Clinical Outcomes Among High-Risk Primary Care Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease: Methodological Challenges and Results From the STOP-DKD Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Slowing the progression of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is critical. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to target risk factors for DKD progression. METHODS: We evaluated the effect of a pharmacist-led intervention focused on supporting healthy behaviors, medication management, and self-monitoring on decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) for 36 months compared with an educational control. RESULTS: We randomized 138 individuals to the intervention group and 143 to control. At baseline, mean (SD) eGFR was 80.7 (21.7) mL/min/1.73m2, 56% of participants had chronic kidney disease and a history of uncontrolled hypertension with a baseline SBP of 134.3 mm Hg. The mean (SD) decline in eGFR by cystatin C from baseline to 36 months was 5.0 (19.6) and 5.9 (18.6) mL/min/1.73m2 for the control and intervention groups, respectively, with no significant between-group difference (P=0.75). CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe a significant difference in clinical outcomes by study arm. However, we showed that individuals with DKD will engage in a pharmacist-led intervention. The potential explanations for a lack of change in DKD risk factors can be attributed to 5 broad issues, challenges: (1) associated with enrolling patients with low eGFR and poor BP control; (2) implementing the intervention; (3) limited duration during which to observe any clinical benefit from the intervention; (4) potential co-intervention or contamination; and (5) low statistical power.

Delivery of Pharmacogenetic Testing with or without Medication Therapy Management in a Community Pharmacy Setting.

OBJECTIVE: The delivery of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has primarily been through clinical and hospital settings. We conducted a study to explore the feasibility of delivering PGx testing through community pharmacies, a less-studied setting. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial of community pharmacies in North Carolina through two approaches: the provision of PGx testing alone or PGx testing with medication therapy management (MTM). RESULTS: A total of 150 patient participants were enrolled at 17 pharmacies and reported high satisfaction with their testing experience. Participants in the PGx plus MTM arm were more likely to recall a higher number of results (p=0.04) and more likely to clearly understand their choices for prevention or early detection of side effects (p=0.01). A medication or dose change based on the PGx results was made for 8.7% of participants. CONCLUSION: Limited differences were observed in the provision of PGx testing as a standalone test or combined with MTM. A limited number of treatment changes were made based on PGx test results. Patient acceptance of PGx testing offered through the community pharmacy was very high, but the addition of MTM did not impact patient-reported perceptions about PGx testing or medication adherence.

Independent Community Pharmacists' Experience in Offering Pharmacogenetic Testing.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed pharmacist experiences with delivering pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in independent community pharmacies. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial of independent community pharmacies in North Carolina randomized to provide either PGx testing as a standalone service or integrated into medication therapy management (MTM) services. Surveys and pharmacist data about the delivery of PGx testing were collected. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 36 pharmacists participated in the study from 22 pharmacies. Sixteen pharmacists completed the pre-study and post-study surveys, and four pharmacists completed the semi-structured interviews. Thirty-one percent (11/36) of pharmacists had had some education in personalized medicine or PGx prior to the study. The only outcome that differed by study arm was the use of educational resources, with significantly higher utilization in the PGx testing only arm (p=0.007). Overall, compared to the pre-study assessment, pharmacists' knowledge about PGx significantly improved post-study (p=0.018). In the post-study survey, almost all pharmacists indicated that they felt qualified/able to provide PGx testing at their pharmacy. While 75% of pharmacists indicated that they may continue to provide PGx testing at their pharmacy after the study, the major concerns were lack of reimbursement for PGx counseling and consultation given the necessary time required. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrated a positive experience with delivering PGx testing in the community pharmacy setting with little difference in pharmacists' experiences in providing PGx testing with or without MTM. Pharmacists were confident in their ability to provide PGx testing and were interested in continuing to offer testing, though sustained delivery may be challenged by lack of prescribing provider engagement and reimbursement.

Primary Care Providers' Acceptance of Pharmacists' Recommendations to Support Optimal Medication Management for Patients with Diabetic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetic kidney disease (DKD) often struggle with blood pressure control. In team-based models of care, pharmacists and primary care providers (PCPs) play important roles in supporting patients' blood pressure management. OBJECTIVE: To describe whether PCPs' acceptance of pharmacists' recommendations impacts systolic blood pressure (SBP) at 36 months. DESIGN: An observational analysis of a subset of participants randomized to the intervention arm of the Simultaneous risk factor control using Telehealth to slOw Progression of Diabetic Kidney Disease (STOP-DKD) study. PARTICIPANTS: STOP-DKD participants for whom (1) the pharmacist made at least one recommendation to the PCP; (2) there were available data regarding the PCP's corresponding action; and (3) there were SBP measurements at baseline and 36 months. INTERVENTION: Participants received monthly telephone calls with a pharmacist addressing health behaviors and medication management. Pharmacists made medication-related recommendations to PCPs. MAIN MEASURES: We fit an unadjusted generalized linear mixed model to assess the association between the number of pharmacists' recommendations for DKD and blood pressure management and PCPs' acceptance of such recommendations. We used a linear regression model to evaluate the association between PCP acceptance and SBP at 36 months, adjusted for baseline SBP. KEY RESULTS: Pharmacists made 176 treatment recommendations (among 59 participants), of which 107 (61%) were accepted by PCPs. SBP significantly declined by an average of 10.5 mmHg (p < 0.01) among 47 of 59 participants who had valid measurements at baseline and 36 months. There was a significant association between the number of pharmacist recommendations and the odds of PCP acceptance (OR 1.19; 95%CI 1.00, 1.42; p < 0.05), but no association between the number of accepted recommendations and SBP. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists provided actionable medication-related recommendations. We identified a significant decline in SBP at 36 months, but this reduction was not associated with recommendation acceptance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01829256.

Pharmacogenomics courses in pharmacy school curricula.

Aim: The appropriate use and integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing will pivot on provider preparation and training. Pharmacists have been recognized as one of the key providers in the delivery of PGx testing and as such, professional organizations have recommended inclusion of PGx content in pharmacy curricula. Methods: We reviewed the curriculum of 132 US pharmacy schools for information about PGx courses. Results: A total of 70 core curriculum courses were identified. 55 (42%) pharmacy schools included at least one PGx course as part of the core curriculum, and ten (8%) schools that offered a PGx course elective. Conclusion: While many pharmacy schools have responded to the accreditation standards to include PGx, less than half of the schools have developed a standalone course.

Simultaneous Risk Factor Control Using Telehealth to slOw Progression of Diabetic Kidney Disease (STOP-DKD) study: Protocol and baseline characteristics of a randomized controlled trial.

Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) is the leading cause of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in the United States. Multiple risk factors contribute to DKD development, yet few interventions target more than a single DKD risk factor at a time. This manuscript describes the study protocol, recruitment, and baseline participant characteristics for the Simultaneous Risk Factor Control Using Telehealth to slOw Progression of Diabetic Kidney Disease (STOP-DKD) study. The STOP-DKD study is a randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifactorial behavioral and medication management intervention to mitigate kidney function decline at 3 years compared to usual care. The intervention consists of up to 36 monthly educational modules delivered via telephone by a study pharmacist, home blood pressure monitoring, and medication management recommendations delivered electronically to primary care physicians. Patients seen at seven primary care clinics in North Carolina, with diabetes and [1] uncontrolled hypertension and [2] evidence of kidney dysfunction (albuminuria or reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]) were eligible to participate. Study recruitment completed in December 2014. Of the 281 participants randomized, mean age at baseline was 61.9; 52% were male, 56% were Black, and most were high school graduates (89%). Baseline co-morbidity was high- mean blood pressure was 134/76 mmHg, mean body mass index was 35.7 kg/m2, mean eGFR was 80.7 ml/min/1.73 m2, and mean glycated hemoglobin was 8.0%. Experiences of recruiting and implementing a comprehensive DKD program to individuals at high risk seen in the primary care setting are provided. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01829256.

Assessing feasibility of delivering pharmacogenetic testing in a community pharmacy setting.

AIM: To describe the rationale and design of a study evaluating the delivery of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in community pharmacies. Study rationale: Pharmacists have expressed interest in offering PGx testing; however, their lack of knowledge and experience, patients' acceptance and feasibility are unknown in this setting. STUDY DESIGN: Through a cluster randomized trial, we will assess pharmacist and patient experiences with delivery of PGx testing as a standalone service or integrated into medication therapy management services. Anticipated results: We anticipate that PGx testing can be delivered in a community pharmacy setting and accepted and valued by patients. CONCLUSION: This study is expected to provide valuable evidence about the real-world feasibility and acceptance of a community pharmacist-delivered approach of PGx testing.

Primary care providers' use of pharmacist support for delivery of pharmacogenetic testing.

AIM: To investigate provider utilization of pharmacist support in the delivery of pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting. METHODS: Two primary care clinics within Duke University Health System participated in the study between December 2012 and July 2013. One clinic was provided with an in-house pharmacist and the second clinic had an on-call pharmacist. RESULTS: Providers in the in-house pharmacist arm consulted with the pharmacist for 13 of 15 cases, or about one of every four patients tested compared with one of every 7.5 patients in the on-call pharmacist arm. A total of 63 tests were ordered, 48 by providers in the pharmacist-in-house arm. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that the availability of an in-house pharmacist increases the likelihood of pharmacogenetic test utilization.

Patient experiences with pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting.

AIM: To investigate patient experiences with pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing. METHODS: Patients were offered PGx testing through a study on pharmacist-assisted delivery of PGx testing and invited to complete pre- and post-testing surveys about their experience. RESULTS: Of 63 patients tested, 17 completed the baseline survey (27%). Interest in testing was mostly impacted by desire to inform selection of best treatment (n = 13). Seven of 12 patients that completed the follow-up survey indicated that their provider discussed the test result with them. Five patients understood their test result very or somewhat well. All would be likely to have PGx testing again. CONCLUSION: Patients perceived PGx testing to be useful, though more effort may be needed to improve patient-provider communication of test results.

Evaluation of a pharmacogenetic educational toolkit for community pharmacists.

AIM: Over the past several decades, the roles and services of community pharmacists have expanded beyond traditional medical dispensation and compounding, and include health services such as vaccinations, and clinical testing and screening. Incorporating pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing into the menu of pharmacy services is logical and feasible; however, few pharmacists have experience with PGx testing, and few educational resources about PGx are available to support the uptake of PGx testing in community pharmacies. METHODS: We developed a toolkit of four resources to assist pharmacists to provide PGx testing. We conducted a survey of pharmacists in North Carolina to evaluate each component of the toolkit and the toolkit as a whole. RESULTS: A total of 380 respondents completed the evaluation of one or more toolkit components (344 evaluated all four components and the overall toolkit). Most respondents (84%) have never ordered or used PGx test results. Though the usability of the toolkit overall was below average (65.1 on a range of 0-100), individual components were perceived as useful and more than 75% of pharmacists reported that they would use the toolkit components when offering testing, with the result summary sheet receiving the highest score (4.01 out of 5). Open-text comments highlighted the need for more patient-friendly language and formatting. CONCLUSION: The majority of pharmacist respondents scored the components of the toolkit favorably. The next steps will be to revise and assess use of the toolkit in community pharmacy settings.

Incorporation of pharmacogenetic testing into medication therapy management.

AIM: To assess feasibility and patient satisfaction with a pharmacist-delivered medication therapy management (MTM) plus pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing service. METHODS: Thirty patients from a cardiology outpatient clinic were enrolled to attend two MTM sessions, undergo PGx testing and complete pre- and post-intervention surveys. Outcome measures included duration of MTM sessions, clinical application of test results, self-reported medication adherence, patient recall of results and perceived value of testing and MTM. RESULTS: Overall, patients were very satisfied with the MTM plus PGx testing service. About half of participants (47%) were able to accurately recall their PGx test results. Comparable to MTM without PGx testing, the first MTM session averaged 40 min and the follow-up MTM session averaged 15 min. CONCLUSION: PGx testing incorporated into a clinical MTM service offered by pharmacists may be a feasible delivery model and is satisfactory to patients.

Community pharmacists' experience with pharmacogenetic testing.

OBJECTIVE: Appendix 1 Statements of knowledge of correct medication use Appendix 2 Statements of self-efficacy of correct medication use Appendix 3 Statements of skills of correct medication use To characterize the experiences and feasibility of offering pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in a community pharmacy setting. DESIGN: Pharmacists were invited to complete a survey about PGx testing for each patient who was offered testing. If the patient consented, pharmacists were also asked to complete a follow-up survey about the process of returning PGx testing results to patients and follow-up with the prescribing provider. SETTING: Community pharmacies in North Carolina from August through November 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists at five community pharmacies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient consent for testing, time to introduce PGx testing initially and communicate results, interpretation of test results, and recommended medication changes. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients offered testing, 56 (81%) consented. Pre-test counseling typically lasted 1-5 minutes (81%), and most patients (55%) did not have any questions about the testing. Most pharmacists reported test results to patients by phone (84%), with discussions taking less than 1 minute (48%) or 1-5 minutes (52%). Most pharmacists believed the patients understood their results either very well (54%) or somewhat well (41%). Pharmacists correctly interpreted 47 of the 53 test results (89%). All of the incorrect interpretations were for patients with test results indicating a dosing or drug change (6/19; 32%). Pharmacists reported contacting the ordering physician for four patients to discuss results indicating a dosage or drug change. CONCLUSION: The provision of PGx services in a community pharmacy setting appears feasible, requiring little additional time from the pharmacist, and many patients seem interested in PGx testing. Additional training may be necessary to improve test result interpretation, as well as for communication with both patients and ordering physicians.

Challenges to integrating pharmacogenetic testing into medication therapy management.

Some have proposed the integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing into medication therapy management (MTM) to enable further refinement of treatments to reduce risk of adverse responses and improve efficacy. PGx testing involves the analysis of genetic variants associated with therapeutic or adverse response and may be useful in enhancing the ability to identify ineffective and/or harmful drugs or drug combinations. This "enhanced" MTM might also reduce patient concerns about side effects and increase confidence that the medication is effective, addressing 2 key factors that impact patient adherence: concern and necessity. However, the feasibility and effectiveness of the integration of PGx testing into MTM in clinical practice has not yet been determined. In this commentary, we consider some of the challenges to the integration and delivery of PGx testing in MTM services.

Improving diabetes medication adherence: successful, scalable interventions.

Effective medications are a cornerstone of prevention and disease treatment, yet only about half of patients take their medications as prescribed, resulting in a common and costly public health challenge for the US health care system. Since poor medication adherence is a complex problem with many contributing causes, there is no one universal solution. This paper describes interventions that were not only effective in improving medication adherence among patients with diabetes, but were also potentially scalable (ie, easy to implement to a large population). We identify key characteristics that make these interventions effective and scalable. This information is intended to inform health care systems seeking proven, low resource, cost-effective solutions to improve medication adherence.

Pilot study: incorporation of pharmacogenetic testing in medication therapy management services.

Aim: To describe the rationale and design of a pilot study evaluating the integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing into pharmacist-delivered medication therapy management (MTM). Study rationale: Clinical delivery approaches of PGx testing involving pharmacists may overcome barriers of limited physician knowledge about and experience with testing. Study design: We will assess the addition of PGx testing to MTM services for cardiology patients taking three or more medications including simvastatin or clopidogrel. We will measure the impact of MTM plus PGx testing on drug/dose adjustment and clinical outcomes. Factors associated with delivery, such as time to prepare and conduct MTM and consult with physicians will be recorded. Additionally, patient interest and satisfaction will be measured. Anticipated results: We anticipate that PGx testing can be practically integrated into standard a MTM service, providing a viable delivery model for testing. Conclusion: Given the lack of evidence of an effective PGx delivery models, this study will provide preliminary evidence regarding a pharmacist-delivered approach.

Pilot study of pharmacist-assisted delivery of pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting.

AIM: To describe the rationale and design of a pilot program to implement and evaluate pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in a primary care setting. STUDY RATIONALE: Several factors have impeded the uptake of PGx testing, including lack of provider knowledge and challenges with operationalizing PGx testing in a clinical practice setting. STUDY DESIGN: We plan to compare two strategies for the implementation of PGx testing: a pharmacist-initiated testing arm compared with a physician-initiated PGx testing arm. Providers in both groups will be required to attend an introduction to PGx seminar. Anticipated results: We anticipate that providers in the pharmacist-initiated group will be more likely to order PGx testing than providers in the physician-initiated group. CONCLUSION: Overall, we aim to generate data that will inform an effective delivery model for PGx testing and to facilitate a seamless integration of PGx testing in primary care practices.

Pharmacogenetic information for patients on drug labels.

Advances in pharmacogenetic research have improved our understanding of adverse drug responses and have led to the development of pharmacogenetic tests and targeted drugs. However, the extent of the communication process and provision of information to patients about pharmacogenetics is unclear. Pharmacogenetic information may be included in sections of a drug's package insert intended for patients, which is provided directly to patients or communicated via the health provider. To determine what pharmacogenetic information, if any, is included in patient-targeted sections of the drug label, we reviewed the labels listed in the US Food and Drug Administration's Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels. To date, 140 drugs include pharmacogenetic-related information in the approved label. Our analysis revealed that pharmacogenetic information is included in patient-targeted sections for a minority (n=29; 21%) of drug labels, with no obvious pattern associated with the inclusion of pharmacogenetic information. Therefore, patients are unlikely to learn about pharmacogenetics through written materials dispensed with the drug. Given that there are also inconsistencies with regard to inclusion of pharmacogenetic information in the patient counseling information section, it is also unlikely that patients are receiving adequate pharmacogenetic information from their provider. The inconsistent presence of pharmacogenetic information in patient-targeted sections of drug labels suggests a need to review the criteria for inclusion of information in patient-targeted sections in order to increase consistency and patient knowledge of pharmacogenetic information.

Comparison of delivery strategies for pharmacogenetic testing services.

The number and use of pharmacogenetic tests to assess a patient's likelihood of response or risk of an adverse event is expanding across medical specialties and becoming more prevalent. During this period of development and translation, different approaches are being investigated to optimize delivery of pharmacogenetic services. In this paper, we review pre-emptive and point-of-care delivery approaches currently implemented or being investigated and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The continued growth in knowledge about the genetic basis of drug response combined with development of new and less expensive testing technologies and electronic medical records will impact future delivery systems. Regardless of delivery approach, the currently limited knowledge of health professionals about genetics generally or PGx specifically will remain a major obstacle to utilization.