Back

Large-scale analysis demonstrates the influence of CYP2C19 genotype on specific SSRI side effects

Eijsbouts, C.; Jiang, Y.; Ashenhurst, J.; Granka, J. M.; 23andMe Research Team, ; Pitts, S.; Auton, A.; Abul-Husn, N. S.; Chubb, A.; Wu, R. R.

2024-12-23 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2024.12.20.24319269 medRxiv
Show abstract

The majority of individuals receiving treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve remission from the first medication they try, and over 80% subsequently discontinue pharmacotherapy or switch to a different medication. SSRI discontinuation due to side effects is common. We evaluated the effect of CYP2C19 genotype on SSRI response using self-reported data from 114,627 direct-to-consumer genetics research participants who were prescribed an SSRI primarily metabolized by CYP2C19 (citalopram, escitalopram, or sertraline). Among participants taking citalopram or escitalopram, slower metabolizers experienced side effects significantly more often than faster metabolizers (OR=1.04 per grade, from 0 for poor metabolizers to 5 for ultrarapid metabolizers, 95%CI=[1.02-1.06] and OR=1.05 per grade, 95%CI=[1.02-1.07]) and were more likely to discontinue treatment due to side effects (OR=1.05, 95%CI=[1.03-1.08], e.g. 29.7% of poor vs. 21.6% of ultrarapid metabolizers, and OR=1.07, 95%CI=[1.04-1.11], e.g. 25.7% vs. 20.2%). Slower metabolizers taking escitalopram were more likely to suffer from sleep problems and sexual problems than faster metabolizers. Slower metabolizers taking sertraline reported tremor more often than faster metabolizers. Overall, we find substantial differences in side effect risk between individuals with different CYP2C19 genotypes in a large sample, supporting the notion that individuals seeking treatment for MDD may benefit from preemptive pharmacogenetic testing and genotype-guided dosing recommendations to minimize side effects and reduce discontinuations.

Published in The Pharmacogenomics Journal (predicted rank #1) · training set

Matching journals

The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.