Predicting clinical outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Omicron wave using machine learning.

The Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant continues to strain healthcare systems. Developing tools that facilitate the identification of patients at highest risk of adverse outcomes is a priority. The study objectives are to develop population-scale predictive models that: 1) identify predictors of adverse outcomes with Omicron surge SARS-CoV-2 infections, and 2) predict the impact of prioritized vaccination of high-risk groups for said outcome. We prepared a retrospective longitudinal observational study of a national cohort of 172,814 patients in the U.S. Veteran Health Administration who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 from January 15 to August 15, 2022. We utilized sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and vaccination status, at time of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 to predict hospitalization, escalation of care (high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, vasopressor use, dialysis, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), and death within 30 days. Machine learning models demonstrated that advanced age, high comorbidity burden, lower body mass index, unvaccinated status, and oral anticoagulant use were the important predictors of hospitalization and escalation of care. Similar factors predicted death. However, anticoagulant use did not predict mortality risk. The all-cause death model showed the highest discrimination (Area Under the Curve (AUC) = 0.903, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.895, 0.911) followed by hospitalization (AUC = 0.822, CI: 0.818, 0.826), then escalation of care (AUC = 0.793, CI: 0.784, 0.805). Assuming a vaccine efficacy range of 70.8 to 78.7%, our simulations projected that targeted prevention in the highest risk group may have reduced 30-day hospitalization and death in more than 2 of 5 unvaccinated patients.

Metformin prescription for U.S. veterans with prediabetes, 2010-2019.

Affecting an estimated 88 million Americans, prediabetes increases the risk for developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and independently, cardiovascular disease, retinopathy, nephropathy, and neuropathy. Nevertheless, little is known about the use of metformin for diabetes prevention among patients in the Veterans Health Administration, the largest integrated healthcare system in the U.S. This is a retrospective observational cohort study of the proportion of Veterans with incident prediabetes who were prescribed metformin at the Veterans Health Administration from October 2010 to September 2019. Among 1,059,605 Veterans with incident prediabetes, 12,009 (1.1%) were prescribed metformin during an average 3.4 years of observation after diagnosis. Metformin prescribing was marginally higher (1.6%) among those with body mass index (BMI) ≥35 kg/m2, age <60 years, HbA1c≥6.0%, or those with a history of gestational diabetes, all subgroups at a higher risk for progression to T2DM. In a multivariable model, metformin was more likely to be prescribed for those with BMI ≥35 kg/m2 incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.6 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 2.1-3.3], female sex IRR, 2.4 [95% CI: 1.8-3.3], HbA1c≥6% IRR, 1.93 [95% CI: 1.5-2.4], age <60 years IRR, 1.7 [95% CI: 1.3-2.3], hypertriglyceridemia IRR, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.2-1.9], hypertension IRR, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.1-2.1], Major Depressive Disorder IRR, 1.5 [95% CI: 1.1-2.0], or schizophrenia IRR, 2.1 [95% CI: 1.2-3.8]. Over 20% of Veterans with prediabetes attended a comprehensive structured lifestyle modification clinic or program. Among Veterans with prediabetes, metformin was prescribed to 1.1% overall, a proportion that marginally increased to 1.6% in the subset of individuals at highest risk for progression to T2DM.

A causal roadmap for generating high-quality real-world evidence.

Increasing emphasis on the use of real-world evidence (RWE) to support clinical policy and regulatory decision-making has led to a proliferation of guidance, advice, and frameworks from regulatory agencies, academia, professional societies, and industry. A broad spectrum of studies use real-world data (RWD) to produce RWE, ranging from randomized trials with outcomes assessed using RWD to fully observational studies. Yet, many proposals for generating RWE lack sufficient detail, and many analyses of RWD suffer from implausible assumptions, other methodological flaws, or inappropriate interpretations. The Causal Roadmap is an explicit, itemized, iterative process that guides investigators to prespecify study design and analysis plans; it addresses a wide range of guidance within a single framework. By supporting the transparent evaluation of causal assumptions and facilitating objective comparisons of design and analysis choices based on prespecified criteria, the Roadmap can help investigators to evaluate the quality of evidence that a given study is likely to produce, specify a study to generate high-quality RWE, and communicate effectively with regulatory agencies and other stakeholders. This paper aims to disseminate and extend the Causal Roadmap framework for use by clinical and translational researchers; three companion papers demonstrate applications of the Causal Roadmap for specific use cases.

Design of VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1): A double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial of COVID-19 convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with early respiratory compromise.

Background: Effective therapeutics for severe acute respiratory syndrome CoronaVirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are evolving. Under Emergency Use Authorization, COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) was widely used in individuals hospitalized for COVID-19, but few randomized controlled trials supported its efficacy to limit respiratory failure or death. Methods: VA CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 (VA CURES-1) was a double-blind, multi-site, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of CCP with conventional therapy in hospitalized Veterans with SARS-CoV-2 infection and early respiratory compromise (requirement for oxygen). Participants (planned sample size 702) were randomized 1:1 to receive CCP with high titer neutralizing activity or 0.9% saline, stratified by site and age (≥65 versus <65 years old). Participants were followed daily during initial hospitalization and at Days 15, 22 and 28. Outcomes: The composite primary outcome was acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or all-cause death by Day 28. Secondary outcomes by day 28 included time-to-recovery, clinical severity, mortality, rehospitalization for COVID-19, and adverse events. Serial respiratory and blood samples were collected for safety, virologic and immunologic analyses and future studies. Key variables in predicting the success of CURES-1 were: (1) enrollment early in the course of severe infection; (2) use of plasma with high neutralizing activity; (3) reliance on unambiguous, clinically meaningful outcomes. CURES-1 was terminated for futility due to perceived inability to enroll in the lull between the Alpha and Delta waves of the SARS CoV-2 epidemic. Conclusions: VA CURES-1 was a large multi-site trial designed to provide conclusive information about the efficacy of CCP in well-characterized patients at risk for progression of COVID-19. It utilized a rigorous study design with relevant initial timing, quality of product and outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04539275.

Sequential and Comparative Evaluation of Pain Treatment Effectiveness Response (SCEPTER), a pragmatic trial for conservative chronic low back pain treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a common and highly disabling problem world-wide. Although many treatment options exist, it is unclear how to best sequence the multitude of care options to provide the greatest benefit to patients. METHODS: The Sequential and Comparative Evaluation of Pain Treatment Effectiveness Response (SCEPTER) trial uses a pragmatic, randomized, stepped design. Enrollment targets 2529 participants from 20 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. Participants with chronic low back pain will first be randomized to one of three options: 1) an internet-based self-management program (Pain EASE); 2) a tailored physical therapy program (Enhanced PT); or 3) continued care with active monitoring (CCAM), a form of usual care. Participants not achieving a 30% or 2-point reduction on the study's primary outcome (Brief Pain Inventory Pain Interference (BPI-PI) subscale), 3 months after beginning treatment may undergo re-randomization in a second step to cognitive behavioral therapy for chronic pain, spinal manipulation therapy, or yoga. Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, back pain-related disability, depression, and others. Participants will be assessed every three months until 12 months after initiating their final trial therapy. Companion economic and implementation analyses are also planned. RESULTS: The SCEPTER trial is currently recruiting and enrolling participants. CONCLUSIONS: Trial results will inform treatment decisions for the stepped management of chronic low back pain - a common and disabling condition. Additional analyses will help tailor treatment selection to individual patient characteristics, promote efficient resource use, and identify implementation barriers of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04142177.

Effect of Pharmacogenomic Testing for Drug-Gene Interactions on Medication Selection and Remission of Symptoms in Major Depressive Disorder: The PRIME Care Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Selecting effective antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) is an imprecise practice, with remission rates of about 30% at the initial treatment. Objective: To determine whether pharmacogenomic testing affects antidepressant medication selection and whether such testing leads to better clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that compared treatment guided by pharmacogenomic testing vs usual care. Participants included 676 clinicians and 1944 patients. Participants were enrolled from 22 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers from July 2017 through February 2021, with follow-up ending November 2021. Eligible patients were those with MDD who were initiating or switching treatment with a single antidepressant. Exclusion criteria included an active substance use disorder, mania, psychosis, or concurrent treatment with a specified list of medications. Interventions: Results from a commercial pharmacogenomic test were given to clinicians in the pharmacogenomic-guided group (n = 966). The comparison group received usual care and access to pharmacogenomic results after 24 weeks (n = 978). Main Outcomes and Measures: The co-primary outcomes were the proportion of prescriptions with a predicted drug-gene interaction written in the 30 days after randomization and remission of depressive symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) (remission was defined as PHQ-9 ≤ 5). Remission was analyzed as a repeated measure across 24 weeks by blinded raters. Results: Among 1944 patients who were randomized (mean age, 48 years; 491 women [25%]), 1541 (79%) completed the 24-week assessment. The estimated risks for receiving an antidepressant with none, moderate, and substantial drug-gene interactions for the pharmacogenomic-guided group were 59.3%, 30.0%, and 10.7% compared with 25.7%, 54.6%, and 19.7% in the usual care group. The pharmacogenomic-guided group was more likely to receive a medication with a lower potential drug-gene interaction for no drug-gene vs moderate/substantial interaction (odds ratio [OR], 4.32 [95% CI, 3.47 to 5.39]; P < .001) and no/moderate vs substantial interaction (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.52 to 2.84]; P = .005) (P < .001 for overall comparison). Remission rates over 24 weeks were higher among patients whose care was guided by pharmacogenomic testing than those in usual care (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57]; P = .02; risk difference, 2.8% [95% CI, 0.6% to 5.1%]) but were not significantly higher at week 24 when 130 patients in the pharmacogenomic-guided group and 126 patients in the usual care group were in remission (estimated risk difference, 1.5% [95% CI, -2.4% to 5.3%]; P = .45). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with MDD, provision of pharmacogenomic testing for drug-gene interactions reduced prescription of medications with predicted drug-gene interactions compared with usual care. Provision of test results had small nonpersistent effects on symptom remission. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03170362.

Low-dose methylprednisolone treatment in critically ill patients with severe community-acquired pneumonia.

PURPOSE: Severe community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) requiring intensive care unit admission is associated with significant acute and long-term morbidity and mortality. We hypothesized that downregulation of systemic and pulmonary inflammation with prolonged low-dose methylprednisolone treatment would accelerate pneumonia resolution and improve clinical outcomes. METHODS: This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial recruited adult patients within 72-96 h of hospital presentation. Patients were randomized in 1:1 ratio; an intravenous 40 mg loading bolus was followed by 40 mg/day through day 7 and progressive tapering during the 20-day treatment course. Randomization was stratified by site and need for mechanical ventilation (MV) at the time of randomization. Outcomes included a primary endpoint of 60-day all-cause mortality and secondary endpoints of morbidity and mortality up to 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Between January 2012 and April 2016, 586 patients from 42 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers were randomized, short of the 1420 target sample size because of low recruitment. 584 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in 60-day mortality between the methylprednisolone and placebo arms (16% vs. 18%; adjusted odds ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.57-1.40). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes or complications. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe CAP, prolonged low-dose methylprednisolone treatment did not significantly reduce 60-day mortality. Treatment was not associated with increased complications.

A Population-Level Analysis of the Protective Effects of Androgen Deprivation Therapy Against COVID-19 Disease Incidence and Severity.

Background: The incidence and severity of coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) is substantially higher in men. Sex hormones may be a potential mechanism for differences in COVID-19 outcome in men and women. We hypothesized that men treated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) have lower incidence and severity of COVID-19. Methods: We conducted an observational study of male Veterans treated in the Veterans Health Administration from February 15th to July 15th, 2020. We developed a propensity score model to predict the likelihood to undergo Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) testing. We performed multivariable logistic regression modeling adjusted with inverse probability weighting to examine the relationship between ADT and COVID-19 incidence. We conducted logistic regression analysis among COVID-19 patients to test the association between ADT and COVID-19 severity. Results: We identified a large cohort of 246,087 VA male patients who had been tested for SARS-CoV-2, of whom 3,057 men were exposed to ADT, and 36,096 men with cancer without ADT. Of these, 295 ADT patients and 2,427 cancer patients not on ADT had severe COVID-19 illness. In the primary, propensity-weighted comparison of ADT patients to cancer patients not on ADT, ADT was associated with decreased likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.81-0.95]; p = 0.001). Furthermore, ADT was associated with fewer severe COVID-19 outcomes (OR 0.72 [95% CI 0.53-0.96]; p = 0.03). Conclusion: ADT is associated with reduced incidence and severity of COVID-19 amongst male Veterans. Testosterone and androgen receptor signaling may confer increased risk for SARS-CoV-2 infection and contribute to severe COVID-19 pathophysiology in men.

Designing and implementing methodology for double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials using blood products within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

BACKGROUND: Success in conducting clinical trials during the coronavirus disease of 2019 pandemic requires the ability to innovate and adapt. There are well-established procedures for the blinding of investigational agents, especially medications, in placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials within the Veterans Health Administration. However, these procedures, managed by research pharmacists, may not apply to investigational agents that are not exclusively managed by pharmacy, such as blood products, including coronavirus disease of 2019 convalescent plasma (plasma). In the absence of established blinding procedures, such studies require special design considerations to minimize uncertainty or bias. METHODS: We describe the processes and procedures developed for blinding of plasma in "Veterans Affairs CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1" as a prototypical study using this class of investigational therapeutic agents. Veterans Affairs CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1 is an ongoing multicenter randomized clinical trial testing the efficacy of plasma added to conventional therapy for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection. RESULTS: We report the design of procedures to supply investigational blood products or 0.9% normal saline (saline) control while ensuring the integrity of the blind. Key aspects include workflow considerations, physical blinding strategies, and methods for engaging stakeholders. These procedures leverage the well-established Veterans Affairs research pharmacist's research infrastructure, and Blood Bank Services, which is responsible for blood-based investigational products. CONCLUSION: By describing the methods used to deliver blood products in a blinded manner in Veterans Affairs CoronavirUs Research and Efficacy Studies-1, we strive both to educate and to increase awareness to improve the implementation of these biological therapeutics for future, high-quality research studies.

Comparison of Prolonged Exposure vs Cognitive Processing Therapy for Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among US Veterans: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a prevalent and serious mental health problem. Although there are effective psychotherapies for PTSD, there is little information about their comparative effectiveness. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of prolonged exposure (PE) vs cognitive processing therapy (CPT) for treating PTSD in veterans. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed the comparative effectiveness of PE vs CPT among veterans with military-related PTSD recruited from outpatient mental health clinics at 17 Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers across the US from October 31, 2014, to February 1, 2018, with follow-up through February 1, 2019. The primary outcome was assessed using centralized masking. Tested hypotheses were prespecified before trial initiation. Data were analyzed from October 5, 2020, to May 5, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 individual cognitive-behavioral therapies, PE or CPT, delivered according to a flexible protocol of 10 to 14 sessions. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in PTSD symptom severity on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) from before treatment to the mean after treatment across posttreatment and 3- and 6-month follow-ups. Secondary outcomes included other symptoms, functioning, and quality of life. Results: Analyses were based on all 916 randomized participants (730 [79.7%] men and 186 [20.3%] women; mean [range] age 45.2 [21-80] years), with 455 participants randomized to PE (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 39.9 [95% CI, 39.1-40.7] points) and 461 participants randomized to CPT (mean CAPS-5 score at baseline, 40.3 [95% CI, 39.5-41.1] points). PTSD severity on the CAPS-5 improved substantially in both PE (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.89-1.08]) and CPT (SMD, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.61-0.80]) groups from before to after treatment. Mean improvement was greater in PE than CPT (least square mean, 2.42 [95% CI, 0.53-4.31]; P = .01), but the difference was not clinically significant (SMD, 0.17). Results for self-reported PTSD symptoms were comparable with CAPS-5 findings. The PE group had higher odds of response (odds ratio [OR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.00-1.65]; P < .001), loss of diagnosis (OR, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.12-1.74]; P < .001), and remission (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.24-2.00]; P < .001) compared with the CPT group. Groups did not differ on other outcomes. Treatment dropout was higher in PE (254 participants [55.8%]) than in CPT (215 participants [46.6%]; P < .01). Three participants in the PE group and 1 participant in the CPT group were withdrawn from treatment, and 3 participants in each treatment dropped out owing to serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that although PE was statistically more effective than CPT, the difference was not clinically significant, and improvements in PTSD were meaningful in both treatment groups. These findings highlight the importance of shared decision-making to help patients understand the evidence and select their preferred treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01928732.

In-Stent Restenosis in Saphenous Vein Grafts (from the DIVA Trial).

Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) have high rates of in-stent restenosis (ISR). We compared the baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics of patients and lesions that did develop ISR with those who did not develop ISR during a median follow-up of 2.7 years in the DIVA study (NCT01121224). We also examined the ISR types using the Mehran classification. ISR developed in 119 out of the 575 DIVA patients (21%), with similar incidence among patients with drug-eluting stents and bare-metal stents (BMS) (21% vs 21%, p = 0.957). Patients in the ISR group were younger (67 ± 7 vs 69 ± 8 years, p = 0.04) and less likely to have heart failure (27% vs 38%, p = 0.03) and SVG lesions with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow before the intervention (77% vs 83%, p <0.01), but had a higher number of target SVG lesions (1.33 ± 0.64 vs 1.16 ± 0.42, p <0.01), more stents implanted in the target SVG lesions (1.52 ± 0.80 vs 1.31 ± 0.66, p <0.01), and longer total stent length (31.37 ± 22.11 vs 25.64 ± 17.42 mm, p = 0.01). The incidence of diffuse ISR was similar in patients who received drug-eluting-stents and BMS (57% vs 54%, p = 0.94), but BMS patients were more likely to develop occlusive restenosis (17% vs 33%, p = 0.05).

A statistical quality assessment method for longitudinal observations in electronic health record data with an application to the VA million veteran program.

BACKGROUND: To describe an automated method for assessment of the plausibility of continuous variables collected in the electronic health record (EHR) data for real world evidence research use. METHODS: The most widely used approach in quality assessment (QA) for continuous variables is to detect the implausible numbers using prespecified thresholds. In augmentation to the thresholding method, we developed a score-based method that leverages the longitudinal characteristics of EHR data for detection of the observations inconsistent with the history of a patient. The method was applied to the height and weight data in the EHR from the Million Veteran Program Data from the Veteran's Healthcare Administration (VHA). A validation study was also conducted. RESULTS: The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) metrics of the developed method outperforms the widely used thresholding method. It is also demonstrated that different quality assessment methods have a non-ignorable impact on the body mass index (BMI) classification calculated from height and weight data in the VHA's database. CONCLUSIONS: The score-based method enables automated and scaled detection of the problematic data points in health care big data while allowing the investigators to select the high-quality data based on their need. Leveraging the longitudinal characteristics in EHR will significantly improve the QA performance.

Design of the National Adaptive Trial for PTSD-related Insomnia (NAP Study), VA Cooperative Study Program (CSP) #2016.

There are currently no validated pharmacotherapies for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related insomnia. The purpose of the National Adaptive Trial for PTSD-Related Insomnia (NAP Study) is to efficiently compare to placebo the effects of three insomnia medications with different mechanisms of action that are already prescribed widely to veterans diagnosed with PTSD within U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers. This study plans to enroll 1224 patients from 34 VA Medical Centers into a 12- week prospective, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial comparing trazodone, eszopiclone, and gabapentin. The primary outcome measure is insomnia, assessed with the Insomnia Severity Index. A novel aspect of this study is its adaptive design. At the recruitment midpoint, an interim analysis will be conducted to inform a decision to close recruitment to any "futile" arms (i.e. arms where further recruitment is very unlikely to yield a significant result) while maintaining the overall study recruitment target. This step could result in the enrichment of the remaining study arms, enhancing statistical power for the remaining comparisons to placebo. This study will also explore clinical, actigraphic, and biochemical predictors of treatment response that may guide future biomarker development. Lastly, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this study will allow the consenting process and follow-up visits to be conducted via video or phone contact if in-person meetings are not possible. Overall, this study aims to identify at least one effective pharmacotherapy for PTSD-related insomnia, and, perhaps, to generate definitive negative data to reduce the use of ineffective insomnia medications. NATIONAL CLINICAL TRIAL (NCT) IDENTIFIED NUMBER: NCT03668041.

Treatment Preferences for Chronic Low Back Pain: Views of Veterans and Their Providers.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to characterize chronic low back pain (cLBP) and to identify treatment histories and preferences for cLBP management among Veterans and primary care providers within the Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Veterans with cLBP from five geographically diverse VA medical centers were identified using International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9 and 10 codes from VA administrative data as were primary care providers at these same sites. From these data, Veterans (200/per site) and providers (160/per site) were selected and mailed surveys. Open-ended interview data were collected from a subset of Veterans and providers. RESULTS: In total, 235 Veterans and 67 providers returned completed surveys. More than 80% of the Veteran respondents had daily back pain for more than 1 year. Most Veterans had tried several treatments for their pain with medications and physical therapy being the most commonly used. Veterans and providers had similar attitudes towards many cLBP treatments with the exception of psychological therapies that were more favored by providers. Open-ended interview data showed that Veterans and providers emphasized the need for multi-component approaches to treatment. CONCLUSION: Among Veterans, cLBP is typically of sustained duration, is relatively severe, and also interferes significantly with normal functioning. Veterans are experienced with respect to treatments and had similar attitudes towards many cLBP treatments as their providers, especially tailored approaches.

Prevalence of predicted gene-drug interactions for antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder in the Precision Medicine in Mental Health Care Study.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is a potentially important, but understudied approach to precision medicine that could improve prescribing practices for antidepressants (ADs) in patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Thus, it is important to understand the scope of its potential impact and to identify patients who may benefit most from PGx-guided care. METHODS: Participants were treatment-seeking US veterans (N=1149) with MDD enrolled in the Precision Medicine in Mental Health Care study, a pragmatic multi-site, randomized, controlled trial that examines the utility of PGx testing in the context of pharmacotherapy for MDD. We report the prevalence of ADs with predicted moderate and clinically significant gene-drug interaction potential based on next-intended treatment. We also examined demographic and treatment history characteristics as predictors of the gene-drug interaction potential of participants' next-intended treatment. RESULTS: Prevalence of the next-intended AD with moderate or clinically significant gene-drug interaction was 45.1% and19.3%. Previous treatment with an AD in the past two years was associated with a 1.59 increased likelihood of having a next-intended AD treatment with predicted clinically significant gene-drug interaction (95% CI: 1.08-2.35). LIMITATIONS: The gene-drug interaction potential of ADs is specific to the PGx test panel used in this study and may not generalize to other PGx test panels. CONCLUSIONS: PGx testing could benefit one in five patients prescribed ADs with clinically significant gene-drug interaction potential. Patients with prior AD treatment are more likely to have an AD with significant gene-drug interaction potential as their next-intended treatment and therefore may benefit most from PGx testing.

Study design and implementation of the PRecision Medicine In MEntal health Care (PRIME Care) Trial.

Genomic testing has the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce patient care costs by personalizing medication selection. Commercial pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for psychotropic and other medications is widely available and promoted as a means to implement "precision medicine." Despite evidence that genetic variation affects the metabolism of psychotropic medications, the clinical utility of these test results has not been established. Moreover, implementing such testing in routine clinical care is complex, requiring informatics support and a systematic approach to patient and provider education. The PRIME Care program is designed to bridge this gap, applying both clinical trials and implementation science methods to conduct a program of research. It is centered on a large, pragmatic randomized clinical trial (RCT) in which 2000 Veterans with a major depressive disorder (MDD) and their health care providers are randomized together to receive PGx test results at the beginning of an episode of care or 6 months later. We hypothesize that providers who receive the PGx test results will prescribe an antidepressant guided by the PGx findings and Veterans whose care is guided by PGx testing will experience higher rates of remission from MDD. If the results of the trial replicate those of prior PGx studies, which provided preliminary evidence of the utility of PGx guided prescribing, it would strongly support using a precision medicine approach to treat MDD. This program of research is also evaluating dissemination influencers, other biomarkers (e.g., genetic variation associated with depression response), and the health care cost implications of PGx testing. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03170362.

Stent-Only Versus Adjunctive Balloon Angioplasty Approach for Saphenous Vein Graft Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From DIVA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Direct stenting without pre-dilation or post-dilation has been advocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incidence of distal embolization, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; NCT01121224) prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were stratified into stent-only and balloon-stent groups. Primary end point was 12-month incidence of target vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points included all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization during follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 575 patients included in this substudy, 185 (32%) patients underwent stent-only percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients in the stent-only versus balloon-stent group had similar baseline characteristics and similar incidence of target vessel failure at 12-months (15% versus 19%; hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.86-2.08]; P=0.19). During long-term follow-up (median of 2.7 years), the incidence of definite stent thrombosis (1% versus 5%; hazard ratio, 9.20 [95% CI, 1.23-68.92]; P=0.0085), the composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis (5% versus 11%; hazard ratio, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.23-5.18]; P=0.009), and target vessel myocardial infarction (8% versus 14%; hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.08-3.40]; P=0.023) was lower in the stent-only group. Multivariable analysis showed that a higher number of years since coronary artery bypass grafting and >1 target saphenous vein graft lesions were associated with increased target vessel failure during entire follow-up, while preintervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-3 flow was protective. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous vein graft lesions, there was no difference in target vessel failure at 12 months and long-term follow-up in the stent-only versus the balloon-stent group; however, the incidence of stent thrombosis was lower in the stent-only group, as was target vessel myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01121224.

Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program Study #553: Chemotherapy After Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Carcinoma: A Phase III Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Affairs Cooperative Studies Program study #553 was designed to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy added to the standard of care (SOC) for patients who are at high risk for relapse after prostatectomy. OBJECTIVE: To test whether addition of chemotherapy to surgery for high-risk prostate cancer improves progression-free survival (PFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Eligible patients after prostatectomy were randomized to the SOC group with observation or to the chemotherapy group with docetaxel and prednisone administered every 3 wk for six cycles. Randomization was stratified for prostate-specific antigen, Gleason, tumor stage, and surgical margin status. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints included overall, prostate cancer-specific, and metastasis-free survival, and time to androgen deprivation therapy. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 298 of the planned 636 patients were randomized. The median follow-up was 59.1 mo (0.2-103.7 mo). For the primary endpoint, the two groups did not statistically differ in PFS (median 55.5 mo in the chemotherapy group and 42.2 mo in the SOC group; test adjusted for site via gamma frailty p=0.21; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.11; p=0.18). Prespecified subgroup analyses showed benefit in PFS for patients with tumor stage ≥T3b (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.92; p=0.022) and patients with Gleason score ≤7 (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.99; p=0.046). Secondary endpoint analyses are hampered by low event rates. The most common adverse events (≥grade 3 related or possibly related to chemotherapy) included neutropenia (43%), hyperglycemia (20%), and fatigue (5%), with febrile neutropenia in 2%. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant chemotherapy in high-risk prostate cancer using docetaxel and prednisone did not lead to statistically significant improvement in PFS for the intention-to-treat population as a whole. The analysis was challenged by lower power due to accrual limitation. Subgroup analyses suggest potential benefit for patients with Gleason grade ≤7 and stage≥pT3b (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00132301). PATIENT SUMMARY: In this randomized trial, we tested whether addition of chemotherapy to surgery for high-risk prostate cancer decreased the risk of prostate-specific antigen rise after surgery. We found no benefit from docetaxel given after radical prostatectomy, although some subgroups of patients may benefit.