Innovations In Clinical Neuroscience

ISCTM Supplement 2015

A peer-reviewed, evidence-based journal for clinicians in the field of neuroscience

Issue link: http://innovationscns.epubxp.com/i/499434

Contents of this Issue

Navigation

Page 37 of 41

Innovations in CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE [ V O L U M E 1 2 , N U M B E R 3 – 4 , S U P P L E M E N T A , M A R C H – A P R I L 2 0 1 5 ] 38S addition be of interest for the individualized titration in a given subject. There are several important a spects, which have to be stressed for the success of this path. One is that the technical validity for a marker has to be convincingly demonstrated before its use. This is given for the examples in this overview. The clinical and regulatory validity comes out of the demonstration that biomarker positive and biomarker negative subgroups behave differently with regard to the treatment outcome with a specific compound. As long as this differentiation was pre-specified it can be utilized for regulatory purposes. This is a path to personalized medicine, which is technically feasible and necessary for the success of CNS drug development in the future. With this focused approach the goal of developing new compounds, which are superior to standard of care, can and must be achieved. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Rolando Gutierrez-Esteinou and Kevin Craig, both at Covance, for their helpful comments. REFERENCES 1. Hurko O, Ryan JL. Translational research in central nervous system drug discovery. NeuroRx. 2005;2:671–682. 2. Cook D, Brown D, Alexander R, et al. Lessons learned from the fate of AstraZeneca's drug pipeline: a five- dimensional framework. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2014;13:419–431. 3. Miresco MJ, Kirmayer LJ. The persistence of mind-brain dualism in psychiatric reasoning about clinical scenarios. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;63:913–918. 4. Biomarkers Definitions Working G. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut. 2001;69:89–95. 5. Binder EB, Salyakina D, Lichtner P, et al. Polymorphisms in FKBP5 are associated with increased recurrence of depressive episodes and rapid response to antidepressant treatment. Nat Genet. 2004;36:1319–1325. 6. Horstmann S, Lucae S, Menke A, et al. Polymorphisms in GRIK4, HTR2A, and FKBP5 show interactive effects in predicting remission to antidepressant treatment. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35:727–740. 7. Baghai TC, Binder EB, Schule C, et al. Polymorphisms in the angiotensin-converting enzyme gene are associated with unipolar depression, ACE activity and hypercortisolism. Mol Psychiatry. 2006;11:1003–1015. 8. Murck H, Nickel T, Künzel H, et al. State markers of depression in sleep EEG: dependency on drug and gender in patients treated with tianeptine or paroxetine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003;28(2):348–358. 9. Yuste R, Church GM. The new century of the brain. Scientific American. 2014;310:38–45. 10. Baumeister H, Parker G. Meta- review of depressive subtyping models. J Affect Disord. 2012;139:126–140. 11. Penninx BW, Beekman AT, Smit JH, et al. The Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA): rationale, objectives and methods. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17:121–140. 12. Lamers F, de Jonge P, Nolen WA, et al. Identifying depressive subtypes in a large cohort study: results from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). J Clin Psychiatry. 2010;71:1582–1589. 13. Stetler C, Miller GE. Depression and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal activation: a quantitative summary of four decades of research. Psychosom Med. 2011;73:114–126. 14. Amsterdam JD, Lucki I, Winokur A. The ACTH stimulation test in depression. Psychiatr Med. 1985;3:91–100. 15. Sher L, Oquendo MA, Burke AK, et al. Combined dexamethasone suppression-corticotrophin-releasing hormone stimulation test in medication-free major depression and healthy volunteers. J Affect Disord. 2013;151:1108–1112. 16. Howren MB, Lamkin DM, Suls J. Associations of depression with C- reactive protein, IL-1, and IL-6: a meta-analysis. Psychosom Med. 2009;71:171–186. 17. Dowlati Y, Herrmann N, Swardfager W, et al. A meta-analysis of cytokines in major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67:446–457. 18. Hiles SA, Baker AL, de Malmanche T, Attia J. A meta-analysis of differences in IL-6 and IL-10 between people with and without depression: exploring the causes of heterogeneity. Brain Behav Immun. 2012;26:1180–1188. 19. Vreeburg SA, Kruijtzer BP, van Pelt J, et al. Associations between sociodemographic, sampling and health factors and various salivary cortisol indicators in a large sample without psychopathology. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2009;34:1109–1120. 20. Lamers F, Vogelzangs N, Merikangas KR, et al. Evidence for a differential role of HPA-axis function, inflammation and metabolic syndrome in melancholic versus atypical depression. Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18:692–699. 21. Vogelzangs N, Duivis HE, Beekman AT, et al. Association of depressive disorders, depression characteristics and antidepressant medication with inflammation. Transl Psychiatry. 2012;2:e79. 22. Penninx BW, Milaneschi Y, Lamers F, Vogelzangs N. Understanding the somatic consequences of depression: biological mechanisms and the role of depression symptom profile. BMC Med. 2013;11:129. 23. Raison CL, Rutherford RE, Woolwine BJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial of the tumor necrosis factor antagonist infliximab for treatment- resistant depression: the role of baseline inflammatory biomarkers. JAMA Psychiatry. 2013;70:31–41. 24. Na KS, Lee KJ, Lee JS, et al. Efficacy of adjunctive celecoxib treatment for patients with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol

Articles in this issue

Archives of this issue

view archives of Innovations In Clinical Neuroscience - ISCTM Supplement 2015