Leung, Jonathan G.

Abstract Background The purpose of this study was to review the association between the SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR polymorphism and antidepressant (AD)-associated treatment emergent mania (TEM) in bipolar disorder alongside starting a discussion on the merits of developing risk stratification models to guide when not to provide AD treatment for bipolar depression. Methods Studies that examined the association between clinical and genetic risk factors, specifically monoaminergic transporter genetic variation, and TEM were identified. A meta-analysis was performed using the odds ratio to estimate the effect size under the Der-Simonian and Laird model. Results Seven studies, referencing the SLC6A4 5-HTTLPR polymorphism and TEM (total N = 1578; TEM+ =594, TEM− = 984), of 142 identified articles were included. The time duration between the start of the AD to emergence of TEM ranged from 4 to 12 weeks. There was a nominally significant association between the s allele of the 5-HTTLPR polymorphism and TEM (odds ratio, 1.434; 95% confidence interval, 1.001–2.055; P = 0.0493; I 2 = 52%). No studies have investigated norepinephrine or dopamine transporters. Conclusion Although the serotonin transporter genetic variation is commercially available in pharmacogenomic decision support tools, greater efforts, more broadly, should focus on complete genome-wide approaches to determine genetic variants that may contribute to TEM. Moreover, these data are exemplary to the merits of developing risk stratification models, which include both clinical and biological risk factors, to guide when not to use ADs in bipolar disorder. Future studies will need to validate new risk models that best inform the development of personalized medicine best practices treating bipolar depression.

Objective: To investigate patterns and trends of co-prescriptions of stimulants and sedatives within the last 6 years at a tertiary care center. Method: Patients 18 years of age and older who were dispensed at least one stimulant prescription from an institutional pharmacy between 1/1/2015 and 7/1/2021 were included. Prescription data for any co-prescribed sedative/hypnotic were collected. Results: Both the number of stimulant dispenses and the number of patients with stimulant dispenses increased significantly with yearly incidence rate ratios of 1.115 (95% CI [1.110, 1.119]) and 1.090 (95% CI [1.084, 1.096]), respectively. The number of patients with a stimulant dispensed who also had a benzodiazepine or “Z-drug” sedative-hypnotic dispensed at any point in the search timeframe increased significantly with incidence rate ratios of 1.077 and 1.092, respectively. The number of stimulant dispenses, number of patients with stimulant dispenses, and number of patients with a stimulant dispensed who also had both a benzodiazepine and Z-drug dispensed at any point in the search timeframe increased significantly more in Non-White than in White patients. Conclusions: The results confirm previous findings of increases in dispensing of stimulants over the past 6 years and report increased polypharmacy of stimulants and sedative-hypnotics.

Abstract There is increasing interest in individualizing treatment selection for more than 25 regulatory approved treatments for major depressive disorder (MDD). Despite an inconclusive efficacy evidence base, antidepressants (ADs) are prescribed for the depressive phase of bipolar disorder with oftentimes an inadequate treatment response and or clinical concern for mood destabilization. This study explored the relationship between antidepressant response in MDD and antidepressant-associated treatment emergent mania (TEM) in bipolar disorder (BD). We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and polygenic score analysis of TEM and tested its association with a subset of BD-I patients treated with SSRIs or SNRIs. Our results did not identify any genome-wide significant variants although, we found that a higher polygenic score (PGS) for antidepressant response in MDD was associated with higher odds of TEM in BD. Future studies with larger transdiagnostic cohorts treated with antidepressants are encouraged to identify a neurobiological mechanism associated with a spectrum of depression improvement (response- emergent mania).

Abstract Purpose/Background A recent article in this journal presented a US perspective regarding the modernization of clozapine prescription and proposed an escape from the long shadow cast by agranulocytosis. Methods Here, an international group of collaborators discusses a point of view complementary to the US view by focusing on worldwide outcomes of clozapine usage that may be uneven in terms of frequency of clozapine adverse drug reactions. Findings/Results Studies from the Scandinavian national registries (Finland and Denmark) did not find increased mortality in clozapine patients or any clear evidence of the alleged toxicity of clozapine. Data on clozapine-associated fatal outcomes were obtained from 2 recently published pharmacovigilance studies and from the UK pharmacovigilance database. A pharmacovigilance study focused on physician reports to assess worldwide lethality of drugs from 2010 to 2019 found 968 clozapine-associated fatal outcomes in the United Kingdom. Moreover, the United Kingdom accounted for 55% (968 of 1761) of worldwide and 90% (968 of 1073) of European fatal clozapine-associated outcomes. In a pharmacovigilance study from the UK database (from 2008 to 2017), clozapine was associated with 383 fatal outcomes/year including all reports from physicians and nonphysicians. From 2018 to 2021, UK clozapine-associated fatal outcomes increased to 440/year. Implications/Conclusions The interpretation of fatal outcomes in each country using pharmacovigilance databases is limited and only allows gross comparisons; even with those limitations, the UK data seem concerning. Pneumonia and myocarditis may be more important than agranulocytosis in explaining the uneven distribution of fatal outcomes in clozapine patients across countries.

AbstractIntroductionLetters of recommendation (LORs) are important in pharmacy residency applications. Applicant gender, among other variables, may result in implicit biases that could impact LORs and/or residency attainment. This study hypothesized that LORs have linguistic gender differences in pharmacy residency applications.ObjectivesThe primary objective was to determine if gender‐linguistic differences exist in applicants' LORs. Gender was assessed via the pronouns utilized within the applications. The secondary outcome was to assess LOR linguistic and demographic differences between candidates who did and did not receive interviews.MethodsThis was a multiyear, multicenter study involving postgraduate year one (PGY1) applicants to participating pharmacy residency programs. Demographic data were extracted using the PhORCAS (Pharmacy Online Residency Centralized Application Service) WebADMIT (Admissions Management System) portal, and LORs were analyzed by validated linguistics processing software.ResultsA total of 7529 LORs and 2383 applicants (28.5% men, 71.5% women) were included. Women candidates had higher mean number of awards (4.71 vs. 4.1, p = 0.001) and leadership positions (4.87 vs. 4.48, p = 0.019). Compared with men candidates, women had statistically significantly higher levels of clout (p < 0.001), positive emotion (p = 0.01), social processes (p < 0.001), prosocial behavior (p = 0.002), and social referents (p < 0.001). Women also had lower authenticity compared with men candidates (p < 0.001). Two thousand and one hundred twenty applicants included in the secondary analysis found no difference in offer to interview between women and men candidates (odds ratio [OR] 1.173 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.895–1.57], p = 0.247).ConclusionsMen and women applicants' LORS differed in specific linguistic variables, although offer to interview was not significantly different based on gender. LOR writers and programs should consider implicit biases that could affect residency offers to interview.

Abstract Purpose Although clozapine was Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved more than 3 decades ago, major barriers and gaps in knowledge continue to prevent its effective and safe use. We review modern-day problems encountered with clozapine in the United States (US). Methods Information surrounding current administrative, clinical, research, and technological gaps or barriers related to clozapine use in the US was reviewed. Findings The history of how clozapine became FDA approved likely contributes to gaps in knowledge. The frequency of safety warnings added to the FDA prescribing information may add to fears about clozapine, as evidence by numerous published survey studies. The clozapine Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program has been modified several times in the last decade, causing access and safety issues for patients, which are discussed. Evidence may suggest that the FDA REMS requirements for hematologic monitoring are too cumbersome, and there may be ability to safely loosen requirements. The COVID-19 pandemic brought forth the ability for extended interval monitoring but also greater awareness of the clozapine-inflammation interaction. Newer guidelines published describe considerations in personalizing clozapine titration based on principles of ethnopsychopharmacology. Emerging technologies to support the use of clozapine are not widely available. Implications Clozapine is a unique life-saving drug but it is underused in the US, despite its established efficacy. The 2021 REMS changes led to significant difficulties for providers and patients. We highlight the importance of the clozapine-inflammation interaction, therapeutic drug monitoring, and the ability for individual care based on patient-specific factors. There is an urgent need for advancing technology used for clozapine monitoring, evaluating barriers created by REMS, and establishing consistent practices throughout the US.