{"id":25117,"date":"2012-07-19T14:54:04","date_gmt":"2012-07-19T18:54:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=25117"},"modified":"2012-07-19T22:15:57","modified_gmt":"2012-07-20T02:15:57","slug":"my-willies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/07\/19\/my-willies\/","title":{"rendered":"<em>my willies&#8230;<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"<br \/>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"> <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.psychiatrictimes.com\/blog\/frances\/content\/article\/10168\/2091469\"><u><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Personalized Biological Testing In Psychiatry: Inevitable Reality or Impossible Dream?<\/font><\/strong><\/u> <\/a><br \/>      <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Psychiatric Times<\/font><\/strong><br \/>       By Allen Frances, MD <br \/>      July 18, 2012<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\"><sup>At next year&#8217;s meeting of The International College of   Neuropsychopharmacology [Collegium Internationale  Neuro-Psychopharmacologicum,  or CINP], the smartest people in  psychiatric genetics will present their  suggestions and report on  progress in applying the techniques of personalized  medicine as a whole  new approach to psychiatric diagnosis. The need for  out-of-the-box thinking is great. Our current  diagnostic system is  based on fallible and subjective clinical judgments.  Progress in  developing biological laboratory tests has been frustratingly slow,  and  except for Alzheimer disease is pretty much at a dead end. Dozens of   candidate markers have been offered, but nothing ever seems to  replicate.<\/sup><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>It has become increasingly clear that  each of our  psychiatric diagnoses is really a heterogeneous final  common pathway with  dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different pathogenetic  pathways. There is not one  way to develop symptoms of schizophrenia or  bipolar disorder or autistim or OCD.  Instead, there are probably  hundreds of different genotypes that can converge  on the same  phenotype. Explanatory mechanisms do not replicate at least in part   because patients may get their symptoms in their own very different  ways. Here is how former CINP president and conference co-host  Bob  Belmaker describes the issue and the conference meant to address  it:<\/sup><\/div>\n<ul><strong><font color=\"#200020\"><sup><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">&quot;The  small effect size of antidepressants and even antipsychotics  in large  controlled trials has been the subject of much soul searching.  These trials  include very heterogeneous patient groups and the mean  values may disguise huge  individual variability. Personalized medicine  is a new frontier of research to  determine the best treatment for  specific patients. CINP is organizing the  first meeting on personalized  medicine in psychiatry. Speakers include Tom  Insel, Head of NIMH who  has made personalized medicine in psychiatry one of his  top goals; Jun  Wang, head of the Beijing Genomic Institute where the government  is  pouring millions into drug development via the genome; and Shitij Kapur  from  the Maudsley Institute who will report on individual responses in   schizophrenia.&quot;<\/div>\n<p><\/sup><\/font><\/strong><\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>Personalized psychiatric diagnosis has great  promise and may  be one of the few ways out of the current impasse &mdash; the  constant flow of group  mean studies giving non replicated or barely  significant differences. But the  path will not be easy and certainly  will be slow. This is the painstakingly  retail work of many  professional lifetimes &mdash; akin to the steady, but very slow  progress in  finding the heterogeneous pathways of breast cancer. And there  may be many blind alleys and false findings. If  you do enough analyses  you can always get positive, but meaningless, results  based on chance.  The statistical modeling of individual difference is still an  art form  in its early stages of development and first results will require   extremely cautious and skeptical interpretation.<\/sup><\/div>\n<p>     <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><sup>The technique of  personalized medicine will work best in  situations with a favorable  signal\/noise ratio&mdash;conditions that have a well-demarcated  and  homogeneous clinical presentation with a preponderant biological   contribution and patients who have a classic and severe presentation, an  early  onset, and many affected relatives. My guess is that the first  fruits of the  new approach will be in understanding severe, classic,  early onset autism, OCD,  and bipolar disorder. Even the best  established contributions will probably  account for just 2% to 3% of  the variance &mdash; but each of these small steps will be  a giant leap  compared to our current stalemate in understanding the biological   underpinnings of psychopathology. There will be no grand slams in this  hard  fought game [and no walks] &mdash; we must settle for an accumulation of  singles.<\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">Having become a devoted Allen Frances fan in these months in which he&#8217;s lead the charge to keep the DSM-5 Task Force honest, I was glad to see that he weighed in on this whole business of Personalized Medicine in psychopharmacology research. And while I agree with every word in this article, even with his reservations, the topic still gives me the <em>willies<\/em> [as in<span class=\"st\"> the &quot;jitters&quot; or &quot;nervous apprehension&quot;<\/span>].<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">The mapping of the human genome is a miraculous advance, but brings new frontiers rather than a new destination. Somewhere down the line, it will make honest men of us when we use words like &#8216;genetic&#8217; or &#8216;familial.&#8217; As Dr. Frances says, there&#8217;s a hard fought game ahead of us, and the notion that genotypes will direct psychiatric drug choice is a leap unjustified at this moment. None of the attempts to define drug specificity so far have panned out. Algorithms, Sequencing, using two medications simultaneously &#8211; all the millions spent so far have produced <em>nada<\/em>. We don&#8217;t even know if these medications are symptomatic or disease-specific when they work, which is not as often as we&#8217;d like. We have no evidence that the conditions [MDD] in the form they&#8217;re widely diagnosed are hereditary, no evidence that the drug classes select unique patients &#8211; in short nothing solid that would help us pick a target population. The track records of the current investigators [<strong><font color=\"#200020\">iSPOT<\/font><\/strong> and <strong><font color=\"#200020\">EMBARC<\/font><\/strong>] is shaky by any criteria. Popularizers are people like Tom Insel and Charlie Nemeroff who seem to me to be &#8216;break-through freaks&#8217; &#8211; enthusiastically jumping on any bandwagon that presents itself. And the whole enterprise is based on money &#8211; money for genetic testing, money for drugs, money for research, etc. <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">So I have even less enthusiasm for what I&#8217;ve read about Personalized Medicine in psychiatry than Dr. Frances. It feels like flat out entrepreneurialism without scientific merit at this point, and we&#8217;ve had more than enough of that in psychiatry already. I vote for &quot;Impossible Dream&quot; in any near term future&#8230; <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Personalized Biological Testing In Psychiatry: Inevitable Reality or Impossible Dream? Psychiatric Times By Allen Frances, MD July 18, 2012 At next year&#8217;s meeting of The International College of Neuropsychopharmacology [Collegium Internationale Neuro-Psychopharmacologicum, or CINP], the smartest people in psychiatric genetics will present their suggestions and report on progress in applying the techniques of personalized medicine [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-25117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25117"}],"version-history":[{"count":15,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25117\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25149,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25117\/revisions\/25149"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}