Reduced subcutaneous tissue distribution of cefazolin in morbidly obese versus non-obese patients determined using clinical microdialysis

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: As morbidly obese patients are prone to surgical site infections, adequate blood and subcutaneous tissue concentrations of prophylactic antibiotic agents during surgery are imperative. In this study we evaluated cefazolin subcutaneous adipose tissue distribution in morbidly obese and non-obese patients, thereby quantifying the influence of morbid obesity on cefazolin pharmacokinetics and enabling Monte Carlo simulations for subsequent dose adjustments. METHODS: Nine morbidly obese patients [body mass index (BMI) 47 +/- 6 kg/m(2)], of whom eight were evaluable, and seven non-obese patients (BMI 28 +/- 3 kg/m(2)) received cefazolin 2 g intravenously before surgery (NCT01309152). Using microdialysis, interstitial space fluid (ISF) samples of subcutaneous adipose tissue were collected together with total and unbound plasma cefazolin samples until 240 min after dosing. Using NONMEM, population pharmacokinetic modelling, covariate analysis and Monte Carlo simulations were performed. RESULTS: The unbound (free) cefazolin ISF penetration ratio (fAUC(tissue)/fAUC(plasma)) was 0.70 (range 0.68-0.83) in morbidly obese patients versus 1.02 (range 0.85-1.41) in non-obese patients (P < 0.05). A two-compartment model with saturable protein binding was identified in which the central volume of distribution and cefazolin distribution from the central compartment to the ISF compartment proved dependent on body weight (P < 0.001 and P < 0.01, respectively). Monte Carlo simulations showed reduced probability of target attainment for morbidly obese versus non-obese patients for MIC values of 2 and 4 mg/L. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that cefazolin tissue distribution is lower in morbidly obese patients and reduces with increasing body weight, and that dose adjustments are required in this patient group

Using Personal Genomic Data within Primary Care: A Bioinformatics Approach to Pharmacogenomics

Contains fulltext : 229533.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)One application of personalized medicine is the tailoring of medication to the individual, so that the medication will have the highest chance of success. In order to individualize medication, one must have a complete inventory of all current pharmaceutical compounds (a detailed formulary) combined with pharmacogenetic datasets, the genetic makeup of the patient, their (medical) family history and other health-related data. For healthcare professionals to make the best use of this information, it must be visualized in a way that makes the most medically relevant data accessible for their decision-making. Similarly, to enable bioinformatics analysis of these data, it must be prepared and provided through an interface for controlled computational analysis. Due to the high degree of personal information gathered for such initiatives, privacy-sensitive implementation choices and ethical standards are paramount. The Personal Genetic Locker project provides an approach to enable the use of personal genomic data in primary care. In this paper, we provide a description of the Personal Genetic Locker project and show its utility through a use case based on open standards, which is illustrated by the 4MedBox system

Prioriteringar i Västerbottens läns landsting 2008 : Del II. Olika tankar om processen

Västerbottens läns landsting genomförde en omfattande prioriteringsprocess under år 2008. Syftet var att ge utrymme för nya medicinska metoder och andra angelägna satsningar (inprioriteringar) genom att begränsa i de lägst prioriterade delarna av utbudet. PrioriteringsCentrums uppgift har varit att göra en kvalitativ analys i syfte att belysa variationer av uppfattningar av arbetet under processens gång. Det huvudsakliga skälet till vårt engagemang har varit att det finns moment i landstingets arbete som är helt nya eller genomförda på ett annat sätt än tidigare prioriteringsarbeten i Sverige. Det finns därför lärdomar att dra från processen i Västerbotten som kan användas av andra huvudmän. Vi har däremot inte utvärderat om landstinget uppnådde sina egna mål, inte heller studerat vilka effekter beslutet fått inom landstingets olika enheter eller för medborgarna. Vår rapport bygger på 41 intervjuer med ett urval av verksamhetsföreträdare, tjänstemän samt politiker. Tre omgångar av intervjuer genomfördes; efter att de vertikala prioriteringarna avslutats, efter att den horisontella granskningen/jämkningen genomförts samt efter att beslut tagits i landstingsstyrelsen. Samtliga nio politiker som deltagit i Prioriteringsforum, med ett undantag, intervjuades. I övrigt skedde urvalet med ambitionen att försöka hitta så många olika uppfattningar som möjligt. Undersökningen syftar med andra ord inte till att kvantifiera uppfattningar om prioriteringsarbetet i Västerbotten. Om detta finns istället att läsa i Västerbottens egen rapport där ett flertal enkätstudier om processen redovisas (Waldau 2009). I rapporten beskrivs deltagarnas uppfattningar utifrån de fyra faser som prioriteringsarbetet bestod av: Fas I – Identifieringsfasen (vertikal prioritering inom basenheter) Fas II – Horisontell granskning/jämkning i grupper Fas III – Prioriteringsforum Fas IV – Politisk beredning och beslut. Vi fann emellertid också en förberedande fas som hade betydelse för utgången av prioriteringsarbetet. Landstinget hade nämligen redan innan prioriteringsprocessen startade förberett arbetet på olika sätt. Dels fanns i landstingets redan tidigare kunskaper och praktiska erfarenheter av bl a medicinskt programarbete. Dels planerades arbetet noggrant. 　 Här ingick två tydliga och centrala inslag: att söka förankra en gemensam problemdefinition som innebar omfördelning av resurser för att skapa utrymme för nyheter1  samt en politisk enighet om att denna omfördelning skulle göras genom öppna och systematiska prioriteringar. Även om en politiskt styrd organisation måste tåla att olika alternativ öppet ställs mot varandra är troligenen politisk uppslutning runt själva processen en viktig komponent i ett prioriteringsarbete. Utöver uppfattningar om dessa faser beskrivs i rapporten också de intervjuades syn på ansvarsfördelningen i prioriteringsarbetet, öppenheten och informationen i arbetet samt processen med inprioriteringar

Effectiveness of oncogenetics training on general practitioners' consultation skills: a randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 137892.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)PURPOSE: General practitioners are increasingly called upon to deliver genetic services and could play a key role in translating potentially life-saving advancements in oncogenetic technologies to patient care. If general practitioners are to make an effective contribution in this area, their genetics competencies need to be upgraded. The aim of this study was to investigate whether oncogenetics training for general practitioners improves their genetic consultation skills. METHODS: In this pragmatic, blinded, randomized controlled trial, the intervention consisted of a 4-h training (December 2011 and April 2012), covering oncogenetic consultation skills (family history, familial risk assessment, and efficient referral), attitude (medical ethical issues), and clinical knowledge required in primary-care consultations. Outcomes were measured using observation checklists by unannounced standardized patients and self-reported questionnaires. RESULTS: Of 88 randomized general practitioners who initially agreed to participate, 56 completed all measurements. Key consultation skills significantly and substantially improved; regression coefficients after intervention were equivalent to 0.34 and 0.28 at 3-month follow-up, indicating a moderate effect size. Satisfaction and perceived applicability of newly learned skills were highly scored. CONCLUSION: The general practitioner-specific training proved to be a feasible, satisfactory, and clinically applicable method to improve oncogenetics consultation skills and could be used as an educational framework to inform future training activities with the ultimate aim of improving medical care

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6 and opioids (codeine, tramadol and oxycodone)

The current Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline, describes the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6 and the opioids codeine, tramadol and oxycodone. CYP2D6 genotype is translated into normal metaboliser (NM), intermediate metaboliser (IM), poor metaboliser (PM) or ultra-rapid metaboliser (UM). Codeine is contraindicated in UM adults if doses >20 mg every 6 h (q6h), in children ≥12 years if doses >10 mg q6h, or with additional risk factors. In PMs, an alternative analgesic should be given which is not or to a lesser extent metabolised by CYP2D6 (not tramadol). In IMs with insufficient analgesia, a higher dose or alternative analgesic should be given. For tramadol, the recommendations for IMs and PMs are the same as the recommendation for codeine and IMs. UMs should receive an alternative drug not or to a lesser extent metabolised by CYP2D6 or the dose should be decreased to 40% of the commonly prescribed dose. Due to the absence of effect on clinical outcomes of oxycodone in PMs, IMs and UMs no action is required. DPWG classifies CYP2D6 genotyping for codeine "beneficial" and recommends testing prior to, or shortly after initiation of treatment in case of higher doses or additional risk factors. CYP2D6 genotyping is classified as "potentially beneficial" for tramadol and can be considered on an individual patient basis

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and SSRIs

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline presented here, presents the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and antidepressants of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor type (SSRIs). Both genes' genotypes are translated into predicted normal metabolizer (NM), intermediate metabolizer (IM), poor metabolizer (PM), or ultra-rapid metabolizer (UM). Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained, based on a structured analysis of published literature. In CYP2C19 PM patients, escitalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 75% of the normal maximum dose. Escitalopram should be avoided in UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, citalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 70% (65-75%) of the normal maximum dose. In contrast to escitalopram, no action is needed for CYP2C19 UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, sertraline dose should not exceed 37.5% of the normal maximum dose. No action is needed for CYP2C19 IM and UM patients. In CYP2D6 UM patients, paroxetine should be avoided. No action is needed for CYP2D6 PM and IM patients. In addition, no action is needed for the other gene-drug combinations. Clinical effects (increase in adverse events or decrease in efficacy) were lacking for these other gene-drug combinations. DPWG classifies CYP2C19 genotyping before the start of escitalopram, citalopram, and sertraline, and CYP2D6 genotyping before the start of paroxetine as "potentially beneficial" for toxicity/effectivity predictions. This indicates that genotyping prior to treatment can be considered on an individual patient basis

Pedalling rate affects endurance performancee during high-intensity cycling

General practitioners (GPs) are increasingly called upon to identify patients at risk for hereditary cancers, and their genetic competencies need to be enhanced. This article gives an overview of a research project on how to build effective educational modules on genetics, assessed by randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reflecting the prioritized educational needs of primary care physicians. It also reports on an ongoing study to investigate long-term increase in genetic consultation skills (1-year follow-up) and interest in and satisfaction with a supportive website on genetics among GPs. Three oncogenetics modules were developed: an online Continuing Professional Development (G-eCPD) module, a live genetic CPD module, and a "GP and genetics" website (huisartsengenetica.nl) providing further genetics information applicable in daily practice. Three assessments to evaluate the effectiveness (1-year follow-up) of the oncogenetic modules were designed: 1.An online questionnaire on self-reported genetic competencies and changes in referral behaviour, 2.Referral rates from GPs to clinical genetics centres and 3.Satisfaction questionnaire and visitor count analytics of supportive genetics website. The setting was Primary care in the Netherlands and three groups of study participants were included in the reported studies:. Assessment 1. 168 GPs responded to an email invitation and were randomly assigned to an intervention or control group, evaluating the G-eCPD module (n = 80) or the live module (n = 88). Assessment 2. Referral rates by GPs were requested from the clinical genetics centres, in the northern and southern parts of the Netherlands (Amsterdam and Maastricht), for the two years before (2010 [n = 2510] and 2011 [n = 2940]) and the year after (2012 [n = 2875]) launch of the oncogenetics CPD modules and the website. Assessment 3. Participants of the website evaluation were all recruited online. When they visited the website during the month of February 2013, a pop-up invitation came up. Of the 1350 unique visitors that month, only 38 completed the online questionnaire. Main outcomes measure showed long-term (self-reported) genetic consultation skills (i.e. increased genetics awareness and referrals to clinical genetics centres) among GPs who participated in the oncogenetic training course, and interest in and satisfaction with the supportive website. 42 GPs (52%) who previously participated in the G-eCPD evaluation study and 50 GPs (57%) who participated in the live training programme responded to the online questionnaire on long-term effects of educational outcome. Previous RCTs showed that the genetics CPD modules achieved sustained improvement of oncogenetic knowledge and consultation skills (3-months follow-up). Participants of these RCTs reported being more aware of genetic problems long term; this was reported by 29 GPs (69%) and 46 GPs (92%) participating in the G-eCPD and live module evaluation studies, respectively (Chisquare test, p<0.005). One year later, 68% of the respondents attending the live training reported that they more frequently referred patients to the clinical genetics centres, compared to 29% of those who attended the online oncogenetics training (Chisquare test, p<0.0005). However, the clinical genetics centres reported no significant change in referral numbers one year after the training. Website visitor numbers increased, as did satisfaction, reflected in a 7.7 and 8.1 (out of 10) global rating of the website (by G-eCPD and live module participants, respectively). The page most often consulted was "family tree drawing". Self-perceived genetic consultation skills increased long-term and GPs were interested in and satisfied with the supportive website. Further studies are necessary to see whether the oncogenetics CPD modules result in more efficient referral. The results presented suggest we have provided a flexible and effective framework to meet the need for effective educational programmes for non-geneticist healthcare providers, enabling improvement of genetic medical care