Duloxetine compared with fluoxetine and venlafaxine: use of meta-regression analysis for indirect comparisons

BACKGROUND: Data comparing duloxetine with existing antidepressant treatments is limited. A comparison of duloxetine with fluoxetine has been performed but no comparison with venlafaxine, the other antidepressant in the same therapeutic class with a significant market share, has been undertaken. In the absence of relevant data to assess the place that duloxetine should occupy in the therapeutic arsenal, indirect comparisons are the most rigorous way to go. We conducted a systematic review of the efficacy of duloxetine, fluoxetine and venlafaxine versus placebo in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), and performed indirect comparisons through meta-regressions. METHODS: The bibliography of the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and the CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase databases were interrogated using advanced search strategies based on a combination of text and index terms. The search focused on randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials involving adult patients treated for acute phase Major Depressive Disorder. All outcomes were derived to take account for varying placebo responses throughout studies. Primary outcome was treatment efficacy as measured by Hedge's g effect size. Secondary outcomes were response and dropout rates as measured by log odds ratios. Meta-regressions were run to indirectly compare the drugs. Sensitivity analysis, assessing the influence of individual studies over the results, and the influence of patients' characteristics were run. RESULTS: 22 studies involving fluoxetine, 9 involving duloxetine and 8 involving venlafaxine were selected. Using indirect comparison methodology, estimated effect sizes for efficacy compared with duloxetine were 0.11 [-0.14;0.36] for fluoxetine and 0.22 [0.06;0.38] for venlafaxine. Response log odds ratios were -0.21 [-0.44;0.03], 0.70 [0.26;1.14]. Dropout log odds ratios were -0.02 [-0.33;0.29], 0.21 [-0.13;0.55]. Sensitivity analyses showed that results were consistent. CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine was not statistically different in either tolerability or efficacy when compared with duloxetine. Venlafaxine was significantly superior to duloxetine in all analyses except dropout rate. In the absence of relevant data from head-to-head comparison trials, results suggest that venlafaxine is superior compared with duloxetine and that duloxetine does not differentiate from fluoxetine

Rare coding variants in ten genes confer substantial risk for schizophrenia

Rare coding variation has historically provided the most direct connections between gene function and disease pathogenesis. By meta-analysing the whole exomes of 24,248 schizophrenia cases and 97,322 controls, we implicate ultra-rare coding variants (URVs) in 10 genes as conferring substantial risk for schizophrenia (odds ratios of 3–50, P < 2.14 × 10−6) and 32 genes at a false discovery rate of <5%. These genes have the greatest expression in central nervous system neurons and have diverse molecular functions that include the formation, structure and function of the synapse. The associations of the NMDA (N-methyl-d-aspartate) receptor subunit GRIN2A and AMPA (α-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid) receptor subunit GRIA3 provide support for dysfunction of the glutamatergic system as a mechanistic hypothesis in the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. We observe an overlap of rare variant risk among schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorders1, epilepsy and severe neurodevelopmental disorders2, although different mutation types are implicated in some shared genes. Most genes described here, however, are not implicated in neurodevelopment. We demonstrate that genes prioritized from common variant analyses of schizophrenia are enriched in rare variant risk3, suggesting that common and rare genetic risk factors converge at least partially on the same underlying pathogenic biological processes. Even after excluding significantly associated genes, schizophrenia cases still carry a substantial excess of URVs, which indicates that more risk genes await discovery using this approach

Variability in Working Memory Performance Explained by Epistasis vs Polygenic Scores in the ZNF804A Pathway

Importance: We investigated the variation in neuropsychological function explained by risk alleles at the psychosis susceptibility gene ZNF804A and its interacting partners using single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), polygenic scores, and epistatic analyses. Of particular importance was the relative contribution of the polygenic score vs epistasis in variation explained. Objectives To (1) assess the association between SNPs in ZNF804A and the ZNF804A polygenic score with measures of cognition in cases with psychosis and (2) assess whether epistasis within the ZNF804A pathway could explain additional variation above and beyond that explained by the polygenic score. Design, Setting, and Participants: Patients with psychosis (n = 424) were assessed in areas of cognitive ability impaired in schizophrenia including IQ, memory, attention, and social cognition. We used the Psychiatric GWAS Consortium 1 schizophrenia genome-wide association study to calculate a polygenic score based on identified risk variants within this genetic pathway. Cognitive measures significantly associated with the polygenic score were tested for an epistatic component using a training set (n = 170), which was used to develop linear regression models containing the polygenic score and 2-SNP interactions. The best-fitting models were tested for replication in 2 independent test sets of cases: (1) 170 individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and (2) 84 patients with broad psychosis (including bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and other psychosis). Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery designed to target the cognitive deficits of schizophrenia including general cognitive function, episodic memory, working memory, attentional control, and social cognition. Results: Higher polygenic scores were associated with poorer performance among patients on IQ, memory, and social cognition, explaining 1% to 3% of variation on these scores (range, P = .01 to .03). Using a narrow psychosis training set and independent test sets of narrow phenotype psychosis (schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder), broad psychosis, and control participants (n = 89), the addition of 2 interaction terms containing 2 SNPs each increased the R2 for spatial working memory strategy in the independent psychosis test sets from 1.2% using the polygenic score only to 4.8% (P = .11 and .001, respectively) but did not explain additional variation in control participants. Conclusions and Relevance: These data support a role for the ZNF804A pathway in IQ, memory, and social cognition in cases. Furthermore, we showed that epistasis increases the variation explained above the contribution of the polygenic score

SummaryAUC: a tool for evaluating the performance of polygenic risk prediction models in validation datasets with only summary level statistics.

MOTIVATION:Polygenic risk score (PRS) methods based on genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have a potential for predicting the risk of developing complex diseases and are expected to become more accurate with larger training datasets and innovative statistical methods. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) is often used to evaluate the performance of PRSs, which requires individual genotypic and phenotypic data in an independent GWAS validation dataset. We are motivated to develop methods for approximating AUC of PRSs based on the summary level data of the validation dataset, which will greatly facilitate the development of PRS models for complex diseases. RESULTS:We develop statistical methods and an R package SummaryAUC for approximating the AUC and its variance of a PRS when only the summary level data of the validation dataset are available. SummaryAUC can be applied to PRSs with SNPs either genotyped or imputed in the validation dataset. We examined the performance of SummaryAUC using a large-scale GWAS of schizophrenia. SummaryAUC provides accurate approximations to AUCs and their variances. The bias of AUC is typically &lt;0.5% in most analyses. SummaryAUC cannot be applied to PRSs that use all SNPs in the genome because it is computationally prohibitive. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION:https://github.com/lsncibb/SummaryAUC. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online