Advertisement

Journal of Neural Transmission

, Volume 126, Issue 1, pp 87–94 | Cite as

The role of depression pharmacogenetic decision support tools in shared decision making

  • Katarina ArandjelovicEmail author
  • Harris A. Eyre
  • Eric Lenze
  • Ajeet B. Singh
  • Michael Berk
  • Chad Bousman
Psychiatry and Preclinical Psychiatric Studies - Short communication

Abstract

Patients discontinue antidepressant medications due to lack of knowledge, unrealistic expectations, and/or unacceptable side effects. Shared decision making (SDM) invites patients to play an active role in their treatment and may indirectly improve outcomes through enhanced engagement in care, adherence to treatment, and positive expectancy of medication outcomes. We believe decisional aids, such as pharmacogenetic decision support tools (PDSTs), facilitate SDM in the clinical setting. PDSTs may likewise predict drug tolerance and efficacy, and therefore adherence and effectiveness on an individual-patient level. There are several important ethical considerations to be navigated when integrating PDSTs into clinical practice. The field requires greater empirical research to demonstrate clinical utility, and the mechanisms thereof, as well as exploration of the ethical use of these technologies.

Keywords

Pharmacogenetics Antidepressants Shared decision making Decision support tool Psychoeducation Adherence Therapeutic alliance 

Notes

Acknowledgements

MB is currently supported by a NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship 1059660.

References

  1. Akincigil A et al (2007) Adherence to antidepressant treatment among privately insured patients diagnosed with depression. Med Care 45(4):363–369Google Scholar
  2. Alguera-Lara V et al (2017) Shared decision making in mental health: the importance for current clinical practice. Australas Psychiatry. doi: 10.1177/1039856217734711
  3. Berk L et al (2010) Enhancing medication adherence in patients with bipolar disorder. Hum Psychopharmacol 25(1):1–16Google Scholar
  4. Bousman CA, Hopwood M (2016) Commercial pharmacogenetic-based decision-support tools in psychiatry. Lancet Psychiatry 3(6):585–590Google Scholar
  5. Brennan FX et al (2015) A naturalistic study of the effectiveness of pharmacogenetic testing to guide treatment in psychiatric patients with mood and anxiety disorders. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 17(2). doi: 10.4088/PCC.14m01717.
  6. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1999) Decision-making in the physician-patient encounter: revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model. Soc Sci Med 49(5):651–661Google Scholar
  7. Coulter A et al (2015) Personalised care planning for adults with chronic or long-term health conditions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3:CD010523Google Scholar
  8. Data-Franco J, Berk M (2013) The nocebo effect: a clinicians guide. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 47(7):617–623Google Scholar
  9. Demyttenaere K et al (2001) Compliance with antidepressants in a primary care setting, 1: beyond lack of efficacy and adverse events. J Clin Psychiatry 62(Suppl 22):30–33Google Scholar
  10. Dodd S et al (2015) Nocebo effects in the treatment of major depression: results from an individual study participant-level meta-analysis of the placebo arm of duloxetine clinical trials. J Clin Psychiatry 76(6):702–711Google Scholar
  11. Dunlop BW et al (2012) Depression beliefs, treatment preference, and outcomes in a randomized trial for major depressive disorder. J Psychiatr Res 46(3):375–381Google Scholar
  12. Durand MA et al (2014) Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(4):e94670Google Scholar
  13. Hall-Flavin DK et al (2012) Using a pharmacogenomic algorithm to guide the treatment of depression. Transl Psychiatry 2:e172Google Scholar
  14. Hall-Flavin DK et al (2013) Utility of integrated pharmacogenomic testing to support the treatment of major depressive disorder in a psychiatric outpatient setting. Pharmacogenet Genom 23(10):535–548Google Scholar
  15. Hawley ST, Morris AM (2017) Cultural challenges to engaging patients in shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns 100(1):18–24Google Scholar
  16. Hibbard JH (2017) Patient activation and the use of information to support informed health decisions. Patient Educ Couns 100(1):5–7Google Scholar
  17. IPDAS (2013) International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/. Accessed 18 Oct 2016
  18. LeBlanc A et al (2015) Shared decision making for antidepressants in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. JAMA Intern Med 175(11):1761–1770Google Scholar
  19. Lemire M et al (2008) Determinants of Internet use as a preferred source of information on personal health. Int J Med Inform 77(11):723–734Google Scholar
  20. Loh A et al (2007) The effects of a shared decision-making intervention in primary care of depression: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 67(3):324–332Google Scholar
  21. Mcmanus P et al (2004a) Length of therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 38(6):450–454Google Scholar
  22. Mcmanus P et al (2004b) Length of therapy with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 38(6):450–454Google Scholar
  23. Milton AC, Mullan BA (2014) Communication of a mental health diagnosis: a systematic synthesis and narrative review. J Ment Health 23(5):261–270Google Scholar
  24. Mulsant BH et al (2014) A systematic approach to pharmacotherapy for geriatric major depression. Clin Geriatr Med 30(3):517–534Google Scholar
  25. ORYGEN (2016) Clinical practice point: shared decision making for youth mental health. Orygen, Melbourne. https://www.orygen.org.au/Skills-Knowledge/Resources-Training/Resources/Free/Clinical-Practice/Shared-decision-making
  26. Perestelo-Perez L et al (2017) Effectiveness of a decision aid for patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial. Health Expect 20:1096–1105Google Scholar
  27. Perez V et al (2017) Efficacy of prospective pharmacogenetic testing in the treatment of major depressive disorder: results of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. BMC Psychiatry 17(1):250Google Scholar
  28. Pérez V et al (2017) Efficacy of prospective pharmacogenetic testing in the treatment of major depressive disorder: results of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. BMC Psychiatry 17:250Google Scholar
  29. Peterson K et al (2016) Evidence brief: the comparative effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided antidepressant treatment versus usual care for major depressive disorder. Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Peterson K et al (2017) Rapid evidence review of the comparative effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided antidepressant treatment versus usual care for major depressive disorder. Psychopharmacology 234(11):1649–1661Google Scholar
  31. Raue PJ et al (2010) Shared decision-making in the primary care treatment of late-life major depression: a needed new intervention? Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 25(11):1101–1111Google Scholar
  32. Rief W, Glombiewski J (2016) Erwartungsfokussierte Psychotherapeutische Interventionen (EFPI). Verhaltenstherapie 26(1):47–54Google Scholar
  33. Rief W, Glombiewski A (2017) The role of expectations in mental disorders and their treatment. World Psychiatry 16(2):210–211Google Scholar
  34. Robinson WD et al (2005) Depression treatment in primary care. J Am Board Fam Pract 18(2):79–86Google Scholar
  35. Rosenblat JD, Lee Y, McIntyre RS (2017) Does pharmacogenomic testing improve clinical outcomes for major depressive disorder? A systematic review of clinical trials and cost-effectiveness studies. J Clin Psychiatry 78:720–729Google Scholar
  36. Rush AJ et al (2006) Acute and longer-term outcomes in depressed outpatients requiring one or several treatment steps: a STAR*D report. Am J Psychiatry 163(11):1905–1917Google Scholar
  37. Schattner A, Bronstein A, Jellin N (2006) Information and shared decision-making are top patients’ priorities. BMC Health Serv Res 6:21Google Scholar
  38. Schouten BC, Meeuwesen L (2006) Cultural differences in medical communication: a review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 64(1–3):21–34Google Scholar
  39. Sheehan DV et al (2008) Differences in medication adherence and healthcare resource utilization patterns: older versus newer antidepressant agents in patients with depression and/or anxiety disorders. CNS Drugs 22(11):963–973Google Scholar
  40. Singh AB (2015) Improved antidepressant remission in major depression via a pharmacokinetic pathway polygene pharmacogenetic report. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci 13(2):150–156Google Scholar
  41. Sirey J, Bruce M, Kales H (2010) improving antidepressant adherence and depression outcomes in primary care: the treatment initiation and participation program. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 18(6):554–562Google Scholar
  42. Sirey JA et al (2013) Medication beliefs and self-reported adherence among community-dwelling older adults. Clin Ther 35(2):153–160Google Scholar
  43. Sirey JA et al (2017) Adherence to depression treatment in primary care: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3047
  44. Slade M (2017) Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care. World Psychiatry 16(2):146–153Google Scholar
  45. Solberg LI et al (2014) How much shared decision making occurs in usual primary care of depression? J Am Board Fam Med 27(2):199–208Google Scholar
  46. Stacey D et al (2014) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD001431Google Scholar
  47. Stacey D et al (2017) Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD001431Google Scholar
  48. Tecuta L et al (2015) Demoralization: a systematic review on its clinical characterization. Psychol Med 45(4):673–691Google Scholar
  49. Thase ME et al (2010) Remission with mirtazapine and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from 15 controlled trials of acute phase treatment of major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 25(4):189–198Google Scholar
  50. Thompson C, Steven PH, Catriona H (2015) Psychiatrist attitudes towards pharmacogenetic testing, direct-to-consumer genetic testing, and integrating genetic counseling into psychiatric patient care. Psychiatry Res 226(1):68–72Google Scholar
  51. van Grieken RA et al (2014) Patients perspectives on how treatment can impede their recovery from depression. J Affect Disord 167:153–159Google Scholar
  52. Walden LM et al (2015) Physicians’ opinions following pharmacogenetic testing for psychotropic medication. Psychiatry Res 229(3):913–918Google Scholar
  53. Winner JG et al (2013) A prospective, randomized, double-blind study assessing the clinical impact of integrated pharmacogenomic testing for major depressive disorder. Discov Med 16(89):219–227Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IMPACT SRC, School of MedicineDeakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.Discipline of Psychiatry, University of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia
  4. 4.Innovation Institute, Texas Medical CenterHoustonUSA
  5. 5.Department of PsychiatryWashington University School of MedicineSt LouisUSA
  6. 6.Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental HealthMelbourneAustralia
  7. 7.Departments of Medical Genetics, Psychiatry, and Physiology & PharmacologyUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations