BackgroundLithium remains a first-line treatment in bipolar disorder, but individual response is variable. Previous studies have suggested that lithium response is a heritable trait. However, no genetic markers have been reproducibly identified.MethodsHere we report the results of a genome-wide association study of lithium response in 2,563 patients collected by 22 participating sites from the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen); the largest attempted so far. Data from over 6 million common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were tested for association with categorical and continuous ratings of lithium response of known reliability.FindingsA single locus of four linked SNPs on chromosome 21 met genome-wide significance criteria for association with lithium response (rs79663003: p=1·37×10−8; rs78015114: p=1·31×10−8; rs74795342: p=3·31×10−9; rs75222709: p=3·50×10−9). In an independent, prospective study of 73 patients treated with lithium monotherapy for a period of up to two years, carriers of the response-associated alleles had a significantly lower rate of relapse than carriers of the alternate alleles (p=0·03, hazard ratio = 3·8).InterpretationThe response-associated region contains two genes coding for long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), AL157359.3 and AL157359.4. LncRNAs are increasingly appreciated as important regulators of gene expression, particularly in the CNS. Further studies are needed to establish the biological context of these findings and their potential clinical utility. Confirmed biomarkers of lithium response would constitute an important step forward in the clinical management of bipolar disorder.

ObjectiveThe assessment of response to lithium maintenance treatment in bipolar disorder (BD) is complicated by variable length of treatment, unpredictable clinical course, and often inconsistent compliance. Prospective and retrospective methods of assessment of lithium response have been proposed in the literature. In this study we report the key phenotypic measures of the “Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder” scale currently used in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLiGen) study.Materials and MethodsTwenty-nine ConLiGen sites took part in a two-stage case-vignette rating procedure to examine inter-rater agreement [Kappa (κ)] and reliability [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)] of lithium response. Annotated first-round vignettes and rating guidelines were circulated to expert research clinicians for training purposes between the two stages. Further, we analyzed the distributional properties of the treatment response scores available for 1,308 patients using mixture modeling.ResultsSubstantial and moderate agreement was shown across sites in the first and second sets of vignettes (κ = 0.66 and κ = 0.54, respectively), without significant improvement from training. However, definition of response using the A score as a quantitative trait and selecting cases with B criteria of 4 or less showed an improvement between the two stages (ICC1 = 0.71 and ICC2 = 0.75, respectively). Mixture modeling of score distribution indicated three subpopulations (full responders, partial responders, non responders).ConclusionsWe identified two definitions of lithium response, one dichotomous and the other continuous, with moderate to substantial inter-rater agreement and reliability. Accurate phenotypic measurement of lithium response is crucial for the ongoing ConLiGen pharmacogenomic study.

No abstract

No abstract

These results support a similar pattern of cognitive deficits in both subtypes of bipolar disorder.

With the widespread use of atypical or second-generation antipsychotics, switching treatment has become current practice and more complicated, as the pharmacological profiles of these agents differ substantially despite their similarity in being 'atypical'. All share the ability to block dopamine D₂ receptors, and most of them also block serotonin 5-HT2A receptors. Apart from these common features, some atypical antipsychotics are also able to block or stimulate other dopamine or serotonin receptors, as well as histaminergic, muscarinergic or adrenergic receptors. As a result of the varying receptor affinities, in switching or discontinuing compounds several possible pitfalls have to be considered, including the occurrence of withdrawal and rebound syndromes. This article reviews the pharmacological background of functional blockade or stimulation of receptors of interest in regard to atypical antipsychotics and the implicated potential withdrawal and rebound phenomena. A MEDLINE search was carried out to identify information on withdrawal or rebound syndromes occurring after discontinuation of atypical antipsychotics. Using the resulting literature, we first discuss the theoretical background to the functional consequences of atypical antipsychotic-induced blockade or stimulation of neurotransmitter receptors and, secondly, we highlight the clinical consequences of this. We then review the available clinical literature on switching between atypical antipsychotics, with respect to the occurrence of withdrawal or rebound symptoms. Finally, we offer practical recommendations based on the reviewed findings. The systematic evaluation of withdrawal or rebound phenomena using randomized controlled trials is still understudied. Knowledge of pharmacological receptor-binding profiles may help clinicians in choosing adequate switching or discontinuation strategies for each agent. Results from large switching trials indicate that switching atypical antipsychotics can be performed in a safe manner. Treatment-emergent adverse events during or after switching are not always considered to be, at least in part, associated with the pre-switch antipsychotic. Further studies are needed to substantiate the evidence gained so far on different switching strategies. The use of concomitant medication, e.g., benzodiazepines or anticholinergic drugs, may help to minimize symptoms arising from the discontinuation or switching of antipsychotic treatment.

The recent release of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) by the American Psychiatric Association has led to much debate. For this forum article, we asked BMC Medicine Editorial Board members who are experts in the field of psychiatry to discuss their personal views on how the changes in DSM-5 might affect clinical practice in their specific areas of psychiatric medicine. This article discusses the influence the DSM-5 may have on the diagnosis and treatment of autism, trauma-related and stressor-related disorders, obsessive-compulsive and related disorders, mood disorders (including major depression and bipolar disorders), and schizophrenia spectrum disorders.

No abstract