Genome-wide association study of increasing suicidal ideation during antidepressant treatment in the GENDEP project.

Suicidal thoughts during antidepressant treatment have been the focus of several candidate gene association studies. The aim of the present genome-wide association study was to identify additional genetic variants involved in increasing suicidal ideation during escitalopram and nortriptyline treatment. A total of 706 adult participants of European ancestry, treated for major depression with escitalopram or nortriptyline over 12 weeks in the Genome-Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression (GENDEP) study were genotyped with Illumina Human 610-Quad Beadchips (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). A total of 244 subjects experienced an increase in suicidal ideation during follow-up. The genetic marker most significantly associated with increasing suicidality (8.28 × 10(-7)) was a single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP; rs11143230) located 30 kb downstream of a gene encoding guanine deaminase (GDA) on chromosome 9q21.13. Two suggestive drug-specific associations within KCNIP4 (Kv channel-interacting protein 4; chromosome 4p15.31) and near ELP3 (elongation protein 3 homolog; chromosome 8p21.1) were found in subjects treated with escitalopram. Suggestive drug by gene interactions for two SNPs near structural variants on chromosome 4q12, one SNP in the apolipoprotein O (APOO) gene on chromosome Xp22.11 and one on chromosome 11q24.3 were found. The most significant association within a set of 33 candidate genes was in the neurotrophic tyrosine kinase receptor type 2 (NTRK2) gene. Finally, we also found trend for an association within genes previously associated with psychiatric phenotypes indirectly linked to suicidal behavior, that is, GRIP1, NXPH1 and ANK3. The results suggest novel pathways involved in increasing suicidal ideation during antidepressant treatment and should help to target treatment to reduce the risk of this dramatic adverse event. Limited power precludes definitive conclusions and replication in larger sample is warranted.

The perceived and predicted implications of psychiatric genetic knowledge among persons with multiple cases of depression in the family.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric genetic research raises hope regarding better treatment and prevention, but also regarding a possible de-stigmatizing effect of attributing mental illness to genetics. This study explores i) the impact on family relations of participating in a genetic study; ii) the impact of biogenetic attributions on perceptions of depression and stigma and iii) the perceived benefits and concerns regarding psychiatric genetic testing. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with 17 participants suffering from depression, with multiple cases of depression in the family, and previously participating in a genetic study. RESULTS: Participating in a genetic study caused more openness about depression in most families. A biogenetic explanation of depression was perceived as having the potential of diminishing self stigma. Testing of self and children was widely accepted, whereas prenatal testing raised concern. CONCLUSION: Persons suffering from depression may benefit from endorsing a biogenetic explanation, especially in relation to self-understanding and self-stigma.

Measuring depression: comparison and integration of three scales in the GENDEP study.

BACKGROUND: A number of scales are used to estimate the severity of depression. However, differences between self-report and clinician rating, multi-dimensionality and different weighting of individual symptoms in summed scores may affect the validity of measurement. In this study we examined and integrated the psychometric properties of three commonly used rating scales. METHOD: The 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) were administered to 660 adult patients with unipolar depression in a multi-centre pharmacogenetic study. Item response theory (IRT) and factor analysis were used to evaluate their psychometric properties and estimate true depression severity, as well as to group items and derive factor scores. RESULTS: The MADRS and the BDI provide internally consistent but mutually distinct estimates of depression severity. The HAMD-17 is not internally consistent and contains several items less suitable for out-patients. Factor analyses indicated a dominant depression factor. A model comprising three dimensions, namely 'observed mood and anxiety', 'cognitive' and 'neurovegetative', provided a more detailed description of depression severity. CONCLUSIONS: The MADRS and the BDI can be recommended as complementary measures of depression severity. The three factor scores are proposed for external validation.