The activities of drug inactive ingredients on biological targets.

Excipients, considered "inactive ingredients," are a major component of formulated drugs and play key roles in their pharmacokinetics. Despite their pervasiveness, whether they are active on any targets has not been systematically explored. We computed the likelihood that approved excipients would bind to molecular targets. Testing in vitro revealed 25 excipient activities, ranging from low-nanomolar to high-micromolar concentration. Another 109 activities were identified by testing against clinical safety targets. In cellular models, five excipients had fingerprints predictive of system-level toxicity. Exposures of seven excipients were investigated, and in certain populations, two of these may reach levels of in vitro target potency, including brain and gut exposure of thimerosal and its major metabolite, which had dopamine D3 receptor dissociation constant K d values of 320 and 210 nM, respectively. Although most excipients deserve their status as inert, many approved excipients may directly modulate physiologically relevant targets.

Carcinogenicity of psychotropic drugs: A systematic review of US Food and Drug Administration-required preclinical in vivo studies.

OBJECTIVE: The US Food and Drug Administration approval process for psychotropic drugs requires safety studies of carcinogenicity in animals. These studies are consistently conducted and provide a database for assessment of potential biological risk of carcinogenicity in humans. This report is a systematic review of that database for psychotropic drugs. METHOD: US Food and Drug Administration-approved registration data ('package inserts') were examined, where available, for all psychotropic drugs in the following classes: antidepressants, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines/sedative-hypnotics, amphetamines and anticonvulsants. RESULTS: Overall, new generation (atypical) antipsychotics (90%, 9/10 agents) and anticonvulsants (85.7%, 6/7 agents) showed the highest evidence of carcinogenicity among psychotropic drugs classes assessed. Antidepressants (63.6%, 7/11) and benzodiazepines/sedative-hypnotics (70%, 7/10) were next, and stimulants (with the exception of methylphenidate) were last (25%, 1/4 agents). Overall, 71.4% of all drugs examined (30/42) showed evidence of carcinogenicity in 43.2% (38/88) of specific experimental studies. CONCLUSIONS: US Food and Drug Administration-based analyses demonstrate that almost all atypical antipsychotics and anticonvulsants are carcinogenic in animals, as are the majority of antidepressants and benzodiazepines and methylphenidate. These animal-based results are not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions in humans, but they provide data that could be acknowledged in the informed consent process of clinical treatment.

Positive aspects of mental illness: a review in bipolar disorder.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest to understand the role of positive psychological features on the outcomes of medical illnesses. Unfortunately this topic is less studied in relation to mental health, and almost completely neglected in relation to one of the most common severe psychiatric illnesses, bipolar disorder. Certain specific psychological characteristics, that are generally viewed as valuable and beneficial morally or socially, may grow out of the experience of having this affective disorder. OBJECTIVE: We describe the sources, research and impact of these positive psychological traits in the lives of persons with bipolar disorder based on the few published literature available to date. These include, but are not limited to: spirituality, empathy, creativity, realism, and resilience. METHODS: After an extensive search in the literature, we found 81 articles that involve descriptions of positive psychological characteristics of bipolar disorder. RESULTS: We found evidence for enhancement of the five above positive psychological traits in persons with bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Bipolar disorder is associated with the positive psychological traits of spirituality, empathy, creativity, realism, and resilience. Clinical and research attention to preserving and enhancing these traits may improve outcomes in bipolar disorder.

The ethics of clinical innovation in psychopharmacology: Challenging traditional bioethics.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the scientific and ethical basis for clinical innovation in psychopharmacology. METHODS: We conducted a literature review, utilizing MEDLINE search and bibliographic cross-referencing, and historical evidence regarding the discovery and development of new medications in psychiatry. Clinical innovation was defined as use of treatments in a clinical setting which have not been well-proven in a research setting. RESULTS: Empirical data regarding the impact of clinical innovation in psychopharmacology are lacking. A conceptual and historical assessment of this topic highlights the ethical and scientific importance of clinical innovation. Ethically, it touches a borderline that, in our judgment, is not adequately framed in contemporary mainstream bioethics. Currently, research is viewed as not at all benefiting the patients who participate in it, while clinical care is viewed as being solely for the benefit of patients. Clinical innovation straddles these two worlds, uncomfortably at times. While many argue that clinical innovation should either be avoided or folded into research projects, we argue that clinical innovation is necessary for progress in psychopharmacology research, and that it can prosper best when guided by the following ethical principles: 1.) The treatment should be based on a viable hypothesis. 2.) Whenever possible, one's clinical observations should be reported so they can be evaluated by the scientific community. 3.) One should be willing to report unexpected observations of drug effects. 4.) A high standard of informed consent should be maintained. Again, this proposal goes against the standard view among bioethicists that research and clinical care are categorically opposed activities, as made clear by the either-or dichotomy of the Belmont Report on bioethics. This approach has so polarized our profession into clinicians versus researchers, that many clinicians will not apply new knowledge produced by clinical research until it eventually gets incorporated into formal treatment guidelines, while researchers have little to guide them as to what kind of new knowledge it is most important to provide. SUMMARY: Clinical innovation brings out the ambiguities in our current ethical conceptions of research versus clinical care. Yet, historically, clinical innovation has been an important contributor to progress in psychopharmacology. We argue that clinical innovation should not be discouraged, but rather it should occur under certain ethical conditions."Almost everyone can and should do research...because almost everyone has a unique observational opportunity at some time in his life which he has an obligation to record.... If one considers the fundamental operations or methods of research, one immediately realizes that most people do research at some time or another, except that they do not call their activity by that name. There are seven operations.... In simple language they are counting, sorting, measuring, comparing, nature-study, guess testing, and reappraisal.... Guess testing is of course what most people think of when the word research is mentioned; except that it is bad manners to call a guess a guess. It should be called an hypothesis. Let us make one plea. Guessing becomes merely a game unless it is done in the context of a plan for action. It is a waste of time elaborating untestable hypotheses 1." John Cade.

"Cade's disease" and beyond: misdiagnosis, antidepressant use, and a proposed definition for bipolar spectrum disorder.

The diagnosis and treatment of bipolar disorder (BD) has been inconsistent and frequently misunderstood in recent years. To identify the causes of this problem and suggest possible solutions, we undertook a critical review of studies concerning the nosology of BD and the effects of antidepressant agents. Both the underdiagnosis of BD and its frequent misdiagnosis as unipolar major depressive disorder (MDD) appear to be problems in patients with BD. Underdiagnosis results from clinicians' inadequate understanding of manic symptoms, from patients' impaired insight into mania, and especially from failure to involve family members or third parties in the diagnostic process. Some, but by no means all, of the underdiagnosis problem may also result from lack of agreement about the breadth of the bipolar spectrum, beyond classic type I manic-depressive illness (what Ketter has termed "Cade's Disease"). To alleviate confusion about the less classic varieties of bipolar illness, we propose a heuristic definition, "bipolar spectrum disorder." This diagnosis would give greater weight to family history and antidepressant-induced manic symptoms and would apply to non-type I or II bipolar illness, in which depressive symptom, course, and treatment response characteristics are more typical of bipolar than unipolar illness. The role of antidepressants is also controversial. Our review of the evidence leads us to conclude that there should be less emphasis on using antidepressants to treat persons with this illness.