by brant bullard | Nov 1, 2015 | News
In light of the tragedies this past year around the country, mental illness is a hot topic.
According the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the most recent data shows there have been 39,518 suicides reported making suicide the 10th leading cause of death for Americans. In 2011, someone died by suicide every 13.3 minutes. These statistics are alarming.
The National Alliance on Mental Illness states one in four adults – approximately 61.5 million Americans experience mental illness in a given year. One in 17, approximately 13.6 million live with a serious mental illness sucha as schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disease.
Serious mental illness costs America $193.2 billion in lost earning per year. And mood disorders such as depression are the third most common cause of hospitalization in the U.S. for both youth and adults ages 18-44.
According to the Washington Post, the mental health-care system in the United States is a multibillion-dollar industry that is still not big enough to serve all those who need it. Costs are a big barrier to treatments — but so are attitudes about mental health. New laws might change access to mental health, although significant barriers still remain. Here’s a look at what we invest in the mental health-care system, what that buys us and where gaps in coverage remain.
The United States spends $113 billion on mental health treatment. That works out to about 5.6 percent of the national healthcare spending, according to a 2011 paper in Journal Health Affairs. And those mental health dollars mostly go toward prescription drugs and outpatient treatment, according to Kaiser Family Foundation.
But how do we know if the medications we are giving mental health patients are even working?
Studies show that over 50% of patients have a variant gene that alters the rate of which they metabolize medications.
So what does this mean for mental illness? How do we know if the medications we are prescribing are even metabolizing?
Predicting patient response
Pharmacogenomics is now being used to help identify genes to help physicians improve the selection of medications for patients with depression and other psychiatric disorders. The test is a simple buccal swab of the cheek that is sent to a laboratory to determine how patients will respond to medications. These tests are designed to aid healthcare professionals when treating patients and eliminate the “trial & error” process which may take too long when dealing with mental illness.
Pharmacogenomics is a way to personalize medicine for each individual. It will help identify patients who might experience adverse effects from antidepressants or antipsychotic medications and help improve adherence.
At PGx Medical we work with hundreds of homes, clinics and pharmacies across the country educating and consulting with healthcare professionals regarding our Metabolic Validation Program. Our consultants work alongside healthcare professionals to help them understand test results and implement them into their day to day patient care.
For more information on how you can implement the PGx Medical Metabolic Validation Program into your healthcare setting, contact:
PGx Medical
Individualized Care – Personalized Mediciane
info@pgxmed.com
405-509-5112
Follow us!
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
by brant bullard | Oct 7, 2015 | News
Poor medication adherence is a well-known problem, particularly in patients with chronic conditions, and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality and health-care costs. Multi-faceted and personalized interventions have shown the greatest success. Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing may serve as another tool to boost patients’ confidence in the safety and efficacy of prescribed medications. Here, we consider the potential impact (positively or negatively) of PGx testing on medication-taking behavior.
Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing provides information about a patient’s likelihood to have an adverse response and/or a therapeutic response to a medication, enabling the potential for a tailored and personalized approach to medication therapy. Genetic variation has been estimated to account for 20–95% of the variation in individual responses to medications. A total of 113 drug labels approved by the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) include information about variability in patient response secondary to genetic variability, a handful including information about more than one gene. Although the primary focus of PGx testing has been on improving drug selection and dosing in patient populations or individuals, a secondary potential benefit of testing may be the improvement of medication adherence. Poor medication adherence is a well-known problem, particularly in patients with chronic conditions, resulting in greater morbidity, mortality and health-care costs. Although the potential benefit of PGx testing to improve adherence has been recognized for chronic diseases such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and diabetes, it is just beginning to be evaluated as an intervention, either alone or in combination with other interventions. Successful implementation of PGx testing into clinical practice, which assists patients and providers with therapy decisions, is consistent with current national goals to improve health care, engage patients and reduce health-care costs. In this paper, we discuss the potential mechanisms by which PGx testing may affect medication-taking behavior—either positively or negatively.
The continuing challenege of medication adherence
It is estimated that the annual economic burden of non-adherence is about $300 billion in the United States, and that about one-third to one-half of all patients in the United States do not take their medications as directed by their health-care providers. However, due to inconsistent definitions and measures of adherence in the literature and in clinical practice, the exact prevalence of non-adherence and associated cost is unknown. The World Health Organization broadly defines patient medication adherence as the extent to which a person’s medication-taking behavior corresponds with agreed recommendations from a health-care provider.
As shown in below, many factors, often in combination, have been reported to be associated with medication non-adherence including side effects, perception that the medication is unnecessary, low health literacy and cost or lack of insurance coverage. In particular, poor medication adherence has been well documented for chronic conditions given that effective management typically requires long-term use of one or more medications.
Factors affecting patient medication adherence. Factors highlighted in gray may potentially be addressed with pharmacogenetic testing.
Improving medication adherence
Effective strategies to promote adherence to a prescribed regimen(s) are desperately needed to reduce this ongoing problem in health care. However, given the complexity and heterogeneity of factors influencing medication adherence, it has been challenging to develop effective interventions to improve adherence. In general, the success rate of tested interventions has been relatively low, though even a small increment in adherence may result in substantial cost savings.Multifaceted interventions and/or personalized interventions may be necessary to reduce medication non-adherence in the United States. The most promising types of interventions to enhance medication adherence involve simplification of the drug regimen and addressing barriers to adherence such as improving convenience of care and providing information, counseling, reminders, self-monitoring, and reinforcement and follow-up. Patient-tailored interventions that explicitly address patients’ concerns and perceived necessity, and engage them in treatment decisions may be more likely to succeed in improving adherence.
Potential positive consequences of PGx testing on medication adherence
In addition, a few studies have suggested some positive impact with PGx testing in improving medication adherence and clinical outcomes.The inherent personal nature of learning of one’s genetic likelihood of having a positive therapeutic response or not having an adverse effect from the medication may increase the perceived efficacy/necessity or decrease the patient concern, respectively, ultimately improving medication adherence. The act of testing alone may reduce anxiety about the medication, contributing to increased adherence. Having patients engaged in medication selection or dosing decisions based upon the results of PGx testing may not only improve patient knowledge of their disease and treatment options, but also improve patient trust resulting in improved medication adherence. Patient’s confidence in a physician’s recommendations contributes to likelihood of drug initiation and discussion of therapeutic options provides a personal risk assessment and perhaps a greater sense of shared decision-making. Even if patients decline to have PGx testing after discussing it with their physician, the discussion about testing may improve patient satisfaction and feelings of shared decision-making. PGx-informed therapeutic decisions may result in reduced patient burden and costs associated with trial and error of medications for treatment and follow-up care required for management of adverse effects. The reduced burden and cost to the patient could positively influence medication adherence and thereby improve long-term outcomes and health costs.
Potential adverse consequences of PGx testing on medication adherence
As is the case for many types of genetic tests, PGx testing may result in beneficial or harmful outcomes, depending on the interpretation and communication of the test results. Thus, PGx testing may yield its own adverse effects that need to be carefully weighed. For example, while a PGx test result predicting that a patient will benefit from a given treatment or have a low risk of adverse events may improve adherence, prediction that the guideline-recommended treatment may not be as effective or associated with a higher potential risk of side effects may negatively influence adherence by both the provider and the patient. In particular, reduction in initial or long-term dose based on the PGx test result may raise doubt and reduce confidence about the safety and/or effectiveness of the treatment. Patients’ familiar with or having a preference for a particular drug may be disappointed if the PGx test result indicates that other drugs may be safer or more effective. Similarly, patients may perceive that a ‘targeted’ drug (designed to target specific genetic aberrations) is more effective, and thus, the use of a non-targeted drug is less effective, negatively impacting adherence to the alternatively prescribed drug. Furthermore, patients’ anxiety may be heightened following receipt of an ‘unfavorable’ result resulting in non-adherence and increased concerns about their health and provider’s ability to effectively care for them.
In addition, there are potential negative consequences for providers. Specifically, if a guideline-recommended medication is not used due to results of the PGx test demonstrating a lack of efficacy or high risk of adverse effects, then the clinician may be required to provide justification for their decision and potential negative impact on his/her performance measures or the performance measures of his/her clinic or hospital. In addition, depending upon the strength of evidence demonstrating the anticipated lack of benefit or increased risk, the clinician may be opening himself/herself up to potential litigation if outcomes are not as expected.
A number of other factors associated with non-adherence may be exacerbated by PGx testing. For instance, studies of public attitudes toward PGx testing have reported concerns that genetically tailored drugs would be more costly and result in greater health disparities. Therefore, patients and clinicians may be concerned that PGx testing may result in greater health-care costs and health disparities. Some patients may interpret PGx test results as determinant of an outcome, a concern if PGx test results are perceived to be unfavorable. Even tests that indicate no increased risk for an adverse event, however, may not reduce patient concerns and even raise anxiety in some patients.
Readiness of PGx testing for clinical care
Despite the FDA’s efforts toward providing information for health professionals about the impact of genetic variation on drug response or risk of adverse responses through revised drug labeling, there is substantial debate about the clinical utility of PGx testing, due in part to the lack of evidence. Cost-effective data for some tests are ambiguous and insurance coverage is not wide-spread, further limiting uptake. However, several studies have reported that the public is generally supportive of PGx testing, and physician and patient demand may override concerns of the lack of clinical evidence for PGx testing. Furthermore, implementation of PGx testing would fit well with the current movement toward patient-centered care model supported by recent health care reform in the United States (Affordable Care Act). The scope of clinical utility should be expanded to include medication adherence and the design of clinical trials to assess utility of PGx testing should also include measures of the impact of PGx test results on adherence.
While the reporting of results and communication between patient and provider about the interpretation and implications of the results is consistent with a patient-centered care model, full implementation in the clinical practice setting may be challenging. For example, some clinical practices may have policies on only reporting abnormal laboratory findings. As such, ‘normal’ results such as the results of the PGx test that does not indicate the need for a drug or dose adjustment may not be automatically reported to the patient. However, it is precisely this type of result that should be reported to potentially boost patient’s confidence in the efficacy of the drug or reduce concerns about adverse effects, thereby, potentially increasing adherence. Likewise, if the ‘normal’ result is reported simply as ‘normal’ without some explanation as to its significance to the patient’s likelihood to respond favorably to the prescribed drug or have a lower risk to experience an adverse effect, the meaning of the result may not be clear to the patient and the potential benefit of increased adherence will also be lost.
Understanding PGx test results will be a challenge for all patients, particularly those with lower health literacy. Millions of Americans have inadequate health literacy.PGx testing typically provides risk estimates or categorical risks (for example, increased likelihood) instead of definitive results, which may also be challenging to understand for many individuals, particularly those with low numeracy skills.Educational materials designed for patients with low health literacy about PGx testing and the results should be presented in a manner understandable for patients of varying levels of literacy to minimize confusion and misinterpretation. As PGx testing can inform future therapeutic decision-making, it is particularly important to understand the meaning and significance of the results when they are first ordered to increase the likelihood that the results will be disclosed or shared with future health-care providers.
Conclusion
Much of the uncertainty surrounding the clinical use of PGx testing at this time may be a reflection of the novelty of testing as it remains a heavily investigated area of research. Although it is unlikely that any recommendations for PGx testing will be based on its impact on medication adherence, this potential benefit should not be overlooked. PGx testing in combination with other inventions may serve to improve adherence in combination with other interventions. A small proportion of patients demonstrating improved medication adherence due to PGx testing could result in substantial health savings. With the movement toward patient-centered care, it appears to be an opportune time to investigate the benefit of PGx testing for medication adherence and how testing can be smoothly integrated into various health delivery systems to realize such potential benefit. Understanding the relationship between PGx test results and medication adherence will be useful in other areas of research such as risk communication, cost-effectiveness, analyses of interventions, and patient acceptance and engagement in self care.
References/Source:
nature.com
Acknowledgement:
This work was supported by funding from the US National Institutes of Health 5R01-GM081416-05.
by brant bullard | Sep 23, 2015 | News
Antidepressant, Painkiller Combo May Raise Risk of Brain Bleed
To add to the list of reasons why a pharmacogenetic test is important when taking multiple medications, recent studies show taking both an antidepressant and a painkiller such as ibuprofen or naproxen may increase risk of a brain hemorrhage, a new study suggests.
Korean researchers found that of more than 4 million people prescribed a first-time antidepressant, those who also used nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) had a higher risk of intracranial hemorrhage within the next month.
Intracranial hemorrhage refers to bleeding under the skull that can lead to permanent brain damage or death.
The findings, published online July 14 in BMJ, add to a week of bad news on NSAIDs, which include over-the-counter pain relievers such as aspirin, ibuprofen (Motrin, Advil) and naproxen (Aleve).
Last Thursday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration strengthened the warning labels on some NSAIDs, emphasizing that the drugs can raise the risk of heart attack and stroke.
As far as the new link to brain bleeding in antidepressant users, experts stressed that many questions remain unanswered.
And even if the drug combination does elevate the odds, the risk to any one person appears low.
“The incidence of intracranial hemorrhage in people taking antidepressants and NSAIDs was only 5.7 per 1,000 in a year. So about 0.5 percent of people taking these drugs will develop a (hemorrhage) over one year,” said Dr. Jill Morrison, a professor of general practice at the University of Glasgow in Scotland.
Still, she said, it’s wise for people on antidepressants to be careful about using NSAIDs.
Both types of drug are widely used, and about two-thirds of people with major depression complain of chronic pain, the researchers pointed out.
Make sure an NSAID is the appropriate remedy for what ails you, said Morrison, co-author of an editorial published with the study.
It’s known that NSAIDs can cause gastrointestinal bleeding in some people, and studies have suggested the same is true of SSRI antidepressants — which include widely prescribed drugs such as Paxil, Prozac and Zoloft.
But neither drug class has been clearly linked to intracranial hemorrhage, said Dr. Byung-Joo Park, the senior researcher on the new study.
So Park’s team looked at whether the two drug types, used together, might boost the risk.
The investigators used records from Korea’s national health insurance program to find more than 4 million people given a new prescription for an antidepressant between 2009 and 2013. Half were also using an NSAID.
Park’s team found that NSAID users were 60 percent more likely to suffer an intracranial hemorrhage within 30 days of starting their antidepressant — even with age and chronic medical conditions taken into account.
There was no indication that any particular type of antidepressant carried a greater risk than others, said Park, a professor of preventive medicine at Seoul National University College of Medicine.
He agreed that antidepressant users should consult their doctor before taking NSAIDs on their own.
Park also pointed out that the study looked at the risk of brain bleeding within 30 days. So the findings may not apply to people who’ve been using an antidepressant and an NSAID for a longer period with no problem.
That’s an important unanswered question, said Morrison, noting it’s possible that the risk of brain bleeding is actually higher for people who used NSAIDs for a prolonged period.
Why would antidepressants have an effect on bleeding? According to Park’s team, the drugs can hinder blood cells called platelets from doing their job, which is to promote normal clotting.
Since NSAIDs can also inhibit platelets, combining the two drugs may raise the odds of bleeding, the researchers said.
It’s not clear whether there is a safer pain reliever for people on antidepressants, Morrison said. But it’s possible that acetaminophen (Tylenol) could fit the bill.
“Acetaminophen does not have the same propensity to cause bleeding problems as NSAIDs do,” Morrison said. “So theoretically, this would be safer.”
And since this study was conducted in Korea, she added, it’s not clear whether the risks would be the same in other racial and ethnic groups. More studies, following people over a longer period, are still needed, Morrison said.
For more information on pharmacogenetic testing, contact:
PGx Medical
Individualized Care – Personalized Medicine
405-509-5112
info@pgxmed.com
www.pgxmed.com
Source: ppok.com
by brant bullard | Sep 14, 2015 | News
Clay Bullard, CEO of PGX Medical, designed a genetic test that allows a doctor to quickly identify the best drug to prescribe for patients who suffer from chronic blood and heart conditions. (Photo by Brent Fuchs)
EDMOND – Dr. Stuart Schrader has a new method to improve the way he prescribes drugs. The owner of Crossway Medical Clinic uses a genetic test to understand how a patient metabolizes some medications, tailoring prescriptions for individuals.
The test allows Schrader to quickly identify the best drug to prescribe for patients who suffer from chronic blood and heart conditions, rather than a trial-and-error basis, he said. It also is more effective in determining drug interactions and is better than using a physician’s desk reference, he said.
Clay Bullard, CEO of
PGX Medical, designed the test and works with physicians to recommend its use. A simple cheek swab gathers information for a lab in California to examine 19 genes. Those genes are commonly associated with arthritis pain; anxiety, depression and psychosis; high blood pressure and high cholesterol; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; and other conditions.
Pharmacogenetic testing has been around for about 19 years, but recently the cost for genetic testing dropped dramatically, he said. Bullard had the idea to develop the company when his wife’s physician recommended the test about 10 years ago. She wasn’t getting results from her rheumatoid arthritis treatment, and the doctor said the genetic screening could better determine which medicine would work well for her.
Bullard said he hoped more doctors will choose the test, particularly for the geriatric population. He is working with the state Department of Health to educate nursing home owners about the test, as a way to reduce the number of psychotropic drugs taken by people in assisted living centers.
Yet geriatric researcher Mark Stratton disagrees that the test is useful for a broad swath of the elderly. The University of Oklahoma College of Pharmacy professor wrote in an emailed statement to The Journal Record that pharmacogenetic testing research is an emerging area, but evidence doesn’t yet support that testing for geriatric patients.
That type of genetic testing is useful for patients with potentially terminal illnesses, such as AIDS or breast cancer, whose diseases have not otherwise responded to typical treatment, Stratton wrote. Pharmacogenetic screening provides one piece of information in a very complex medical situation, and a patient’s response to medication is affected by more than one’s genes, he wrote.
Schrader said the test has been useful for geriatric patients to determine the minimal dose for chronic conditions. In addition, the test has been effective for patients who suffer from migraine headaches and haven’t responded to typical treatment, he said. In four months he’s recommended the test for more than 200 patients at his primary care practice in Oklahoma City.
For patients whose conditions haven’t been successfully treated with commonly prescribed medications, the test is important to help convince the patient to allow him to continue looking for the right drug, Schrader said.
“When one type of medication didn’t work well and they’ve given up on that class of drugs entirely, we can show them they can work with these genetic tests,” he said. “We can help ease the anxiety and show how the medicine will metabolize in the body.”
by brant bullard | Sep 13, 2015 | News
So you are thinking about implementating pharmacogenectic testing in your senior community. Who should you test?
Recently as we have been educating healthcare professionals regarding pharmacogenetic testing, we have been told, “Our physicians don’t want to blanket test. And the last company that was in here said that is what we need to do.”
Blanket testing your residents is not the proper protocol by either PGx Medical or CMS. Pharmacogenetic testing is for residents with medical necessity. In other words, anyone who is on a prescription drug, poly-pharmacy, physician is considering placing them on, or has a comorbidity associated with one or more of the following panels has medical necessity (depression, anxiety, psych, cardio, pain, anti-coag, ADHD or thrombophila).
As a healthcare professional, you can treat symptoms and you can “react” to side effects. But how can you be certain if a medication is, or is not working? Or even has the possibility to work before prescribing? If a person tells you they are in pain, you can assume their pain medication isn’t working. You might even throw something else on top of the prescription they are already taking to help ease the pain. By doing this, you are creating a cascading effect that could possibly turn toxic if they are a poor metabolizer of the medication. So how would you know if a cardio medication isn’t working? Or a psych medication? Sometimes you don’t…until it’s too late.
Testing all residents in a senior community isn’t the answer. Testing residents who are on multiple medications but don’t show any symptoms is what we call, Metabolic Validation. You are validating that the medications they are taking are working…or are not working. But you are putting together a medical plan of action.
This once-in-a-lifetime test can be used not only to validate the medication the resident is currently taking, but it gives you pinpoint accurate options for future prescribing.
The PGx Medical Metabolic Validation Program gives healthcare professionals a guide, or roadmap of medications that will metabolize in each individual resident. Allowing the physician to know ahead of time what medications have the ability to metabolize allowing for pinpoint accurate prescribing and confirmation of current regimen of medications.
So what if your phyician only wants to test residents on an “as needed” basis?
Testing “as needed” usually means you have exhausted all efforts. You’ve tried the trial-and-error process and that hasn’t worked. Now testing is your last resort.
That is exactly what you are trying to avoid. Residents in senior communities sometimes don’t have the luxury of waiting for their medications to work, their mobility, and quality of life depends on it. So if you test them prior to the fall, prior to the re-hospitalization and prior to the adverse drug event – you have happier and healthier residents, billable beds and staff that can spend more time making life more enjoyable rather than dealing with behavioral issues.
PGx Medical is known for our continuing education. We want to make sure you understand the program before you test your residents and we are there on the back-end to assist you in implementing results.
If you are interested in more education, having PGx Medical speak at your next event, or doing a webinar for your healthcare team, let us know. Our job, is to make your job, easier.
PGx Medical
Individualized Care – Personalized Medicine
405-509-5112
info@pgxmed.com