Perlis, Roy H

Summary The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology convened a 45-member international expert task force to identify circumstances supporting the deprescribing of core psychotropic medications for major depressive disorder (MDD) and bipolar disorders. Three Delphi survey rounds plus a selective literature review identified points of consensus (predefined as ≥75% agreement) about when antidepressant, antipsychotic, mood stabiliser and sedative-hypnotic deprescribing is warranted. Twenty out of 32 statements (63%) achieved consensus across seven thematic areas. In MDD, panellists favoured discontinuing antidepressants when mechanisms of action are duplicative, adequate trials produce ≤25% improvement or loss of prior efficacy cannot be regained through dose increases or augmentations. Indefinite antidepressant maintenance in MDD was favoured after three or more lifetime episodes. In bipolar disorder, antidepressant deprescribing was favoured in the setting of rapid cycling, mixed features or emerging mania/hypomania symptoms; and discouraged if prior antidepressant cessation led to relapse. In nonpsychotic mood disorders, panellists favoured deprescribing antipsychotics that caused significant weight gain or tardive dyskinesia over adding pharmacological antidotes. Deprescribing to achieve an eventual medication-free status was considered inappropriate, in bipolar type 1, but not necessarily bipolar type 2 disorder. Although individualised circumstances necessarily inform psychopharmacology management, clinical presentations that misalign with existing pharmacotherapies may signal the desirability of cautious deprescribing.

Importance There is a need for greater recognition of clinical psychopharmacology endpoints, including instances where specific psychotropic medications may become unnecessary, redundant, contradictory, or otherwise inappropriate and therefore merit deprescribing. Objective To address circumstances warranting psychotropic medication deprescribing. Evidence Review The American Society of Clinical Psychopharmacology convened a panel of 45 international psychopharmacology experts who developed and completed a multiround Delphi survey and conducted a focused literature review between January and May of 2025, in order to identify areas of consensus or disagreement on key aspects of the deprescribing of psychotropic medications. These included collaborative risk-benefit assessments with patients; pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic factors; pharmacogenomics; distinguishing redundant or conflictual from complementary mechanisms of action; managing adverse effects; assuring medication adherence; drug tolerance or tachyphylaxis; medication misuse; and the psychological context and ramifications of deprescribing. Findings Consensus was achieved on 44 of 50 final Delphi statements (88%). Panelists unanimously agreed that components of a pharmacotherapy regimen should undergo periodic review to ensure that treatments target relevant symptoms and have favorable risk-benefit ratios. Key points of consensus were that deprescribing: (1) should not occur without first assessing medication adherence; (2) merits consideration if less than partial therapeutic response is apparent, or if treatment goals have been reached and relapse prevention is not a long-term objective; (3) involves psychological ramifications that warrant attention; (4) should be followed by close clinical monitoring; and (5) risk-benefit decisions should ideally involve active patient participation within a shared decision-making model. Conclusions and Relevance Through this Consensus Statement, the Task Force identified circumstances in which the selective elimination of certain psychotropic medications may be clinically indicated. Empirical trials are needed to assess the implementation of deprescribing protocols and gauge their safe, effective, and acceptable outcomes.

ABSTRACT Bipolar disorder’s (BD) clinical heterogeneity has an unresolved genetic basis. We meta-analyzed genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of 16 BD subphenotypes in 226,032 individuals from 57 cohorts (38,022 cases); 10 advanced to multivariate and multi-trait analyses. Four factors (compulsive, psychotic, dysregulated, internalizing) explained 82.8% of shared genetic variance. BD1 and BD2 loaded on distinct factors despite a high genetic correlation; 87.0% of common-factor loci were significant in neither subtype. Unipolar mania aligned with psychosis over internalizing, and was distinguishable from BD1, and rapid cycling showed heritable cross-domain liability. We identified 356 risk loci, 158 novel, including the first univariate-GWAS associations for psychosis, unipolar mania, rapid cycling and schizoaffective disorder—and 249 credible genes (89 high-confidence), 12 with approved-drug or clinical-phase annotations. Cell-type association showed a midbrain dopaminergic–GABAergic gradient along the psychotic factor. BD’s genetic architecture appears hierarchical—a general liability resolving into dimensions of course and comorbidity beyond diagnostic subtypes.

Abstract Lithium is the gold standard treatment for bipolar disorder (BD). However, its mechanism of action is incompletely understood, and prediction of treatment outcomes is limited. In our previous multi-omics study of the Pharmacogenomics of Bipolar Disorder (PGBD) sample combining transcriptomic and genomic data, we found that focal adhesion, the extracellular matrix (ECM), and PI3K-Akt signaling networks were associated with response to lithium. In this study, we replicated the results of our previous study using network propagation methods in a genome-wide association study of an independent sample of 2,039 patients from the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study. We identified functional enrichment in focal adhesion and PI3K-Akt pathways, but we did not find an association with the ECM pathway. Our results suggest that deficits in the neuronal growth cone and PI3K-Akt signaling, but not in ECM proteins, may influence response to lithium in BD.