Building a vertically integrated genomic learning health system: The biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine.

Precision medicine initiatives across the globe have led to a revolution of repositories linking large-scale genomic data with electronic health records, enabling genomic analyses across the entire phenome. Many of these initiatives focus solely on research insights, leading to limited direct benefit to patients. We describe the biobank at the Colorado Center for Personalized Medicine (CCPM Biobank) that was jointly developed by the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and UCHealth to serve as a unique, dual-purpose research and clinical resource accelerating personalized medicine. This living resource currently has more than 200,000 participants with ongoing recruitment. We highlight the clinical, laboratory, regulatory, and HIPAA-compliant informatics infrastructure along with our stakeholder engagement, consent, recontact, and participant engagement strategies. We characterize aspects of genetic and geographic diversity unique to the Rocky Mountain region, the primary catchment area for CCPM Biobank participants. We leverage linked health and demographic information of the CCPM Biobank participant population to demonstrate the utility of the CCPM Biobank to replicate complex trait associations in the first 33,674 genotyped individuals across multiple disease domains. Finally, we describe our current efforts toward return of clinical genetic test results, including high-impact pathogenic variants and pharmacogenetic information, and our broader goals as the CCPM Biobank continues to grow. Bringing clinical and research interests together fosters unique clinical and translational questions that can be addressed from the large EHR-linked CCPM Biobank resource within a HIPAA- and CLIA-certified environment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing in solid organ transplantation using real-world data.

The objective of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplant recipients relative to standard of care (SOC) tacrolimus dosing, from a US healthcare payer perspective. We developed decision-tree models to compare economic and clinical outcomes between CYP3A5 genotype-guided and SOC tacrolimus therapy in the first six months post-transplant. We derived inputs for CYP3A5 phenotype frequencies and physician use of genotype test results to inform clinical care from literature; tacrolimus exposure [high vs low tacrolimus time in therapeutic range using the Rosendaal algorithm (TAC TTR-Rosendaal)] and outcomes (incidences of acute tacrolimus nephrotoxicity, acute cellular rejection, and death) from real-world data; and costs from the Medicare Fee Schedule and literature. We calculated cost per avoided event and performed sensitivity analyses to evaluate the robustness of the results to changes in inputs. Incremental costs per avoided event for CYP3A5 genotype-guided vs SOC tacrolimus dosing were $176,667 for kidney recipients, $364,000 for liver recipients, $12,982 for heart recipients, and $93,333 for lung recipients. The likelihood of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing leading to cost-savings was 19.8% in kidney, 32.3% in liver, 51.8% in heart, and 54.1% in lung transplant recipients. Physician use of genotype results to guide clinical care and the proportion of patients with a high TAC TTR-Rosendaal were key parameters driving the cost-effectiveness of CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus therapy. Relative to SOC, CYP3A5 genotype-guided tacrolimus dosing resulted in a slightly greater benefit at a higher cost. Further economic evaluations examining intermediary outcomes (e.g., dose modifications) are needed, particularly in populations with higher frequencies of CYP3A5 expressers.

Composite CYP3A (CYP3A4 and CYP3A5) phenotypes and influence on tacrolimus dose adjusted concentrations in adult heart transplant recipients.

CYP3A5 genetic variants are associated with tacrolimus metabolism. Controversy remains on whether CYP3A4 increased [*1B (rs2740574), *1 G (rs2242480)] and decreased function [*22 (rs35599367)] genetic variants provide additional information. This retrospective cohort study aims to address whether tacrolimus dose-adjusted trough concentrations differ between combined CYP3A (CYP3A5 and CYP3A4) phenotype groups. Heart transplanted patients (n = 177, between 2008 and 2020) were included and median age was 54 years old. Significant differences between CYP3A phenotype groups in tacrolimus dose-adjusted trough concentrations were found in the early postoperative period and continued to 6 months post-transplant. In CYP3A5 nonexpressers, carriers of CYP3A4*1B or *1 G variants (Group 3) compared to CYP3A4*1/*1 (Group 2) patients were found to have lower tacrolimus dose-adjusted trough concentrations at 2 months. In addition, significant differences were found among CYP3A phenotype groups in the dose at discharge and time to therapeutic range while time in therapeutic range was not significantly different. A combined CYP3A phenotype interpretation may provide more nuanced genotype-guided TAC dosing in heart transplant recipients.

Strategies for DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in the US.

PURPOSE: Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency are at high risk for severe and fatal toxicity from fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy. Pre-treatment DPYD testing is standard of care in many countries, but not the United States (US). This survey assessed pre-treatment DPYD testing approaches in the US to identify best practices for broader adoption. METHODS: From August to October 2023, a 22-item QualtricsXM survey was sent to institutions and clinicians known to conduct pre-treatment DPYD testing and broadly distributed through relevant organizations and social networks. Responses were analyzed using descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Responses from 24 unique US sites that have implemented pre-treatment DPYD testing or have a detailed implementation plan in place were analyzed. Only 33% of sites ordered DPYD testing for all FP-treated patients; at the remaining sites, patients were tested depending on disease characteristics or clinician preference. Almost 50% of sites depend on individual clinicians to remember to order testing without the assistance of electronic alerts or workflow reminders. DPYD testing was most often conducted by commercial laboratories that tested for at least the four or five DPYD variants considered clinically actionable. Approximately 90% of sites reported receiving results within 10 days of ordering. CONCLUSION: Implementing DPYD testing into routine clinical practice is feasible and requires a coordinated effort among the healthcare team. These results will be used to develop best practices for the clinical adoption of DPYD testing to prevent severe and fatal toxicity in cancer patients receiving FP chemotherapy.

Multisite investigation of strategies for the clinical implementation of pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing.

PURPOSE: The increased availability of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) guidelines and decreasing costs for genetic testing have slowly led to increased utilization of PGx testing in clinical practice. Pre-emptive PGx testing, where testing is performed in advance of drug prescribing, is one means to ensure results are available at the time of prescribing decisions. However, the most efficient and effective methods to clinically implement this strategy remain unclear. METHODS: In this report, we compare and contrast implementation strategies for pre-emptive PGx testing by 15 early-adopter institutions. We surveyed these groups, collecting data on testing approaches, team composition, and workflow dynamics, in addition to estimated third-party reimbursement rates. RESULTS: We found that while pre-emptive PGx testing models varied across sites, institutions shared several commonalities, including methods to identify patients eligible for testing, involvement of a precision medicine clinical team in program leadership, and the implementation of pharmacogenes with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines available. Finally, while reimbursement rate data were difficult to obtain, the data available suggested that reimbursement rates for pre-emptive PGx testing remain low. CONCLUSION: These findings should inform the establishment of future implementation efforts at institutions considering a pre-emptive PGx testing program.

The landscape of pharmacogenetic testing in a US managed care population.

PURPOSE: Little is known about how many insured patients receive pharmacogenetic testing. We describe trends of single-gene pharmacogenetic testing in a US managed care population, and demographic and clinical characteristics of patients who received a test. METHODS: We leveraged a random sample of nearly 11 million patients from a data set of paid medical and pharmacy claims to identify patients with at least one claim indicating receipt of at least one of these single-gene pharmacogenetic tests: CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2C9, VKORC1, UGT1A1, and HLA class 1 typing. RESULTS: From 1 January 2013 to 30 September 2017, 5712 patients received at least one pharmacogenetic test (55% female; mean age = 43 years). The median number of tests per patient was 3 (mean = 2.7, max = 12); 54% were processed through Managed Medicare/Medicaid, while 45% were processed through commercial insurance. The total number of pharmacogenetic tests received more than doubled from 2013 (n = 1955) to 2015 (n = 4192), then decreased slightly in 2016 (n = 3946). The most common test was CYP2C19 (n = 4719), and "long-term (current) use of other medications" was the most common diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Pharmacogenetic testing through patients' insurance was low, but more than doubled from 2013 to 2016. This study highlights the need to better understand utilization patterns and insurance coverage for pharmacogenetic tests.

The risk of sudden cardiac arrest and ventricular arrhythmia with rosiglitazone versus pioglitazone: real-world evidence on thiazolidinedione safety.

BACKGROUND: The low cost of thiazolidinediones makes them a potentially valuable therapeutic option for the > 300 million economically disadvantaged persons worldwide with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Differential selectivity of thiazolidinediones for peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors in the myocardium may lead to disparate arrhythmogenic effects. We examined real-world effects of thiazolidinediones on outpatient-originating sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) and ventricular arrhythmia (VA). METHODS: We conducted population-based high-dimensional propensity score-matched cohort studies in five Medicaid programs (California, Florida, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania | 1999-2012) and a commercial health insurance plan (Optum Clinformatics | 2000-2016). We defined exposure based on incident rosiglitazone or pioglitazone dispensings; the latter served as an active comparator. We controlled for confounding by matching exposure groups on propensity score, informed by baseline covariates identified via a data adaptive approach. We ascertained SCA/VA outcomes precipitating hospital presentation using a validated, diagnosis-based algorithm. We generated marginal hazard ratios (HRs) via Cox proportional hazards regression that accounted for clustering within matched pairs. We prespecified Medicaid and Optum findings as primary and secondary, respectively; the latter served as a conceptual replication dataset. RESULTS: The adjusted HR for SCA/VA among rosiglitazone (vs. pioglitazone) users was 0.91 (0.75-1.10) in Medicaid and 0.88 (0.61-1.28) in Optum. Among Medicaid but not Optum enrollees, we found treatment effect heterogeneity by sex (adjusted HRs = 0.71 [0.54-0.93] and 1.16 [0.89-1.52] in men and women respectively, interaction term p-value = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone and pioglitazone appear to be associated with similar risks of SCA/VA.

Relationship between nocturnal blood pressure patterns and end organ damage and diastolic dysfunction in heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the relationship between circadian blood pressure (BP) patterns and clinical outcomes in a contemporary cohort of adult heart transplant recipients. METHODS: This retrospective, cross-sectional study included adult heart transplant recipients at least 6 months post-transplant. Ambulatory BP measurements were recorded over 24 hours. Nondippers were defined as a decline in average nighttime BP ≤ 10% compared with daytime. Primary outcomes were the presence of end organ damage, that is, microalbuminuria, chronic kidney disease, and/or left ventricular hypertrophy. Secondary outcomes were measures of diastolic dysfunction (ie, mitral valve deceleration time, e/e', E/A, and isovolumetric relaxation time), microalbumin/creatinine ratio, eGFR, interventricular septal thickness, and left ventricular posterior wall thickness. RESULTS: Of 30 patients, 53.3% (n = 16) were systolic nondippers and 40% (n = 12) were diastolic nondippers. Diastolic nondippers had three times higher urine microalbumin/creatinine ratios than diastolic dippers (P = .03). Systolic nondippers had 16.3% lower mitral valve deceleration time (P = .05) than systolic dippers, while diastolic nondippers had 20.4% higher e/e' (P = .05) than diastolic dippers. There were no significant relationships between BP dipping status and any of the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that systolic and diastolic nondipping BP patterns are associated with subclinical kidney damage and diastolic dysfunction in heart transplant recipients.

National survey of physicians' perspectives on pharmacogenetic testing in solid organ transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to evaluate physicians' perspectives on the clinical utility of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in kidney, liver, heart, and lung transplantation (KLHL-Tx). METHODS: A 36-question web-based survey was developed and administered to medical and surgical directors of US KLHL-Tx centers. RESULTS: There were 82 respondents (10% response rate). The majority were men (78%), non-Hispanic whites (70%), medical directors (72%), and kidney transplant physicians (35%). Although 78% of respondents reported having some PGx education, most reported lack of confidence in their PGx knowledge and ability to apply a PGx test. Participants reported mixed views about the clinical utility of PGx testing-most agreed with the efficacy of PGx testing, but not the benefits relative to the risks or standard of care. While 55% reported that testing was available at their institution, only 38% ordered a PGx test in the past year, most commonly thiopurine-S-methyltransferase. Physician-reported barriers to PGx implementation included uncertainty about the clinical value of PGx testing and patient financial burden. CONCLUSION: Together, our findings suggest prospective PGx research and pilot implementation programs are needed to elucidate the clinical utility and value of PGx in KLHL-Tx. These initiatives should include educational efforts to inform the use of PGx testing.

Patients' Perspectives on Psychiatric Pharmacogenetic Testing.

INTRODUCTION: There is growing interest to adopt pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in psychiatric medicine, despite mixed views regarding its clinical utility. Nevertheless, providers are utilizing PGx testing among patients with mental health disorders. This study sought to assess genotyped patients' perspectives and experiences with psychiatric PGx testing. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted among patients with depression who had undergone psychiatric PGx testing. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed and analyzed inductively and deductively for salient themes. RESULTS: Twenty patients (100% Caucasian, 60% female, mean age 39±18 years) were interviewed. The majority of the PGx tests were provider-initiated for patients who failed multiple pharmacotherapies (50%) and/or had medication intolerances (45%). Patients' pre-testing expectations ranged from hopefulness to indifference to skepticism. Their post-testing experiences varied from optimism to disappointment, with the perceived value of the test influenced by the results and cost of the test. DISCUSSION: Genotyped patients had mixed perspectives, expectations, and experiences with psychiatric PGx testing. Their perceived value of the test was influenced by the test outcomes and its cost.

The ENTPD1 promoter polymorphism -860 A > G (rs3814159) is associated with increased gene transcription, protein expression, CD39/NTPDase1 enzymatic activity, and thromboembolism risk.

Ectonucleoside triphosphate diphosphohydrolase 1 (NTPDase1) degrades the purines ATP and ADP that are key regulators of inflammation and clotting. We hypothesized that NTPDase1 polymorphisms exist and that they regulate this pathway. We sequenced the ENTPD1 gene (encoding NTPDase1) in 216 subjects then assessed genotypes in 2 cohorts comprising 2213 humans to identify ENTPD1 polymorphisms associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE). The G allele of the intron 1 polymorphism rs3176891 was more common in VTE vs. controls (odds ratio 1.26-1.9); it did not affect RNA splicing, but it was in strong linkage disequilibrium with the G allele of the promoter polymorphism rs3814159, which increased transcriptional activity by 8-fold. Oligonucleotides containing the G allele of this promoter region bound nuclear extracts more avidly. Carriers of rs3176891 G had endothelial cells with increased NTPDase1 activity and protein expression, and had platelets with enhanced aggregation. Thus, the G allele of rs3176891 marks a haplotype associated with increased clotting and platelet aggregation attributable to a promoter variant associated with increased transcription, expression, and activity of NTPDase1. We term this gain-of-function phenotype observed with rs3814159 G "CD39 Denver."-Maloney, J. P., Branchford, B. R., Brodsky, G. L., Cosmic, M. S., Calabrese, D. W., Aquilante, C. L., Maloney, K. W., Gonzalez, J. R., Zhang, W., Moreau, K. L., Wiggins, K. L., Smith, N. L., Broeckel, U., Di Paola, J. The ENTPD1 promoter polymorphism -860 A > G (rs3814159) is associated with increased gene transcription, protein expression, CD39/NTPDase1 enzymatic activity, and thromboembolism risk.

Pharmacogenetics of unboosted atazanavir in HIV-infected individuals in resource-limited settings: a sub-study of the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) PEARLS study (NWCS 342).

OBJECTIVES: The multinational PEARLS (ACTG A5175) study, conducted mainly in resource-limited settings, identified an increased treatment failure rate among HIV-infected individuals randomized to once-daily unboosted atazanavir, didanosine-EC, and emtricitabine compared with efavirenz-based regimens. We evaluated associations between selected human genetic polymorphisms and atazanavir pharmacokinetics in PEARLS. METHODS: Polymorphisms in CYP3A5, ABCB1, SLCO1B1 and NR1I2 were genotyped in PEARLS participants randomized to atazanavir plus didanosine-EC plus emtricitabine in Peru, South Africa and the USA, who also consented to genetic analysis. Non-linear mixed-effects population pharmacokinetic modelling was used to predict atazanavir oral clearance (CL/F) and concentration at 24 h (C24). Atazanavir mono-oxidation metabolites M1 and M2 were quantified from the same single-point plasma sample used to quantify the parent drug. Data were log10 transformed for statistical analysis using unpaired t-tests and one-way ANOVA and are presented as geometric mean (95% CI). RESULTS: Eighty-four HIV-infected participants were genotyped, including 44 Black Africans or African Americans and 28 women. Median age was 34 years. We identified 56 CYP3A5 expressers and 28 non-expressers. Atazanavir CL/F and C24 did not differ between CYP3A5 expressers and non-expressers: 13.2 (12.1-14.4) versus 12.7 L/h (11.7-13.9), P = 0.61, and 75.3 (46.1-123.0) versus 130.9 ng/mL (86.9-197.2), P = 0.14, respectively. M1/atazanavir and M2/atazanavir ratios were higher in expressers than in non-expressers: 0.0083 (0.0074-0.0094) versus 0.0063 (0.0053-0.0075), P = 0.008, and 0.0065 (0.0057-0.0073) versus 0.0050 (0.0042-0.0061), P = 0.02, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Expression of CYP3A5 appears to be associated with increased M1 and M2 atazanavir metabolite formation, without significantly affecting parent compound pharmacokinetics.

CYP3A pharmacogenetics and tacrolimus disposition in adult heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A polymorphisms are associated with variable CYP3A metabolizing enzyme activity and tacrolimus pharmacokinetics. We sought to determine the singular and combined impact of CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5*3 variants on tacrolimus drug disposition in adult heart transplant recipients. METHODS: The retrospective study included 76 patients greater than one year post-heart transplant and receiving tacrolimus. Patients were genotyped for CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5*3, and combined genotypes were classified as follows: extensive metabolizers (EM, CYP3A4*1/*1+CYP3A5*1 carriers), intermediate metabolizers (IM, CYP3A4*1/*1+CYP3A5*3/*3, or CYP3A4*22 carriers+CYP3A5*1 carriers), and poor metabolizers (PM, CYP3A4*22 carriers+CYP3A5*3/*3). The primary outcome was tacrolimus dose-adjusted trough concentration (C0 /D, ng/mL per mg/d). RESULTS: In singular analysis, tacrolimus C0 /D did not differ significantly between CYP3A4*22 genotype groups. However, tacrolimus C0 /D was 1.8-fold lower (P<.001) in CYP3A5 expressers vs non-expressers. When combined CYP3A genotypes were evaluated, tacrolimus C0 /D was 1.8-fold lower in EMs vs IMs (P<.001) and EMs vs PMs (P=.001). Tacrolimus C0 /D did not differ significantly between CYP3A IMs vs PMs. CONCLUSION: Combined CYP3A genotype was associated with tacrolimus drug disposition in adult heart transplant recipients, but the effect was largely driven by CYP3A5*3. These data suggest that CYP3A4*22 and combined CYP3A genotypes are unlikely to provide additional information beyond CYP3A5 genotype.

Evaluating Patient-Level Medication Regimen Complexity Over Time in Heart Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Medication regimen complexity describes multiple characteristics of a patient's prescribed drug regimen. Heart transplant recipients must comply with a lifelong regimen that consists of numerous medications. However, a systematic assessment of medication regimen complexity over time has not been conducted in this, or any other, transplant population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to quantify patient-level medication regimen complexity over time following primary heart transplantation and heart retransplantation, using the validated patient-level Medication Regimen Complexity Index (pMRCI) tool. METHODS: Medication lists were reviewed at transplant discharge and years 1, 3, and 5 post-primary heart transplant, and at transplant discharge and years 1 and 3 post-heart retransplantation. Medications were categorized as transplant-specific, other prescription, and over-the-counter (OTC). RESULTS: In primary heart transplant recipients (n = 60), mean total medication count was 14.3 ± 3.4 at transplant discharge and did not change significantly over time ( P = 0.64). Transplant-specific medication count decreased significantly from discharge (2.9 ± 0.4) to year 5 (2.3 ± 0.6); P = 0.02. However, 32% of patients were taking 16 or more total medications at year 5 posttransplant. More than 70% of the pMRCI score was attributed to other prescription and OTC medications, which was largely driven by dosing frequency in this cohort. Medication complexity did not differ significantly between heart retransplant recipients (n = 11) and matched primary heart transplant controls (n = 22). CONCLUSION: Together, these data highlight the substantial medication burden after heart transplantation and reveal opportunities to address medication regimen complexity in this, and other, transplant populations.

Evaluation of sulfobutylether-ß-cyclodextrin (SBECD) accumulation and voriconazole pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous (IV) voriconazole is not recommended in patients with creatinine clearance <50 ml/min to avoid potentially toxic accumulation of sulfobutylether-ß-cyclodextrin (SBECD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of SBECD, voriconazole, and voriconazole N-oxide in critically ill patients undergoing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) and to determine if CRRT removes SBECD sufficiently to allow for the use of IV voriconazole without significant risk of SBECD accumulation. METHODS: This prospective, open-label pharmacokinetic study enrolled patients >18 years old receiving IV voriconazole for a known or suspected invasive fungal infection while undergoing CRRT. Serial blood and effluent samples were collected on days 1, 3, 5, 7, and every 3 to 5 days thereafter. SBECD, voriconazole, and voriconazole N-oxide plasma and effluent concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacogenetic analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Ten patients (mean ± standard deviation (SD)) 53 ± 11 years old, 50% male, 81 ± 14 kg, with Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores of 31.5 ± 3.8 were evaluated. All patients underwent continuous venovenous hemofiltration (CVVH) with a median predilution replacement fluid rate of 36 (interquartile range (IQR) 32 to 37) ml/kg/hr and total ultrafiltration rate of 38 (IQR 34 to 39) ml/kg/hr. Mean ± SD voriconazole and SBECD dosages administered were 8.1 ± 2.1 mg/kg/day and 129 ± 33 mg/kg/day, respectively. Voriconazole plasma trough concentrations were >1 mg/L in all patients with CVVH accounting for only 15% of the total body clearance. CVVH accounted for 86% of the total body clearance of SBECD with the majority of the dose being recovered in the effluent. Minimal increases in dose normalized SBECD area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12) (4,484 ± 4,368 to 4,553 ± 2,880 mg*hr/L; P = 0.97) were observed after study day 1. CONCLUSIONS: CVVH effectively removed SBECD at a rate similar to the ultrafiltration rate. Voriconazole clearance by CVVH was not clinically significant. Standard dosages of IV voriconazole can be utilized in patients undergoing CVVH without significant risk of SBECD accumulation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01101386 . Registered 6 April 2010.

Comparison of office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure in heart transplant recipients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the relationship between office, home, and ambulatory blood pressure (BP) in heart transplant recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study enrolled 30 adults ≥ 6 months after heart transplantation. Morning seated office BP was measured with the use of an automatic device at 3 outpatient visits. Seated home BP was measured in the morning and evening for 5 consecutive days. Ambulatory BP was measured over 24 hours with the use of a Spacelabs monitor. The strongest correlation was observed between home and 24-hour ambulatory BP (r = 0.79 systolic; r = 0.72 diastolic). Office and home systolic BPs were significantly lower than daytime ambulatory BP (office, -3.7 mm Hg, P = .009; home, -2.6 mm Hg, P = .05). Ambulatory monitoring identified more participants with BP above hypertensive limits than did office or home measurements (63%, 50%, and 13%, respectively; P = .003). Ambulatory monitoring also revealed high BP loads, abnormal nocturnal BP patterns (eg, 30% nondippers), and a high percentage of masked hypertension (37% home, 50% ambulatory). CONCLUSIONS: Office and home BP monitoring are acceptable but may underestimate BP burden in heart transplant recipients. Additional studies are needed to determine which BP method is superior for the management of hypertension and associated outcomes after heart transplantation.

The impact of genetic polymorphisms, diltiazem, and demographic variables on everolimus trough concentrations in lung transplant recipients.

Everolimus (EVR) has inter-individual pharmacokinetic (PK) variability and a narrow therapeutic index. The study objective was to determine whether genetic polymorphisms, co-medications, and/or demographic variables accounted for inter-individual variability in EVR PK in lung transplant recipients (LTxR). LTxR were genotyped for ABCB1 c.1236C>T, ABCB1 c.2677G>T/A, ABCB1 c.3435C>T, CYP3A4*1B, CYP3A5*3, CYP2C8*2/*3/*4, and pregnane X receptor (NR1I2) c.44477T>C, c.63396C>T, c.69789A>G polymorphisms. The primary outcome was the difference in dose-adjusted EVR levels (EVR L/D) between ABCB1 diplotype groups (2 vs. 1 vs. 0 copies of the 1236C/2677G/3435C haplotype). Sixty-five LTxR were included. There was no significant difference in EVR L/D between ABCB1 CGC diplotype groups (CGC/CGC = 2.4 ± 1.1 [n = 9] vs. CGC/XXX = 2.5 ± 1.7 [n = 36] vs. XXX/XXX = 2.7 ± 1.7 ng/mL per mg/d [n = 20]; p = 0.9). CYP3A5*3, CYP3A4*1B, CYP2C8*3/*4, and NR1I2 polymorphisms were not associated with EVR L/D. EVR L/D was 3.4 ± 1.7 in LTxR receiving diltiazem (DILT) vs. 1.8 ± 1.1 ng/mL per mg/d in LTxR not receiving DILT (p <0.001). Demographic variables, including cystic fibrosis, were not associated with EVR PK. DILT use increased EVR L/D, but selected polymorphisms in ABCB1, CYP3A5, CYP3A4, CYP2C8, and NR1I2 did not affect EVR L/D in LTxR. Genotyping LTxR for these polymorphisms is unlikely to aid clinicians in optimizing EVR therapy.

Implementation of clopidogrel pharmacogenetic clinical decision support for a preemptive return of results program.

PURPOSE: To describe our experiences implementing and iterating CYP2C19 genotype-guided clopidogrel pharmacogenetic clinical decision support (CDS) tools over time in the setting of a large health system-wide, preemptive pharmacogenomics program. SUMMARY: Clopidogrel-treated patients who are genetically predicted cytochrome P450 isozyme 2C19 (CYP2C19) intermediate or poor metabolizers have an increased risk of atherothrombotic events, some of which can be life-threatening. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium provides guidance for the use of clopidogrel based on CYP2C19 genotype in patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Our multidisciplinary team implemented an automated, interruptive alert that fires when clopidogrel is ordered or refilled for biobank participants with structured CYP2C19 intermediate or poor metabolizer genomic indicators in the electronic health record. The implementation began with a narrow cardiovascular indication and setting and was then scaled in 4 primary dimensions: (1) clinical indication; (2) availability across health-system locations; (3) care venue (e.g., inpatient vs outpatient); and (4) provider groups (eg, cardiology and neurology). We iterated our approach over time based on evolving clinical evidence and proactive strategies to optimize CDS maintenance and sustainability. A key facilitator of expansion was socialization of the broader pharmacogenomics initiative among our academic medical center community, accompanied by clinician acceptance of pharmacogenetic alerts in practice. CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary collaboration is recommended to facilitate the use of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. Evolving clopidogrel pharmacogenetic evidence necessitates thoughtful iteration of implementation efforts and strategies to optimize long-term maintenance and sustainability.

Barriers and facilitators of the use of clinical informatics resources to facilitate pharmacogenomic implementation in resource-limited settings.

Objective: Understand perceived barriers to and facilitators of using clinical informatics applications for pharmacogenomic (PGx) implementation in resource-limited settings. Materials and Methods: We conducted a qualitative research study using a semi-structured interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interview questions assessed CFIR contextual determinants related to: electronic health record (EHR) infrastructure; clinical informatics personnel and resources; EHR integration of PGx test results; PGx clinical decision support (CDS) tools; institutional resources; and partner receptivity. Transcripts were coded and analyzed to identify themes. Results: We interviewed 24 clinical informaticists and executive leaders working in rural or underserved health care settings in Montana (n = 15) and Colorado (n = 9) and identified three major themes: (1) EHR infrastructure limitations, (2) insufficient supporting resources, and (3) unique contextual considerations for resource-limited settings. EHR infrastructure limitations included limited agency related to EHR build and interoperability concerns. Theme 1 highlighted challenges associated with integrating structured data into the EHR and inadequate vendor support. Theme 2 included limited familiarity with PGx across the care team, cost concerns, and allocation of non-financial resources. Theme 3 highlighted perceptions about the clinical utility of PGx within rural and underrepresented populations. Potential facilitators, such as being able to act nimbly, were found to coexist among the reported barriers. Discussion and Conclusion: Our results provide insight into the clinical informatics infrastructure in resource-limited settings and identify unique considerations for clinical informatics-facilitated PGx implementation. Future efforts in these settings should consider innovative partnerships and strategies to leverage facilitators and minimize barriers associated with integrating PGx CDS applications.

Clinical versus fixed warfarin dosing and the impact on quality of anticoagulation (The ClinFix trial).

Different dosing strategies exist to initiate warfarin, most commonly fixed warfarin dosing (FWD), clinical warfarin dosing (CWD), and genetic-guided warfarin dosing (GWD). Landmark trials have shown GWD to be superior when compared to FWD in the EU-PACT trial or CWD in the GIFT trial. COAG trial did not show differences between GWD and CWD. We aim to compare the anticoagulation quality outcomes of CWD and FWD. This is a prospective cohort study with a retrospective comparator. Recruited subjects in the CWD (prospective) arm were initiated on warfarin according to the clinical dosing component of the algorithm published in www.warfarindosing.org. The primary efficacy outcome was the percentage time in the therapeutic range (PTTR) from day 3 to 6 till day 28 to 35. The study enrolled 122 and 123 patients in the CWD and FWD, respectively. The PTTR did not differ statistically between CWD and FWD (62.2 ± 26.2% vs. 58 ± 25.4%, p = 0.2). There was also no difference between both arms in the percentage of visits with extreme subtherapeutic international normalized ratio (INR) (<1.5; 15 ± 18.3% vs. 16.8 ± 19.1%, p = 0.44) or extreme supratherapeutic INR (>4; 7.7 ± 14.7% vs. 7.5 ± 12.4%, p = 0.92). We conclude that CWD did not improve the anticoagulation quality parameters compared to the FWD method.