Knowledge and attitudes on implementing cardiovascular pharmacogenomic testing.

Pharmacogenomics has the potential to inform drug dosing and selection, reduce adverse events, and improve medication efficacy; however, provider knowledge of pharmacogenomic testing varies across provider types and specialties. Given that many actionable pharmacogenomic genes are implicated in cardiovascular medication response variability, this study aimed to evaluate cardiology providers' knowledge and attitudes on implementing clinical pharmacogenomic testing. Sixty-one providers responded to an online survey, including pharmacists (46%), physicians (31%), genetic counselors (15%), and nurses (8%). Most respondents (94%) reported previous genetics education; however, only 52% felt their genetics education prepared them to order a clinical pharmacogenomic test. In addition, most respondents (66%) were familiar with pharmacogenomics, with genetic counselors being most likely to be familiar (p < 0.001). Only 15% of respondents had previously ordered a clinical pharmacogenomic test and a total of 36% indicated they are likely to order a pharmacogenomic test in the future; however, the vast majority of respondents (89%) were interested in pharmacogenomic testing being incorporated into diagnostic cardiovascular genetic tests. Moreover, 84% of providers preferred pharmacogenomic panel testing compared to 16% who preferred single gene testing. Half of the providers reported being comfortable discussing pharmacogenomic results with their patients, but the majority (60%) expressed discomfort with the logistics of test ordering. Reported barriers to implementation included uncertainty about the clinical utility and difficulty choosing an appropriate test. Taken together, cardiology providers have moderate familiarity with pharmacogenomics and limited experience with test ordering; however, they are interested in incorporating pharmacogenomics into diagnostic genetic tests and ordering pharmacogenomic panels.

Apixaban for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Hemodialysis: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized data evaluating the safety or efficacy of apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis and with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The RENAL-AF trial (Renal Hemodialysis Patients Allocated Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation) was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-outcome evaluation (PROBE) of apixaban versus warfarin in patients receiving hemodialysis with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 mg of apixaban twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily for patients ≥80 years of age, weight ≤60 kg, or both) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The primary outcome was time to major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included stroke, mortality, and apixaban pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetic sampling was day 1, day 3, and month 1. RESULTS: From January 2017 through January 2019, 154 patients were randomly assigned to apixaban (n=82) or warfarin (n=72). The trial stopped prematurely because of enrollment challenges. Time in therapeutic range (international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0) for warfarin-treated patients was 44% (interquartile range, 23%-59%). The 1-year rates for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 32% and 26% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.63-2.30]), whereas 1-year rates for stroke or systemic embolism were 3.0% and 3.3% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively. Death was the most common major event in the apixaban (21 patients [26%]) and warfarin (13 patients [18%]) arms. The pharmacokinetic substudy enrolled the target 50 patients. Median steady-state 12-hour area under the curve was 2475 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 1342-3285) for 5 mg of apixaban twice daily and 1269 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 615-1946) for 2.5 mg of apixaban twice daily. There was substantial overlap between minimum apixaban blood concentration, 12-hour area under the curve, and maximum apixaban blood concentration for patients with and without a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event. CONCLUSIONS: There was inadequate power to draw any conclusion regarding rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding comparing apixaban and warfarin in patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. Clinically relevant bleeding events were ≈10-fold more frequent than stroke or systemic embolism among this population on anticoagulation, highlighting the need for future randomized studies evaluating the risks versus benefits of anticoagulation among patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02942407.

Phlebitis in amiodarone administration: incidence, contributing factors, and clinical implications.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous amiodarone is an important treatment for arrhythmias, but peripheral infusion is associated with direct irritation of vessel walls and phlebitis rates of 8% to 55%. Objectives To determine the incidence and factors contributing to the development of amiodarone-induced phlebitis in the coronary care unit in an academic medical center and to refine the current practice protocol. METHODS: Medical records from all adult patients during an 18-month period who received intravenous amiodarone while in the critical care unit were reviewed retrospectively. Route of administration, location, concentration, and duration of amiodarone therapy and factors associated with occurrence of phlebitis were examined. Descriptive statistics and regression methods were used to identify incidence and phlebitis factors. RESULTS: In the final sample of 105 patients, incidence of phlebitis was 40%, with a 50% recurrence rate. All cases of phlebitis occurred in patients given a total dose of 3 g via a peripheral catheter, and one-quarter of these cases (n = 10) developed at dosages less than 1 g. Pain, redness, and warmth were the most common indications of phlebitis. Total dosage given via a peripheral catheter, duration of infusion, and number of catheters were significantly associated with phlebitis. CONCLUSIONS: Amiodarone-induced phlebitis occurred in 40% of this sample at higher drug dosages. A new practice protocol resulted from this study. An outcome study is in progress.

Left ventricular dysfunction in patients receiving cardiotoxic cancer therapies are clinicians responding optimally?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine treatment practices for cancer therapy-associated decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) detected on echocardiography and whether management was consistent with American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. BACKGROUND: Patients treated with anthracyclines or trastuzumab are at risk of cardiotoxicity. Decreased LVEF represents a Class I indication for drug intervention according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. METHODS: Patients receiving anthracycline or trastuzumab at Stanford University from October 2005 to October 2007 and who had undergone echocardiography before and after receiving an anthracycline or trastuzumab were identified. Chart review examined chemotherapy regimens, cardiac risk factors, imaging results, concomitant medications, and cardiology consultations. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients received therapy with an anthracycline or trastuzumab and had a pre-treatment and follow-up echocardiogram. Ninety-two percent were treated with anthracyclines, 17% with trastuzumab after an anthracycline, and 8% with trastuzumab without previous treatment with anthracycline. Mean baseline LVEF was 60%, with 14% having a baseline <55%. Forty percent had decreased LVEF (<55%) after anthracycline and/or trastuzumab treatment. Of these patients, 40% received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, 51% beta-blocker therapy, and 54% cardiology consultation. Of patients with asymptomatic decreased LVEF, 31% received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, 35% beta-blocker therapy, and 42% cardiology consultation. Of those with symptomatic decreased LVEF, 67% received angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker therapy, 100% beta-blocker therapy, and 89% cardiology consultation. CONCLUSIONS: Many cancer survivors are not receiving treatment consistent with heart failure guidelines. There is substantial opportunity for collaboration between oncologists and cardiologists to improve the care of oncology patients receiving cardiotoxic therapy.

Impact of nesiritide on renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure and pre-existing renal dysfunction a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Our purpose was to evaluate the impact of nesiritide on renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure and baseline renal dysfunction. BACKGROUND: Although nesiritide is approved for the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure, retrospective analyses have raised concerns that it may cause worsened renal function. To date, no randomized clinical trials have prospectively evaluated this issue. METHODS: Consecutive patients with acute decompensated heart failure and baseline renal dysfunction were enrolled in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Subjects were randomized to receive nesiritide (0.01 microg/kg/min with or without a 2-microg/kg bolus) or placebo (5% dextrose in water) for 48 h in addition to their usual care. Predefined primary end points of the trial were a rise in serum creatinine by > or =20% and change in serum creatinine. RESULTS: Seventy-five patients were enrolled (39 nesiritide, 36 placebo). The groups had similar baseline age (74.9 vs. 75.5 years, respectively), blood pressure (123/64 vs. 125/64 mm Hg) and serum creatinine (1.82 vs. 1.86 mg/dl). There were no significant differences in the incidence of a 20% creatinine rise (23% vs. 25%) or in the change in serum creatinine (-0.05 vs. +0.05 mg/dl). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of change in weight (-2.19 vs. -1.58 kg), intravenous furosemide (125 vs. 107 mg), discontinuation of the infusion due to hypotension (13% vs. 6%), or 30-day death/hospital readmission (33% vs. 25%). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, nesiritide had no impact on renal function in patients with acute decompensated heart failure. (BNP-CARDS trial; http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00186329?order=1; NCT00186329).