Clinical utility of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing in depression: A Canadian patient- and rater-blinded, randomized, controlled trial.

The pharmacological treatment of depression consists of stages of trial and error, with less than 40% of patients achieving remission during first medication trial. However, in a large, randomized-controlled trial (RCT) in the U.S. ("GUIDED"), significant improvements in response and remission rates were observed in patients who received treatment guided by combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing, compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU). Here we present results from the Canadian "GAPP-MDD" RCT. This 52-week, 3-arm, multi-center, participant- and rater-blinded RCT evaluated clinical outcomes among patients with depression whose treatment was guided by combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing compared to TAU. The primary outcome was symptom improvement (change in 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, HAM-D17) at week 8. Secondary outcomes included response (≥50% decrease in HAM-D17) and remission (HAM-D17 ≤ 7) at week 8. Numerically, patients in the guided-care arm had greater symptom improvement (27.6% versus 22.7%), response (30.3% versus 22.7%), and remission rates (15.7% versus 8.3%) compared to TAU, although these differences were not statistically significant. Given that the GAPP-MDD trial was ultimately underpowered to detect statistically significant differences in patient outcomes, it was assessed in parallel with the larger GUIDED RCT. We observed that relative improvements in response and remission rates were consistent between the GAPP-MDD (33.0% response, 89.0% remission) and GUIDED (31.0% response, 51.0% remission) trials. Together with GUIDED, the results from the GAPP-MDD trial indicate that combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing can be an effective tool to help guide depression treatment in the context of the Canadian healthcare setting (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02466477).

Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Testing Improves Outcomes for Older Adults With Depression.

(Reprinted with permission from Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2020; 28:933-945).

Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Testing Improves Outcomes for Older Adults With Depression.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the clinical utility of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing for informing medication selection among older adults who have experienced antidepressant medication failure for major depressive disorder (MDD). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data from a blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing two active treatment arms. SETTING: Psychiatry specialty and primary care clinics across 60 U.S. community and academic sites. PARTICIPANTS: Adults age 65 years or older at baseline (n = 206), diagnosed with MDD and inadequate response to at least one medication on the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test report during the current depressive episode. INTERVENTION: Combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing to inform medication selection (guided-care), compared with treatment as usual (TAU). OUTCOMES: Mean percent symptom improvement, response rate, and remission rateat week 8, measured using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; medication switching; and comorbidity moderator analysis. RESULTS: At week 8, symptom improvement was not significantly different for guided-care than for TAU (∆ = 8.1%, t = 1.64, df = 187; p = 0.102); however, guided-care showed significantly improved response (∆ = 13.6%, t = 2.16, df = 187; p = 0.032) and remission (∆ = 12.7%, t = 2.49, df = 189; p = 0.014) relative to TAU. By week 8, more than twice as many patients in guided-care than in TAU were on medications predicted to have no gene-drug interactions (χ2 = 19.3, df = 2; p <0.001). Outcomes in the guided-care arm showed consistent improvement through the end of the open-design 24-week trial, indicating durability of the effect. Differences in outcomes between arms were not significantly impacted by comorbidities. CONCLUSIONS: Combinatorial pharmacogenomic test-informed medication selection improved outcomes over TAU among older adults with depression.

Comparing sensitivity to change using the 6-item versus the 17-item Hamilton depression rating scale in the GUIDED randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) is less sensitive in detecting differences between active treatment and placebo for major depressive disorder (MDD) than is the HAM-D6 scale, which focuses on six core depression symptoms. Whether HAM-D6 shows greater sensitivity when comparing two active MDD treatment arms is unknown. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from the intent-to-treat (ITT) cohort (N = 1541) of the Genomics Used to Improve DEpression Decisions (GUIDED) trial, a rater- and patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. GUIDED compared combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care with treatment as usual (TAU) in patients with MDD. Percent of symptom improvement, response rate and remission rate from baseline to week 8 were evaluated using both scales. Analyses were performed for the full cohort and for the subset of patients who at baseline were taking medications predicted by the test to have moderate or significant gene-drug interactions. A Mokken scale analysis was conducted to compare the homogeneity of HAM-D17 with that of HAM-D6. RESULTS: At week 8, the guided-care arm demonstrated statistically significant benefit over TAU when the HAM-D6 (∆ = 4.4%, p = 0.023) was used as the continuous measure of symptom improvement, but not when using the HAM-D17 (∆ = 3.2%, p = 0.069). Response rates increased significantly for guided-care compared with TAU when evaluated using both HAM-D6 (∆ = 7.0%, p = 0.004) and HAM-D17 (∆ = 6.3%, p = 0.007). Remission rates also were significantly greater for guided-care versus TAU using both measures (HAM-D6 ∆ = 4.6%, p = 0.031; HAM-D17 ∆ = 5.5%, p = 0.005). Patients in the guided-care arm who at baseline were taking medications predicted to have gene-drug interactions showed further increased benefit over TAU at week 8 for symptom improvement (∆ = 7.3%, p = 0.004) response (∆ = 10.0%, p = 0.001) and remission (∆ = 7.9%, p = 0.005) using HAM-D6. All outcomes showed continued improvement through week 24. Mokken scale analysis demonstrated the homogeneity and unidimensionality of HAM-D6, but not of HAM-D17, across treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The HAM-D6 scale identified a statistically significant difference in symptom improvement between combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care and TAU, whereas the HAM-D17 did not. The demonstrated utility of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment over TAU as detected by the HAM-D6 highlights its value for future biomarker-guided trials comparing active treatment arms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02109939. Registered 10 April 2014.