大河内 智

Pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics have enabled the detection of risk of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) variants for clozapine-induced agranulocytosis/granulocytopenia (CIAG). To apply this evidence to the clinical setting, we compared the cost-effectiveness of the proposed "HLA-guided treatment schedule" and the "current schedule" being used in Japan and the United Kingdom (UK) (absolute neutrophil count (ANC) cutoff at 1500/mm3); in the "HLA-guided treatment schedules," we considered a situation wherein the HLA test performed before clozapine initiation could provide "a priori information" by detecting patients harboring risk of HLA variants (HLA-B*59:01 and "HLA-B 158T/HLA-DQB1 126Q" for Japanese and Caucasian populations, respectively), a part of whom can then avoid CIAG onset (assumed 30% "prevention rate"). For the primary analysis, we estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of "HLA-guided treatment schedule" and "current schedule" used in Japan and the UK, using a Markov model to calculate the cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 10-year time period. Furthermore, as an explorative analysis, we simulated several situations with various ANC cutoffs (1000/mm3 and 500/mm3) and plotted the cost/QALYs for each option to identify the best, or estimate the next best candidate option applicable in actual clinical settings. The primary probabilistic analysis showed that the "HLA-guided treatment schedule" was more cost effective than the "current schedule"; the ICER was £20,995 and £21,373 for the Japanese and the UK populations, respectively. Additional simulation revealed that the treatment option of ANC cutoff at 500/mm3 without HLA screening was the most cost-effective option; however, several options may be candidates to break away from the "current schedule" of ANC cutoff at 1500/mm3. Owing to its cost-effectiveness, we propose such pharmacogenetic-guided/pharmacogenomic-guided clozapine treatment for use in the real-world setting, which provides key information for optimization of clinical guidelines for high-risk patients for gradual change of clozapine treatment schedule under the safety consideration.

代表的な精神疾患である双極性障害は遺伝要因が強く寄与する疾患であり、ゲノムワイド関連研究が導入されて以降、現在までに数十個の有意な関連領域が報告されている。そのなかでも、脂質代謝に重要な役割を示すfatty acid desaturase(FADS)遺伝子関連は、機能がきわめて明確な感受性遺伝子であり、この結果は双極性障害の脂質代謝異常仮説を支持するものである。事実、双極性障害患者でみられる脂質代謝異常(メタボリック症候群を含む)は、複数報告されており、その基盤となりうる結果とも言える。本稿では、双極性障害のゲノム研究を概説するとともに、この「双極性障害の脂質異常仮説」にも焦点を当て概説する。(著者抄録)

Depressive symptoms are a serious problem in workplaces. Hospital staff members, such as newly licensed registered nurses (NLRNs), are at particularly increased risk of these symptoms owing to their limited experience. Previous studies have shown that a brief program-based cognitive behavioral therapy program (CBP) can offer effective treatment. Here, we conducted a longitudinal observational study of 683 NLRNs (CBP group, n = 522; no-CBP group, n = 181) over a period of 1 year (six times surveys were done during this period). Outcomes were assessed on the basis of surveys that covered the Beck Depression Inventory-I (BDI). The independent variables were CBP attendance (CBP was conducted 3 months after starting work), personality traits, personal stressful life events, workplace adversity, and pre-CBP change in BDI in the 3 months before CBP (ΔBDIpre-CBP). All factors were included in Cox proportional hazards models with time-dependent covariates for depressive symptoms (BDI ≥10), and we reported hazard ratios (HRs). Based on this analysis, we detected that CBP was significantly associated with benefit for depressive symptoms in all NLRNs (Puncorrected = 0.0137, HR = 0.902). To identify who benefitted most from CBP, we conducted a subgroup analysis based on the change in BDI before CBP (ΔBDIpre-CBP). The strongest association was when BDI scores were low after starting work and increased before CBP (Puncorrected = 0.00627, HR = 0.616). These results are consistent with previous findings, and indicate that CBP may benefit the mental health of NLRNs. Furthermore, selective prevention based on the pattern of BDI change over time may be important in identifying who should be offered CBP first. Although CBP is generally effective for all nurses, such a selective approach may be most appropriate where cost-effectiveness is a prominent concern.

Objective: There are no direct comparisons between escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods: We conducted a 24-week, rater-masked, randomized trial of escitalopram (5–20 mg/day) versus paroxetine controlled release (12.5–50 mg/day) in patients with MDD (UMIN000011191). Patients with the diagnosis of moderate-to-severe MDD (a 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAMD-17], with total score at baseline being $20) were recruited to participate in a parallel, randomized, controlled trial. The primary outcome for efficacy was an improvement in the 21-item HAMD (HAMD-21) total score at 24 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the response, remission, and discontinuation rates and the incidence of individual adverse events. Results: A total of 88 patients with MDD (males, 61.4% mean age, 40.8�13.4 years) were recruited. The discontinuation rate was 58.0% (escitalopram, 55.8% paroxetine controlled release, 60.0%). Both escitalopram and paroxetine controlled-release treatment groups exhibited significant reduction in the HAMD-21 total score at 2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks from the baseline. However, there were no significant differences in the HAMD-21 total score, response rate, remission rate, and discontinuation rate at any time point between the groups. In addition, there were no significant differences in the incidence of any individual adverse events (eg, nausea, vomiting, and somnolence) between the treatment groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that escitalopram and paroxetine controlled release had similar efficacy and safety profiles in patients with MDD. One of the primary limitations of this study is the small sample size.