found between the language and motor behaviour domains. There was a clear distinction between qualitative and quantitative symptoms. CONCLUSIONS The results argue for the validity of the BPS in identifying subsyndromes of schizophrenia spectrum disorders according to a dimensional approach. Future research should address the longitudinal assessment of dimensional psychopathological symptoms and elucidate the underlying neurobiological processes.