Exploring NICU nurses' views of a novel genetic point-of-care test identifying neonates at risk of antibiotic-induced ototoxicity: A qualitative study.

AIM: To explore the views of neonatal intensive care nursing staff on the deliverability of a novel genetic point-of-care test detecting a genetic variant associated with antibiotic-induced ototoxicity. DESIGN: An interpretive, descriptive, qualitative interview study. METHODS: Data were collected using semi-structured interviews undertaken between January and November 2020. Participants were neonatal intensive care nursing staff taking part in the Pharmacogenetics to Avoid Loss of Hearing trial. RESULTS: Thematic analysis resulted in four themes: perceived clinical utility; the golden hour; point-of-care device; training and support. Recommendations were made to streamline the protocol and ongoing training and support were considered key to incorporating the test into routine care. CONCLUSION: Exploring the views of nurses involved in the delivery of the point-of-care test was essential in its implementation. By the study endpoint, all participants could see the value of routine clinical introduction of the point-of care test. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses are in a key position to support the delivery of point-of-care genetic testing into mainstream settings. This study has implications for the successful integration of other genetic point-of-care tests in acute healthcare settings. IMPACT: The study will help to tailor the training and support required for routine deployment of the genetic point-of-care test. The study has relevance for nurses involved in the development and delivery of genetic point-of-care tests in other acute hospital settings. REPORTING METHOD: This qualitative study adheres to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research EQUATOR guidelines and utilizes COREQ and SRQR checklists. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: All staff working on the participating neonatal intensive care units were trained to use the genetic point-of-care test. All inpatients on the participating units were eligible to have testing via the point-of-care test. The Pharmacogenetics to Avoid Loss of Hearing Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group provided valuable feedback. TRIAL AND PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Registered within the University of Manchester. Ethics approval reference numbers: IRAS: 253102 REC reference: 19/NW/0400. Also registered with the ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN13704894.

Hereditary renal cancer patient and public involvement group: A collaborative, consensus decision process to develop a communication tool for patient use.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) must be more frequently embedded within clinical research to ensure translational outcomes are patient-led and meet patient needs. Active partnerships with patients and public groups are an important opportunity to hear patient voices, understand patient needs, and inform future research avenues. A hereditary renal cancer (HRC) PPI group was developed with the efforts of patient participants (n = 9), pooled from recruits within the early detection for HRC pilot study, working in collaboration with researchers and healthcare professionals (n = 8). Patient participants had HRC conditions including Von Hippel-Lindau (n = 3) and Hereditary Leiomyomatosis and Renal Cell Carcinoma (n = 5), and public participants included two patient Trustees (n = 2) from VHL UK & Ireland Charity. Discussions among the enthusiastic participants guided the development of a novel patient information sheet for HRC patients. This communication tool was designed to aid patients when informing family members about their diagnoses and the wider implications for relatives, a gap identified by participants within group discussions. While this partnership was tailored for a specific HRC patient and public group, the process implemented can be employed for other hereditary cancer groups and could be transferable within other healthcare settings.

Rapid Point-of-Care Genotyping to Avoid Aminoglycoside-Induced Ototoxicity in Neonatal Intensive Care.

Importance: Aminoglycosides are commonly prescribed antibiotics used for the treatment of neonatal sepsis. The MT-RNR1 m.1555A>G variant predisposes to profound aminoglycoside-induced ototoxicity (AIO). Current genotyping approaches take several days, which is unfeasible in acute settings. Objective: To develop a rapid point-of-care test (POCT) for the m.1555A>G variant before implementation of this technology in the acute neonatal setting to guide antibiotic prescribing and avoid AIO. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic prospective implementation trial recruited neonates admitted to 2 large neonatal intensive care units between January 6, 2020, and November 30, 2020, in the UK. Interventions: Neonates were tested for the m.1555A>G variant via the rapid POCT on admission to the neonatal intensive care unit. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome assessed the proportion of neonates successfully tested for the variant of all infants prescribed antibiotics. Secondary outcomes measured whether implementation was negatively associated with routine clinical practice and the performance of the system. The study was statistically powered to detect a significant difference between time to antibiotic administration before and after implementation of the MT-RNR1 POCT. Results: A total of 751 neonates were recruited and had a median (range) age of 2.5 (0-198) days. The MT-RNR1 POCT was able to genotype the m.1555A>G variant in 26 minutes. Preclinical validation demonstrated a 100% sensitivity (95% CI, 93.9%-100.0%) and specificity (95% CI, 98.5%-100.0%). Three participants with the m.1555A>G variant were identified, all of whom avoided aminoglycoside antibiotics. Overall, 424 infants (80.6%) receiving antibiotics were successfully tested for the variant, and the mean time to antibiotics was equivalent to previous practice. Conclusions and Relevance: The MT-RNR1 POCT was integrated without disrupting normal clinical practice, and genotype was used to guide antibiotic prescription and avoid AIO. This approach identified the m.1555A>G variant in a practice-changing time frame, and wide adoption could significantly reduce the burden of AIO.

The cost-effectiveness of a pharmacogenetic test: a trial-based evaluation of TPMT genotyping for azathioprine.

BACKGROUND: Thiopurine-methyl transferase (TPMT) testing prior to the prescription of azathioprine in autoimmune diseases is one of the few examples of a pharmacogenetic test that has made the transition from research into clinical practice. TPMT testing could lead to improved prescribing of azathioprine resulting in a reduction in adverse drug reactions as well as an improvement in effectiveness. When allocating scarce resources robust evidence on cost-effectiveness is required. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a TPMT genotyping test to inform azathioprine prescribing in autoimmune diseases. The secondary aim of this study was to demonstrate the complexity of undertaking a trial-based evaluation of a pharmacogenetic test. METHODS: A prospective economic evaluation was conducted alongside the TARGET (TPMT: Azathioprine Response to Genotype and Enzyme Testing) study, a pragmatic controlled trial that randomized (1:1) patients to undergo TPMT genotyping before azathioprine (n = 167) or current practice (n = 166). Assuming the UK health service perspective and a time horizon of 4 months, resource-use and health status data were collected prospectively for all recruited patients. RESULTS: The mean incremental cost for TPMT genotyping and subsequent care pathways compared with current practice for the 4-month follow-up was -£421.06 (95% confidence interval -£925.15 to £89.75). Mean incremental quality-adjusted life-years were close to zero but negative: -0.008 (95% confidence interval -0.017 to 0.0002). Assuming a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the expected incremental net benefit of introducing the test is £256.89 (95% CI -£425.94 to £932.86). CONCLUSIONS: TPMT genotyping potentially offers a less expensive alternative than current practice, but it may also have a small but negative effect on health status. These findings are associated with significant uncertainty, and the causal effect of TPMT genotyping on changes in health status and health care resource use remains uncertain. The results from this study therefore pose a difficult challenge to decision makers.

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of thiopurine methyltransferase genotyping prior to azathioprine treatment: the TARGET study.

AIM: To conduct a pragmatic, randomized controlled trial to assess whether thiopurine methyltransferase (TPMT) genotyping prior to azathioprine reduces adverse drug reactions (ADRs). METHODS: A total of 333 participants were randomized 1:1 to undergo TPMT genotyping prior to azathioprine or to commence treatment without genotyping. RESULTS: There was no difference in the primary outcome of stopping azathioprine due to an adverse reaction (ADR, p = 0.59) between the two study arms. ADRs were more common in older patients (p = 0.01). There was no increase in stopping azathioprine due to ADRs in TPMT heterozygotes compared with wild-type individuals. The single individual with TPMT variant homozygosity experienced severe neutropenia. CONCLUSION: Our work supports the strong evidence that individuals with TPMT variant homozygosity are at high risk of severe neutropenia, whereas TPMT heterozygotes are not at increased risk of ADRs at standard doses of azathioprine.

Valuing pharmacogenetic testing services: a comparison of patients' and health care professionals' preferences.

OBJECTIVE: The study compared the preferences of patients and health-care professionals for the key attributes of a pharmacogenetic testing service to identify a patient's risk of developing a side effect (neutropenia) from the immunosuppressant, azathioprine. METHODS: A discrete choice experiment was posted to a sample of patients (n=309) and health-care professionals (HCPs) (n=410), as part of the TARGET study. Five attributes, with four levels each, described the service as follows: level of information given; predictive ability of the test; how the sample is collected; turnaround time for a result; who explains the test result. Data from each sample were first analyzed separately and responses were compared by 1) identifying the impact of the scale parameter, and 2) estimating marginal rates of substitution. RESULTS: The final analysis included 159 patients and 138 HCPs (50% & 34% response rates). Estimated attribute coefficients from the patient and HCP sample differed in size, after taking into account the impact of the scale parameter. Patients and HCPs had similar preferences for predictive accuracy of the test and were willing to wait 2 days for a 1% improvement in test accuracy. Patients preferred to obtain more information and were willing to wait 19 days compared to 8 days for HCPs for providing higher levels of information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients demanded accurate and timely information from health-care professionals about why it was necessary to have a pharmacogenetic test and what the test results mean. In contrast, health-care professionals appear to focus more exclusively or entirely upon the predictive accuracy and waiting time for a test result.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' views on pharmacogenetic testing and its future delivery in the NHS.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited empirical evidence on patients' and healthcare professionals' views on the provision of pharmacogenetic testing services. These opinions may be used to shape the development of emerging pharmacogenetic services and inform healthcare professionals' future educational requirements. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and healthcare professionals' views about pharmacogenetic testing services and their future development. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who had been prescribed azathioprine for autoimmune conditions and prevention of acute rejection in renal transplantation. Focus groups were conducted with a range of healthcare professionals. Interviews and focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: The views of 42 individuals - 25 patients and 17 healthcare professionals - were explored in depth. Key themes emerging from the data were: patients' and healthcare professionals' knowledge and experience of pharmacogenetics; expectations about how such a testing service could be used; and characteristics of service delivery. Knowledge and experience of pharmacogenetics varied. Pharmacogenetics was perceived to be of benefit by both groups. Patients gave opinions about pharmacogenetic services based on their experiences of illness, taking medicines and using healthcare services. Healthcare professionals based their opinions on how existing services are provided and access to limited healthcare resources. Patients had strong feelings about how this service should be delivered and expected high standards of explanation about potential pharmacogenetic tests. None of the healthcare professionals questioned expected to have responsibility for the future delivery of pharmacogenetic testing services. CONCLUSION: There is no clear model of how pharmacogenetic tests will be delivered in clinical practice. Patients expect to receive pharmacogenetic services from healthcare professionals who are able to explain the test, and interpret the implications for prescribing, with confidence. The gap between patients' high expectations for information and healthcare professionals' current knowledge and reluctance to deliver pharmacogenetic services highlights the urgent need for better education and training of healthcare professionals in pharmacogenetics.

Is shared care with annual hospital review better value for money than predominantly hospital-based care in patients with established stable rheumatoid arthritis?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost effectiveness and cost effectiveness acceptability of symptom control delivered by shared care (SCSC) and aggressive treatment delivered in hospital (ATH) for established rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Economic data were collected within the British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group randomised controlled trial of SCSC and ATH. A broad perspective was used (UK National Health Service, social support services and patients). Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, net benefit statistics and cost effectiveness acceptability curves were estimated. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%. Sensitivity analysis tested the robustness of the results to analytical assumptions. RESULTS: The mean (SD) cost per person was 4540 pounds (4700) in the SCSC group and 4440 pounds (4900) in the ATH group. The mean (SD) QALYs per person for 3 years were 1.67 (0.56) in the SCSC group and 1.60 (0.60) in the ATH group. If decision makers are prepared to pay > or = 2000 pounds to gain 1 QALY, SCSC is likely to be cost effective in 60-90% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The primary economic analysis and sensitivity analyses indicate that SCSC is likely to be more cost effective than ATH in 60-90% of cases. This result seems to be robust to assumptions required by the analysis. This study is one of a limited number of randomised controlled trials to collect detailed resource use and health status data and estimate the costs and QALYs of treatment for established RA. This trial is one of the largest RA studies to use the EuroQol.

The relationship between social deprivation, disease outcome measures, and response to treatment in patients with stable, long-standing rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are known to have more severe disease, more comorbidity, and higher mortality. It is not known whether SES influences response to treatment in RA. We examined the relationship between area of residence (as a surrogate for SES) and baseline outcome measures and response to treatment, using data from the British Rheumatoid Outcome Study Group randomized controlled trial of aggressive versus symptomatic treatment of long-standing, stable RA. METHODS: A total of 466 patients from 5 centers were recruited to the trial. Baseline data included age, sex, smoking status, and comorbidity. Patients were assigned a Townsend score (a measure of social deprivation) according to their area of residence. Outcome measures including the Disease Activity Score (DAS28), Health Assessment Questionnaire, Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36, and EuroQol (EQ5D) were recorded at the beginning and end of the 3 year trial. The baseline, 3 year values, and change data were examined by Townsend quintile adjusting for each treatment arm. RESULTS: Significant relationships between increasing social deprivation by area of residence and higher disease activity, higher pain, poorer physical function, poorer emotional aspects of mental health, and lower quality of life were found at baseline (adjusted for age, sex, disease duration, current smoking, treatment center, and treatment group). During the 3 year trial period, patients from the most deprived areas showed greater improvement, with statistically significant greater improvement on DAS28 (p = 0.041) and 28 tender joint count (p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Area of residence is related to the severity of RA at recruitment and is a predictor of response in a clinical trial situation. The results suggest that measures of SES should be recorded for patients enrolled in clinical trials, longitudinal observational studies, and in the clinical setting.