Developing a Prototype System for Integrating Pharmacogenomics Findings into Clinical Practice

Findings from pharmacogenomics (PGx) studies have the potential to be applied to individualize drug therapy to improve efficacy and reduce adverse drug events. Researchers have identified factors influencing uptake of genomics in medicine, but little is known about the specific technical barriers to incorporating PGx into existing clinical frameworks. We present the design and development of a prototype PGx clinical decision support (CDS) system that builds on existing clinical infrastructure and incorporates semi-active and active CDS. Informing this work, we updated previous evaluations of PGx knowledge characteristics, and of how the CDS capabilities of three local clinical systems align with data and functional requirements for PGx CDS. We summarize characteristics of PGx knowledge and technical needs for implementing PGx CDS within existing clinical frameworks. PGx decision support rules derived from FDA drug labels primarily involve drug metabolizing genes, vary in maturity, and the majority support the post-analytic phase of genetic testing. Computerized provider order entry capabilities are key functional requirements for PGx CDS and were best supported by one of the three systems we evaluated. We identified two technical needs when building on this system, the need for (1) new or existing standards for data exchange to connect clinical data to PGx knowledge, and (2) a method for implementing semi-active CDS. Our analyses enhance our understanding of principles for designing and implementing CDS for drug therapy individualization and our current understanding of PGx characteristics in a clinical context. Characteristics of PGx knowledge and capabilities of current clinical systems can help govern decisions about CDS implementation, and can help guide decisions made by groups that develop and maintain knowledge resources such that delivery of content for clinical care is supported

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 5: advanced analytic methods.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Advanced analytic methods for synthesizing evidence about complex interventions continue to be developed. In this paper, we emphasize that the specific research question posed in the review should be used as a guide for choosing the appropriate analytic method. METHODS: We present advanced analytic approaches that address four common questions that guide reviews of complex interventions: (1) How effective is the intervention? (2) For whom does the intervention work and in what contexts? (3) What happens when the intervention is implemented? and (4) What decisions are possible given the results of the synthesis? CONCLUSION: The analytic approaches presented in this paper are particularly useful when each primary study differs in components, mechanisms of action, context, implementation, timing, and many other domains

Effects of antiplatelet therapy on stroke risk by brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases: subgroup analyses of the RESTART randomised, open-label trial

Background Findings from the RESTART trial suggest that starting antiplatelet therapy might reduce the risk of recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage compared with avoiding antiplatelet therapy. Brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases (such as cerebral microbleeds) are associated with greater risks of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. We did subgroup analyses of the RESTART trial to explore whether these brain imaging features modify the effects of antiplatelet therapy

Global, regional, and national burden of traumatic brain injury and spinal cord injury, 1990-2016 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

Background Traumatic brain injury (TBI) and spinal cord injury (SCI) are increasingly recognised as global health priorities in view of the preventability of most injuries and the complex and expensive medical care they necessitate. We aimed to measure the incidence, prevalence, and years of life lived with disability (YLDs) for TBI and SCI from all causes of injury in every country, to describe how these measures have changed between 1990 and 2016, and to estimate the proportion of TBI and SCI cases caused by different types of injury. Methods We used results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors (GBD) Study 2016 to measure the global, regional, and national burden of TBI and SCI by age and sex. We measured the incidence and prevalence of all causes of injury requiring medical care in inpatient and outpatient records, literature studies, and survey data. By use of clinical record data, we estimated the proportion of each cause of injury that required medical care that would result in TBI or SCI being considered as the nature of injury. We used literature studies to establish standardised mortality ratios and applied differential equations to convert incidence to prevalence of long-term disability. Finally, we applied GBD disability weights to calculate YLDs. We used a Bayesian meta-regression tool for epidemiological modelling, used cause-specific mortality rates for non-fatal estimation, and adjusted our results for disability experienced with comorbid conditions. We also analysed results on the basis of the Socio-demographic Index, a compound measure of income per capita, education, and fertility. Findings In 2016, there were 27.08 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 24.30-30.30 million) new cases of TBI and 0.93 million (0.78-1.16 million) new cases of SCI, with age-standardised incidence rates of 369 (331-412) per 100 000 population for TBI and 13 (11-16) per 100 000 for SCI. In 2016, the number of prevalent cases of TBI was 55.50 million (53.40-57.62 million) and of SCI was 27.04 million (24 .98-30 .15 million). From 1990 to 2016, the age-standardised prevalence of TBI increased by 8.4% (95% UI 7.7 to 9.2), whereas that of SCI did not change significantly (-0.2% [-2.1 to 2.7]). Age-standardised incidence rates increased by 3.6% (1.8 to 5.5) for TBI, but did not change significantly for SCI (-3.6% [-7.4 to 4.0]). TBI caused 8.1 million (95% UI 6. 0-10. 4 million) YLDs and SCI caused 9.5 million (6.7-12.4 million) YLDs in 2016, corresponding to age-standardised rates of 111 (82-141) per 100 000 for TBI and 130 (90-170) per 100 000 for SCI. Falls and road injuries were the leading causes of new cases of TBI and SCI in most regions. Interpretation TBI and SCI constitute a considerable portion of the global injury burden and are caused primarily by falls and road injuries. The increase in incidence of TBI over time might continue in view of increases in population density, population ageing, and increasing use of motor vehicles, motorcycles, and bicycles. The number of individuals living with SCI is expected to increase in view of population growth, which is concerning because of the specialised care that people with SCI can require. Our study was limited by data sparsity in some regions, and it will be important to invest greater resources in collection of data for TBI and SCI to improve the accuracy of future assessments. Copyright (C) 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.Peer reviewe

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Effects of antiplatelet therapy on stroke risk by brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases : subgroup analyses of the RESTART randomised, open-label trial

Background: Findings from the RESTART trial suggest that starting antiplatelet therapy might reduce the risk of recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage compared with avoiding antiplatelet therapy. Brain imaging features of intracerebral haemorrhage and cerebral small vessel diseases (such as cerebral microbleeds) are associated with greater risks of recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage. We did subgroup analyses of the RESTART trial to explore whether these brain imaging features modify the effects of antiplatelet therapy. Methods: RESTART was a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint, parallel-group trial at 122 hospitals in the UK that assessed whether starting antiplatelet therapy might reduce the risk of recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage compared with avoiding antiplatelet therapy. For this prespecified subgroup analysis, consultant neuroradiologists masked to treatment allocation reviewed brain CT or MRI scans performed before randomisation to confirm participant eligibility and rate features of the intracerebral haemorrhage and surrounding brain. We followed participants for primary (recurrent symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage) and secondary (ischaemic stroke) outcomes for up to 5 years (reported elsewhere). For this report, we analysed eligible participants with intracerebral haemorrhage according to their treatment allocation in primary subgroup analyses of cerebral microbleeds on MRI and in exploratory subgroup analyses of other features on CT or MRI. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN71907627. Findings: Between May 22, 2013, and May 31, 2018, 537 participants were enrolled, of whom 525 (98%) had intracerebral haemorrhage: 507 (97%) were diagnosed on CT (252 assigned to start antiplatelet therapy and 255 assigned to avoid antiplatelet therapy, of whom one withdrew and was not analysed) and 254 (48%) underwent the required brain MRI protocol (122 in the start antiplatelet therapy group and 132 in the avoid antiplatelet therapy group). There were no clinically or statistically significant hazards of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage in primary subgroup analyses of cerebral microbleed presence (2 or more) versus absence (0 or 1) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·30 [95% CI 0·08–1·13] vs 0·77 [0·13–4·61]; pinteraction=0·41), cerebral microbleed number 0–1 versus 2–4 versus 5 or more (HR 0·77 [0·13–4·62] vs 0·32 [0·03–3·66] vs 0·33 [0·07–1·60]; pinteraction=0·75), or cerebral microbleed strictly lobar versus other location (HR 0·52 [0·004–6·79] vs 0·37 [0·09–1·28]; pinteraction=0·85). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in the effects of antiplatelet therapy in any exploratory subgroup analyses (all pinteraction>0·05). Interpretation: Our findings exclude all but a very modest harmful effect of antiplatelet therapy on recurrent intracerebral haemorrhage in the presence of cerebral microbleeds. Further randomised trials are needed to replicate these findings and investigate them with greater precision. Funding: British Heart Foundation