The effect of non-adherence to antipsychotic treatment on rehospitalization in patients with psychotic disorders

Background and Aims: Many patients with psychotic disorders are non-adherent to antipsychotic (AP) medication(s), potentially contributing to rehospitalization. It is unknown whether non-adherence in different phases of AP use is associated with rehospitalization. The aim of this study was to assess the association between non-adherence to APs and rehospitalization in patients with psychotic disorders. Non-adherence was assessed specifically for the initiation, continued drug use and early discontinuation of AP use. Methods: A retrospective follow-up study was performed. Adult patients were included at discharge if they suffered from schizophrenia, psychotic, or bipolar I disorder; had been hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for ⩾7 days; and were treated with oral APs. Patients discharged between January 2006 and December 2009 from Altrecht Mental Health Care were included. Non-adherence was studied in the three phases of medication use: initiation, continued drug use (implementation) and (early) discontinuation after discharge until the end of follow up or until patients were rehospitalized. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the strength of the association between non-adherence for the different phases of AP use and rehospitalization during follow up and expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 417 patients were included. Patients who did not initiate their APs compared with those who did in the first month (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.19-2.19) and between the first and third month after discharge (RR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.04-2.79) had the highest risk for rehospitalization during follow up. Overall, patients who did not initiate their AP medication within the first year after discharge had a RR of 2.70 (95% CI: 1.97-3.68) for rehospitalization during follow up compared with those that initiated their AP. Conclusion: Not initiating APs right after discharge was associated with an increased risk of rehospitalization. Interventions should aim to promote the initiation of APs soon after discharge to minimize the risk of rehospitalization

The effect of non-adherence to antipsychotic treatment on rehospitalization in patients with psychotic disorders

Background and Aims: Many patients with psychotic disorders are non-adherent to antipsychotic (AP) medication(s), potentially contributing to rehospitalization. It is unknown whether non-adherence in different phases of AP use is associated with rehospitalization. The aim of this study was to assess the association between non-adherence to APs and rehospitalization in patients with psychotic disorders. Non-adherence was assessed specifically for the initiation, continued drug use and early discontinuation of AP use. Methods: A retrospective follow-up study was performed. Adult patients were included at discharge if they suffered from schizophrenia, psychotic, or bipolar I disorder; had been hospitalized in a psychiatric hospital for ⩾7 days; and were treated with oral APs. Patients discharged between January 2006 and December 2009 from Altrecht Mental Health Care were included. Non-adherence was studied in the three phases of medication use: initiation, continued drug use (implementation) and (early) discontinuation after discharge until the end of follow up or until patients were rehospitalized. Cox regression analysis was used to assess the strength of the association between non-adherence for the different phases of AP use and rehospitalization during follow up and expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: A total of 417 patients were included. Patients who did not initiate their APs compared with those who did in the first month (RR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.19-2.19) and between the first and third month after discharge (RR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.04-2.79) had the highest risk for rehospitalization during follow up. Overall, patients who did not initiate their AP medication within the first year after discharge had a RR of 2.70 (95% CI: 1.97-3.68) for rehospitalization during follow up compared with those that initiated their AP. Conclusion: Not initiating APs right after discharge was associated with an increased risk of rehospitalization. Interventions should aim to promote the initiation of APs soon after discharge to minimize the risk of rehospitalization

Optimizing Antiviral Dosing for HSV and CMV Treatment in Immunocompromised Patients

Herpes simplex virus (HSV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) are DNA viruses that are common among humans. Severely immunocompromised patients are at increased risk of developing HSV or CMV disease due to a weakened immune system. Antiviral therapy can be challenging because these drugs have a narrow therapeutic window and show significant pharmacokinetic variability. Above that, immunocompromised patients have various comorbidities like impaired renal function and are exposed to polypharmacy. This scoping review discusses the current pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) knowledge of antiviral drugs for HSV and CMV treatment in immunocompromised patients. HSV and CMV treatment guidelines are discussed, and multiple treatment interventions are proposed: early detection of drug resistance; optimization of dose to target concentration by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of nucleoside analogs; the introduction of new antiviral drugs; alternation between compounds with different toxicity profiles; and combinations of synergistic antiviral drugs. This research will also serve as guidance for future research, which should focus on prospective evaluation of the benefit of each of these interventions in randomized controlled trials

Optimizing Antiviral Dosing for HSV and CMV Treatment in Immunocompromised Patients

Herpes simplex virus (HSV) and cytomegalovirus (CMV) are DNA viruses that are common among humans. Severely immunocompromised patients are at increased risk of developing HSV or CMV disease due to a weakened immune system. Antiviral therapy can be challenging because these drugs have a narrow therapeutic window and show significant pharmacokinetic variability. Above that, immunocompromised patients have various comorbidities like impaired renal function and are exposed to polypharmacy. This scoping review discusses the current pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) knowledge of antiviral drugs for HSV and CMV treatment in immunocompromised patients. HSV and CMV treatment guidelines are discussed, and multiple treatment interventions are proposed: early detection of drug resistance; optimization of dose to target concentration by therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of nucleoside analogs; the introduction of new antiviral drugs; alternation between compounds with different toxicity profiles; and combinations of synergistic antiviral drugs. This research will also serve as guidance for future research, which should focus on prospective evaluation of the benefit of each of these interventions in randomized controlled trials

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene-drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug-gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug-gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug-gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54-0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61-0·79]; p <0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. FUNDING: European Union Horizon 2020

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p &lt;0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020

A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study

© 2023Background: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Funding: European Union Horizon 2020