Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Allan H. Young is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Allan H. Young.


Nature Genetics | 2008

Collaborative genome-wide association analysis supports a role for ANK3 and CACNA1C in bipolar disorder

Manuel A. Ferreira; Michael Conlon O'Donovan; Ian Richard Jones; Douglas M. Ruderfer; Lisa Jones; Jinbo Fan; George Kirov; Roy H. Perlis; Elaine K. Green; Jordan W. Smoller; Detelina Grozeva; Jennifer Stone; Ivan Nikolov; Marian Lindsay Hamshere; Vishwajit L. Nimgaonkar; Valentina Moskvina; Michael E. Thase; Sian Caesar; Gary S. Sachs; Jennifer Franklin; Katherine Gordon-Smith; Kristin Ardlie; Stacey Gabriel; Christine Fraser; Brendan Blumenstiel; Matthew DeFelice; Gerome Breen; Michael Gill; Derek W. Morris; Amanda Elkin

To identify susceptibility loci for bipolar disorder, we tested 1.8 million variants in 4,387 cases and 6,209 controls and identified a region of strong association (rs10994336, P = 9.1 × 10−9) in ANK3 (ankyrin G). We also found further support for the previously reported CACNA1C (alpha 1C subunit of the L-type voltage-gated calcium channel; combined P = 7.0 × 10−8, rs1006737). Our results suggest that ion channelopathies may be involved in the pathogenesis of bipolar disorder.


Journal of Psychopharmacology | 2000

Evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants: A revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines

Anthony J. Cleare; Carmine M. Pariante; Allan H. Young; Ian M. Anderson; D Christmas; P J Cowen; Chris Dickens; I.N. Ferrier; John Geddes; Simon Gilbody; Peter M. Haddad; Cornelius L. E. Katona; Glyn Lewis; Andrea L Malizia; R H McAllister-Williams; Paul Ramchandani; Jan Scott; David Taylor; Rudolf Uher

A revision of the 2008 British Association for Psychopharmacology evidence-based guidelines for treating depressive disorders with antidepressants was undertaken in order to incorporate new evidence and to update the recommendations where appropriate. A consensus meeting involving experts in depressive disorders and their management was held in September 2012. Key areas in treating depression were reviewed and the strength of evidence and clinical implications were considered. The guidelines were then revised after extensive feedback from participants and interested parties. A literature review is provided which identifies the quality of evidence upon which the recommendations are made. These guidelines cover the nature and detection of depressive disorders, acute treatment with antidepressant drugs, choice of drug versus alternative treatment, practical issues in prescribing and management, next-step treatment, relapse prevention, treatment of relapse and stopping treatment. Significant changes since the last guidelines were published in 2008 include the availability of new antidepressant treatment options, improved evidence supporting certain augmentation strategies (drug and non-drug), management of potential long-term side effects, updated guidance for prescribing in elderly and adolescent populations and updated guidance for optimal prescribing. Suggestions for future research priorities are also made.


Journal of Psychopharmacology | 2009

Evidence-based guidelines for treating bipolar disorder: Revised third edition recommendations from the British Association for Psychopharmacology

Guy M. Goodwin; Peter Haddad; I. N. Ferrier; Jeffrey Aronson; T R H Barnes; Andrea Cipriani; David Coghill; Seena Fazel; John Geddes; H. Grunze; Emily A. Holmes; Oliver Howes; S. Hudson; Neil Hunt; Ian Richard Jones; Iain Macmillan; H. McAllister-Williams; D. R. Miklowitz; Richard Morriss; Marcus R. Munafò; Carol Paton; B. J. Saharkian; Kate E. A. Saunders; J M A Sinclair; David Taylor; Eduard Vieta; Allan H. Young

The British Association for Psychopharmacology guidelines specify the scope and targets of treatment for bipolar disorder. The third version is based explicitly on the available evidence and presented, like previous Clinical Practice Guidelines, as recommendations to aid clinical decision making for practitioners: it may also serve as a source of information for patients and carers, and assist audit. The recommendations are presented together with a more detailed review of the corresponding evidence. A consensus meeting, involving experts in bipolar disorder and its treatment, reviewed key areas and considered the strength of evidence and clinical implications. The guidelines were drawn up after extensive feedback from these participants. The best evidence from randomized controlled trials and, where available, observational studies employing quasi-experimental designs was used to evaluate treatment options. The strength of recommendations has been described using the GRADE approach. The guidelines cover the diagnosis of bipolar disorder, clinical management, and strategies for the use of medicines in short-term treatment of episodes, relapse prevention and stopping treatment. The use of medication is integrated with a coherent approach to psychoeducation and behaviour change.


American Journal of Psychiatry | 2013

The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) Task Force Report on Antidepressant Use in Bipolar Disorders

Isabella Pacchiarotti; David J. Bond; Ross J. Baldessarini; Willem A. Nolen; Heinz Grunze; Rasmus Wentzer Licht; Robert M. Post; Michael Berk; Guy M. Goodwin; Gary S. Sachs; Leonardo Tondo; Robert L. Findling; Eric A. Youngstrom; Mauricio Tohen; Juan Undurraga; Ana González-Pinto; Joseph F. Goldberg; Ayşegül Yildiz; Lori L. Altshuler; Joseph R. Calabrese; Philip B. Mitchell; Michael E. Thase; Athanasios Koukopoulos; Francesc Colom; Mark A. Frye; Gin S. Malhi; Konstantinos N. Fountoulakis; Gustavo H. Vázquez; Roy H. Perlis; Terence A. Ketter

OBJECTIVE The risk-benefit profile of antidepressant medications in bipolar disorder is controversial. When conclusive evidence is lacking, expert consensus can guide treatment decisions. The International Society for Bipolar Disorders (ISBD) convened a task force to seek consensus recommendations on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorders. METHOD An expert task force iteratively developed consensus through serial consensus-based revisions using the Delphi method. Initial survey items were based on systematic review of the literature. Subsequent surveys included new or reworded items and items that needed to be rerated. This process resulted in the final ISBD Task Force clinical recommendations on antidepressant use in bipolar disorder. RESULTS There is striking incongruity between the wide use of and the weak evidence base for the efficacy and safety of antidepressant drugs in bipolar disorder. Few well-designed, long-term trials of prophylactic benefits have been conducted, and there is insufficient evidence for treatment benefits with antidepressants combined with mood stabilizers. A major concern is the risk for mood switch to hypomania, mania, and mixed states. Integrating the evidence and the experience of the task force members, a consensus was reached on 12 statements on the use of antidepressants in bipolar disorder. CONCLUSIONS Because of limited data, the task force could not make broad statements endorsing antidepressant use but acknowledged that individual bipolar patients may benefit from antidepressants. Regarding safety, serotonin reuptake inhibitors and bupropion may have lower rates of manic switch than tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants and norepinephrine-serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The frequency and severity of antidepressant-associated mood elevations appear to be greater in bipolar I than bipolar II disorder. Hence, in bipolar I patients antidepressants should be prescribed only as an adjunct to mood-stabilizing medications.


Neuropsychopharmacology | 2004

Improvements in Neurocognitive Function and Mood Following Adjunctive Treatment with Mifepristone (RU-486) in Bipolar Disorder

Allan H. Young; Peter Gallagher; Stuart Watson; Dolores Del-Estal; Owen Bm; I. Nicol Ferrier

High cortisol levels are found in severe mood disorders, particularly bipolar disorder. Hypercortisolaemia may cause or exacerbate both neurocognitive impairment and depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that antiglucocorticoid treatments, particularly corticosteroid receptor antagonists, would improve neurocognitive functioning and attenuate depressive symptoms in this disorder. To test this hypothesis, 20 bipolar patients were treated with 600 mg/day of the corticosteroid receptor antagonist mifepristone (RU-486) or placebo for 1 week in a double-blind crossover design. Over the total 6 weeks of the study, neurocognitive and neuroendocrine function were evaluated at baseline, days 21 and 42. Mood symptoms were evaluated weekly. Nineteen subjects completed the protocol; there were no drop-outs due to adverse events. Following treatment with mifepristone, selective improvement in neurocognitive functioning was observed. Spatial working memory performance was significantly improved compared to placebo (19.8% improvement over placebo). Measures of verbal fluency and spatial recognition memory were also improved after mifepristone. Beneficial effects on mood were found; Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores were significantly reduced compared to baseline (mean reduction of 5.1 points) as were Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores (mean reduction of 6.05 points). No significant change occurred after placebo. These data require replication but provide preliminary evidence that glucocorticoid receptor antagonists may have useful cognitive-enhancing and possibly antidepressant properties in bipolar disorder.


Archives of General Psychiatry | 2011

Prevalence and characteristics of undiagnosed bipolar disorders in patients with a major depressive episode: the BRIDGE study.

Jules Angst; Jean-Michel Azorin; Charles L. Bowden; Giulio Perugi; Eduard Vieta; Alex Gamma; Allan H. Young

CONTEXT Major depressive disorder, the most common psychiatric illness, is often chronic and a major cause of disability. Many patients with major depressive episodes who have an underlying but unrecognized bipolar disorder receive pharmacologic treatment with ineffective regimens that do not include mood stabilizers. OBJECTIVE To determine the frequency of bipolar disorder symptoms in patients seeking treatment for a major depressive episode. DESIGN Multicenter, multinational, transcultural, cross-sectional, diagnostic study. The study arose from the initiative Bipolar Disorders: Improving Diagnosis, Guidance and Education (BRIDGE). SETTING Community and hospital psychiatry departments. PATIENTS Participants included 5635 adults with an ongoing major depressive episode. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The frequency of bipolar disorder was determined by applying both DSM-IV-TR criteria and previously described bipolarity specifier criteria. Variables associated with bipolarity were assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS A total of 903 patients fulfilled DSM-IV-TR criteria for bipolar disorder (16.0%; 95% confidence interval, 15.1%-17.0%), whereas 2647 (47.0%; 95% confidence interval, 45.7%-48.3%) met the bipolarity specifier criteria. Using both definitions, significant associations (odds ratio > 2; P < .001) with bipolarity were observed for family history of mania/hypomania and multiple past mood episodes. The bipolarity specifier additionally identified significant associations for manic/hypomanic states during antidepressant therapy, current mixed mood symptoms, and comorbid substance use disorder. CONCLUSIONS The bipolar-specifier criteria in comparison with DSM-IV-TR criteria were valid and identified an additional 31% of patients with major depressive episodes who scored positive on the bipolarity criteria. Family history, illness course, and clinical status, in addition to DSM-IV-TR criteria, may provide useful information for physicians when assessing evidence of bipolarity in patients with major depressive episodes. Such an assessment is recommended before deciding on treatment.


Psychopharmacology | 1999

The effects of chronic administration of hydrocortisone on cognitive function in normal male volunteers.

Allan H. Young; Barbara J. Sahakian; Trevor W. Robbins; Phil J. Cowen

Abstract Rationale: Corticosteroids are elevated in certain neuropsychiatric disorders and this may contribute to the neuropsychological impairments reported in these disorders. Objective: To examine the effects of hydrocortisone on learning, memory and executive function. Methods: Hydrocortisone 20 mg was administered twice daily for 10 days to normal male volunteers in a randomized, placebo control, crossover, within-subject design. Learning, memory and executive function were measured using selected subtests from the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery. Results: Hydrocortisone caused impairments of visuo-spatial memory. These included increased within search errors and impaired use of strategies on the spatial working memory subtest. In addition, administration of hydrocortisone was associated with more errors in the paired associate learning subtest, although no effect was found on the Tower of London. Hydrocortisone speeded response latencies in certain tests (pattern and spatial recognition memory). Conclusion: These results indicate that chronic administration of hydrocortisone leads to deficits in certain tests of cognitive function sensitive to frontal lobe dysfunction and may contribute to the cognitive impairment reported in certain neuropsychiatric disorders.


The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry | 2010

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine and paroxetine as monotherapy in adults with bipolar depression (EMBOLDEN II).

Susan L. McElroy; Richard H. Weisler; William Chang; Bengt Olausson; Björn Paulsson; Martin Brecher; Vasavan Agambaram; Charles Merideth; Arvid Nordenhem; Allan H. Young

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and paroxetine monotherapy for major depression in bipolar disorder. METHOD 740 patients (478 bipolar I, 262 bipolar II) with major depressive episodes (DSM-IV) were randomly assigned to quetiapine 300 mg/d (n = 245), quetiapine 600 mg/d (n = 247), paroxetine 20 mg/d (n = 122), or placebo (n = 126) for 8 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The study was conducted from May 2005 to May 2007. RESULTS Mean MADRS score change from baseline at 8 weeks was -16.19 for quetiapine 300 mg, -16.31 for quetiapine 600 mg, -13.76 for paroxetine, and -12.60 for placebo (P < .001 for both quetiapine doses, P = .313 for paroxetine, vs placebo). Quetiapine-treated (both doses), but not paroxetine-treated, patients showed significantly greater improvements (P < or = .05) in most secondary outcomes measures at week 8 versus the placebo group. Paroxetine significantly improved Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale scores versus placebo (P < .05) but not MADRS or Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) scores. Both quetiapine doses were associated with greater improvements than paroxetine for MADRS and HDRS scores. The most common adverse events were dry mouth, somnolence, sedation, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and dry mouth, sedation, headache, insomnia, and nausea with paroxetine. The incidence of treatment-emergent mania/hypomania was lower with quetiapine compared with paroxetine and placebo. CONCLUSIONS Quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d), but not paroxetine, was more effective than placebo for treating acute depressive episodes in bipolar I and II disorder. Quetiapine treatment was generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119652.


The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry | 2010

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy in adults in the acute phase of bipolar depression (EMBOLDEN I).

Allan H. Young; Susan L. McElroy; Michael Bauer; Nabil Philips; William Chang; Bengt Olausson; Björn Paulsson; Martin Brecher

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of quetiapine and lithium monotherapy with that of placebo for a major depressive episode in bipolar disorder. METHOD 802 patients with DSM-IV-defined bipolar disorder (499 bipolar I, 303 bipolar II) were randomly allocated to quetiapine 300 mg/d (n = 265), quetiapine 600 mg/d (n = 268), lithium 600 to 1800 mg/d (n = 136), or placebo (n = 133) for 8 weeks. Primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score. The study was conducted from August 2005 to May 2007. RESULTS Mean MADRS total score change from baseline at week 8 was -15.4 for quetiapine 300 mg/d, -16.1 for quetiapine 600 mg/d, -13.6 for lithium, and -11.8 for placebo (P < .001 for both quetiapine doses, P = .123 for lithium, vs placebo). Quetiapine 600 mg/d was significantly more effective than lithium in improving MADRS total score at week 8 (P = .013). Quetiapine-treated (both doses), but not lithium-treated, patients showed significant improvements (P < .05) in MADRS response and remission rates, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), Clinical Global Impressions-Bipolar-Severity of Illness and -Change, and Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) scores at week 8 versus placebo. Both quetiapine doses were more effective than lithium at week 8 on the HDRS and HARS. The most common adverse events were somnolence, dry mouth, and dizziness with quetiapine (both doses) and nausea with lithium. CONCLUSIONS Quetiapine (300 or 600 mg/d) was more effective than placebo for the treatment of episodes of acute depression in bipolar disorder. Lithium did not significantly differ from placebo on the main measures of efficacy. Both treatments were generally well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00206141.


Bipolar Disorders | 2009

The role of dopamine in bipolar disorder

David Cousins; Kelly A. Butts; Allan H. Young

OBJECTIVE Despite effective pharmacological treatments for bipolar disorder, we still lack a comprehensive pathophysiological model of the illness. Recent neurobiological research has implicated a number of key brain regions and neuronal components in the behavioural and cognitive manifestations of bipolar disorder. Dopamine has previously been investigated in some depth in bipolar disorder, but of late has not been a primary focus of attention. This article examines the role of dopamine in bipolar disorder, incorporating recent advances into established models where possible. METHODS A critical evaluation of the literature was undertaken, including a review of behavioural, neurochemical, receptor, and imaging studies, as well as genetic studies focusing on dopamine receptors and related metabolic pathways. In addition, pharmacologic manipulation of the central dopaminergic pathways and comparisons with other disease states such as schizophrenia were considered, principally as a means of exploring the hypothesised models. RESULTS Multiple lines of evidence, including data from pharmacological interventions and structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies, suggest that the dopaminergic system may play a central role in bipolar disorder. CONCLUSION Future research into the pathophysiological mechanisms of bipolar disorder and the development of new treatments for bipolar disorder should focus on the dopaminergic system.

Collaboration


Dive into the Allan H. Young's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Eduard Vieta

University of Barcelona

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Charles L. Bowden

University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Karine Macritchie

University of British Columbia

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge