Implementing pharmacogenetics in clinical trials: considerations about current methodological, ethical, and regulatory challenges.

INTRODUCTION: The implementation of pharmacogenetic analysis within clinical trials faces methodological, ethical, and regulatory challenges, as well as tackling the difficulty in obtaining actionable information with a sufficient level of evidence to enable its integration into routine clinical practice. AREAS COVERED: We discuss the current status of pharmacogenetics integration in clinical trials, underscore the associated challenges, and make some suggestions on the aspects to address in any clinical trial including a pharmacogenetic evaluation. We conducted a literature review, thoroughly reviewed the applicable regulations and available guidelines, and assessed the application dossiers submitted for evaluation to the Ethics committee of Hospital La Paz (Madrid, Spain) to extract information related to inclusion of pharmacogenetics evaluations. EXPERT OPINION: The integration of pharmacogenetics into clinical trials is becoming increasingly common. However, several regulatory, methodological and ethical aspects involved are insufficiently addressed. There is a need for specific and transparent guidelines that establish unified and compliant criteria for methodology, proper handling of samples in compliance with regulations, and the protection of data privacy and confidentiality. Participants should receive complete and appropriate information regarding the purpose, handling, storage, and transfer of their samples and data, and should have the right to decide about their processing.

Advancing pharmacogenetic testing in a tertiary hospital: a retrospective analysis after 10 years of activity.

The field of pharmacogenetics (PGx) holds great promise in advancing personalized medicine by adapting treatments based on individual genetic profiles. Despite its benefits, there are still economic, ethical and institutional barriers that hinder its implementation in our healthcare environment. A retrospective analysis approach of anonymized data sourced from electronic health records was performed, encompassing a diverse patient population and evaluating key parameters such as prescribing patterns and test results, to assess the impact of pharmacogenetic testing. A head-to-head comparison with previously published activity results within the same pharmacogenetic laboratory was also conducted to contrast the progress made after 10 years. The analysis revealed significant utilization of pharmacogenetic testing in daily clinical practice, with 1,145 pharmacogenetic tests performed over a 1-year period and showing a 35% growth rate increase over time. Of the 17 different medical departments that sought PGx tests, the Oncology department accounted for the highest number, representing 58.47% of all genotyped patients. A total of 1,000 PGx tests were requested for individuals susceptible to receive a dose modification based on genotype, and 76 individuals received a genotype-guided dose adjustment. This study presents a comprehensive descriptive analysis of real-world data obtained from a public tertiary hospital laboratory specialized in pharmacogenetic testing, and presents data that strongly endorse the integration of pharmacogenetic testing into everyday clinical practice.

Identifying biomarkers of treatment response to ciclosporin in atopic dermatitis through multiomic predictive modelling: DERMATOMICS study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need to optimise the management of atopic dermatitis (AD), improving the efficacy of treatments and reducing the toxicity associated with them. Although the efficacy of ciclosporine (CsA) in the treatment of AD has been thoroughly documented in the literature, the optimal dose has not been yet established. The use of multiomic predictive models of treatment response could optimise CsA therapy in AD. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study is a low-intervention phase 4 trial to optimise the treatment of patients with moderate-severe AD requiring systemic treatment. The primary objectives are to identify biomarkers that could allow for the selection of responders and non-responders to first-line treatment with CsA and to develop a response prediction model to optimise the CsA dose and treatment regimen in responding patients based on these biomarkers. The study is divided into two cohorts: the first comprised of patients starting treatment with CsA (cohort 1), and the second, of patients already receiving or who have received CsA therapy (cohort 2). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study activities began following authorisation by the Spanish Regulatory Agency (AEMPS) and the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of La Paz University Hospital approval. Trial results will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed medical speciality-specific publication.Trial registration of this study can be located at the EU Clinical Trials Register, available from https://euclinicaltrials.eu/search-for-clinical-trials/?lang=en. Our clinical trial was registered in the website before the enrolment of the first patient complying with European regulations. EU Clinical Trials Register is a primary registry according the WHO. Once our trial was included in a primary and official registry, in order to extend the accessibility to our research, we also registered it retrospectively in clinicaltrials.gov; however, this is not mandatory as per our regulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05692843.

Melatonin in the Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Healthcare Workers (MeCOVID): A Randomised Clinical Trial.

We evaluated in this randomised, double-blind clinical trial the efficacy of melatonin as a prophylactic treatment for prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers at high risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Healthcare workers fulfilling inclusion criteria were recruited in five hospitals in Spain and were randomised 1:1 to receive melatonin 2 mg administered orally for 12 weeks or placebo. The main outcome was the number of SARS-CoV-2 infections. A total of 344 volunteers were screened, and 314 were randomised: 151 to placebo and 163 to melatonin; 308 received the study treatment (148 placebo; 160 melatonin). We detected 13 SARS-CoV-2 infections, 2.6% in the placebo arm and 5.5% in the melatonin arm (p = 0.200). A total of 294 adverse events were detected in 127 participants (139 in placebo; 155 in melatonin). We found a statistically significant difference in the incidence of adverse events related to treatment: 43 in the placebo arm and 67 in the melatonin arm (p = 0.040), and in the number of participants suffering from somnolence related to treatment: 8.8% (n = 14) in the melatonin versus 1.4% (n = 2) in the placebo arm (p = 0.008). No severe adverse events related to treatment were reported. We cannot confirm our hypothesis that administration of melatonin prevents the development of SARS-CoV-2 infection in healthcare workers.

Health Care Workers' Reasons for Choosing Between Two Different COVID-19 Prophylaxis Trials in an Acute Pandemic Context: Single-Center Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: In April 2020, two independent clinical trials to assess SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis strategies among health care workers were initiated at our hospital: MeCOVID (melatonin vs placebo) and EPICOS (tenofovir disoproxil/emtricitabine vs hydroxychloroquine vs combination therapy vs placebo). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the reasons why health care workers chose to participate in the MeCOVID and EPICOS trials, as well as why they chose one over the other. METHODS: Both trials were offered to health care workers through an internal news bulletin. After an initial screening visit, all subjects were asked to respond to a web-based survey. RESULTS: In the first month, 206 health care workers were screened and 160 were randomized. The survey participation was high at 73.3%. Health care workers cited "to contribute to scientific knowledge" (n=80, 53.0%), followed by "to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection" (n=33, 21.9%) and "the interest to be tested for SARS-CoV-2" (n=28, 18.5%), as their primary reasons to participate in the trials. We observed significant differences in the expected personal benefits across physicians and nurses (P=.01). The vast majority of volunteers (n=202, 98.0%) selected the MeCOVID trial, their primary reason being their concern regarding adverse reactions to treatments in the EPICOS trial (n=102, 69.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Health care workers' reasons to participate in prophylaxis trials in an acute pandemic context appear to be driven largely by their desire to contribute to science and to gain health benefits. Safety outweighed efficacy when choosing between the two clinical trials.

A case report of a drug-induced liver injury (DILI) caused by multiple antidepressants with causality established by the updated Roussel Uclaf causality assessment method (RUCAM) and in vitro testing.

A 56-year-old female patient was hospitalized because of a lack of response and poor tolerance to multiple antidepressants, which included an episode of DILI. During hospitalization, the patient suffered another episode of DILI. Causality was assessed both by RUCAM and Lymphocyte Transformation Test, allowing to identify a safer medication.