Blood testing for psychiatric illness

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

PikminOC

MD Attending Physician
Removed
10+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
6,101
Reaction score
3,090
http://www.ridgedx.com/clinician.php
This is one I came across that is supposed to help with MDD testing as a blood test.

Do you know of any others? Sometimes patients ask me about these tests.

Members don't see this ad.
 
The most sensitive way to assess depression is just to ask -- "are you depressed?"
Do you really need a blood test for that?

These blood tests haven't been validated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Interesting but nothing solidified.

"The consensus paper of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry (Mossner et al, 2007) stated that biological markers for depression are of great interest to aid in elucidating the causes of major depression. The authors evaluated currently available biological markers to examine their validity for aiding in the diagnosis of major depression. They specifically focused on neurotrophic factors, serotonergic markers, biochemical markers, immunological markers, neuroimaging, neurophysiological findings, as well as neuropsychological markers. They delineated the most robust biological markers of major depression. These include decreased platelet imipramine binding, decreased 5-HT1A receptor expression, increase of soluble interleukin-2 receptor and interleukin-6 in serum, decreased brain-derived neurotrophic factor in serum, hypocholesterolemia, low blood folate levels, and impaired suppression of the dexamethasone suppression test. However, none of these markers is sufficiently specific to contribute to the diagnosis of major depression."

http://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/300_399/0306.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Members don't see this ad :)
MTHFR is one the deplin rep can tell you about.
 
MTHFR is one the deplin rep can tell you about.
Do Deplin representatives push the MTHFR test? And if so, what are the results that are supposedly indicative of needing Deplin? That is do they believe Deplin is needed for the CT allele or just the TT variant? I could find no specifics on their site.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Bringing up blood testing, how many are using genetic testing?

I was talking to one of the PhDs who supervises one of our hospitals clinical labs and he was of the opinion there was good evidence for using genetic evaluation in psychiatry for medication selection, but that most psychiatrists would just rather stick with trial and error. It's not something I've researched at all, but I know I've never seen an attending here utilize these tests, so I would imagine there is a good reason they aren't being used, which I assume is cost/benefit ratio.
 
I was talking to one of the PhDs who supervises one of our hospitals clinical labs and he was of the opinion there was good evidence for using genetic evaluation in psychiatry for medication selection, but that most psychiatrists would just rather stick with trial and error. It's not something I've researched at all, but I know I've never seen an attending here utilize these tests, so I would imagine there is a good reason they aren't being used, which I assume is cost/benefit ratio.
I do use these tests if the patient has medicare as they pay for it. Private insurance companies won't usually cover these tests (cytochrome polymorphisms) because the evidence does not support improved outcomes. It makes total sense to use them for patients who seem v sensitive to medications or who are not responding to supratherapeutic doses of drugs. However the studies don't overwhelmingly support there use. There are a number of private companies who offer this (it's not usually offered by hospitals) which is another issue. The VA also covers this so can do if pt has tricare. I only use for patients with mood disorders who either haven't tolerated multiple meds or not responded. It is not something to do most of the time first line. They also bundle some more dubious things like SLC6A4 polymorphism and 5HT2A receptor polymorphism.

Patients like it. Gives them a (perhaps false) sense that we are doing more than just picking drugs randomly.
 
the idea of a blood test for MDD which is a syndrome is quite ridiculous and I cannot believe people are buying into this. It is a clinical diagnoses (there are many clinical diagnoses in the rest of medicine too) and I wonder what patients would think if they presented depressed and the MD said "we need to do a blood test to see if you're depressed". I could see how a test that could tell if someone had bipolar disorder (first presenting with depressive episode) would be helpful in guiding treatment, but that also has its own issues and unlikely to happen anytime soon if ever. But a blood test for "MDD"! That is the day psychiatry dies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I do use these tests if the patient has medicare as they pay for it. Private insurance companies won't usually cover these tests (cytochrome polymorphisms) because the evidence does not support improved outcomes. It makes total sense to use them for patients who seem v sensitive to medications or who are not responding to supratherapeutic doses of drugs. However the studies don't overwhelmingly support there use. There are a number of private companies who offer this (it's not usually offered by hospitals) which is another issue. The VA also covers this so can do if pt has tricare. I only use for patients with mood disorders who either haven't tolerated multiple meds or not responded. It is not something to do most of the time first line. They also bundle some more dubious things like SLC6A4 polymorphism and 5HT2A receptor polymorphism.

Patients like it. Gives them a (perhaps false) sense that we are doing more than just picking drugs randomly.

Thanks for the insight , do you have a link for a good current general review article on the topic?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
My residency program is quite neuroscience oriented with faculty who very strongly believe in clinical neuroscience, but we are trained to make psychiatric diagnoses based on history (collateral history as most patients are unreliable) and the mental status exam. There is very interesting literature on pharmacogenomics (e.g., the naltrexone story), but most, standard psychopharmacology is crude and does not really target the mechanism of underlying pathophysiology (or at least we can't say for certain that it does), so trial and error attempting to use the literature (as methodologically flawed as most psychopharm trials are) is much more practical. That said, there are certain attendings who will use any excuse to order an anti-NMDA antibody!
 
the idea of a blood test for MDD which is a syndrome is quite ridiculous and I cannot believe people are buying into this. It is a clinical diagnoses (there are many clinical diagnoses in the rest of medicine too) and I wonder what patients would think if they presented depressed and the MD said "we need to do a blood test to see if you're depressed". I could see how a test that could tell if someone had bipolar disorder (first presenting with depressive episode) would be helpful in guiding treatment, but that also has its own issues and unlikely to happen anytime soon if ever. But a blood test for "MDD"! That is the day psychiatry dies.

But if someday you hypothetically had a blood or imaging test that could assess suicide risk (or malingering) that would be the day psychiatry units would stop hemorrhaging resources on BS admissions and really focus resources on those who need psychiatric treatment.

Granted we are talking about minority report fantasy type stuff with that so I'm not holding my breath. But even if the test wasn't that great maybe would help people to have the balls the actually block some of the admissions they really want to now but are scared to from liability standpoint.
 
Last edited:
But if someday you hypothetically had a blood or imaging test that could assess suicide risk (or malingering) that would be the day psychiatry units would stop hemorrhaging resources on BS admissions and really focus resources on those who need psychiatric treatment.

Granted were talking about minority report fantasy type stuff with that so I'm not holding my breath. But even if the test wasn't that great maybe would help people to have the balls the actually block some of the admissions they really want to now but are scared to from liability standpoint.

Last summer I saw news reports about a test to detect the likelihood of suicide based on genetics, but more recently I thought I saw something about a test for detecting whether a person would commit suicide in the following 30 days but I can't find an article on that now.
 
But if someday you hypothetically had a blood or imaging test that could assess suicide risk (or malingering) that would be the day psychiatry units would stop hemorrhaging resources on BS admissions and really focus resources on those who need psychiatric treatment.

Granted were talking about minority report fantasy type stuff with that so I'm not holding my breath. But even if the test wasn't that great maybe would help people to have the balls the actually block some of the admissions they really want to now but are scared to from liability standpoint.
I don't admit patients who I have strong suspicion to think are malingering. Sometimes I have had aggressive patients who have threatened to kill themselves forcibly escorted off hospital grounds by security. The problem with tests in medicine is that they have led to a general deskilling which is why US physicians have such woeful clinical skills. If you can no longer rely on your clinical acumen to decide that the pt is malingering how can you rely on the test to gel with your clinical impression? Tests have FP and FN too and there are lots of variations to take into account.

Psychiatry has being moving in the direction to become more "objective" but the very basis of psychiatry is subjectivity itself. As I wrote recently:

The Myth of ‘Objectivity’ in Medicine
Psychiatry by its very nature deals with subjectivity. Patients present with experiences; experiences that I can never know, nor ever see.13 The field has come under criticism for lacking objectivity, and not having blood tests or imaging or other confirmatory markers for the existence of illness or disorder. In a misguided attempt to look more scientific and objective, psychiatry has turned to the ridiculous task of looking for blood tests or biomarkers for depression and other such mental states. Quite apart from just how absurd it would be to ‘diagnose’ someone with depression or psychosis from a blood test or brain scan, the reliance on so-called objective indicators of disease is a hermeneutical nightmare. The technologization of medicine has led to spiraling healthcare costs, the devaluing of relationships and narratives, and the deskilling of doctors.14

Take the example of hypertension. This is a risk factor rather than a disease, but it is ‘objectively’ measured and thus the point at which blood pressure is considered hypertension in need of treatment should be uniform based on the scientific evidence. Yet if you live in the US and had uncomplicated hypertension, you would be treated when your blood pressure is above 150/90mmHg.15 In the UK, you would be treated if your blood pressure is above 160/100mmHg.16 What constitutes hypertension in need of treatment cannot then be based on science alone. It is constrained by interpretation, an act which itself is constrained by the surrounding social, political, and economic space.

Turning to cancer, which most people would consider a diagnosis made through objective means, the story is even more frightening. One test that has been used in the US until recently to screen for prostate cancer is the prostatic specific antigen (PSA). Screening identifies cancers in people who are not ill, do not need or benefit from diagnosis and are ultimately harmed by treatment. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer is as high as 50% in those diagnosed with prostate cancer. In one of the largest studies of its kind involved 182000 men, 1410 men had to bee screened and 48 unnecessarily treated in order to prevent one death.17 Complications of treatment of prostate cancer routinely include impotence, urinary incontinence, and radiation proctitis. The largest study of its kind to review the effects of mammography for breast cancer found that over a 30 year period 1.3 million women were unnecessarily diagnosed and treated for breast cancer, with 70 000 women in 2008 alone unnecessarily diagnosed with breast cancer.18 Mammography routinely identifies disease in those who would never become ill (have symptoms), or where the cancer would never pose a threat to life. The use of objective tests in medicine is rife with their own problems because they need interpretation. Where there is interpretation, there is error.

Diagnostic tests in the majority of cases were never meant to ‘make’ a diagnosis but to support a diagnosis, which is made from carefully listening to the history of the illness and through physical examination. As medical practice has become more litigious and we have become more reliant on tests to make diagnoses, doctors spend less time listening to their patients, and no longer trust their clinical skills. I went into psychiatry because of the focus on subjectivity, narrative, meaning and relationships. Because these are no longer valued in medicine, they are also less valued in psychiatry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I would much rather get rid of the litigious environment, but unfortunately seems more likely to develop a magic suicidality test than to get rid of defensive medicine in the USA.
 
I was talking to one of the PhDs who supervises one of our hospitals clinical labs and he was of the opinion there was good evidence for using genetic evaluation in psychiatry for medication selection, but that most psychiatrists would just rather stick with trial and error. It's not something I've researched at all, but I know I've never seen an attending here utilize these tests, so I would imagine there is a good reason they aren't being used, which I assume is cost/benefit ratio.

I'm of the mind (until proven otherwise) that ordering genetic testing and waiting on the results is unnecessarily cruel because it delays treatment. The medications, as a whole, will work (minus the caveat that some work better than others) for the person and deliver relief of symptoms and crisis sooner.
 
I don't admit patients who I have strong suspicion to think are malingering. Sometimes I have had aggressive patients who have threatened to kill themselves forcibly escorted off hospital grounds by security. The problem with tests in medicine is that they have led to a general deskilling which is why US physicians have such woeful clinical skills. If you can no longer rely on your clinical acumen to decide that the pt is malingering how can you rely on the test to gel with your clinical impression? Tests have FP and FN too and there are lots of variations to take into account.

Psychiatry has being moving in the direction to become more "objective" but the very basis of psychiatry is subjectivity itself. As I wrote recently:

The Myth of ‘Objectivity’ in Medicine
Psychiatry by its very nature deals with subjectivity. Patients present with experiences; experiences that I can never know, nor ever see.13 The field has come under criticism for lacking objectivity, and not having blood tests or imaging or other confirmatory markers for the existence of illness or disorder. In a misguided attempt to look more scientific and objective, psychiatry has turned to the ridiculous task of looking for blood tests or biomarkers for depression and other such mental states. Quite apart from just how absurd it would be to ‘diagnose’ someone with depression or psychosis from a blood test or brain scan, the reliance on so-called objective indicators of disease is a hermeneutical nightmare. The technologization of medicine has led to spiraling healthcare costs, the devaluing of relationships and narratives, and the deskilling of doctors.14

Take the example of hypertension. This is a risk factor rather than a disease, but it is ‘objectively’ measured and thus the point at which blood pressure is considered hypertension in need of treatment should be uniform based on the scientific evidence. Yet if you live in the US and had uncomplicated hypertension, you would be treated when your blood pressure is above 150/90mmHg.15 In the UK, you would be treated if your blood pressure is above 160/100mmHg.16 What constitutes hypertension in need of treatment cannot then be based on science alone. It is constrained by interpretation, an act which itself is constrained by the surrounding social, political, and economic space.

Turning to cancer, which most people would consider a diagnosis made through objective means, the story is even more frightening. One test that has been used in the US until recently to screen for prostate cancer is the prostatic specific antigen (PSA). Screening identifies cancers in people who are not ill, do not need or benefit from diagnosis and are ultimately harmed by treatment. Overdiagnosis of prostate cancer is as high as 50% in those diagnosed with prostate cancer. In one of the largest studies of its kind involved 182000 men, 1410 men had to bee screened and 48 unnecessarily treated in order to prevent one death.17 Complications of treatment of prostate cancer routinely include impotence, urinary incontinence, and radiation proctitis. The largest study of its kind to review the effects of mammography for breast cancer found that over a 30 year period 1.3 million women were unnecessarily diagnosed and treated for breast cancer, with 70 000 women in 2008 alone unnecessarily diagnosed with breast cancer.18 Mammography routinely identifies disease in those who would never become ill (have symptoms), or where the cancer would never pose a threat to life. The use of objective tests in medicine is rife with their own problems because they need interpretation. Where there is interpretation, there is error.

Diagnostic tests in the majority of cases were never meant to ‘make’ a diagnosis but to support a diagnosis, which is made from carefully listening to the history of the illness and through physical examination. As medical practice has become more litigious and we have become more reliant on tests to make diagnoses, doctors spend less time listening to their patients, and no longer trust their clinical skills. I went into psychiatry because of the focus on subjectivity, narrative, meaning and relationships. Because these are no longer valued in medicine, they are also less valued in psychiatry.
I didn't like this because I love it! Unfortunately much of psychology is chasing down this same route with a hyperfocus on evidence-based psychotherapy (CBT) which many narrowly define as being a manualized treatment. The reality is that some of my patients have lost the will to live and I could call it Major Depressive Disorder, I am pretty sure that this type of existential crisis is not the same thing. When I do have success in cases like that, it usually resolves more by synchronicity or serendiptous events than medications or manualized treatments. There is strong neuroscience to back up the significance of the human interaction that occurs in the room, but I think it scares some clinicians to open themselves up to that connection and that sense of unknowing and uncertainty so we rely on minimizing defenses like overreliance on tests.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think there may be some validity to testing for CYP enzymes levels to see if patients may respond to certain meds better than others due to varied pathways of metabolisms of drugs. I had an attending who subscribed to this, and it seemed to take some guesswork away with starting a patient on a new drugs or switching to something else in the same class. But then n=1 so I'd be curious if this having that information proves to be legitimately helpful clinically.
 
CYP testing makes sense if we make two assumptions that I don't know to be true:

1. The genotype is sufficiently correlated with the phenotype, which we know to be influenced by a number of environmental factors. Also, we can test the phenotype cheaply, so what is the added value of the genotype?

2. There is sufficient correlation between one's metabolism of a medication and its efficacy for that individual. Is efficacy even correlated with serum level?

I mean, I get that it would make sense as a useful test, but the above would need to be addressed because things aren't always as they seem they should be.
 
YouScript has a very interesting interface. I was skeptical of the genetic testing because in my case it was being done for the purpose of MTHFR testing, but I had a lot of other tests done at the same time—I guess all the standard drug metabolism testing. YouScript lets patients see the same interface as doctors do free for 90 days (after that you have to pay). So I can pull my profile up, put in all my meds and see interactions between the meds and also how they are impacted by my genetic variations. It's helpful as well for adding additional meds like a treatment I am supposed to have for h pylori (which involves antacids that do use the same CYP pathways as psych drugs). It's pretty much like the drugs.com interaction checker except letting you see the impact of genetic variation as well, and they also show how strong the evidence is for each interaction or genetic effect. It's fairly detailed info and catches things that drugs.com doesn't. Strangely enough my doctor didn't mention that my genetic variations do actually affect the drugs I'm currently on, but I was able to see all the info myself. They also send you a card to keep in your wallet that has the most important genetic info on the front with a link on the back for doctors to be able to pull up your info (seeing the same interface that I explained). It feels strange to be extolling something I thought was kind of scammy, but I actually like having the results. The company definitely does not oversell the significance of any of the results--it's fairly nuanced. I still check with drugs.com because they have slightly different interpretations. For example, one drug I wanted to ask about the possibility of it being helpful is Trileptal. I looked it up on YouScript and found that it affects glucuronidation and thus the "Area Under the Curve" is reduced by 31-50% for lorazepam--I will admit I don't know exactly what that means but will ask my doctor (although almost certain it means less drug exposure). It also has references for any claims. Drugs.com instead says that lorazepam and Trileptal synergistically increase CNS depression. Anyhow, I don't know what to make of that conflicting information, but it's at least helpful to have it when I talk to my doctor.
 
I'm glad this is generating such good discussion.
The trials above, albeit with small sample groups at Northwestern, do not have the place or name of getting those labs for the rest of us. Am I just missing something?
 
Top