
==== Front
Transl Psychiatry
Transl Psychiatry
Translational Psychiatry
2158-3188
Nature Publishing Group UK London

39025838
2981
10.1038/s41398-024-02981-1
Article
Metabolic activity of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 on antidepressant response from 13 clinical studies using genotype imputation: a meta-analysis
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7470-6645
Li Danyang 12
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5680-3281
Pain Oliver 3
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0276-7865
Fabbri Chiara 14
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6905-6449
Wong Win Lee Edwin 15
Lo Chris Wai Hang 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3622-835X
Ripke Stephan 67
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9963-848X
Cattaneo Annamaria 89
Souery Daniel 10
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5344-7007
Dernovsek Mojca Z. 11
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5303-1834
Henigsberg Neven 12
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6621-3493
Hauser Joanna 13
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5205-8245
Lewis Glyn 14
Mors Ole 15
Perroud Nader 16
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5236-6149
Rietschel Marcella 17
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2998-0546
Uher Rudolf 18
Maier Wolfgang 19
Baune Bernhard T. 202122
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9350-4440
Biernacka Joanna M. 2324
Bondolfi Guido 16
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2550-9132
Domschke Katharina 25
Kato Masaki 26
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7519-2965
Liu Yu-Li 27
Serretti Alessandro 28
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9987-022X
Tsai Shih-Jen 2930
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4911-7985
Weinshilboum Richard 31
the GSRD Consortium, the Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0198-4588
McIntosh Andrew M. 32
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8249-8476
Lewis Cathryn M. cathryn.Lewis@kcl.ac.uk

133
1 https://ror.org/0220mzb33 grid.13097.3c 0000 0001 2322 6764 Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College London, London, GB UK
2 https://ror.org/02tbvhh96 grid.452438.c 0000 0004 1760 8119 Cancer Centre, The First Affiliated Hospital of Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, CN China
3 https://ror.org/0220mzb33 grid.13097.3c 0000 0001 2322 6764 Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute, Department of Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, GB UK
4 https://ror.org/01111rn36 grid.6292.f 0000 0004 1757 1758 Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
5 https://ror.org/01tgyzw49 grid.4280.e 0000 0001 2180 6431 Department of Pharmacology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
6 grid.6363.0 0000 0001 2218 4662 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Universitätsmedizin Berlin Campus Charité Mitte, Berlin, DE Germany
7 https://ror.org/002pd6e78 grid.32224.35 0000 0004 0386 9924 Analytic and Translational Genetics Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA USA
8 grid.419422.8 Biological Psychiatry Laboratory, IRCCS Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy
9 https://ror.org/00wjc7c48 grid.4708.b 0000 0004 1757 2822 Department of Pharmacological and Biomedical Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
10 Laboratoire de Psychologie Medicale, Universitè Libre de Bruxelles and Psy Pluriel, Centre Européen de Psychologie Medicale, Brussels, Italy
11 https://ror.org/05njb9z20 grid.8954.0 0000 0001 0721 6013 University Psychiatric Clinic, University of Ljubliana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
12 https://ror.org/00mv6sv71 grid.4808.4 0000 0001 0657 4636 Department of Psychiatry, Croatian Institute for Brain Research, University of Zagreb Medical School, Zagreb, HR Croatia
13 https://ror.org/02zbb2597 grid.22254.33 0000 0001 2205 0971 Psychiatric Genetic Unit, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland
14 https://ror.org/02jx3x895 grid.83440.3b 0000 0001 2190 1201 Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, GB UK
15 https://ror.org/040r8fr65 grid.154185.c 0000 0004 0512 597X Psychosis Research Unit, Aarhus University Hospital - Psychiatry, Aarhus, Denmark
16 grid.150338.c 0000 0001 0721 9812 Department of Psychiatry, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, CH Switzerland
17 Department of Genetic Epidemiology in Psychiatry, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Central Institute of Mental Health, Mannheim, Denmark
18 https://ror.org/01e6qks80 grid.55602.34 0000 0004 1936 8200 Department of Psychiatry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS Canada
19 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Bonn, Bonn, Denmark
20 Department of Psychiatry, University of Münster, Münster, Denmark
21 grid.1008.9 0000 0001 2179 088X Florey Institute for Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
22 https://ror.org/01ej9dk98 grid.1008.9 0000 0001 2179 088X Department of Psychiatry, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
23 https://ror.org/02qp3tb03 grid.66875.3a 0000 0004 0459 167X Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
24 https://ror.org/02qp3tb03 grid.66875.3a 0000 0004 0459 167X Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
25 Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical Center, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Denmark
26 https://ror.org/001xjdh50 grid.410783.9 0000 0001 2172 5041 Department of Neuropsychiatry, Kansai Medical University, Osaka, Japan
27 https://ror.org/02r6fpx29 grid.59784.37 0000 0004 0622 9172 Center for Neuropsychiatric Research, National Health Research Institutes, Miaoli, Taiwan
28 https://ror.org/04vd28p53 grid.440863.d 0000 0004 0460 360X Department of Medicine and Surgery, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy
29 https://ror.org/03ymy8z76 grid.278247.c 0000 0004 0604 5314 Department of Psychiatry, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan
30 grid.260539.b 0000 0001 2059 7017 Division of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan
31 https://ror.org/02qp3tb03 grid.66875.3a 0000 0004 0459 167X Department of Molecular Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN USA
32 https://ror.org/01nrxwf90 grid.4305.2 0000 0004 1936 7988 Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, GB UK
33 https://ror.org/0220mzb33 grid.13097.3c 0000 0001 2322 6764 Department of Medical & Molecular Genetics, King’s College London, London, GB UK
19 7 2024
19 7 2024
2024
14 29627 6 2023
10 6 2024
18 6 2024
© The Author(s) 2024, corrected publication 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
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 clinical and genetic data from 13 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 metabolic phenotypes (poor, intermediate, normal, and rapid+ultrarapid) of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6. CYP2D6 structural variants cannot be imputed from genotype data, limiting the determination of metabolic phenotypes, and precluding testing for association with response. The association of CYP2C19 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 but did not survive after multiple testing correction (OR = 1.46, 95% CI [1.03, 2.06], p = 0.033, heterogeneity I2 = 0%, subgroup difference p = 0.72). No metabolic phenotype was associated with percentage improvement from baseline. After stratifying by antidepressants primarily metabolized by CYP2C19, no association was found between metabolic phenotypes and antidepressant response. Metabolic phenotypes showed differences in frequency, but not effect, between European- and East Asian-ancestry studies. In conclusion, metabolic phenotypes imputed from genetic variants using genotype were not associated with antidepressant response. CYP2C19 poor metabolizers could potentially contribute to antidepressant efficacy with more evidence needed. Sequencing and targeted pharmacogenetic testing, alongside information on side effects, antidepressant dosage, depression measures, and diverse ancestry studies, would more fully capture the influence of metabolic phenotypes.

Subject terms

Depression
Predictive markers
https://doi.org/10.13039/100004440 Wellcome Trust (Wellcome) 226770/Z/22/Z Lewis Glyn https://doi.org/10.13039/100000025 U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) MH124873 Lewis Glyn issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

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 but a substantial proportion require further treatment, with many developing treatment-resistant depression [2–5]. 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 [6]. Differences in response rate may be due to many factors including drug-drug interactions [7], depression subtypes [8, 9], comorbidity [10], smoking [11], 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 [12]. In antidepressants, current evidence and prescribing guidelines support cytochrome P450 (CYP) genes for pharmacogenetic testing, in which CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 have been widely examined for drug efficacy and side effects [12–15]. Both CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 are highly polymorphic, with genetic haplotypes defined by the star allele nomenclature [16]. These star alleles can be classified into different metabolic phenotypes, such as poor metabolizers (PMs), intermediate metabolizers (IMs), normal metabolizers (NMs), rapid and ultrarapid metabolizers (RMs/UMs) according to Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines [14, 15]. 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. RMs and 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 [17]. 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 [18]. However, treatment effectiveness of these antidepressants was not associated with CYP2C19 genotypes in a large retrospective study based on participant self-report [19].

Guidelines have been developed for antidepressant use based on CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 metabolizing status. For instance, CPIC guidelines for CYP2C19 suggest a 50% dose reduction of citalopram, escitalopram and sertraline for PMs, and alternative antidepressants that are not predominantly metabolized by CYP2C19 are advised for UMs [15]. However, evidence is still accruing to confirm the role of pharmacogenetic testing to guide antidepressant prescribing [12].

Both CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 require in-depth assessment of variation to fully determine star alleles and metabolizer status but it is complicated by structural variants and pseudogenes, particularly for CYP2D6. Full assessment cannot be achieved through genotyping but requires pharmacogenetic-specific tests (e.g., targeted arrays, sequencing) [20–22]. However, many research studies have genome-wide genotyping and lack full pharmacogenetic assessment. In this study, we combined clinical and genetic data from 13 clinical studies, with 5843 participants, of European and East Asian ancestry. Imputation from genome-wide genotyping was used to estimate the metabolic status of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6. Association of CYP2C19 metabolic phenotypes with clinically evaluated treatment response was performed to investigate whether genotype-determined PMs, IMs, and RMs/UMs 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 genotype-determined metabolizer status could add useful information for individualized prescribing of antidepressants.

Methods

Samples

The clinical studies analyzed 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. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. 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 [23–31]. 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 [32]. 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 [33]. 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) [34]. 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 rapid and ultrarapid metabolizers 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) of CYPC19 were classified based on CPIC and CYP2C19 rapid+ultrarapid metabolizers were defined as individuals carrying at least one increased functional allele (*17) [15]. CYP2D6 phenotypes (PM, IM, NM) were determined following consensus recommendations from the CPIC and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) [35]. 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 [17]. 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). The proportion of misclassification in CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes can be found in Supplementary Table 3.

Statistical analyses

Associations

Given the suboptimal performance of genotype-based metabolic phenotype imputation in CYP2D6, we exclusively focused on CYP2C19 in the association and meta-analyses to ensure the validity of the results. We used the NMs in CYP2C19 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 metabolic phenotypes in each study, including age, sex, and MDD baseline severity as covariates. For percentage improvement, linear regression with CYP2C19 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 metabolized by CYP2C19, based on the clinical annotation of Level 1 A in PharmGKB [13, 36](Supplementary Table 4). Stratifying participants by CYP2C19-metabolized antidepressants, we repeated the analyses of remission and percentage improvement in 10 studies with CYP2C19-metabolized antidepressants (3390 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 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 3 independent tests of metabolic phenotypes compared with NMs (3 phenotypes in CYP2C19), giving a Bonferroni corrected p-value of 0.017 (0.05/3). 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

Four sensitivity analyses were performed. Firstly, each participant’s activity score was calculated as a continuous measure to assess metabolic activity and compared to the metabolizer groups. We tested CYP2C19 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. Thirdly, 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. Finally, the association of CYP2C19 metabolic phenotype with citalopram and escitalopram were measured to compare the effect with all samples and CYP2C19 antidepressant group.

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 studies. Structural variants including *5 in CYP2D6 cannot be imputed from genotype, making assessment of CYP2D6 star alleles and metabolizer status incomplete. A total of 5843 individuals with remission or percentage improvement outcome in 13 studies were analyzed. Four metabolizer groups (PMs, IMs, NMs, RMs+UMs) for CYP2C19 and three metabolizer groups (PMs, IMs, and NMs) for CYP2D6 were translated from star alleles. In both genes, the most common metabolizer group was NMs, and the rarest was PMs (Table 1). Compared with the East Asians, the European-ancestry studies had a lower proportion of CYP2C19 PMs and IMs, and higher proportion of RMs+UMs. CYP2D6 PMs were only found in the European-ancestry studies (Fig. 1, differences between ancestries, Wilcoxon test: CYP2C19 PMs p = 0.007, CYP2C19 IMs p = 0.007, CYP2C19 RMs+UMs p = 0.007, CYP2D6 PMs 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).Table 1 Sample characteristics.

	CYP2C19	CYP2D6 (incomplete assessment*)	
PM (N = 179)	IM (N = 1601)	NM (N = 2289)	RM + UM (N = 1774)	PM (N = 249)	IM (N = 2087)	NM (N = 3507)	
Remission	89 (49.7%)	607 (37.9%)	885 (38.7%)	662 (37.3%)	96 (38.6%)	796 (38.1%)	1351 (38.5%)	
Percentage Improvement	0.12 (1.10)	0.00 (0.98)	−0.01 (1.01)	0.00 (0.99)	−0.02 (0.98)	0.01 (0.98)	0.00 (1.00)	
Age	45.15 (14.53)	44.76 (14.64)	44.44 (14.19)	44.95 (14.17)	43.41 (14.62)	44.51 (14.29)	44.91 (14.31)	
Sex (female)	112 (62.6%)	987 (61.6%)	1438 (62.8%)	1112 (62.7%)	154 (61.8%)	1301 (62.3%)	2194 (62.6%)	
Ancestry (European)	110 (61.5%)	1360 (84.9%)	2078 (90.8%)	1768 (99.7%)	249 (100%)	1902 (91.1%)	3165 (90.2%)	
CYP2D6 (incomplete assessment*)	
PM	7 (3.9%)	55 (3.4%)	96 (4.2%)	91 (5.1%)	-	-	-	
IM	58 (32.4%)	598 (37.4%)	785 (34.3%)	646 (36.4%)	-	-	-	
NM	114 (63.7%)	948 (59.2%)	1408 (61.5%)	1037 (58.5%)	-	-	-	
Mean with standard deviation for continuous variables and frequency with proportion for categorical variables were displayed.

PM Poor metabolizer, IM Intermediate metabolizer, NM Normal metabolizer, RM + UM Rapid+ultrarapid metabolizer.

*Due to undetected variants in genotype, imputation of CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes was less accurate.

Fig. 1 Proportion of metabolic phenotypes in each cohort.

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. PM poor metabolizer, IM intermediate metabolizer, NM normal metabolizer, RM + UM rapid+ultrarapid metabolizer. *Due to undetected variants in genotype, imputation of CYP2D6 metabolic phenotypes was less accurate.

Meta-analyses of CYP2C19 metabolic phenotypes in all samples

Given the incomplete representativeness of CYP2D6 metabolic status using genotype, we focused on CYP2C19 metabolic phenotypes in the association test. The association of metabolizer status with antidepressant response was first assessed in all samples, across all antidepressants. 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, Fig. 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 had no difference from NMs in both outcomes (Fig. 2a). Subgroup meta-analyses found no heterogeneity in the effect of CYP2C19 PMs in all cohorts or between ancestry groups (all cohorts: I2 = 0%, τ2 = 0, p = 0.81; between groups: χ2 = 0.13, p = 0.72). In other metabolic phenotypes, no significant heterogeneity was detected (Supplementary Figure 3).Fig. 2 Association of CYP2C19 metabolizer status with antidepressant outcomes.

a Association of CYP2C19 metabolic phenotypes in all samples. b Association of CYP2C19 metabolic phenotypes stratified by CYP2C19-metabolized antidepressants. PM poor metabolizer, IM intermediate metabolizer, RM + UM rapid+ultrarapid metabolizer, OR odd ratio, SMD standard mean difference, CI confidence interval.

Meta-analyses of CYP2C19 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 [13], meta-analyses were stratified with 7 CYP2C19-metabolized antidepressants (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, Fig. 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 Figure 4. As a comparison, metabolic effect was tested in the antidepressant groups that were not primarily metabolized by CYP2C19. Detailed results are shown in Supplementary Figure 5.

Sensitivity test

Finally, four 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 6). However, activity score of CYP2C19 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). Furthermore, we meta-analyzed 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). Lastly, we tested the effect of CYP2C19 on citalopram and escitalopram antidepressants. No significant findings were detected, with the strongest effects found in CYP2C19 PMs, showing a non-significant increase in the remission rate and percentage improvement compared to NMs (remission: OR = 1.41, 95% CI [0.84, 2.34], p = 0.192, percentage improvement: SMD = 0.069, 95% CI [−0.16, 0.30], p = 0.559, Supplementary Table 8).

Discussion

In this study, we leveraged 13 clinical studies (10 of European-ancestry and 3 from East Asia) to identify the metabolic status of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 through genome-wide genotyping. A meta-analysis was performed for the association between CYP2C19 metabolic phenotypes and 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 metabolized 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 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 ancestry studies, the impact of metabolic phenotypes was similar.

In CYP2C19, our analysis pipeline detected 7 star alleles 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 [37]. Nevertheless, only a moderate relationship was detected with CYP2C19 PMs with the remission outcome. Other metabolizer statuses were not associated with treatment outcomes. When testing the PMs restricted to antidepressants largely metabolized 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 [19, 38–40]. However, a null effect or an opposite association of CYP2C19 slow metabolizers for lower antidepressant efficacy was observed in smaller samples [17, 41, 42]. 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. In addition to treatment efficacy, PMs of CYP2C19 were also associated with worse antidepressant tolerability, although these features were not assessed in our study [19, 39]. 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 [15, 43]. Appropriate support could be provided to patients at the beginning of the treatment to reduce the dropout rate and maximize the drug effect.

In CYP2D6, genotype data had lower ability to identify star alleles. Our study detected 16 star alleles of CYP2D6, which were classified as having no, decreased, or normal function. No structural variants could be detected, so increased function alleles (*xN) were not called, and fewer PMs/IMs were reported (such as undetected deletion *5). Approximately 7% of CYP2D6 variants are structural variants, so the star allele calls, diplotype assignment and metabolic phenotype can be affected by missing structural variants [22, 44]. The low concordance rate of CYP2D6 metabolic phenotype with previous assessment in the GENDEP study [17] (79.9%) indicates a limited allele coverage in the genotype, leading to a higher proportion of NMs and misclassification of other metabolic phenotypes (Supplementary Table 3).

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 [34, 35, 40]. We found no effect of CYP2C19 activity score on the outcomes of remission and percentage improvement but not the limitations of performing this across all drugs. These antidepressant results contrast to antipsychotic response, where higher CYP2C19 activity score was associated with lower symptom severity [34]. 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 RMs+UMs and CYP2D6 PMs. These ancestry differences align with the CPIC guideline and other reports [15, 45]. 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 CYP2C19 poor metabolizers had higher serum levels of antidepressants [46]. In some antipsychotics metabolized by specific cytochrome enzymes, the plasma concentrations of drugs are higher in East Asian populations than in European populations [47]. In contrast, modelling has suggested that the metabolic contributions of CYP2C19 on escitalopram would be similar across European and Asian populations [48]. As there is little evidence of differentiation by ancestry, current clinical guidelines provide the same antidepressant dosing recommendations across populations [15]. Our subgroup meta-analyses between the European and East Asian studies found no difference in metabolic effect for each phenotype of CYP2C19 but the low sample size in East Asian studies (9% of all samples) implies much reduced power compared to the European studies.

Some study limitations should be considered. In addition to the incomplete assessment of star alleles from genotype data considered above, larger sample sizes are needed specifically in different ancestries and drug groups to evaluate drug-specific metabolic effect. Too few CYP2C19 PMs (2.1% in European, 3.1% in all participants) were present to show a statistically significant association after correcting for multiple testing. Similarly, CYP2C19 RMs+UMs (1.1%) 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 analyzed, and these factors could influence symptom improvement and cytochrome metabolic activity. Although no significant heterogeneity was detected in the meta-analyses, we should acknowledge the differences among cohorts in study design, patient selection, and response measures. No significant differences between IMs/RMs+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 analyzed 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 [41]. While our study concentrates on CYP2C19 and CYP2D6, there is potential for extending pharmacogenetic testing to other pharmacokinetic (CYP2B6) and pharmacodynamic genes (SLC6A4, HTR2A) to understand their impact on antidepressant efficacy and tolerability [15]. Finally, the imputed genotype showed a promising utility in detecting CYP2C19 star alleles, but in CYP2D6, no RMs/UMs and fewer PMs/IMs were identified due to undetected rare and structural variants. Deeper imputation panels that detect structure variants, or further genetic studies using sequencing or modern targeted array would be necessary for a full assessment of CYP2D6 metabolizer status [49].

In conclusion, using imputed genotype data, our meta-analysis showed no significant association between CYP2C19 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 of CYP2C19 differed in frequency between European and East Asian populations but did not differ in their effect on treatment outcomes. Research studies with genotype are limited in their assessment of pharmacogenetic variation especially for CYP2D6. Fuller assessment of metabolizer status together with information on clinical factors and broader ancestry diversity could reduce the heterogeneity and improve power to evaluate the effect of metabolic phenotypes on antidepressant response.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Material

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41398-024-02981-1.

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). 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.

Author contributions

CML and DL conceived and designed the study. CF, AC, DS, MZD, NH, JH, GL, OM, NP, MR, RU, WM, BTB, JMB, GB, KD, MK, YLL, AS, SJT, and RW led the original studies and provided the data. DL conducted the analyses with the support from OP and CF. DL and CML wrote the original manuscript. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the NIMH (MH124873), the Wellcome Trust (226770/Z/22/Z) 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 availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

Code availability

Analysis code is available at: https://github.com/DanyangLi107/PGC_CYP2gene.

Competing interests

CML serves on the scientific advisory board for Myriad Neuroscience, and is a consultant for UCB. 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 speaker 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.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This was a secondary analysis of studies shared by investigators with the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium. Each original study had received ethics approval.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A list of members and their affiliations appears in the Supplementary Information.
==== Refs
References

1. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Depression in adults: treatment and management. NICE guideline NG222. 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng222.
2. Fabbri C Hagenaars SP John C Williams AT Shrine N Moles L Genetic and clinical characteristics of treatment-resistant depression using primary care records in two UK cohorts Mol Psychiatry 2021 26 3363 73 10.1038/s41380-021-01062-9 33753889
Fabbri C, Hagenaars SP, John C, Williams AT, Shrine N, Moles L, et al. Genetic and clinical characteristics of treatment-resistant depression using primary care records in two UK cohorts. Mol Psychiatry. 2021;26:3363–73.33753889 10.1038/s41380-021-01062-9
3. Pain O Hodgson K Trubetskoy V Ripke S Marshe VS Adams MJ Identifying the Common Genetic Basis of Antidepressant Response Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci 2022 2 115 26 10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008 35712048
Pain O, Hodgson K, Trubetskoy V, Ripke S, Marshe VS, Adams MJ, et al. Identifying the Common Genetic Basis of Antidepressant Response. Biol Psychiatry Glob Open Sci. 2022;2:115–26.35712048 10.1016/j.bpsgos.2021.07.008
4. Trivedi MH Rush AJ Wisniewski SR Nierenberg AA Warden D Ritz L Evaluation of Outcomes With Citalopram for Depression Using Measurement-Based Care in STAR*D: Implications for Clinical Practice Am J Psychiatry 2006 163 28 40 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.28 16390886
Trivedi MH, Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, Nierenberg AA, Warden D, Ritz L, et al. Evaluation of Outcomes With Citalopram for Depression Using Measurement-Based Care in STAR*D: Implications for Clinical Practice. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:28–40.16390886 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.28
5. Sforzini L Worrell C Kose M Anderson IM Aouizerate B Arolt V A Delphi-method-based consensus guideline for definition of treatment-resistant depression for clinical trials Mol Psychiatry 2022 27 1286 99 10.1038/s41380-021-01381-x 34907394
Sforzini L, Worrell C, Kose M, Anderson IM, Aouizerate B, Arolt V, et al. A Delphi-method-based consensus guideline for definition of treatment-resistant depression for clinical trials. Mol Psychiatry. 2022;27:1286–99.34907394 10.1038/s41380-021-01381-x
6. Carvalho AF Cavalcante JL Castelo MS Lima MCO Augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression: a literature review: Augmentation strategies for TRD J Clin Pharm Ther 2007 32 415 28 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00846.x 17875106
Carvalho AF, Cavalcante JL, Castelo MS, Lima MCO. Augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression: a literature review: Augmentation strategies for TRD. J Clin Pharm Ther. 2007;32:415–28.17875106 10.1111/j.1365-2710.2007.00846.x
7. Bleakley S Antidepressant drug interactions: evidence and clinical significance: Antidepressant drug interactions Prog Neurol Psychiatry 2016 20 21 7 10.1002/pnp.429
Bleakley S. Antidepressant drug interactions: evidence and clinical significance: Antidepressant drug interactions. Prog Neurol Psychiatry. 2016;20:21–7.10.1002/pnp.429
8. Fabbri C Pain O Hagenaars SP Lewis CM Serretti A Transcriptome-wide association study of treatment-resistant depression and depression subtypes for drug repurposing Neuropsychopharmacology 2021 46 1821 9 10.1038/s41386-021-01059-6 34158615
Fabbri C, Pain O, Hagenaars SP, Lewis CM, Serretti A. Transcriptome-wide association study of treatment-resistant depression and depression subtypes for drug repurposing. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2021;46:1821–9.34158615 10.1038/s41386-021-01059-6
9. Fava M Uebelacker LA Alpert JE Nierenberg AA Pava JA Rosenbaum JF Major depressive subtypes and treatment response Biol Psychiatry 1997 42 568 76 10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00440-4 9376453
Fava M, Uebelacker LA, Alpert JE, Nierenberg AA, Pava JA, Rosenbaum JF. Major depressive subtypes and treatment response. Biol Psychiatry. 1997;42:568–76.9376453 10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00440-4
10. Iosifescu DV Bankier B Fava M Impact of medical comorbid disease on antidepressant treatment of major depressive disorder Curr Psychiatry Rep 2004 6 193 201 10.1007/s11920-004-0064-2 15142472
Iosifescu DV, Bankier B, Fava M. Impact of medical comorbid disease on antidepressant treatment of major depressive disorder. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2004;6:193–201.15142472 10.1007/s11920-004-0064-2
11. Oliveira P Ribeiro J Donato H Madeira N Smoking and antidepressants pharmacokinetics: a systematic review Ann Gen Psychiatry 2017 16 17 10.1186/s12991-017-0140-8 28286537
Oliveira P, Ribeiro J, Donato H, Madeira N. Smoking and antidepressants pharmacokinetics: a systematic review. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2017;16:17.28286537 10.1186/s12991-017-0140-8
12. Bousman CA Bengesser SA Aitchison KJ Amare AT Aschauer H Baune BT Review and Consensus on Pharmacogenomic Testing in Psychiatry Pharmacopsychiatry 2021 54 5 17 10.1055/a-1288-1061 33147643
Bousman CA, Bengesser SA, Aitchison KJ, Amare AT, Aschauer H, Baune BT, et al. Review and Consensus on Pharmacogenomic Testing in Psychiatry. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2021;54:5–17.33147643 10.1055/a-1288-1061
13. Bousman CA Zierhut H Müller DJ Navigating the Labyrinth of Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Guide to Test Selection Clin Pharmacol Ther 2019 106 309 12 10.1002/cpt.1432 31004441
Bousman CA, Zierhut H, Müller DJ. Navigating the Labyrinth of Pharmacogenetic Testing: A Guide to Test Selection. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019;106:309–12.31004441 10.1002/cpt.1432
14. Hicks JK Sangkuhl K Swen JJ Ellingrod VL Müller DJ Shimoda K Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guideline (CPIC) for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes and dosing of tricyclic antidepressants: 2016 update Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017 102 37 44 10.1002/cpt.597 27997040
Hicks JK, Sangkuhl K, Swen JJ, Ellingrod VL, Müller DJ, Shimoda K, et al. Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guideline (CPIC) for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes and dosing of tricyclic antidepressants: 2016 update. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;102:37–44.27997040 10.1002/cpt.597
15. Bousman CA Stevenson JM Ramsey LB Sangkuhl K Hicks JK Strawn JR Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP2B6, SLC6A4, and HTR2A Genotypes and Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants Clin Pharmacol Ther 2023 114 51 68 10.1002/cpt.2903 37032427
Bousman CA, Stevenson JM, Ramsey LB, Sangkuhl K, Hicks JK, Strawn JR, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP2B6, SLC6A4, and HTR2A Genotypes and Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2023;114:51–68.37032427 10.1002/cpt.2903
16. Kalman LV Agúndez JAG Appell ML Black JL Bell GC Boukouvala S Pharmacogenetic allele nomenclature: International workgroup recommendations for test result reporting Clin Pharmacol Ther 2016 99 172 85 10.1002/cpt.280 26479518
Kalman LV, Agúndez JAG, Appell ML, Black JL, Bell GC, Boukouvala S, et al. Pharmacogenetic allele nomenclature: International workgroup recommendations for test result reporting. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99:172–85.26479518 10.1002/cpt.280
17. Hodgson K Tansey K Dernovšek MZ Hauser J Henigsberg N Maier W Genetic differences in cytochrome P450 enzymes and antidepressant treatment response J Psychopharmacol (Oxf) 2014 28 133 41 10.1177/0269881113512041
Hodgson K, Tansey K, Dernovšek MZ, Hauser J, Henigsberg N, Maier W, et al. Genetic differences in cytochrome P450 enzymes and antidepressant treatment response. J Psychopharmacol (Oxf). 2014;28:133–41.10.1177/0269881113512041
18. Milosavljević F Bukvić N Pavlović Z Miljević C Pešić V Molden E Association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 Poor and Intermediate Metabolizer Status With Antidepressant and Antipsychotic Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis JAMA Psychiatry 2021 78 270 80 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.3643 33237321
Milosavljević F, Bukvić N, Pavlović Z, Miljević C, Pešić V, Molden E. et al. Association of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 Poor and Intermediate Metabolizer Status With Antidepressant and Antipsychotic Exposure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2021;78:270–80.33237321 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.3643
19. Campos AI Byrne EM Mitchell BL Wray NR Lind PA Licinio J Impact of CYP2C19 metaboliser status on SSRI response: a retrospective study of 9500 participants of the Australian Genetics of Depression Study Pharmacogenomics J 2022 22 130 5 10.1038/s41397-022-00267-7 35094016
Campos AI, Byrne EM, Mitchell BL, Wray NR, Lind PA, Licinio J, et al. Impact of CYP2C19 metaboliser status on SSRI response: a retrospective study of 9500 participants of the Australian Genetics of Depression Study. Pharmacogenomics J. 2022;22:130–5.35094016 10.1038/s41397-022-00267-7
20. Carvalho Henriques B Buchner A Hu X Wang Y Yavorskyy V Wallace K Methodology for clinical genotyping of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 Transl Psychiatry 2021 11 596 10.1038/s41398-021-01717-9 34811360
Carvalho Henriques B, Buchner A, Hu X, Wang Y, Yavorskyy V, Wallace K, et al. Methodology for clinical genotyping of CYP2D6 and CYP2C19. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11:596.34811360 10.1038/s41398-021-01717-9
21. Nofziger C Turner AJ Sangkuhl K Whirl‐Carrillo M Agúndez JAG Black JL PharmVar GeneFocus: CYP2D6 Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020 107 154 70 10.1002/cpt.1643 31544239
Nofziger C, Turner AJ, Sangkuhl K, Whirl‐Carrillo M, Agúndez JAG, Black JL, et al. PharmVar GeneFocus: CYP2D6. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2020;107:154–70.31544239 10.1002/cpt.1643
22. Pratt VM Cavallari LH Del Tredici AL Gaedigk A Hachad H Ji Y Recommendations for Clinical CYP2D6 Genotyping Allele Selection: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group of the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association, and the European Society for Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Therapy J Mol. Diagn 2021 23 1047 64 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.05.013 34118403
Pratt VM, Cavallari LH, Del Tredici AL, Gaedigk A, Hachad H, Ji Y, et al. Recommendations for Clinical CYP2D6 Genotyping Allele Selection: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group of the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association, and the European Society for Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Therapy. J Mol. Diagn. 2021;23:1047–64.34118403 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2021.05.013
23. Baffa A Hohoff C Baune BT Müller-Tidow C Tidow N Freitag C Norepinephrine and Serotonin Transporter Genes: Impact on Treatment Response in Depression Neuropsychobiology 2010 62 121 31 10.1159/000317285 20588071
Baffa A, Hohoff C, Baune BT, Müller-Tidow C, Tidow N, Freitag C, et al. Norepinephrine and Serotonin Transporter Genes: Impact on Treatment Response in Depression. Neuropsychobiology. 2010;62:121–31.20588071 10.1159/000317285
24. Baune BT Hohoff C Berger K Neumann A Mortensen S Roehrs T Association of the COMT val158met Variant with Antidepressant Treatment Response in Major Depression Neuropsychopharmacology 2008 33 924 32 10.1038/sj.npp.1301462 17522626
Baune BT, Hohoff C, Berger K, Neumann A, Mortensen S, Roehrs T, et al. Association of the COMT val158met Variant with Antidepressant Treatment Response in Major Depression. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33:924–32.17522626 10.1038/sj.npp.1301462
25. Biernacka JM Sangkuhl K Jenkins G Whaley RM Barman P Batzler A The International SSRI Pharmacogenomics Consortium (ISPC): a genome-wide association study of antidepressant treatment response Transl Psychiatry 2015 5 e553 10.1038/tp.2015.47 25897834
Biernacka JM, Sangkuhl K, Jenkins G, Whaley RM, Barman P, Batzler A, et al. The International SSRI Pharmacogenomics Consortium (ISPC): a genome-wide association study of antidepressant treatment response. Transl Psychiatry. 2015;5:e553.25897834 10.1038/tp.2015.47
26. Domschke K Hohoff C Mortensen LS Roehrs T Deckert J Arolt V Monoamine oxidase A variant influences antidepressant treatment response in female patients with Major Depression Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2008 32 224 8 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.08.011 17884271
Domschke K, Hohoff C, Mortensen LS, Roehrs T, Deckert J, Arolt V, et al. Monoamine oxidase A variant influences antidepressant treatment response in female patients with Major Depression. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2008;32:224–8.17884271 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2007.08.011
27. Fabbri C Kasper S Kautzky A Bartova L Dold M Zohar J Genome-wide association study of treatment-resistance in depression and meta-analysis of three independent samples Br J Psychiatry 2019 214 36 41 10.1192/bjp.2018.256 30468137
Fabbri C, Kasper S, Kautzky A, Bartova L, Dold M, Zohar J, et al. Genome-wide association study of treatment-resistance in depression and meta-analysis of three independent samples. Br J Psychiatry. 2019;214:36–41.30468137 10.1192/bjp.2018.256
28. Garriock HA Kraft JB Shyn SI Peters EJ Yokoyama JS Jenkins GD A Genome-Wide Association Study of Citalopram Response in Major Depressive Disorder Biol Psychiatry 2010 67 133 8 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.08.029 19846067
Garriock HA, Kraft JB, Shyn SI, Peters EJ, Yokoyama JS, Jenkins GD, et al. A Genome-Wide Association Study of Citalopram Response in Major Depressive Disorder. Biol Psychiatry. 2010;67:133–8.19846067 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.08.029
29. Mrazek DA Biernacka JM McAlpine DE Benitez J Karpyak VM Williams MD Treatment Outcomes of Depression: The Pharmacogenomic Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study J Clin Psychopharmacol 2014 34 313 7 10.1097/JCP.0000000000000099 24743713
Mrazek DA, Biernacka JM, McAlpine DE, Benitez J, Karpyak VM, Williams MD, et al. Treatment Outcomes of Depression: The Pharmacogenomic Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study. J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2014;34:313–7.24743713 10.1097/JCP.0000000000000099
30. Tansey KE, Guipponi M, Perroud N, Bondolfi G, Domenici E, Evans D, et al. Genetic Predictors of Response to Serotonergic and Noradrenergic Antidepressants in Major Depressive Disorder: A Genome-Wide Analysis of Individual-Level Data and a Meta-Analysis. PLoS Med. 2012; 9. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001326.
31. Uher R Perroud N Ng MYM Hauser J Henigsberg N Maier W Genome-wide pharmacogenetics of antidepressant response in the GENDEP project Am J Psychiatry 2010 167 555 64 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09070932 20360315
Uher R, Perroud N, Ng MYM, Hauser J, Henigsberg N, Maier W, et al. Genome-wide pharmacogenetics of antidepressant response in the GENDEP project. Am J Psychiatry. 2010;167:555–64.20360315 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09070932
32. Lam M Awasthi S Watson HJ Goldstein J Panagiotaropoulou G Trubetskoy V RICOPILI: Rapid Imputation for COnsortias PIpeLIne Bioinformatics 2020 36 930 3 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz633 31393554
Lam M, Awasthi S, Watson HJ, Goldstein J, Panagiotaropoulou G, Trubetskoy V, et al. RICOPILI: Rapid Imputation for COnsortias PIpeLIne. Bioinformatics. 2020;36:930–3.31393554 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz633
33. Delaneau O Zagury J-F Robinson MR Marchini JL Dermitzakis ET Accurate, scalable and integrative haplotype estimation Nat Commun 2019 10 5436 10.1038/s41467-019-13225-y 31780650
Delaneau O, Zagury J-F, Robinson MR, Marchini JL, Dermitzakis ET. Accurate, scalable and integrative haplotype estimation. Nat Commun. 2019;10:5436.31780650 10.1038/s41467-019-13225-y
34. Okhuijsen-Pfeifer C van der Horst MZ Bousman CA Lin B van Eijk KR Ripke S Genome-wide association analyses of symptom severity among clozapine-treated patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders Transl Psychiatry 2022 12 145 10.1038/s41398-022-01884-3 35393395
Okhuijsen-Pfeifer C, van der Horst MZ, Bousman CA, Lin B, van Eijk KR, Ripke S, et al. Genome-wide association analyses of symptom severity among clozapine-treated patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Transl Psychiatry. 2022;12:145.35393395 10.1038/s41398-022-01884-3
35. Caudle KE Sangkuhl K Whirl-Carrillo M Swen JJ Haidar CE Klein TE Standardizing CYP2D6 Genotype to Phenotype Translation: Consensus Recommendations from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group Clin Transl Sci 2020 13 116 24 10.1111/cts.12692 31647186
Caudle KE, Sangkuhl K, Whirl-Carrillo M, Swen JJ, Haidar CE, Klein TE, et al. Standardizing CYP2D6 Genotype to Phenotype Translation: Consensus Recommendations from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group. Clin Transl Sci. 2020;13:116–24.31647186 10.1111/cts.12692
36. Whirl-Carrillo M Huddart R Gong L Sangkuhl K Thorn CF Whaley R An Evidence-Based Framework for Evaluating Pharmacogenomics Knowledge for Personalized Medicine Clin Pharmacol Ther 2021 110 563 72 10.1002/cpt.2350 34216021
Whirl-Carrillo M, Huddart R, Gong L, Sangkuhl K, Thorn CF, Whaley R, et al. An Evidence-Based Framework for Evaluating Pharmacogenomics Knowledge for Personalized Medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;110:563–72.34216021 10.1002/cpt.2350
37. Pratt VM Del Tredici AL Hachad H Ji Y Kalman LV Scott SA Recommendations for Clinical CYP2C19 Genotyping Allele Selection: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology J Mol Diagn 2018 20 269 76 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.01.011 29474986
Pratt VM, Del Tredici AL, Hachad H, Ji Y, Kalman LV, Scott SA, et al. Recommendations for Clinical CYP2C19 Genotyping Allele Selection: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J Mol Diagn. 2018;20:269–76.29474986 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2018.01.011
38. Calabrò M Fabbri C Kasper S Zohar J Souery D Montgomery S Metabolizing status of CYP2C19 in response and side effects to medications for depression: Results from a naturalistic study Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2022 56 100 11 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2022.01.008 35152032
Calabrò M, Fabbri C, Kasper S, Zohar J, Souery D, Montgomery S, et al. Metabolizing status of CYP2C19 in response and side effects to medications for depression: Results from a naturalistic study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022;56:100–11.35152032 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2022.01.008
39. Fabbri C Tansey KE Perlis RH Hauser J Henigsberg N Maier W Effect of cytochrome CYP2C19 metabolizing activity on antidepressant response and side effects: Meta-analysis of data from genome-wide association studies Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2018 28 945 54 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.05.009 30135031
Fabbri C, Tansey KE, Perlis RH, Hauser J, Henigsberg N, Maier W, et al. Effect of cytochrome CYP2C19 metabolizing activity on antidepressant response and side effects: Meta-analysis of data from genome-wide association studies. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2018;28:945–54.30135031 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.05.009
40. Mrazek DA Biernacka JM O’kane DJ Black JL Cunningham JM Drews MS CYP2C19 Variation and Citalopram Response Pharmacogenet Genomics 2011 21 1 9 10.1097/FPC.0b013e328340bc5a 21192344
Mrazek DA, Biernacka JM, O’kane DJ, Black JL, Cunningham JM, Drews MS, et al. CYP2C19 Variation and Citalopram Response. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2011;21:1–9.21192344 10.1097/FPC.0b013e328340bc5a
41. Islam F Marshe VS Magarbeh L Frey BN Milev RV Soares CN Effects of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 gene variants on escitalopram and aripiprazole treatment outcome and serum levels: results from the CAN-BIND 1 study Transl Psychiatry 2022 12 366 10.1038/s41398-022-02124-4 36068210
Islam F, Marshe VS, Magarbeh L, Frey BN, Milev RV, Soares CN, et al. Effects of CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 gene variants on escitalopram and aripiprazole treatment outcome and serum levels: results from the CAN-BIND 1 study. Transl Psychiatry. 2022;12:366.36068210 10.1038/s41398-022-02124-4
42. Joković D Milosavljević F Stojanović Z Šupić G Vojvodić D Uzelac B CYP2C19 slow metabolizer phenotype is associated with lower antidepressant efficacy and tolerability Psychiatry Res 2022 312 114535 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114535 35398660
Joković D, Milosavljević F, Stojanović Z, Šupić G, Vojvodić D, Uzelac B, et al. CYP2C19 slow metabolizer phenotype is associated with lower antidepressant efficacy and tolerability. Psychiatry Res. 2022;312:114535.35398660 10.1016/j.psychres.2022.114535
43. Brouwer JMJL, Nijenhuis M, Soree B, Guchelaar HJ, Swen JJ, van Schaik RHN, et al. Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and SSRIs. Eur J Hum Genet. 2021. 10.1038/s41431-021-01004-7.
44. Del Tredici AL Malhotra A Dedek M Espin F Roach D Zhu G Frequency of CYP2D6 Alleles Including Structural Variants in the United States Front Pharmacol 2018 9 305 10.3389/fphar.2018.00305 29674966
Del Tredici AL, Malhotra A, Dedek M, Espin F, Roach D, Zhu G, et al. Frequency of CYP2D6 Alleles Including Structural Variants in the United States. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:305.29674966 10.3389/fphar.2018.00305
45. Zhou Y Ingelman-Sundberg M Lauschke VM Worldwide Distribution of Cytochrome P450 Alleles: A Meta-analysis of Population-scale Sequencing Projects Clin Pharmacol Ther 2017 102 688 700 10.1002/cpt.690 28378927
Zhou Y, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Lauschke VM. Worldwide Distribution of Cytochrome P450 Alleles: A Meta-analysis of Population-scale Sequencing Projects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017;102:688–700.28378927 10.1002/cpt.690
46. Tsai M-H Lin K-M Hsiao M-C Shen WW Lu M-L Tang H-S Genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 enzymes influence metabolism of the antidepressant escitalopram and treatment response Pharmacogenomics 2010 11 537 46 10.2217/pgs.09.168 20350136
Tsai M-H, Lin K-M, Hsiao M-C, Shen WW, Lu M-L, Tang H-S, et al. Genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 enzymes influence metabolism of the antidepressant escitalopram and treatment response. Pharmacogenomics. 2010;11:537–46.20350136 10.2217/pgs.09.168
47. Lin S-K Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Pharmacokinetics of Antipsychotics: Focusing on East Asians J Pers Med 2022 12 1362 10.3390/jpm12091362 36143147
Lin S-K. Racial/Ethnic Differences in the Pharmacokinetics of Antipsychotics: Focusing on East Asians. J Pers Med. 2022;12:1362.36143147 10.3390/jpm12091362
48. Zhou L Sharma P Yeo KR Higashimori M Xu H Al-Huniti N Assessing pharmacokinetic differences in Caucasian and East Asian (Japanese, Chinese and Korean) populations driven by CYP2C19 polymorphism using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling Eur J Pharm Sci 2019 139 105061 10.1016/j.ejps.2019.105061 31479720
Zhou L, Sharma P, Yeo KR, Higashimori M, Xu H, Al-Huniti N, et al. Assessing pharmacokinetic differences in Caucasian and East Asian (Japanese, Chinese and Korean) populations driven by CYP2C19 polymorphism using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2019;139:105061.31479720 10.1016/j.ejps.2019.105061
49. McInnes G Lavertu A Sangkuhl K Klein TE Whirl-Carrillo M Altman RB Pharmacogenetics at Scale: An Analysis of the UK Biobank Clin Pharmacol Ther 2021 109 1528 37 10.1002/cpt.2122 33237584
McInnes G, Lavertu A, Sangkuhl K, Klein TE, Whirl-Carrillo M, Altman RB. Pharmacogenetics at Scale: An Analysis of the UK Biobank. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109:1528–37.33237584 10.1002/cpt.2122
