Pragmatic Trials in Genomic Medicine: The Integrating Pharmacogenetics In Clinical Care (I-PICC) Study

Charles A Brunette, Stephen J Miller, Nilla Majahalme, Cynthia Hau, Lauren MacMullen, Sanjay Advani, Sophie A Ludin, Andrew J Zimolzak, Jason L Vassy, Charles A Brunette, Stephen J Miller, Nilla Majahalme, Cynthia Hau, Lauren MacMullen, Sanjay Advani, Sophie A Ludin, Andrew J Zimolzak, Jason L Vassy

Abstract

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have an established presence in clinical research and yet have only recently garnered attention within the landscape of genomic medicine. Using the PRagmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2) as a framework, this paper illustrates the application of PCT principles to The Integrating Pharmacogenetics In Clinical Care (I-PICC) Study, a trial of pharmacogenetic testing prior to statin initiation for cardiovascular disease prevention in primary care. The trial achieved high engagement with providers (85% enrolled of those approached) and enrolled a representative sample of participants for which statin therapy would be recommended. The I-PICC Study has a high level of pragmatism, which should enhance the generalizability of its findings. The PRECIS-2 may be useful in the design and evaluation of PCTs of genomic medicine interventions, contributing to the generation of evidence that can bridge the gap between genomics innovation and clinical adoption.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02871934.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declared no competing interests for this work.

© 2019 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study timeline for the Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care Study. Risk scores are 10‐year CVD risk scores as calculated using American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Risk Assessment Equations.22 *10‐year CVD risk scores calculated for 1,455 patients and added to potentially eligible patient database (not including African American women). **10‐year CVD risk scores calculated for 1,019 additional patients between February 8, 2018, and February 27, 2018, and added to potentially eligible patient database (including patients from all demographic backgrounds). ***First date of regular 10‐year CVD risk score calculations begin on a daily basis for potentially eligible patients using the birthday parity method as described by Vassy et al.21 CVD, cardiovascular disease; EHR, electronic health record; IRB, Institutional Review Board.
Figure 2
Figure 2
The Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care (I‐PICC) Study design and workflow. Study staff, with clinical trial management software support, interface directly with providers, patients, the electronic health records (EHRs), and the corporate data warehouse (CDW) to recruit and enroll participants, introduce SLCO1B1 pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing and its results, and track patient clinical outcomes within the context of routine care.
Figure 3
Figure 3
PRagmatic‐Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS‐2) rating scale (left) and mapping of the Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care study design to the PRECIS‐2 wheel (right).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Average patient enrollment per week between December 13, 2016, and July 17, 2018, for the Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care (I‐PICC) Study. Time segments are separated by modifications to the I‐PICC Study recruitment design and workflow after first patient enrollment. Risk scores are 10‐year CVD risk scores as calculated using American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Pooled Cohort Risk Assessment Equations.22 Regular CVD risk score calculations refer to the daily generation of 10‐year CVD risk scores using the birthday parity method as described by Vassy et al.21 CVD, cardiovascular disease.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Provider engagement in the Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care Study SLCO1B1 genetic testing intervention. Five hundred fourteen total SLCO1B1 genetic test orders were distributed by study staff to 41 enrolled providers between December 13, 2016, and July 17, 2018. *There were 425 (83%) orders (including orders on both adequate and inadequate specimens) that were signed. **Eighty‐nine (17%) orders were declined or not acted upon within seven days of collection, the maximum timeframe in which the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System laboratory retains clinical specimens for assessment.

References

    1. Green, E.D. & Guyer, M.S. Charting a course for genomic medicine from base pairs to bedside. Nature 470, 204–213 (2011).
    1. Khoury, M.J. , Gwinn, M. , Yoon, P.W. , Dowling, N. , Moore, C.A. & Bradley, L. The continuum of translation research in genomic medicine: how can we accelerate the appropriate integration of human genome discoveries into health care and disease prevention? Genet. Med. 9, 665 (2007).
    1. McCarthy, J.J. , McLeod, H.L. & Ginsburg, G.S. Genomic medicine: a decade of successes, challenges, and opportunities. Sci. Transl. Med. 5, 189sr4 (2013).
    1. Manolio, T. Implementing genomics and pharmacogenomics in the clinic: the National Human Genome Research Institute's genomic medicine portfolio. Atherosclerosis 253, 225–236 (2016).
    1. Manolio, T.A. et al Implementing genomic medicine in the clinic: the future is here. Genet. Med. 15, 258 (2013).
    1. Phillips, K.A. et al Making genomic medicine evidence‐based and patient‐centered: a structured review and landscape analysis of comparative effectiveness research. Genet. Med. 19, 1081 (2017).
    1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine . An evidence framework for genetic testing (The National Academies Press, Washington DC: 2017). <>.
    1. Khoury, M.J. , Rich, E.C. , Randhawa, G. , Teutsch, S.M. & Niederhuber, J. Comparative effectiveness research and genomic medicine: an evolving partnership for 21st century medicine. Genet. Med. 11, 707 (2009).
    1. Roberts, M.C. , Kennedy, A.E. , Chambers, D.A. & Khoury, M.J. The current state of implementation science in genomic medicine: opportunities for improvement. Genet. Med. 19, 858–863 (2017).
    1. Ford, I. & Norrie, J. Pragmatic trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 454–463 (2016).
    1. Schwartz, D. & Lellouch, J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 499–505 (2009).
    1. Tunis, S.R. , Stryer, D.B. & Clancy, C.M. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA 290, 1624–1632 (2003).
    1. Thorpe, K.E. et al A pragmatic‐explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 464–475 (2009).
    1. Treweek, S. & Zwarenstein, M. Making trials matter: pragmatic and explanatory trials and the problem of applicability. Trials 10, 37 (2009).
    1. Loudon, K. , Treweek, S. , Sullivan, F. , Donnan, P. , Thorpe, K.E. & Zwarenstein, M. The PRECIS‐2 tool: designing trials that are fit for purpose. BMJ 350, h2147 (2015).
    1. Chalkidou, K. , Tunis, S. , Whicher, D. , Fowler, R. & Zwarenstein, M. The role for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (pRCTs) in comparative effectiveness research. Clin. Trials. 9, 436–446 (2012).
    1. Vickers, A.J. & Scardino, P.T. The clinically‐integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting large trials at low cost. Trials 10, 14 (2009).
    1. Califf, R.M. & Sugarman, J. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin. Trials 12, 436–441 (2015).
    1. Fiore, L.D. & Lavori, P.W. Integrating randomized comparative effectiveness research with patient care. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 2152–2158 (2016).
    1. Weinfurt, K.P. et al Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in healthcare systems: generalizable lessons from the NIH Collaboratory. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 17, 144 (2017).
    1. Vassy, J.L. et al The Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care (I‐PICC) study: protocol for a point‐of‐care randomized controlled trial of statin pharmacogenetics in primary care. Contemp. Clin. Trials 75, 40–50 (2018).
    1. Stone, N.J. et al 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 129 (25 suppl. 2), S1–S45 (2014).
    1. Ramsey, L.B. et al The clinical pharmacogenetics implementation consortium guideline for SLCO1B1 and simvastatin‐induced myopathy: 2014 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Therapeut. 96, 423–428 (2014).
    1. Loudon, K. et al The PRECIS‐2 tool has good interrater reliability and modest discriminant validity. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 88, 113–121 (2017).
    1. Lipman, P.D. , Loudon, K. , Dluzak, L. , Moloney, R. , Messner, D. & Stoney, C.M. Framing the conversation: use of PRECIS‐2 ratings to advance understanding of pragmatic trial design domains. Trials 18, 532 (2017).
    1. Johnson, K.E. et al Use of PRECIS ratings in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) health care systems research collaboratory. Trials 17, 32 (2016).
    1. Groenwold, R.H.H. & Dekkers, O.M. Designing pragmatic trials‐what can we learn from lessons learned? J. Clin. Epidemiol. 90, 3–5 (2017).
    1. Forbes, G. , Loudon, K. , Treweek, S. , Taylor, S.J.C. & Eldridge, S. Understanding the applicability of results from primary care trials: lessons learned from applying PRECIS‐2. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 90, 119–126 (2017).
    1. Jordan, A.E. , Perlman, D.C. , Smith, D.J. , Reed, J.R. & Hagan, H. Use of the PRECIS‐II instrument to categorize reports along the efficacy‐effectiveness spectrum in an hepatitis C virus care continuum systematic review and meta‐analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 93, 66–75 (2018).
    1. Palmer, J.A. et al A dynamic application of PRECIS‐2 to evaluate implementation in a pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial in two nursing home systems. Trials 19, 453 (2018).
    1. Sajobi, T.T. et al A comparison of meta‐analytic methods for synthesizing evidence from explanatory and pragmatic trials. System. Rev. 7, 19 (2018).
    1. Zwarenstein, M. et al Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ 337, a2390 (2008).
    1. D'Avolio, L. et al Implementation of the department of veterans Affairs' first point‐of‐care clinical trial. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 19, e170–e176 (2012).
    1. Weitzel, K.W. et al The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research. BMC Med. Genom. 9, 1 (2016).
    1. Smith, D.M. et al CYP2D6‐guided opioid therapy improves pain control in CYP2D6 intermediate and poor metabolizers: a pragmatic clinical trial. Genet. Med. 21, 1842–1850 (2019).
    1. Gottesman, O. et al The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network: past, present, and future. Genet. Med. 15, 761 (2013).
    1. Volpi, S. et al Research directions in the clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics: an overview of us programs and projects. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103, 778–786 (2018).
    1. Rothwell, P.M. External validity of randomised controlled trials: "To whom do the results of this trial apply?" Lancet 365, 82–93 (2005).
    1. Zwarenstein, M. , Treweek, S. & Loudon, K. PRECIS‐2 helps researchers design more applicable RCTs while CONSORT Extension for Pragmatic Trials helps knowledge users decide whether to apply them. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 84, 27–29 (2017).
    1. Hartzler, A. et al Stakeholder engagement: a key component of integrating genomic information into electronic health records. Genet. Med. 15, 792–801 (2013).
    1. Kalkman, S. et al Series: Pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 4. Informed consent. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 89, 181–187 (2017).
    1. Lantos, J.D. , Wendler, D. , Septimus, E. , Wahba, S. , Madigan, R. & Bliss, G. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin. Trials 12, 485–493 (2015).
    1. Worsley, S.D . et al Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 2. Setting, sites, and investigator selection. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 88, 14–20 (2017).
    1. Oude Rengerink, K. et al Series: pragmatic trials and real world evidence: Paper 3. Patient selection challenges and consequences. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 89, 173–180 (2017).
    1. Peyser, B. et al Effects of delivering SLCO1B1 pharmacogenetic information in randomized trial and observational settings. Circ. Genom. Precis. Med. 11, e002228 (2018).
    1. Schmidt, A.F. , Klungel, O.H. , Nielen, M. , de Boer, A. , Groenwold, R.H. & Hoes, A.W. Tailoring treatments using treatment effect modification. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 25, 355–362 (2016).

Source: PubMed

3
Iratkozz fel