Dataset Information

Clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool in polypharmacy home health patients: A prospective pilot randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In polypharmacy patients under home health management, pharmacogenetic testing coupled with guidance from a clinical decision support tool (CDST) on reducing drug, gene, and cumulative interaction risk may provide valuable insights in prescription drug treatment, reducing re-hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits. We assessed the clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling integrating binary and cumulative drug and gene interaction warnings on home health polypharmacy patients.

Methods and findings

This prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted at one hospital-based home health agency between February 2015 and February 2016. Recruitment came from patient referrals to home health at hospital discharge. Eligible patients were aged 50 years and older and taking or initiating treatment with medications with potential or significant drug-gene-based interactions. Subjects (n = 110) were randomized to pharmacogenetic profiling (n = 57). The study pharmacist reviewed drug-drug, drug-gene, and cumulative drug and/or gene interactions using the YouScript® CDST to provide drug therapy recommendations to clinicians. The control group (n = 53) received treatment as usual including pharmacist guided medication management using a standard drug information resource. The primary outcome measure was the number of re-hospitalizations and ED visits at 30 and 60 days after discharge from the hospital. The mean number of re-hospitalizations per patient in the tested vs. untested group was 0.25 vs. 0.38 at 30 days (relative risk (RR), 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.32-1.28; P = 0.21) and 0.33 vs. 0.70 at 60 days following enrollment (RR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.27-0.82; P = 0.007). The mean number of ED visits per patient in the tested vs. untested group was 0.25 vs. 0.40 at 30 days (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.31-1.21; P = 0.16) and 0.39 vs. 0.66 at 60 days (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.34-0.99; P = 0.045). Differences in composite outcomes at 60 days (exploratory endpoints) were also found. Of the total 124 drug therapy recommendations passed on to clinicians, 96 (77%) were followed. These findings should be verified with additional prospective confirmatory studies involving real-world applications in larger populations to broaden acceptance in routine clinical practice.

Conclusions

Pharmacogenetic testing of polypharmacy patients aged 50 and older, supported by an appropriate CDST, considerably reduced re-hospitalizations and ED visits at 60 days following enrollment resulting in potential health resource utilization savings and improved healthcare.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02378220.

SUBMITTER: Elliott LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5289536 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool in polypharmacy home health patients: A prospective pilot randomized controlled trial.

Elliott Lindsay S LS Henderson John C JC Neradilek Moni B MB Moyer Nicolas A NA Ashcraft Kristine C KC Thirumaran Ranjit K RK

PloS one 20170202 2

<h4>Background</h4>In polypharmacy patients under home health management, pharmacogenetic testing coupled with guidance from a clinical decision support tool (CDST) on reducing drug, gene, and cumulative interaction risk may provide valuable insights in prescription drug treatment, reducing re-hospitalization and emergency department (ED) visits. We assessed the clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling integrating binary and cumulative drug and gene interaction warnings on home health polyph ...[more]

PMID: 28151991

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn polypharmacy patients, medication therapy management (MTM) services provide a comprehensive review of current medications and future treatment goals. Pharmacogenetics (PGx) may further optimize the identification of potential drug therapy problems (DTPs); however, the clinical utility of PGx information with a clinical decision support tool (CDST) in an MTM setting in identifying DTPs has not been systematically assessed.ObjectiveTo assess the clinical utility of an MTM service enhanced by pharmacogenetic test results and a clinical decision support tool.MethodsThis study was a post hoc analysis of the data obtained from an open-label, randomized, observational trial. Polypharmacy patients eligible for MTM service were randomly assigned to 3 intervention arms: standard MTM (SMTM), MTM incorporating CDST (CMTM), and CMTM further enhanced by PGx test results of CYP450 and VKORC1 enzymes (PGxMTM). Allocation for this post hoc analysis was based on patient adherence to the research protocol and completion of a PGx test. The number of DTPs per patient was compared across the 3 arms using analysis of variance. In addition, the frequency of serious DTPs as a categorical variable (grade 3 or above vs. lower grade) was compared across the 3 arms between PGx driven and non-PGx driven DTP recommendations. Statistical significance was tested using the chi-square test. The level of agreement between the DTP seriousness and the acceptance made by prescribers was presented as Cohen's kappa coefficient.ResultsNumbers of patients after cohort reallocation based on completion of PGx testing were 104, 180, and 58 for the SMTM, CMTM, and PGxMTM arms, respectively. On average, 3.08 DTPs were identified for each patient, which was nearly identical across all 3 arms. Blinded clinical pharmacists considered seriousness (grade 3 or 4) in 31% of the PGx-related DTPs in comparison with 4.9% of the non-PGx DTPs (P < 0.001). The more serious (i.e., grade 3 or above) DTP recommendations were more likely to be accepted by prescribers with the odds ratios of 1.95 (P = 0.05) and 2.39 (P = 0.15), when the analysis was performed for all DTPs and DTPs from the PGxMTM arm only, respectively.ConclusionsMTM enhanced by PGx testing and the clinical decision support tool did not increase the number of DTPs identified. However, PGx testing and the decision support software helps pharmacists determine more serious DTPs, and resulting subsequent recommendations were more readily accepted by a prescriber. Future study of the patient safety outcomes and overall health care costs associated with the utility of the decision support is warranted.DisclosuresNo funding was received for conducting the post hoc analysis presented in this study. Magness is employed by Magellan Health, which received funding from Genelex for costs to administrate the medication management program. The open-label randomized trial was sponsored by Genelex (Clinicaltrials.gov ID number NCT02428660). PGx tests were provided and laboratory analysis was performed by Genelex. Valerie Baron is an employee of YouScript, which created the clinical decision support tool used in this study and formerly was part of Genelex. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Project description:ImportanceBetter advance care planning (ACP) can help promote goal-directed care in patients with advanced dementia.ObjectivesTo test whether an ACP video (vs usual care) has an effect on documented advance directives, level of care preferences, goals-of-care discussions, and burdensome treatments among nursing home residents with advanced dementia.Design, setting, and participantsThe Educational Video to Improve Nursing home Care in End-stage dementia (EVINCE) trial was a cluster randomized clinical trial conducted between February 2013 and July 2017, at 64 Boston-area nursing homes (32 facilities per arm). A total of 402 residents with advanced dementia and their proxies (intervention arm, n = 212; control arm, n = 190) were assessed quarterly for 12 months.InterventionsA 12-minute ACP video for proxies with written communication of their preferred level of care (comfort, basic, or intensive) to the primary care team.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of residents with do-not-hospitalize (DNH) directives by 6 months. Secondary outcomes included preference for comfort care, documented directives to withhold tube-feeding and intravenous hydration, documented goals-of-care discussions, and burdensome treatments (hospital transfers, tube-feeding, or parenteral therapy) per 1000 resident-days. Exploratory analyses examined associations between trial arm and documented advance directives when comfort care was preferred.ResultsThe mean age of the 402 study residents was 86.7 years [range, 67-102 years]; 350 were white (87.1%) and 323 were female (80.3%), with DNH directives that by 6 months did not differ between arms (63% in both arms; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.69). Preferences for comfort care, directives to withhold intravenous hydration, and burdensome treatments did not differ between arms. Residents in intervention vs control facilities were more likely to have directives for no tube-feeding at 6 months (70.10% vs 61.90%; AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.82) and all other time periods, and documented goals-of-care discussions at 3 months (16.10% vs 7.90%; AOR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.20-5.54). When comfort care was preferred, residents in the intervention arm were more likely to have both DNH and no tube-feeding directives (72.20% vs 52.80%; AOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.68-5.85).Conclusions and relevanceAn ACP video did not have an effect on preferences, DNH status, or burdensome treatments among residents with advanced dementia, but did increase directives to withhold tube-feeding. When proxies preferred comfort care, advance directives of residents in the intervention arm were more likely to align with that preference.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01774799.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In clinical practice, it is often difficult to predict which patients with cognitive complaints or impairment will progress or remain stable. We assessed the impact of using a clinical decision support system, the PredictND tool, to predict progression in patients with subjective cognitive decline (SCD) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in memory clinics. METHODS:In this prospective multicenter study, we included 429 patients with SCD (n = 230) and MCI (n = 199) (female 54%, age 67 ± 9, MMSE 28 ± 2) and followed them for at least 12 months. Based on all available patient baseline data (demographics, cognitive tests, cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, and MRI), the PredictND tool provides a comprehensive overview of the data and a classification defining the likelihood of progression. At baseline, a clinician defined an expected follow-up diagnosis and estimated the level of confidence in their prediction using a visual analogue scale (VAS, 0-100%), first without and subsequently with the PredictND tool. As outcome measure, we defined clinical progression as progression from SCD to MCI or dementia, and from MCI to dementia. Correspondence between the expected and the actual clinical progression at follow-up defined the prognostic accuracy. RESULTS:After a mean follow-up time of 1.7 ± 0.4 years, 21 (9%) SCD and 63 (32%) MCI had progressed. When using the PredictND tool, the overall prognostic accuracy was unaffected (0.4%, 95%CI - 3.0%; + 3.9%; p = 0.79). However, restricting the analysis to patients with more certain classifications (n = 203), we found an increase of 3% in the accuracy (95%CI - 0.6%; + 6.5%; p = 0.11). Furthermore, for this subgroup, the tool alone showed a statistically significant increase in the prognostic accuracy compared to the evaluation without tool (6.4%, 95%CI 2.1%; 10.7%; p = 0.004). Specifically, the negative predictive value was high. Moreover, confidence in the prediction increased significantly (∆VAS = 4%, p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS:Adding the PredictND tool to the clinical evaluation increased clinicians' confidence. Furthermore, the results indicate that the tool has the potential to improve prediction of progression for patients with more certain classifications.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review in elderly people with polypharmacy.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting359 general practices in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.Participants3904 adults aged 75 years and older using eight or more drugs on a regular basis, recruited by their general practitioner.InterventionA newly developed electronic decision support tool comprising a comprehensive drug review to support general practitioners in deprescribing potentially inappropriate and non-evidence based drugs. Doctors were randomly allocated to either the electronic decision support tool or to provide treatment as usual.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. The key secondary outcome was reduction in the number of drugs.Results3904 adults were enrolled between January and October 2015. 181 practices and 1953 participants were assigned to electronic decision support (intervention group) and 178 practices and 1951 participants to treatment as usual (control group). The primary outcome (composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months) occurred in 871 (44.6%) participants in the intervention group and 944 (48.4%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis the odds ratio of the composite outcome was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.07; P=0.19, 997 of 1953 v 1055 of 1951). In an analysis restricted to participants attending practice according to protocol, a difference was found favouring the intervention (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; 774 of 1682 v 873 of 1712, P=0.03). By 24 months the number of prescribed drugs had decreased in the intervention group compared with control group (uncontrolled mean change -0.42 v 0.06: adjusted mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.26; P<0.001).ConclusionsIn intention-to-treat analysis, a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review of elderly people with polypharmacy showed no conclusive effects on the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. Nonetheless, a reduction in drugs was achieved without detriment to patient outcomes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10137559.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.MethodsA pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk-a web-based tailored computer program-while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician.ResultsKnowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions.ConclusionsLungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694.

Dataset Information

Clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool in polypharmacy home health patients: A prospective pilot randomized controlled trial.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool in polypharmacy home health patients: A prospective pilot randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets