Explore the vast range of titles available.

The discovery of expression quantitative trait loci (\"eQTLs\") can help to unravel genetic contributions to complex traits. We identified genetic determinants of human liver gene expression variation using two independent collections of primary tissue profiled with Agilent (n = 206) and Illumina (n = 60) expression arrays and Illumina SNP genotyping (550K), and we also incorporated data from a published study (n = 266). We found that ∼30% of SNP-expression correlations in one study failed to replicate in either of the others, even at thresholds yielding high reproducibility in simulations, and we quantified numerous factors affecting reproducibility. Our data suggest that drug exposure, clinical descriptors, and unknown factors associated with tissue ascertainment and analysis have substantial effects on gene expression and that controlling for hidden confounding variables significantly increases replication rate. Furthermore, we found that reproducible eQTL SNPs were heavily enriched near gene starts and ends, and subsequently resequenced the promoters and 3'UTRs for 14 genes and tested the identified haplotypes using luciferase assays. For three genes, significant haplotype-specific in vitro functional differences correlated directly with expression levels, suggesting that many bona fide eQTLs result from functional variants that can be mechanistically isolated in a high-throughput fashion. Finally, given our study design, we were able to discover and validate hundreds of liver eQTLs. Many of these relate directly to complex traits for which liver-specific analyses are likely to be relevant, and we identified dozens of potential connections with disease-associated loci. These included previously characterized eQTL contributors to diabetes, drug response, and lipid levels, and they suggest novel candidates such as a role for NOD2 expression in leprosy risk and C2orf43 in prostate cancer. In general, the work presented here will be valuable for future efforts to precisely identify and functionally characterize genetic contributions to a variety of complex traits.

Opportunities to decrease the toxicity and cost of approved treatment regimens with lower dose, less frequent, or shorter duration alternative regimens have been limited by the perception that alternatives must be non-inferior to approved regimens. Non-inferiority trials are large and expensive to do, because they must show statistically that the alternative and approved therapies differ in a single outcome, by a margin far smaller than that required to demonstrate superiority. Non-inferiority's flaws are manifest: it ignores variability expected to occur with repeated evaluation of the approved therapy, fails to recognise that a trial of similar design will be labelled as superiority or non-inferiority depending on whether it is done prior to or after initial registration of the approved treatment, and relegates endpoints such as toxicity and cost. For example, while a less toxic and less costly regimen of 3 months duration would typically be required to demonstrate efficacy that is non-inferior to that of a standard regimen of 6 months to displace it, the longer duration therapy has no such obligation to prove its superiority. This situation is the tyranny of the non-inferiority trial: its statistics perpetuate less cost-effective regimens, which are not patient-centred, even when less intensive therapies confer survival benefits nearly identical to those of the standard, by placing a disproportionately large burden of proof on the alternative. This approach is illogical. We propose that the designation of trials as superiority or non-inferiority be abandoned, and that randomised, controlled trials should henceforth be described simply as “comparative”.

Variable responses to medications complicates perioperative care. As a potential solution, we evaluated and synthesized pharmacogenomic evidence that may inform anesthesia and pain prescribing to identify clinically actionable drug/gene pairs. Clinical decision-support (CDS) summaries were developed and were evaluated using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We found that 93/180 (51%) of commonly-used perioperative medications had some published pharmacogenomic information, with 18 having actionable evidence: celecoxib/diclofenac/flurbiprofen/ibuprofen/piroxicam/CYP2C9, codeine/oxycodone/tramadol CYP2D6, desflurane/enflurane/halothane/isoflurane/sevoflurane/succinylcholine/RYR1/CACNA1S, diazepam/CYP2C19, phenytoin/CYP2C9, succinylcholine/mivacurium/BCHE, and morphine/OPRM1. Novel CDS summaries were developed for these 18 medications. AGREE II mean ± standard deviation scores were high for Scope and Purpose (95.0 ± 2.8), Rigor of Development (93.2 ± 2.8), Clarity of Presentation (87.3 ± 3.0), and Applicability (86.5 ± 3.7) (maximum score = 100). Overall mean guideline quality score was 6.7 ± 0.2 (maximum score = 7). All summaries were recommended for clinical implementation. A critical mass of pharmacogenomic evidence exists for select medications commonly used in the perioperative setting, warranting prospective examination for clinical utility.

Background: Many cancer patients who receive chemotherapy experience adverse drug effects. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) has promise to personalize chemotherapy drug dosing to maximize efficacy and safety. Fluoropyrimidines and irinotecan have well-known germline PGx associations. At our institution, we have delivered PGx clinical decision support (CDS) based on preemptively obtained genotyping results for a large number of non-oncology medications since 2012, but have not previously evaluated the utility of this strategy for patients initiating anti-cancer regimens. We hypothesize that providing oncologists with preemptive germline PGx information along with CDS will enable individualized dosing decisions and result in improved patient outcomes. Methods: Patients with oncologic malignancies for whom fluoropyrimidine and/or irinotecan-inclusive therapy is being planned will be enrolled and randomly assigned to PGx and control arms. Patients will be genotyped in a clinical laboratory across panels that include actionable variants in UGT1A1 and DPYD. For PGx arm patients, treating providers will be given access to the patient-specific PGx results with CDS prior to treatment initiation. In the control arm, genotyping will be deferred, and dosing will occur as per usual care. Co-primary endpoints are dose intensity deviation rate (the proportion of patients receiving dose modifications during the first treatment cycle), and grade ⩾3 treatment-related toxicities throughout the treatment course. Additional study endpoints will include cumulative drug dose intensity, progression-free survival, dosing of additional PGx supportive medications, and patient-reported quality of life and understanding of PGx. Discussion: Providing a platform of integrated germline PGx information may promote personalized chemotherapy dosing decisions and establish a new model of care to optimize oncology treatment planning.

To comprehensively assess the pharmacogenomic evidence of routinely used drugs for clinical utility. Between January 2, 2011, and May 31, 2013, we assessed 71 drugs by identifying all drug/genetic variant combinations with published clinical pharmacogenomic evidence. Literature supporting each drug/variant pair was assessed for study design and methods, outcomes, statistical significance, and clinical relevance. Proposed clinical summaries were formally scored using a modified AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation) II instrument, including recommendation for or against guideline implementation. Positive pharmacogenomic findings were identified for 51 of 71 cardiovascular drugs (71.8%), representing 884 unique drug/variant pairs from 597 publications. After analysis for quality and clinical relevance, 92 drug/variant pairs were proposed for translation into clinical summaries, encompassing 23 drugs (32.4% of drugs reviewed). All were recommended for clinical implementation using AGREE II, with mean ± SD overall quality scores of 5.18±0.91 (of 7.0; range, 3.67-7.0). Drug guidelines had highest mean ± SD scores in AGREE II domain 1 (Scope) (91.9±6.1 of 100) and moderate but still robust mean ± SD scores in domain 3 (Rigor) (73.1±11.1), domain 4 (Clarity) (67.8±12.5), and domain 5 (Applicability) (65.8±10.0). Clopidogrel (CYP2C19), metoprolol (CYP2D6), simvastatin (rs4149056), dabigatran (rs2244613), hydralazine (rs1799983, rs1799998), and warfarin (CYP2C9/VKORC1) were distinguished by the highest scores. Seven of the 9 most commonly prescribed drugs warranted translation guidelines summarizing clinical pharmacogenomic information. Considerable clinically actionable pharmacogenomic information for cardiovascular drugs exists, supporting the idea that consideration of such information when prescribing is warranted.

Patients with breast cancer frequently experience financial hardship, often due to the high costs of anti-cancer drugs. We sought to develop alternative trastuzumab dosing strategies, compare their pharmacokinetic effectiveness to standard dosing, and assess the expected financial implications of transitioning to them. We extracted clinical data from the records of 135 retrospectively identified patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer at a single, urban comprehensive cancer center who were treated with trastuzumab between 2017 and 2019. We performed pharmacokinetic simulations on a range of trastuzumab dose levels and frequencies, assessing efficacy by trough trastuzumab concentration (Ctrough) and population and individual likelihoods of Ctrough exceeding trastuzumab minimum effective concentration (MEC). We performed deterministic financial modeling to estimate the treatment-associated financial savings from alternative dosing strategies. Trastuzumab maintenance doses of 4 mg/kg every 3 weeks (Q3W) and 6 mg/kg every 4 weeks (Q4W) had nearly identical probabilities of Ctrough being above MEC as standard of care 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks. In the primary financial analysis, both trastuzumab 4 mg/kg Q3W and 6 mg/kg Q4W were associated with significant drug- and administration-related out-of-pocket cost savings over the duration of therapy, ranging from$765 (neoadjuvant, Q4W) to $ 2791 (adjuvant, Q4W). In particular, Q4W trastuzumab increased savings related to lost wages and travel cost avoidance. Low-dose and reduced frequency trastuzumab in appropriately selected patients may significantly reduce total drug utilization and meaningfully reduce patient financial toxicity. Prospective clinical trials evaluating low-dose or reduced-frequency administration of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies are warranted and needed.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are approved for the treatment of a variety of cancer types. The doses of these drugs, though approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have never been optimised, likely leading to significantly higher doses than required for optimal efficacy. Dose optimisation would hypothetically decrease the risk, severity, and duration of immune-related adverse events, as well as provide an opportunity to reduce costs through interventional pharmacoeconomic strategies such as off-label dose reductions or less frequent dosing. We summarise existing evidence for ICI dose optimisation to advocate for the role of interventional pharmacoeconomics.

Lurbinectedin is an alkylating agent approved for the second-line treatment of small cell lung cancer. Although initial studies showed no association between body surface area (BSA) and drug clearance, the recommended dose is 3.2 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks. This recommendation was based on an exposure–response study, which demonstrated that patients with lower BSA had a higher incidence of thrombocytopenia. Herein we present the factors associated with BSA and thrombopoiesis, which may have contributed to the observed relationship.

Optimal prescribing of drug products requires accurate informative drug labels. One critical aspect of a label is the recommended dosage. We suggest that the final authority for this portion of the label should reside in FDA's Office of Clinical Pharmacology (OCP), rather than in the Office of New Drugs, given that most FDA clinicians do not have sufficient expertise to interpret pharmacometric analyses of dose‐exposure, and dose/exposure‐efficacy/safety relationships.