Pilot study of multi-gene pharmacogenetic testing for pain management in oncology palliative medicine.

Aim: We evaluated the application and clinical impact of multi-gene pharmacogenetic testing in oncology palliative medicine. Patients & methods: In a single-arm pilot trial, cancer patients with uncontrolled pain were assessed in a palliative medicine clinic at baseline and received pharmacogenetic testing. Results were used as applicable up to the final visit (day 30). Pain scores, opioid prescribing, and use of pharmacogenetic test results were collected. Results: In 75 patients, the median baseline pain score was 7/10. Of 54 evaluable at the final visit, 28 required opioid modifications and 19 had actionable genotypes, mostly CYP2D6. Pain improvement (≥2-point reduction) was higher than historical data (56 vs 30%; p < 0.001). There were no differences in pain improvement between those with and without actionable genotypes (61 vs 53%). Conclusion: Multi-gene testing identified actionable genotypes and may improve cancer pain.

Pain Management Using Clinical Pharmacy Assessments With and Without Pharmacogenomics in an Oncology Palliative Medicine Clinic.

PURPOSE: Approximately 30% of patients with cancer who have pain have symptomatic improvement within 1 month using conventional pain management strategies. Engaging clinical pharmacists in palliative medicine (PM) and use of pharmacogenomic testing may improve cancer pain management. METHODS: Adult patients with cancer with uncontrolled pain had baseline assessments performed by PM providers using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Pharmacotherapy was initiated or modified accordingly. A subset of patients consented to pharmacogenomic testing. The first pharmacy assessment occurred within 1 week of baseline and a second assessment was done within another week if intervention was required. Each patient's final visit was at 1 month. Pain improvement rate (a reduction of two or more points on a 0-to-10 pain scale) from baseline to final visit was compared applying the Fisher exact test to published historical control data, and between patients with and without pharmacogenomic testing. Multivariate logistic regression identified pain improvement covariates. RESULTS: Of 142 patients undergoing pharmacy assessments, 53% had pain improvement compared with 30% in historical control subjects (P < .001). Pain improvement was not different between those who received (n = 43) and did not receive (n = 99) pharmacogenomics testing (56% v 52%; P = .716). However, of 15 patients with an actionable genotype, 73% had pain improvement. Higher baseline pain (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.24; P < .001), black or other race (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.95; P = .04), and performance status 3 or 4 (OR, 0.18; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.83; P = .03) were associated with odds of pain improvement, but pharmacogenomic testing was not (P = .64). CONCLUSION: Including pharmacists in PM improves pain management effectiveness. Although pharmacogenomics did not statistically improve pain, a subset of patients with actionable genotypes may have benefited, warranting larger and randomized studies.

Primary care physician preferences regarding spiritual behavior in medical practice.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of physician attitudes and preferences regarding religion and spirituality in the medical encounter is limited by the nonspecific questions asked in previous studies and by the omission of specialties other than family practice. This study was designed to determine the willingness of internists and family physicians to be involved with varying degrees of spiritual behaviors in varied clinical settings. METHODS: The study was a multicenter, cross-sectional, nonrandomized design recruiting physicians from 6 teaching hospitals with sites in North Carolina, Vermont, and Florida. A self-administered survey was used to explore physicians' willingness to address religion and spirituality in the medical encounter. Data were gathered on the physicians' religiosity and spirituality and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-six physicians responded, for a response rate of 62.0%. While 84.5% of physicians thought they should be aware of patients' spirituality, most would not ask about spiritual issues unless a patient were dying. Fewer than one third of physicians would pray with patients even if they were dying. This number increased to 77.1% if a patient requested physician prayer. Family practitioners were more likely to take a spiritual history than general internists. CONCLUSIONS: Most primary care physicians surveyed would not initiate any involvement with patients' spirituality in the medical encounter except for the clinical setting of dying. If a patient requests involvement, however, most physicians express a willingness to comply, even if the request involves prayer.

Patient preference for physician discussion and practice of spirituality.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patient preferences for addressing religion and spirituality in the medical encounter. DESIGN: Multicenter survey verbally administered by trained research assistants. Survey items included questions on demographics, health status, health care utilization, functional status, spiritual well-being, and patient preference for religious/spiritual involvement in their own medical encounters and in hypothetical medical situations. SETTING: Primary care clinics of 6 academic medical centers in 3 states (NC, Fla, Vt). PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients 18 years of age and older who were systematically selected from the waiting rooms of their primary care physicians. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Four hundred fifty-six patients participated in the study. One third of patients wanted to be asked about their religious beliefs during a routine office visit. Two thirds felt that physicians should be aware of their religious or spiritual beliefs. Patient agreement with physician spiritual interaction increased strongly with the severity of the illness setting, with 19% patient agreement with physician prayer in a routine office visit, 29% agreement in a hospitalized setting, and 50% agreement in a near-death scenario (P <.001). Patient interest in religious or spiritual interaction decreased when the intensity of the interaction moved from a simple discussion of spiritual issues (33% agree) to physician silent prayer (28% agree) to physician prayer with a patient (19% agree; P <.001). Ten percent of patients were willing to give up time spent on medical issues in an office visit setting to discuss religious/spiritual issues with their physician. After controlling for age, gender, marital status, education, spirituality score, and health care utilization, African-American subjects were more likely to accept this time trade-off (odds ratio, 4.9; confidence interval, 2.1 to 11.7). CONCLUSION: Physicians should be aware that a substantial minority of patients desire spiritual interaction in routine office visits. When asked about specific prayer behaviors across a range of clinical scenarios, patient desire for spiritual interaction increased with increasing severity of illness setting and decreased when referring to more-intense spiritual interactions. For most patients, the routine office visit may not be the optimal setting for a physician-patient spiritual dialog.