Adverse events, response failures and medication non-compliance are common in patients receiving medications for the treatment of mental illnesses. A systematic literature review assessed whether pharmacokinetic (PK) or pharmacodynamic (PD) responses to 26 commonly prescribed antipsychotic and antidepressant medications, including efficacy or side effects, are associated with nucleotide polymorphisms in eight commonly studied genes in psychiatric pharmacotherapy: CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP1A2, CYP3A4, HTR2C, HTR2A, and SLC6A4. Of the 294 publications included in this review, 168 (57%) showed significant associations between gene variants and PK or PD outcomes. Other studies that showed no association often had insufficient control for confounding variables, such as co-medication use, or analysis of medications not substrates of the target gene. The strongest gene-outcome associations were for the PK profiles of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 (93% and 90%, respectively), for the PD associations between HTR2C and weight gain (57%), and for SLC6A4 and clinical response (54%), with stronger SLC6A4 response associations for specific drug classes (60-83%). The preponderance of evidence supports the validity of analyzing nucleotide polymorphisms in CYP and pharmacodynamic genes to predict the metabolism, safety, or therapeutic efficacy of psychotropic medications commonly used for the treatment of depression, schizophrenia, and bipolar illness.

IntroductionPatients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA) despite anti–tumor necrosis factor(anti-TNF)agent treatment can switch to either a subsequent anti-TNF agent or a biologic with an alternative mechanism of action, such as rituximab; however, there are limited data available to help physicians decide between these 2 strategies. The objective of this analysis was to examine the effectiveness and safety of rituximab versus a subsequent anti-TNF agent in anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA using clinical practice data from the Corrona registry.MethodsRituximab-naive patients from the Corrona registry with prior exposure to ≥1 anti-TNF agent who initiated rituximab or anti-TNF agents (2/28/2006-10/31/2012) were included. Two cohorts were analyzed: the trimmed population (excluding patients who fell outside the propensity score distribution overlap) and the stratified-matched population (stratified by 1 vs ≥2 anti-TNF agents, then matched based on propensity score). The primary effectiveness outcome was achievement of low disease activity (LDA)/remission (Clinical Disease Activity Index ≤10) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included achievement of modified American College of Rheumatology (mACR) 20/50/70 responses and meaningful improvement (≥0.25) in modified Health Assessment Questionnaire (mHAQ) score at 1 year. New cardiovascular, infectious and cancer events were reported.ResultsEstimates for LDA/remission, mACR response and mHAQ improvement were consistently better for rituximab than for anti-TNF agent users in adjusted analyses. The odds ratio for likelihood of LDA/remission in rituximab versus anti-TNF patients was 1.35 (95 % CI, 0.95-1.91) in the trimmed population and 1.54 (95 % CI, 1.01-2.35) in the stratified-matched population. Rituximab patients were significantly more likely than anti-TNF patients to achieve mACR20/50 and mHAQ improvement in the trimmed population and mACR20 and mHAQ in the stratified-matched population. The rate of new adverse events per 100 patient-years was similar between groups.ConclusionsIn anti-TNF–experienced patients with RA, rituximab was associated with an increased likelihood of achieving LDA/remission, mACR response and physical function improvement, with a comparable safety profile, versus subsequent anti-TNF agent users.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01402661. Registered 25 July 2011.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-015-0776-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to describe factors associated with initiating a biologic as monotherapy vs in combination with a conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (DMARD) in biologic-naive patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) enrolled in the Corrona registry.MethodsFirst biologic initiations were classified as monotherapy (Bio MT) or combination therapy (Bio CMB). Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were evaluated. Odds ratios (OR) based on mixed effects regression models estimated the association of covariates and use of monotherapy. Median odds ratios (MOR) based on estimated physician random effects quantified variation in individual physician use of monotherapy.ResultsBetween October 2001 and April 2012, 3,923 previously biologic-naive patients initiated biologic therapy, of which 19.1 % initiated as monotherapy. Baseline characteristics of patients initiating Bio MT and Bio CMB were similar for age, sex, duration of RA, and clinical disease activity index. Significantly higher proportions of Bio CMB initiators had prior conventional DMARD (97.23 vs 85.60 %; P < 0.01) and methotrexate (MTX) use (91.68 vs 71.87 %; P < 0.01) compared with Bio MT initiators. Variation in individual physician use of monotherapy [MOR 1.89; 95 % confidence interval (CI), 1.66–2.23] and use of biologics approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for monotherapy (OR 1.47; 95 % CI, 1.20–1.81) significantly influenced the odds of initiating Bio MT. Patient history of hepatic disease, neutropenia, and malignancy were associated with increased odds of being prescribed Bio MT.ConclusionIn addition to regulatory approval for monotherapy and specific pre-existing comorbidities, significant variation in physician use of monotherapy was associated with increased likelihood of initiating Bio MT, independent of patient factors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40744-015-0008-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A recent phase III trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) associated with adding rituximab to fludarabine and cyclophosphamide (R-FC) compared to FC in treatment of previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). A cost-effectiveness analysis of R-FC over FC was performed from a US third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon in the base case. One-way, two-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. A secondary analysis was performed by also considering a societal perspective. R-FC was associated with an incremental 1.15 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared to FC and resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $23 530 per QALY in the base case and $31 513 per QALY considering a societal perspective. Results were most sensitive to time horizon, discount rate and unit drug cost for rituximab. Within the limitations of modeling long-term outcomes, R-FC is cost-effective for previously untreated CLL.