4 results
Safety of Using a Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Test for Patients with Major Depressive Disorder in the GUIDED trial
- Sagar V. Parikh, Gabriela K. Khazanov, Michael E. Thase, Anthony J. Rothschild, Boadie W. Dunlop, Charles DeBattista, Charles R. Conway, Brent P. Forester, Richard C. Shelton, Matthew Macaluso, James Li, Kunbo Yu, Michael R. Jablonski, Stephanie Meek, John F. Greden
-
- Journal:
- CNS Spectrums / Volume 26 / Issue 2 / April 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 May 2021, pp. 169-170
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Background
Pharmacogenomic testing has emerged to aid medication selection for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) by identifying potential gene-drug interactions (GDI). Many pharmacogenomic tests are available with varying levels of supporting evidence, including direct-to-consumer and physician-ordered tests. We retrospectively evaluated the safety of using a physician-ordered combinatorial pharmacogenomic test (GeneSight) to guide medication selection for patients with MDD in a large, randomized, controlled trial (GUIDED).
Materials and MethodsPatients diagnosed with MDD who had an inadequate response to ≥1 psychotropic medication were randomized to treatment as usual (TAU) or combinatorial pharmacogenomic test-guided care (guided-care). All received combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing and medications were categorized by predicted GDI (no, moderate, or significant GDI). Patients and raters were blinded to study arm, and physicians were blinded to test results for patients in TAU, through week 8. Measures included adverse events (AEs, present/absent), worsening suicidal ideation (increase of ≥1 on the corresponding HAM-D17 question), or symptom worsening (HAM-D17 increase of ≥1). These measures were evaluated based on medication changes [add only, drop only, switch (add and drop), any, and none] and study arm, as well as baseline medication GDI.
ResultsMost patients had a medication change between baseline and week 8 (938/1,166; 80.5%), including 269 (23.1%) who added only, 80 (6.9%) who dropped only, and 589 (50.5%) who switched medications. In the full cohort, changing medications resulted in an increased relative risk (RR) of experiencing AEs at both week 4 and 8 [RR 2.00 (95% CI 1.41–2.83) and RR 2.25 (95% CI 1.39–3.65), respectively]. This was true regardless of arm, with no significant difference observed between guided-care and TAU, though the RRs for guided-care were lower than for TAU. Medication change was not associated with increased suicidal ideation or symptom worsening, regardless of study arm or type of medication change. Special attention was focused on patients who entered the study taking medications identified by pharmacogenomic testing as likely having significant GDI; those who were only taking medications subject to no or moderate GDI at week 8 were significantly less likely to experience AEs than those who were still taking at least one medication subject to significant GDI (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15–0.99, p=0.048). No other significant differences in risk were observed at week 8.
ConclusionThese data indicate that patient safety in the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test-guided care arm was no worse than TAU in the GUIDED trial. Moreover, combinatorial pharmacogenomic-guided medication selection may reduce some safety concerns. Collectively, these data demonstrate that combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing can be adopted safely into clinical practice without risking symptom degradation among patients.
FundingMyriad Neuroscience/Assurex Health
150 HAM-D6 Outcomes in a Randomized, Controlled Trial Evaluating the Utility of Combinatorial Pharmacogenomics in Depression
- Boadie W. Dunlop, Sagar V. Parikh, Maitrey Patel, Anthony J. Rothschild, Michael E. Thase, Charles DeBattista, Charles R. Conway, Brent P. Forester, Richard C. Shelton, Matthew Macaluso, James Li, Krystal Brown, Lisa Brown, Michael R. Jablonski, John F. Greden
-
- Journal:
- CNS Spectrums / Volume 25 / Issue 2 / April 2020
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2020, pp. 295-296
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Export citation
-
Background:
The Genomics Used to Improve DEpresssion Decisions (GUIDED) trial assessed outcomes associated with combinatorial pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). Analyses used the 17-item Hamilton Depression (HAM-D17) rating scale; however, studies demonstrate that the abbreviated, core depression symptom-focused, HAM-D6 rating scale may have greater sensitivity toward detecting differences between treatment and placebo. However, the sensitivity of HAM-D6 has not been tested for two active treatment arms. Here, we evaluated the sensitivity of the HAM-D6 scale, relative to the HAM-D17 scale, when assessing outcomes for actively treated patients in the GUIDED trial.
Methods:Outpatients (N=1,298) diagnosed with MDD and an inadequate treatment response to >1 psychotropic medication were randomized into treatment as usual (TAU) or combinatorial PGx-guided (guided-care) arms. Combinatorial PGx testing was performed on all patients, though test reports were only available to the guided-care arm. All patients and raters were blinded to study arm until after week 8. Medications on the combinatorial PGx test report were categorized based on the level of predicted gene-drug interactions: ‘use as directed’, ‘moderate gene-drug interactions’, or ‘significant gene-drug interactions.’ Patient outcomes were assessed by arm at week 8 using HAM-D6 and HAM-D17 rating scales, including symptom improvement (percent change in scale), response (≥50% decrease in scale), and remission (HAM-D6 ≤4 and HAM-D17 ≤7).
Results:At week 8, the guided-care arm demonstrated statistically significant symptom improvement over TAU using HAM-D6 scale (Δ=4.4%, p=0.023), but not using the HAM-D17 scale (Δ=3.2%, p=0.069). The response rate increased significantly for guided-care compared with TAU using both HAM-D6 (Δ=7.0%, p=0.004) and HAM-D17 (Δ=6.3%, p=0.007). Remission rates were also significantly greater for guided-care versus TAU using both scales (HAM-D6 Δ=4.6%, p=0.031; HAM-D17 Δ=5.5%, p=0.005). Patients taking medication(s) predicted to have gene-drug interactions at baseline showed further increased benefit over TAU at week 8 using HAM-D6 for symptom improvement (Δ=7.3%, p=0.004) response (Δ=10.0%, p=0.001) and remission (Δ=7.9%, p=0.005). Comparatively, the magnitude of the differences in outcomes between arms at week 8 was lower using HAM-D17 (symptom improvement Δ=5.0%, p=0.029; response Δ=8.0%, p=0.008; remission Δ=7.5%, p=0.003).
Conclusions:Combinatorial PGx-guided care achieved significantly better patient outcomes compared with TAU when assessed using the HAM-D6 scale. These findings suggest that the HAM-D6 scale is better suited than is the HAM-D17 for evaluating change in randomized, controlled trials comparing active treatment arms.
Funding Acknowledgements:Assurex Health, Inc.
Contributors
-
- By Leslie Citrome, Alan J. Cross, Judith Dunn, Kenneth R. Evans, Douglas E. Feltner, Philip D. Harvey, Amir Kalali, Richard S. E. Keefe, Michael Krams, Joseph Kwentus, Matthew Macaluso, Craig H. Mallinckrodt, Geert Molenberghs, Nuala Murphy, Ginette Nachman, Sheldon Preskorn, William R. Prucka, Penny Randall, Frank D. Yocca, Gwen L. Zornberg
- Edited by Amir Kalali, University of California, San Diego, Sheldon Preskorn, Joseph Kwentus, University of Mississippi, Stephen M. Stahl, University of California, San Diego
-
- Book:
- Essential CNS Drug Development
- Published online:
- 05 July 2012
- Print publication:
- 07 June 2012, pp vi-viii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Chapter 4 - Phase I trials: from traditional to newer approaches
- Edited by Amir Kalali, University of California, San Diego, Sheldon Preskorn, Joseph Kwentus, University of Mississippi, Stephen M. Stahl, University of California, San Diego
-
- Book:
- Essential CNS Drug Development
- Published online:
- 05 July 2012
- Print publication:
- 07 June 2012, pp 55-69
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
CNS drug development is rapidly evolving to meet the unique and changing demands of the fields of psychiatry and neurology. Phase I studies are traditionally focused on determining the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of a new molecular entity in young healthy volunteers: first in a single ascending dose (SAD) study and then in a multiple ascending dose (MAD) study. The use of an adaptive design to examine data and modify the study in real time may also promote time- and cost-efficient identification of novel molecular entities (NMEs) that have the characteristics necessary to be successful in confirm stages of drug development research. This chapter discusses how use of biomarkers as surrogate endpoints can be incorporated into early clinical trials to determine if a drug modulates the appropriate targets, which enhances the likelihood of demonstrating efficacy in the confirm phase of clinical testing.