Abstract
Cytochrome P450 enzymes including CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 are important for antidepressant metabolism and polymorphisms of these genes have been determined to predict metabolite levels. Nonetheless, more evidence is needed to understand the impact of genetic variations on antidepressant response. In this study, individual data from 13 clinical studies of European and East Asian ancestry populations were collected. The antidepressant response was clinically assessed as remission and percentage improvement. Imputed genotype was used to translate genetic polymorphisms to four metabolic phenotypes (poor, intermediate, normal, and ultrarapid) of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6. The association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes with treatment response was examined using normal metabolizers as the reference. Among 5843 depression patients, a higher remission rate was found in CYP2C19 poor metabolizers compared to normal metabolizers at nominal significance (OR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.03, 2.06], p = 0.033) but did not survive after multiple testing correction. No metabolic phenotype was associated with percentage improvement from baseline. After stratifying by antidepressants primarily metabolized by CYP2C19 and CYP2D6, no association was found between metabolic phenotypes and antidepressant response. Metabolic phenotypes showed differences in frequency, but not effect, between European and East Asian studies. In conclusion, metabolic phenotypes imputed from genetic variants were not associated with antidepressant response. CYP2C19 poor metabolizers could potentially contribute to antidepressant efficacy with more evidence needed. Information including side effects, antidepressant dosage, as well as population from different ancestries could be involved to fully capture the influence of metabolic phenotypes and improve the power of effect assessment.
Introduction
Antidepressants are the first-line treatment for moderate or severe depression, however efficacy varies, and side effects are common 1. Approximately 35% of patients reach remission after treatment with a single antidepressant and a significant proportion of individuals develop treatment-resistant depression defined as no remission attained after treatment with two or more antidepressants 2–4. Even within the same antidepressant class, treatment responses vary substantially. For example, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the most widely prescribed antidepressants, could lead to remission in 30-45% of patients 5. Differences in response rate may be due to many factors including drug-drug interactions 6, depression subtypes 7,8, comorbidity 9, smoking 10, and genetic variation, particularly in drug metabolism genes.
Pharmacogenetics utilizes genetic variation that plays a role in medication action and metabolism to facilitate individualized prescription, thus improving the treatment efficacy, and reducing undesirable effects 11. In antidepressants, current evidence and prescribing guidelines support two cytochrome P450 (CYP) genes (CYP2C19 and CYP2D6) for pharmacogenetic testing 11–14. Both CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 are highly polymorphic, with genetic haplotypes defined by the star allele nomenclature 15. These star alleles can be classified into different metabolic phenotypes: poor metabolizers (PMs), intermediate metabolizers (IMs), normal metabolizers (NMs), and ultrarapid metabolizers (UMs) according to Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines 13,14. Compared to NMs, PMs and IMs have an increased risk of adverse effects because of a lower metabolism rate and elevated drug serum concentrations, which may also increase treatment efficacy. UMs, on the other hand, facilitate the metabolic process to reduce drug exposure and may lead to treatment failure through a lack of efficacy.
Clinical studies have shown that genetic variation in these metabolizing enzymes is clearly associated with metabolite levels, but the link between genetic variation and treatment response or side effects is more complicated. For example, in the GENDEP study, CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genotypes were associated with serum concentration of escitalopram and nortriptyline, but did not predict treatment response 16. A meta-analysis of 94 studies assessed the relationship between psychiatric drug exposure (dose-normalized plasma level) and metabolising status of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6, observing exposure differences in escitalopram and sertraline 17. However, treatment effectiveness of these antidepressants was not associated with CYP2C19 genotypes in a large retrospective study based on participant self-report 18.
Guidelines have been developed for antidepressant use based on CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 metabolizing status. For instance, CPIC guidelines for CYP2D6, suggest a 50% dose reduction of fluvoxamine, paroxetine and most tricyclic antidepressants for PMs, and alternative antidepressants that are not predominantly metabolized by CYP2D6 are advised for UMs 13,14. However, evidence is still accruing to confirm the role of pharmacogenetic testing to guide antidepressant prescribing 11. Therefore, further studies are required to provide additional evidence to reach an agreement on appropriate antidepressant prescribing based on pharmacogenetic testing of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 in clinical use.
In this study, we combined clinical and genetic data from 13 clinical studies, with 5843 participants, to examine the association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes with clinically evaluated treatment response across multiple antidepressants. We investigated whether genotype-determined PMs, IMs, and UMs of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 showed differential antidepressant efficacy, compared to NMs. This unique resource provides additional evidence of the relationship between CYP gene metabolic phenotypes and treatment response, and may further determine whether metabolizer status could add useful information for individualized prescribing of antidepressants.
Methods
Samples
The clinical studies analysed have been described in detail previously 3. In brief, 10 studies with European ancestry and 3 studies from East Asia were included. All participants had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) and received at least one antidepressant, with treatment response collected at baseline, and for 4-12 weeks post-baseline. We assessed two antidepressant response outcomes of remission and percentage improvement. Remission was a binary outcome defined as a reduction of the depression symptoms to a prespecified criteria of the rating scale. Percentage improvement was a continuous measure calculated from the proportional decrease (or increase) of depression symptom score from baseline. The percentage improvement was standardized (mean 0, standard deviation 1) within study to allow comparability of different scales across the studies (e.g. HAMD (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), MADRS (Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale), QIDSC (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology)). Demographic and clinical variables of age, sex, MDD baseline severity and antidepressant prescription information were available in each study (Supplementary Table 1).
Detailed procedures of genotyping have been reported elsewhere 19–27. Quality control and imputation were processed using the standard ‘RICOPILI’ pipeline from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium (PGC) with 1000 Genomes Project multi-ancestry reference panel 28. Each step was performed separately in European and East Asian ancestry studies following standard PGC protocols. Study details can be found in Supplementary Table 1 and the previous study 3.
Star alleles and metabolic phenotypes
Using best guess imputed genotype calls, phasing was conducted separately on the genetic regions of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 obtained from PharmGKB (https://www.pharmgkb.org/). The haplotype was determined in each sample using SHAPEIT4 software and the 1000 Genomes Project multi-ancestry reference panel 29. To fully utilize phased SNPs and translate them to star alleles, we first extracted all SNPs used to define CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 star alleles from the CPIC definition tables (https://cpicpgx.org/; downloaded June 2022). These SNPs were then matched to the phased data, and matching SNPs were assigned to star alleles following the CPIC guidelines. If a star allele was defined by more than one SNP, it was counted only when all the defined SNPs were observed. Each star allele was annotated as having no, decreased, normal, or increased function with corresponding activity value based on CPIC definition tables and the previous literature (Supplementary Table 2) 14,30. The reference allele (*1) was assigned to haplotypes that had no annotated functional star alleles or had uncertain or unknown functional alleles of CYP2D6. Because structural variants cannot be determined from genotype data, CYP2D6 ultrarapid metabolisers were not included. Next, we calculated the activity score for each individual by adding the activity values of the two star alleles. Metabolic phenotypes (PM, IM, NM, UM) were determined following consensus recommendations from the CPIC and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) 14,31,32. In our study, ultrarapid metabolisers were defined as individuals carrying at least one increased functional allele. To validate the defined metabolic phenotypes, we compared phenotype concordance with that previously derived in the GENDEP using Roche AmpliChip CYP450 microarray and TaqMan SNP genotyping 16. After harmonizing the metabolizer status, the concordance rate (percentage of individuals assigned the same metabolic phenotypes) was 96.4% for CYP2C19 and 79.9% for CYP2D6 (Supplementary Table 3).
Statistical analyses
Associations
We used the NMs in CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 as the reference group to examine the effect of other metabolizer groups on antidepressant response. For remission, logistic regression was used to evaluate the association with CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes in each study, using age, sex, and MDD baseline severity as covariates. For percentage improvement, linear regression with CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes, adjusting for age and sex, was used to test for association with metabolic phenotypes. The correlation between MDD baseline score and percentage improvement was very low (Pearson correlation = 0.042), so we did not add MDD baseline severity as a covariate. We next stratified into ‘antidepressant groups’, with drugs that were primarily metabolised by either CYP2C19 or CYP2D6, based on the clinical annotation of Level 1A in PharmGKB 12,33(Supplementary Table 4). Stratifying participants by CYP2C19- and CYP2D6-metabolised antidepressants, we repeated the analyses of remission and percentage improvement in 10 studies with CYP2C19-metabolised antidepressants (3390 participants) and 6 studies with CYP2D6-metabolised antidepressants (1223 participants) (Supplementary Figure 1).
Meta-analyses
In each study, odds ratios (ORs) of remission, and Standard Mean Differences (SMDs, Cohen’s D) of percentage improvement, with standard errors of both effect sizes, for each metabolizer group were extracted. We applied random effect meta-analysis since the true effects were assumed to be heterogeneous due to the difference in factors such as study populations, antidepressants prescribed, and outcome measurements. The effect sizes in each study were pooled, and inverse-variance weighted. The between-study heterogeneity was quantified by I2 statistic and heterogeneity variance τ2 using the Paule-Mandel method for ORs and restricted maximum-likelihood estimator for SMDs. The significance was tested by Cochran’s Q at p < 0.05. Additionally, subgroup meta-analyses were applied to test the hypothesis that effects differed between European and East Asian ancestry. We assumed both ancestries shared a common between-study heterogeneity (τ2) due to a small number of studies from East Asia. Cochran’s Q was used to determine whether the differences between subgroups could be explained by true effect differences or by sampling errors alone. We performed meta-analyses in all samples for CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes and then stratified the analyses by antidepressant groups for the corresponding metabolizer effects. We used p value < 0.05 as nominal significance, and corrected for multiple testing for the 5 independent tests of metabolic phenotypes compared with NMs (3 phenotypes in CYP2C19 and 2 phenotypes in CYP2D6), giving a Bonferroni corrected p value of 0.01 (0.05/5). No correction across outcomes (remission and percentage improvement) was applied, due to their high correlations. All meta-analyses were performed by ‘meta’ package in R 4.2.1.
The power of the meta-analysis was calculated by ‘dmetar’ package in R 4.2.1. Using the sample size of PMs (N = 179) and NMs (N = 2289) in CYP2C19, the meta-analysis had over 80% power to detect SMD of 0.074 and OR 1.15 with no effect heterogeneity, or SMD 0.085 and OR 1.17 with low heterogeneity, at a significance level p = 0.01.
Sensitivity tests
Three sensitivity analyses were performed. Firstly, each participant’s activity score was calculated as a continuous measure to assess metabolic activity and compared to the metaboliser groups. We tested CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic effects represented by activity scores using the same analyses described above. For the percentage improvement outcome, correlations were assessed between activity scores and residuals of percentage improvement after regressing out age and sex, and restricted maximum-likelihood estimator was used to estimate between-study heterogeneity of correlations in the meta-analyses. Secondly, the impact of baseline depression severity on percentage improvement was assessed by including it as a covariate in the linear regression analyses. Finally, to test how small studies might be impacting results, we reran the meta-analysis of CYP2C19 PM on the remission outcome including only studies with at least 10 PMs present.
Results
Characteristics of star alleles and metabolic phenotypes
Seven star alleles in CYP2C19 and 16 alleles in CYP2D6 were identified from the imputed genotype data and were classified as having no, decreased, normal and increased function (Supplementary Table 2). In general, alleles had similar frequencies in studies of the same ancestry group (Supplementary Figure 2). The reference alleles (*1) were the most common, with mean frequency 62.8% in CYP2C19, and 39.2% in CYP2D6 in European ancestry studies, and frequencies of 62.1% and 34.2% in East Asian studies. Other high frequency alleles in European-ancestry studies were *17 (22.0%) in CYP2C19 and *4 (19.8%) in CYP2D6, while CYP2C19 *2 (30.5%) and CYP2D6 *10 (48.6%) had high frequencies in East Asian. A total of 5843 individuals with remission or percentage improvement outcome in 13 studies were analysed. Four metabolizer groups (PM, IM, NM, UM) for CYP2C19 and three metabolizer groups (PM, IM, and NM) for CYP2D6 were translated from star alleles. In both genes, the most common metabolizer group was NM, and the rarest was PM (Table 1). Compared with the East Asian, the European population had a lower proportion of PM and IM in CYP2C19, and higher proportion of PM in CYP2D6 (Figure 1, differences between ancestries, Wilcoxon test: CYP2C19 PM p = 0.007, CYP2C19 IM p = 0.007, CYP2C19 UM p = 0.007, CYP2D6 PM p = 0.014). For the 12 antidepressants metabolized primarily by either CYP2C19 or CYP2D6, the same distribution of metabolic phenotypes was found in both antidepressant groups (Supplementary Table 5).
DAST: Depression and Sequence of Treatment, GENDEP: Genome Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression, GENPOD: GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression, GODS: Geneva Outpatient Depression Study, GSK: Glaxo Smith Kline, GSRD: Group for the Study of Resistant Depression, PFZ: Pfizer, PGRN: Pharmacogenomics Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study, STARD, Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression.
Meta-analyses of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes in all samples
The association of metabolizer status with antidepressant response was first assessed in all samples. The remission rate and mean percentage improvement in each metabolizer group are presented in Table 1. Overall, PMs in CYP2C19 showed a higher remission rate with nominal significance (OR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.03, 2.06], p = 0.033, Figure 2a) but did not meet correction for multiple testing. The percentage improvement analysis showed a non-significant higher efficacy in PMs (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29], p = 0.101). Other metabolic phenotypes in CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 had no difference from NMs in both outcomes (Figure 2a). Subgroup meta-analyses found no heterogeneity in the effect of CYP2C19 PMs in all cohorts or between ancestry groups. In other metabolic phenotypes of both genes, no significant heterogeneity was detected (Supplementary Figure 3, 4).
PM: poor metabolizer, IM: intermediate metabolizer, UM: ultrarapid metabolizer, OR: odd ratio, SMD: standard mean difference, CI: confidence interval
Meta-analyses of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes stratified by antidepressant groups
Next, to determine if the metabolic activity was associated with response in antidepressants that were primarily metabolized by CYP2C19 or CYP2D6 12, meta-analyses were stratified with 7 CYP2C19-metabolised antidepressants and 9 for CYP2D6 (Supplementary Table 4). CYP2C19 PMs showed a similar trend to the results in all samples, with a higher remission rate and percentage improvement compared to NMs (remission: OR = 1.47, 95% CI [0.90, 2.39], p = 0.121; percentage improvement: SMD = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.34], p = 0.282, Figure 2b, c) but the association was not significant. Other metabolizer groups were not associated with response. Detailed results for each study can be found in Supplementary Figures 5 and 6. As a comparison, metabolic effect was tested in the antidepressant groups that were not primarily metabolised by CYP2C19 or CYP2D6. Detailed results are shown in Supplementary Figure 7.
Sensitivity test
Finally, three sensitivity tests were performed. First, the meta-analyses were repeated using the activity score as a quantitative measurement of metabolic activity to compare the results with the primary analyses. The activity scores differed between European and East Asian studies, with Europeans having higher scores for both CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 (Wilcoxon test: CYP2C19 p = 0.007; CYP2D6 p = 0.028, Supplementary Figure 8). However, activity score was not associated with the outcomes of remission or percentage improvement (Supplementary Table 6). In the second sensitivity test, baseline severity of depression was added as an additional covariate in the analyses of percentage improvement. As in the primary analyses, PMs in CYP2C19 had higher, but non-significant SMD of percentage improvement (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.29], p = 0.103). No clear pattern was found in tests of other metabolizers (Supplementary Table 7). Lastly, we meta-analysed the CYP2C19 PMs for remission by including only studies with more than 10 CYP2C19 PMs. A higher rate of remission was observed in CYP2C19 PMs from 8 studies confirming the association found in the main analyses (OR = 1.56, 95% CI [1.09; 2.24], p = 0.016).
Discussion
In this study, we leveraged 13 clinically defined studies (10 of European-ancestry and 3 from East Asia) to meta-analyse the association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes with antidepressant response, using remission and percentage improvement as outcome measures. Using the available imputed genotype data, we identified 7 star alleles of CYP2C19 and 16 star alleles of CYP2D6. We found CYP2C19 PMs had a higher remission rate compared to CYP2C19 NMs in all samples (OR = 1.46; 95% CI [1.03, 2.06]), which reached nominal significance but was not significant at the multiple testing threshold. CYP2C19 PMs also had a higher remission rate in antidepressants primarily metabolised by CYP2C19 (OR = 1.47, 95% CI [0.90, 2.39]) but differences were not significant. No difference in percentage improvement was seen between PMs and NMs. Other metabolizer groups in CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 showed no association with either remission or percentage improvement. Although there were differences in the frequency of star alleles and in the proportions of metabolic phenotypes between European and East Asian studies, the impact of metabolic phenotypes was similar.
Our analysis pipeline for calling star alleles from genotype data detected 7 star alleles of CYP2C19 including all tier 1 alleles (*2, *3 and *17) and two tier 2 alleles (*8, *35) demonstrating a good coverage of imputed genotype for CYP2C19 region 34. Nevertheless, only a moderate relationship was detected with CYP2C19 PMs with the remission outcome. Other metabolizer status was not associated with the outcome. When testing the PMs restricted to antidepressants largely metabolised by CYP2C19, a similar effect size was detected but showed no significance, suggesting a loss of power. Other meta-analyses, retrospective studies, and clinical cohorts have replicated a higher antidepressant efficacy of CYP2C19 PMs 18,35–37. However, a null effect or an opposite association of CYP2C19 slow metabolizers for lower antidepressant efficacy was observed in smaller samples 16,38,39. This discrepancy may be due to different criteria for study participants, MDD severity, dropout rates, medication prescribed, and lack of information on other associated factors such as antidepressant dosage. Given the heterogeneity of patients and potential confounding variables, our results need further replication to understand the role of CYP2C19 metabolizers under different circumstances. In addition to treatment efficacy, PMs of CYP2C19 were also associated with worse antidepressant tolerability, although these features were not assessed in our study 18,36. CPIC and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) have recommended reducing the starting dose of escitalopram, citalopram, and sertraline for CYP2C19 PMs because of the increased probability of adverse effects 14,31. Appropriate support could be provided to patients at the beginning of the treatment to reduce the dropout rate and maximize the drug effect. CYP2D6 has higher variability and more star alleles than CYP2C19, including common, rare, and structural variants which make genotype analysis more challenging. In our study, 16 star alleles of CYP2D6 were classified as having no, decreased, or normal function. No structural variants (such as *5 allele) could be detected using imputed genotypes, so increased function alleles were not called. Previous studies have shown that 7% of CYP2D6 variants were structural variants, so the star allele calls, diplotype assignment and metabolic phenotype could be affected by missing structural variants 40,41. Unlike a previous meta-analysis of clinical trials showing strong associations of CYP2D6-guided antidepressant treatment with improved patient outcomes 42, we found no association between CYP2D6 metabolizer status and treatment outcome in all samples or in the CYP2D6-antidepressant group. Thus, our results should be explained with caution and need to be compared with further studies using available genotype data.
Activity score was also applied for the assignment of metabolic phenotype. Using clinical guidelines, each allele from CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 is assigned an activity value and the value is summed across the two alleles carried to give an activity score representing the individual’s metabolic activity 30,32,37. We found no effect of activity score on the outcomes of remission and percentage improvement. These antidepressant results contrast to antipsychotic response, where higher CYP2C19 activity score was associated with lower symptom severity 30. The previous association of CYP2C19 PMs with remission outcome was not detected in the activity score analysis. This is likely because PMs have a low frequency and represent only the lower tail of the activity score distribution, so the effect is diluted when combining phenotype groups.
Our analyses included both European and East Asian ancestry populations. The frequencies of star alleles were clustered by ancestry. For example, European population had lower frequencies of *2, *3 in CYP2C19 and *10 in CYP2D6, but higher frequencies of CYP2C19 *17 and CYP2D6 *4, than the East Asian population, leading to fewer PMs and IMs for CYP2C19 but higher proportions of CYP2C19 UMs and CYP2D6 PMs. These ancestry differences align with the CPIC guideline and other reports 14,43. When connecting the cytochrome enzyme status with antidepressant response, few studies have been performed in the East Asian population. A clinical trial of 100 depression patients from Taipei found CYP2D6 intermediate metabolizers had higher frequency of remitters and CYP2C19 poor metabolizers had higher serum levels of antidepressants 44. In some antipsychotics metabolized by specific cytochrome enzymes, the plasma concentrations of drugs are higher in East Asian populations than in European populations 45. In contrast, modelling has suggested that the metabolic contributions of CYP2C19 on escitalopram would be similar across European and Asian populations 46. As there is little evidence of differentiation by ancestry, current clinical guidelines provide the same antidepressant dosing recommendations across populations 14. Our subgroup meta-analyses between the European and East Asian studies also found no heterogeneity of metabolic effect for both genes but the low sample size in East Asian studies (9% of all samples) was poorly powered compared to the European studies.
Some study limitations should be considered. Primarily, larger sample sizes are needed specifically in different ancestries and drug groups. Even though most studies were of European ancestry, too few CYP2C19 PMs (2.1% in European, 3.1% in all participants) were present to show a statistically significant effect after correcting for multiple testing. Similarly, CYP2C19 UMs (1.1%) and CYP2D6 PMs (< 0.1%) were rare in the East Asian population. Citalopram and escitalopram were the most prescribed drugs, accounting for 54% of all samples and 93% of the CYP2C19 antidepressant group, so the metabolic effect on treatment response was mainly determined by these two drugs. In addition, no data from clinical evaluations or the environment (e.g. dosage, concomitant drugs, smoking, diet) were analysed, and these factors could influence symptom improvement and cytochrome metabolic activity. No significant differences between IMs/UMs and NMs could be detected, and higher power is probably needed to effectively test between metabolizer groups. Side effects were also not available in our data, which are associated with metabolic phenotypes. We analysed only the final depression score, at the end of the study treatment, to determine remission and calculate the percentage improvement. Other studies have suggested using longitudinal measures throughout treatment period as repeated measures in a mixed linear model to improve the statistical power 38. Finally, structural variants in CYP2D6 cannot be detected using genotype data, so no CYP2D6 UMs were identified. Deeper imputation panels that detect structure variants, or further genetic studies using sequencing or a targeted array would be necessary for a full assessment of CYP2D6 metaboliser status 47.
In conclusion, using imputed genotype data, our meta-analysis showed no significant association between cytochrome metabolic phenotypes with antidepressant response. Moderate evidence of an association with CYP2C19 poor metabolizers was indicated, which had higher rates of antidepressant remission. Metabolic phenotypes differed in frequency between European and East Asian populations, but did not differ in their effect on treatment outcomes. More samples with patient information and ancestry diversity could be collected to improve the power and accuracy for a fuller assessment of the effect of metabolic phenotypes on antidepressant response.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Conflict of Interest
CML has served on the scientific advisory board for Myriad Neuroscience, and is a consultant for UCB. KJA has received two research grants in the last 2 years from Janssen Inc., Canada (fellowship grants for trainees), and provided consultancy services in the last three years for Otsuka Canada Pharmaceutical Inc., Lundbeck Canada, and HLS Therapeutics.
AS is or has been consultant/speaker for: Abbott, AbbVie, Angelini, AstraZeneca, Clinical Data, Boehringer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, InnovaPharma, Italfarmaco, Janssen, Lundbeck, Naurex, Pfizer, Polifarma, Sanofi, and Servier.
AMM has received research support from the Sackler Trust and speakers fees from Janssen and Illumina.
MK has received grant funding from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, SENSHIN Medical Research Foundation, the Japan Research Foundation for Clinical Pharmacology and the Japanese Society of Clinical Neuropsychopharmacology and speaker’s honoraria from Sumitomo Pharma, Otsuka, Meiji-Seika Pharma, Eli Lilly, MSD K.K., Pfizer, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Shionogi, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, Takeda Pharmaceutical, Lundbeck Viatris Inc, Eisai Co., Ltd. and Ono Pharmaceutical and participated in an advisory/review board for Otsuka, Sumitomo Pharma, Shionogi and Boehringer Ingelheim.
DS has received grant/research support from GlaxoSmithKline and Lundbeck; and served as a consultant or on advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, and Lundbeck.
CF was a speaker for Janssen.
NP is or has been consultant/speaker for: Takeda, Janssen and Lundbeck
All other authors report no biomedical financial interests or potential conflicts of interest.
Funding
This study was supported by the NIMH (MH124873) and by the NIHR Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London.
Chiara Fabbri and Alessandro Serretti were partly supported by #NEXTGENERATIONEU (NGEU), funded by the Ministry of University and Research (MUR), National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP), project MNESYS (PE0000006) – A Multiscale integrated approach to the study of the nervous system in health and disease (DN. 1553 11.10.2022).
Data and code availability
Analysis code is available on the github: https://github.com/DanyangLi107/PGC_CYP2gene.
Acknowledgements
The collection of the sample from the Group for the Study of Resistant Depression (GSRD) Consortium was supported by an unrestricted grant from Lundbeck for the GSRD. Lundbeck had no further role in the study design and the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data.
The GENDEP (Genome Based Therapeutic Drugs for Depression) study was funded by a European Commission Framework 6 grant (EC Contract Ref. No. LSHB-CT-2003-503428). H. Lundbeck provided nortriptyline and escitalopram for the GENDEP study. GlaxoSmithKline and the UK National Institute for Health Research of the Department of Health contributed to the funding of the sample collection at the Institute of Psychiatry, London. GENDEP Illumina array genotyping was funded in part by a joint grant from the UK Medical Research Council and GlaxoSmithKline (Grant No. G0701420).
The GENPOD (GENetic and clinical Predictors Of treatment response in Depression) trial was funded by the UK Medical Research Council and supported by the UK Mental Health Research Network. The genotyping of GENPOD samples was supported by the Innovative Medicine Initiative Joint Undertaking under Grant No. 115008, of which resources are composed of European Union and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) in-kind contribution and financial contribution from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (Grant No. FP7/2007-2013). EFPIA members Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche have contributed work and samples to the project presented here. The PFZ (Pfizer), GSK (GlaxoSmithKline), and GODS were supported by the Innovative Medicine Initiative Joint Undertaking (IMI-JU) under Grant No. 115008 of which resources are composed of European Union and EFPIA) in-kind contribution and financial contribution from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013). EFPIA members Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and F. Hoffmann La-Roche have contributed work and samples to the project presented here.
The PGRN-AMPS (Pharmacogenomics Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study) study data were obtained via the database of Genotypes and Phenotypes (dbGAP) (Accession No. phs000670.v1.p1). Funding support for the PGRN-AMPS study was provided by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through the PGRN grant to Principal Investigators R. Weinshilboum and L. Wang (Grant No. U19 GM61388). D. Mrazek served as the Principal Investigator for the PGRN-AMPS study within the Mayo Clinic PGRN program. Genome-wide genotyping was performed at the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine, with funding provided by RIKEN. The datasets used for the analyses described in this manuscript were obtained from the dbGaP at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gap/.
Major funding for the Psychiatric Genetics Consortium (PGC) is from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (Grant Nos. U01 MH109528 and U01 MH109532).
Statistical analyses for the PGC were carried out on the NL Genetic Cluster Computer (http://www.geneticcluster.org) hosted by SURFsara.
For the purposes of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Accepted Author Manuscript version arising from this submission.
References
