The potential of a placebo/nocebo effect in pharmacogenetics

Effectiveness of the scapula mobilization technique on the neural mechanosensitivity of the upper limb neural test 1 in individuals with mechanical cervicalgia. A randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

to observe whether the mobilization of the scapula improves the mechanosensitivity of the median nerve in patients with cervicalgia. Localized cervical pain caused by compression of a nerve root without presenting irradiated features along the nerve path is diagnosed as cervicalgia. Muscles around the scapula can be directly responsible of this compression.

METHODS

60 adults diagnosed with cervicalgia and with a positive upper limb neural test 1(ULNT1) were recruited. Participants in the experimental group received a scapula mobilization technique. Participants in the control group, with electrodes on both sides of the neck and connected to turned off analgesic current device, received an abduction-adduction mobilization of the calcaneus in the lower limb contralateral to the painful area. The variables measured were pain, goniometry of elbow extension in movement for the median neurodynamic test (ULNT1) and hand grip strength.

RESULTS

Results showed that the increase in strength (p = 0.01) and elbow extension movement (p = 0.01) and the decrease in pain (p < 0.01) from the intervention group showed significant changes compared to the changes from control group.

CONCLUSION

Scapula mobilization technique in subjects presenting with cervicalgia and a positive ULNT1 significantly appears to help improve the neural mechanosensitivity of the median nerve and pain.

Overcoming Barriers: Strategies for Implementing Pharmacist-Led Pharmacogenetic Services in Swiss Clinical Practice

There is growing evidence that pharmacogenetic analysis can improve drug therapy for individual patients. In Switzerland, pharmacists are legally authorized to initiate pharmacogenetic tests. However, pharmacogenetic tests are rarely conducted in Swiss pharmacies. Therefore, we aimed to identify implementation strategies that facilitate the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service into clinical practice. To achieve this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with pharmacists and physicians regarding the implementation process of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service. We utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify potential facilitators and barriers in the implementation process. Additionally, we employed Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to identify strategies mentioned in the interviews and used the CFIR-ERIC matching tool to identify additional strategies. We obtained interview responses from nine pharmacists and nine physicians. From these responses, we identified 7 CFIR constructs as facilitators and 12 as barriers. Some of the most commonly mentioned barriers included unclear procedures, lack of cost coverage by health care insurance, insufficient pharmacogenetics knowledge, lack of interprofessional collaboration, communication with the patient, and inadequate e-health technologies. Additionally, we identified 23 implementation strategies mentioned by interviewees using ERIC and 45 potential strategies using the CFIR-ERIC matching tool. In summary, we found that significant barriers hinder the implementation process of this new service. We hope that by highlighting potential implementation strategies, we can advance the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service in Switzerland.

Pharmacogenetic testing and counselling in the community pharmacy: mixed-methods study of a new pharmacist-led service

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing and counselling (short: PGx service) in the community pharmacy is not routinely practiced. We propose a comprehensive pharmacist-led service where PGx information is integrated into medication reviews.

AIM

To evaluate the pharmacist-led service comprising PGx testing and counselling (PGx service) from the perspective of patients.

METHOD

For this mixed-methods study, we conducted two follow-up interviews F1 and F2 with patients recruited for the PGx service in a community pharmacy after 1st of January 2020. The semi-structured interviews were held by phone call and covered understanding of PGx, the implementation of recommendations, handling of PGx documents (list of concerned substances and PGx recommendation), gain in medication knowledge, and willingness to pay for the PGx service.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 patients in F1 and 42 patients in F2. Patients were generally able to understand and use results of the PGx service. At least one PGx recommendation was implemented for 69% of the patients. Handling of PGx documents ranged from patients having forgotten about the PGx results to patients consulting the list for every medication-related decision; the latter often expecting negative effects. Finally, 62% of the patients were willing to pay for the PGx service.

CONCLUSION

For future PGx testing and counselling, HCPs should consider the patients' health literacy in a standardized way and use adequate communication skills to enhance the patient's understanding in PGx and to attenuate potential negative expectations.

Rethinking Clinical Trials and Personalized Medicine with Placebogenomics and Placebo Dose

Pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics, vaccinomics, and the nascent field of plant omics are examples of variability science. They are embedded within an overarching framework of personalized medicine. Across these public health specialties, the significance and biology of the placebo response have been historically neglected. A placebo is any substance such as a sugar pill administered in the guise of medication, but one that does not have pharmacological activity. Placebos do have clinical effects, however, that can be substantive in magnitude and vary markedly from person-to-person depending, for example, on the type of disease, symptoms, or clinical trial design. Research over the past several decades attests to a genuine neurobiological basis for placebo effects. All drugs have placebo components that contribute to their overall treatment effect. Placebos are used in clinical trials as control groups to ascertain the net pharmacological effect of a drug candidate. Not only less well known but also relevant to rational therapeutics and personalized medicine is the nocebo. A nocebo effect occurs when an inert substance is administered in a context that induces negative expectations, worsening patients' symptoms. With the COVID-19 pandemic, there are high public expectations for new vaccines and medicines to end the contagion, while at the same time antiscience, post-truth, and antivaccine movements are worrisomely on the rise. These social movements, changes in public health cultures, and conditioned behavioral responses can trigger both placebo and nocebo effects. Hence, in clinical trials, forecasting and explaining placebo and nocebo variability are more important than ever for robust science and personalized health care. Against this overarching context, this article provides (1) a brief history of placebo and (2) a discussion on biology, mechanisms, and variability of placebo effects, and (3) discusses three emerging new concepts: placebogenomics, nocebogenomics, and augmented placebo, that is, the notion of a "placebo dose." We conclude with a roadmap for placebogenomics, its synergies with the nascent field of social pharmacology, and the ways in which a new taxonomy of drug and placebo variability can be anticipated in the next decade.

Generating evidence for precision medicine: considerations made by the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium when designing and operationalizing the PREPARE study

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacogenetic panel-based testing represents a new model for precision medicine. A sufficiently powered prospective study assessing the (cost-)effectiveness of a panel-based pharmacogenomics approach to guide pharmacotherapy is lacking. Therefore, the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium initiated the PREemptive Pharmacogenomic testing for prevention of Adverse drug Reactions (PREPARE) study. Here, we provide an overview of considerations made to mitigate multiple methodological challenges that emerged during the design.

METHODS

An evaluation of considerations made when designing the PREPARE study across six domains: study aims and design, primary endpoint definition and collection of adverse drug events, inclusion and exclusion criteria, target population, pharmacogenomics intervention strategy, and statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Challenges and respective solutions included: (1) defining and operationalizing a composite primary endpoint enabling measurement of the anticipated effect, by including only severe, causal, and drug genotype-associated adverse drug reactions; (2) avoiding overrepresentation of frequently prescribed drugs within the patient sample while maintaining external validity, by capping drugs of enrolment; (3) designing the pharmacogenomics intervention strategy to be applicable across ethnicities and healthcare settings; and (4) designing a statistical analysis plan to avoid dilution of effect by initially excluding patients without a gene-drug interaction in a gatekeeping analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our design considerations will enable quantification of the collective clinical utility of a panel of pharmacogenomics-markers within one trial as a proof-of-concept for pharmacogenomics-guided pharmacotherapy across multiple actionable gene-drug interactions. These considerations may prove useful to other investigators aiming to generate evidence for precision medicine.

Genomic Essentialism: Its Provenance and Trajectory as an Anticipatory Ethical Concern

Since the inception of large-scale human genome research, there has been much caution about the risks of exacerbating a number of socially dangerous attitudes linked to human genetics. These attitudes are usually labeled with one of a family of genetic or genomic "isms" or "ations" such as "genetic essentialism," "genetic determinism," "genetic reductionism," "geneticization," "genetic stigmatization," and "genetic discrimination." The psychosocial processes these terms refer to are taken to exacerbate several ills that are similarly labeled, from medical racism and psychological fatalism to economic exploitation and social exclusion. But as genomic information becomes more familiar in clinical and research settings as well as other life activities, do we need to continue to worry so much about this family of attitudes and their impact on existing problems? In genomics, the underlying anxiety has been that disclosure of genomic information will trigger a series of (seemingly unavoidable) negative responses that will affect individuals, their families, and their communities at large. The fundamental social challenges that hyperbolic genomic messaging, low genomic literacy, and "folk biology" help sustain remain to be addressed. If we hope to break the cycle of genomic isms and ations, we will have to get better at resisting overinterpretations of the relevance that genomics has for people's future potentials, ancestral vulnerabilities, community memberships, and ethnic affiliations.

The nocebo effect of drugs

While the placebo effect has been studied for a long time, much less is known about its negative counterpart, named the nocebo effect. However, it may be of particular importance because of its impact on the treatment outcomes and public health. We conducted a review on the nocebo effect using PubMed and other databases up to July 2014. The nocebo effect refers by definition to the induction or the worsening of symptoms induced by sham or active therapies. Examples are numerous and concerns both clinical trials and daily practice. The underlying mechanisms are, on one hand, psychological (conditioning and negative expectations) and, on the other hand, neurobiological (role of cholecystokinin, endogenous opioids and dopamine). Nocebo effects can modulate the outcome of a given therapy in a negative way, as do placebo effects in a positive way. The verbal and nonverbal communications of physicians contain numerous unintentional negative suggestions that may trigger a nocebo response. This raises the important issue of how physicians can at the same time obtain informed consent and minimize nocebo-related risks. Every physician has to deal with this apparent contradiction between primum non nocere and to deliver truthful information about risks. Meticulous identification of patients at risk, information techniques such as positive framing, contextualized informed consent, and even noninformation, is valuable.

Placebo and nocebo effects in the neurological practice

Knowledge of placebo and nocebo effects is essential to identify their influence on the results in clinical practice and clinical trials, and thereby properly interpret their results. It is known that the gold standard of clinical trials research is the double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical study. The objective of this review is to distinguish specific from non-specific effects, so that the presence of positive effects in the group that received placebo (placebo effect) and the presence of adverse effects in the group receiving placebo (nocebo effect) lead to confounding in interpreting the results. Placebo and nocebo effects have been considered in neurological diseases such as depression, pain, headache, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy. As placebo and nocebo effects are also present in clinical practice, the purpose of this review is to draw attention to their influence on neurological practice, calling attention to the development of measures that can minimize them.