Utilization of cardiac monitoring tests in women with nonmetastatic breast cancer treated with trastuzumab.

AimsTrastuzumab, one of the best known examples of personalized medicine, requires regular cardiac monitoring because it can cause heart failure. We aimed to assess the utilization of cardiac monitoring in women with nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving trastuzumab-based chemotherapy in routine clinical practice.Patients & methodsThe medical records of women continuously enrolled in a large national health insurance plan who were diagnosed with nonmetastatic breast cancer and treated with trastuzumab from 2006 to 2008 were reviewed (n = 109). The primary outcome variables were the use and type of cardiac monitoring testing before and during trastuzumab therapy. An exploratory multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify predictors for receiving cardiac monitoring both at baseline and during trastuzumab treatment.ResultsMonitoring both before and during therapy was less common (62%), although 74% had cardiac monitoring before therapy and 80% had at least one test during therapy. Radionuclide ventriculogram was utilized more often than echocardiography (48 vs 42%). Only the use of anthracycline (odds ratio: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.01-5.71) was significantly associated with use of a cardiac monitoring both at baseline and during trastuzumab treatment.ConclusionThe use of cardiac monitoring testing was variable and opportunities to improve quality and reduce cost are evident. These results have clinical implications for other personalized medicine interventions requiring regular laboratory monitoring

A Practical First Step Using Needs Assessment and a Survey Approach to Implementing a Clinical Pharmacogenomics Consult Service.

Introduction:Genetic-guided selection of non-oncologic medications is not commonly practiced in general, and at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Health, specifically. Understanding the unique position of clinicians with respect to clinical pharmacogenetics (PG) at a specific institution or practice is fundamental for implementing a successful PG consult service. Objectives:To assess clinicians' current practices, needs, and interests with respect to clinical PG at UCSF Health, a large tertiary academic medical center. Methods:A list of 42 target medications with clinical PG recommendations was complied. Clinical specialties that routinely used the target medications were identified. A 12-question survey focused on practice of PG for target medications was developed. Pharmacists and physicians were surveyed anonymously in several clinical specialties. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results:Of the 396 clinicians surveyed, 76 physicians and 59 pharmacists participated, resulting in 27% and 50% average response rates, respectively. The current use of PG in clinical practice for physicians and pharmacists was 29% and 32%, respectively, however this number varied across clinical specialties from 0% to 80%. Of clinicians whom reported they do not currently apply PG, 63% of physicians and 54% of pharmacists expressed interest in integrating PG. However, the level of interest varied from 20% to 100% across specialties. Of the respondents, 64% of physicians and 56% of pharmacists elected to provide contact information to investigators to further discuss their interest related to clinical PG. Conclusions:While PG is not uniformly practiced at UCSF Health, there is considerable interest in utilizing PG by the respondents. Our approach was successful at identifying clinicians and services interested in PG for specific drug-gene pairs. This work has set a foundation for next steps to advance PG integration at UCSF Health. Clinicians can adopt our approach as preliminary work to build a clinical PG program at their institutions

Intracoronary versus intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STEMI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Intracoronary (IC) administration of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) has been studied as an adjunctive therapy to improve outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IC administration of GPIs compared with those of intravenous (IV) administration in patients with STEMI. Methods We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases for relevant studies published before September 21, 2022. In total, 22 randomized controlled trials involving 7,699 patients were included. Results The proportions of patients achieving thrombolysis in myocardial infarction grade 3 flow, myocardial blush grade 2/3, and complete ST-segment resolution were significantly higher in the IC group than in the IV group. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (RR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.37–0.80) and heart failure (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25–0.91) within 1 month were significantly lower in the IC group than in the IV group; however, after 6 months, no difference was observed in MACE risk. Additionally, the risks of death and bleeding did not differ between the two routes of administration. Conclusions When considering adjunctive GPI administration for patients with STEMI, the IC route may offer greater benefits than the IV route in terms of myocardial reperfusion and reduced occurrence of MACE and heart failure within 1 month. Nonetheless, when making decisions for IC administration of GPIs, the absence of a benefit for bleeding risk and difficulty accessing the administration route should be considere

Risk of Emergent Bradycardia Associated with Initiation of Immediate‐ or Slow‐Release Metoprolol

ObjectivesTo estimate and compare the risk of emergent bradycardia associated with starting immediate-release (IR) and slow-release (SR) formulations of metoprolol.DesignRetrospective analysis of administrative claims data.Data sourceState of California Medicaid program (Medi-Cal) claims database.PatientsA total of 31,574 adults beginning metoprolol between May 1, 2004, and November 1, 2009, without a pharmacy claim for a β blocker within the previous 6 months of metoprolol initiation; patients with a primary or secondary diagnosis of symptomatic bradycardia, pacemaker, or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator placement before metoprolol initiation were excluded.Measurements and main resultsThe study outcome was the time to first occurrence of emergent bradycardia, measured at an emergency department visit or hospitalization due to diagnosis of symptomatic bradycardia, after metoprolol initiation. We calculated the incidence and compared the risk of emergent bradycardia by using a proportional hazards model that included the metoprolol formulation with adjustment for total daily metoprolol dose and the use of other drugs as time-varying covariates, as well as demographics and comorbidities. Among 31,574 patients starting metoprolol, 18,516 (58.6%) used the IR formulation. The incidence of emergent bradycardia was 19.1/1000 person-years overall but was nearly twice as common in patients using the IR versus the SR formulation (24.1/1000 person-yrs in the IR group versus 12.9/1000 person-yrs in the SR group, unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.56). Adjustment for other drugs also associated with symptomatic bradycardia (cytochrome P450 2D6 inhibitors, class I or III antiarrhythmics, and atrioventricular node-blocking agents), metoprolol dose, and other participant characteristics somewhat attenuated the association (adjusted HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.03-2.13).ConclusionThe risk of emergent bradycardia associated with metoprolol initiation was higher with the IR formulation than the SR formulation, although the absolute risk was low