对“药物基因组学案例中与药物相关问题的一致术语”的回应。

IF 4.1 2区 医学 Q2 NEUROSCIENCES Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience Pub Date : 2023-05-01 DOI:10.1503/jpn.230048-l
Theo Korchia, Ridha Joober, Raphaelle Richieri, Priyadharshini Sabesan, Lena Palaniyappan
{"title":"对“药物基因组学案例中与药物相关问题的一致术语”的回应。","authors":"Theo Korchia, Ridha Joober, Raphaelle Richieri, Priyadharshini Sabesan, Lena Palaniyappan","doi":"10.1503/jpn.230048-l","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We appreciate the response of Polasek and colleagues1 to our hypothetical case summary on pharmacogenetics in first-episode psychosis. They raise a pertinent issue on how the term “treatment failure” used in pharmacogenetic parlance differs from its everyday clinical use. They point to our reference to the study by Jukic and colleagues,2 which defined “treatment failure” as a need to switch treatment and observe that this end point likely happened owing to both poor efficacy and increased adverse effects. Our case report highlights clearly that all 3 drugs in question — aripiprazole, risperidone and haloperidol — resulted in greater adverse effects, resulting in discontinuation (i.e., failure of the intended treatment). When treating first-episode psychosis the efficacy of most commonly used antipsychotic agents appears comparable and becomes apparent at lower median doses than what is used in chronic schizophrenia.3 When treatments fail to improve the outcomes, this is mostly because patients are not able to continue with the treatment owing to adverse effects.4 As such, the ultimate treatment choice is made on the basis of tolerance rather than efficacy. In a similar vein, for a clinician treating firstepisode psychosis, the need for pharma cogenomic testing is likely to arise mostly on the basis of adverse effects rather than poor efficacy at high doses, providing the rationale for the context in our hypothetical case report. The statement “risperidone is likely to be too slowly converted to its active metabolite” should not be taken to mean that risperidone itself is not an active moiety. The response by Polasek and colleagues indeed reiterates our intended meaning, should a reader require such clarification. We agree with the need for precision in terminologies when measuring an outcome. The descriptive phrases suggested by Polasek and colleagues — “unexpected poor efficacy” and “intolerable adverse effects” — are likely to be more useful as they both contribute to the lack of the desired treatment outcome. In fact, we highlight both of these as factors that call for pharmacogenetic testing in a patient with first-episode psychosis in our original report. We take this opportunity to highlight that these 2 phenomena are not mutually exclusive, at least in the first episode clinical setting, where patients cite both as prominent reasons for their decisions to discontinue treatment.4,5","PeriodicalId":50073,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience","volume":"48 3","pages":"E153"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/59/3c/48-3-E153.PMC10185349.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to: \\\"Consistent terminology for medication-related problems in pharmacogenomic cases\\\".\",\"authors\":\"Theo Korchia, Ridha Joober, Raphaelle Richieri, Priyadharshini Sabesan, Lena Palaniyappan\",\"doi\":\"10.1503/jpn.230048-l\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We appreciate the response of Polasek and colleagues1 to our hypothetical case summary on pharmacogenetics in first-episode psychosis. They raise a pertinent issue on how the term “treatment failure” used in pharmacogenetic parlance differs from its everyday clinical use. They point to our reference to the study by Jukic and colleagues,2 which defined “treatment failure” as a need to switch treatment and observe that this end point likely happened owing to both poor efficacy and increased adverse effects. Our case report highlights clearly that all 3 drugs in question — aripiprazole, risperidone and haloperidol — resulted in greater adverse effects, resulting in discontinuation (i.e., failure of the intended treatment). When treating first-episode psychosis the efficacy of most commonly used antipsychotic agents appears comparable and becomes apparent at lower median doses than what is used in chronic schizophrenia.3 When treatments fail to improve the outcomes, this is mostly because patients are not able to continue with the treatment owing to adverse effects.4 As such, the ultimate treatment choice is made on the basis of tolerance rather than efficacy. In a similar vein, for a clinician treating firstepisode psychosis, the need for pharma cogenomic testing is likely to arise mostly on the basis of adverse effects rather than poor efficacy at high doses, providing the rationale for the context in our hypothetical case report. The statement “risperidone is likely to be too slowly converted to its active metabolite” should not be taken to mean that risperidone itself is not an active moiety. The response by Polasek and colleagues indeed reiterates our intended meaning, should a reader require such clarification. We agree with the need for precision in terminologies when measuring an outcome. The descriptive phrases suggested by Polasek and colleagues — “unexpected poor efficacy” and “intolerable adverse effects” — are likely to be more useful as they both contribute to the lack of the desired treatment outcome. In fact, we highlight both of these as factors that call for pharmacogenetic testing in a patient with first-episode psychosis in our original report. We take this opportunity to highlight that these 2 phenomena are not mutually exclusive, at least in the first episode clinical setting, where patients cite both as prominent reasons for their decisions to discontinue treatment.4,5\",\"PeriodicalId\":50073,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience\",\"volume\":\"48 3\",\"pages\":\"E153\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/59/3c/48-3-E153.PMC10185349.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.230048-l\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NEUROSCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1503/jpn.230048-l","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Response to: "Consistent terminology for medication-related problems in pharmacogenomic cases".
We appreciate the response of Polasek and colleagues1 to our hypothetical case summary on pharmacogenetics in first-episode psychosis. They raise a pertinent issue on how the term “treatment failure” used in pharmacogenetic parlance differs from its everyday clinical use. They point to our reference to the study by Jukic and colleagues,2 which defined “treatment failure” as a need to switch treatment and observe that this end point likely happened owing to both poor efficacy and increased adverse effects. Our case report highlights clearly that all 3 drugs in question — aripiprazole, risperidone and haloperidol — resulted in greater adverse effects, resulting in discontinuation (i.e., failure of the intended treatment). When treating first-episode psychosis the efficacy of most commonly used antipsychotic agents appears comparable and becomes apparent at lower median doses than what is used in chronic schizophrenia.3 When treatments fail to improve the outcomes, this is mostly because patients are not able to continue with the treatment owing to adverse effects.4 As such, the ultimate treatment choice is made on the basis of tolerance rather than efficacy. In a similar vein, for a clinician treating firstepisode psychosis, the need for pharma cogenomic testing is likely to arise mostly on the basis of adverse effects rather than poor efficacy at high doses, providing the rationale for the context in our hypothetical case report. The statement “risperidone is likely to be too slowly converted to its active metabolite” should not be taken to mean that risperidone itself is not an active moiety. The response by Polasek and colleagues indeed reiterates our intended meaning, should a reader require such clarification. We agree with the need for precision in terminologies when measuring an outcome. The descriptive phrases suggested by Polasek and colleagues — “unexpected poor efficacy” and “intolerable adverse effects” — are likely to be more useful as they both contribute to the lack of the desired treatment outcome. In fact, we highlight both of these as factors that call for pharmacogenetic testing in a patient with first-episode psychosis in our original report. We take this opportunity to highlight that these 2 phenomena are not mutually exclusive, at least in the first episode clinical setting, where patients cite both as prominent reasons for their decisions to discontinue treatment.4,5
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.30%
发文量
51
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience publishes papers at the intersection of psychiatry and neuroscience that advance our understanding of the neural mechanisms involved in the etiology and treatment of psychiatric disorders. This includes studies on patients with psychiatric disorders, healthy humans, and experimental animals as well as studies in vitro. Original research articles, including clinical trials with a mechanistic component, and review papers will be considered.
期刊最新文献
Elevated plasma B12 and betaine levels in women with anorexia nervosa: possible role in illness pathophysiology and epigenetic regulation. Impulse control deficits among patients with nonsuicidal self-injury: a mediation analysis based on structural imaging. Naturalistic computational psychiatry: How to get there? Association of systemic inflammatory markers with white matter hyperintensities and microstructural injury: an analysis of UK Biobank data. Shorter and inflexible intrinsic neural timescales of the self in schizophrenia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1