Hentz, Joseph G.

Abstract Background Pharmacogenomics is an emerging and affordable tool that may improve postoperative pain control. One challenge to successful pain control is the large interindividual variability among analgesics in their efficacy and adverse drug events. Whether preoperative pharmacogenomic testing is worthwhile for patients undergoing TKA is unclear. Questions/purposes (1) Are the results of preoperative pharmacogenetic testing associated with lower postoperative pain scores as measured by the Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS)? (2) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to less total opioids given? (3) Do the results of preoperative pharmacogenomic testing lead to changes in opioid prescribing patterns? Methods Participants of this randomized trial were enrolled from September 2018 through December 2021 if they were aged 18 to 80 years and were undergoing primary TKA under general anesthesia. Patients were excluded if they had chronic kidney disease, a history of chronic pain or narcotic use before surgery, or if they were undergoing robotic surgery. Preoperatively, patients completed pharmacogenomic testing (RightMed, OneOME) and a questionnaire and were randomly assigned to the experimental group or control group. Of 99 patients screened, 23 were excluded, one before randomization; 11 allocated patients in each group did not receive their allocated interventions for reasons such as surgery canceled, patients ultimately undergoing spinal anesthesia, and change in surgery plan. Another four patients in each group were excluded from the analysis because they were missing an OBAS report. This left 30 patients for analysis in the control group and 38 patients in the experimental group. The control and experimental groups were similar in age, gender, and race. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the experimental group were reviewed before surgery by a pharmacist, who recommended perioperative medications to the clinical team. A pharmacist also assessed for clinically relevant drug-gene interactions and recommended drug and dose selection according to guidelines from the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium for each patient enrolled in the study. Patients were unaware of their pharmacogenomic results. Pharmacogenomic test results for patients in the control group were not reviewed before surgery; instead, standard perioperative medications were administered in adherence to our institutional care pathways. The OBAS (maximum 28 points) was the primary outcome measure, recorded 24 hours postoperatively. A two-sample t-test was used to compare the mean OBAS between groups. Secondary measures were the mean 24-hour pain score, total morphine milligram equivalent, and frequency of opioid use. Postoperatively, patients were assessed for pain with a VAS (range 0 to 10). Opioid use was recorded preoperatively, intraoperatively, in the postanesthesia care unit, and 24 hours after discharge from the postanesthesia care unit. Changes in perioperative opioid use based on pharmacogenomic testing were recorded, as were changes in prescription patterns for postoperative pain control. Preoperative characteristics were also compared between patients with and without various phenotypes ascertained from pharmacogenomic test results. Results The mean OBAS did not differ between groups (mean ± SD 4.7 ± 3.7 in the control group versus 4.2 ± 2.8 in the experimental group, mean difference 0.5 [95% CI -1.1 to 2.1]; p = 0.55). Total opioids given did not differ between groups or at any single perioperative timepoint (preoperative, intraoperative, or postoperative). We found no difference in opioid prescribing pattern. After adjusting for multiple comparisons, no difference was observed between the treatment and control groups in tramadol use (41% versus 71%, proportion difference 0.29 [95% CI 0.05 to 0.53]; nominal p = 0.02; adjusted p > 0.99). Conclusion Routine use of pharmacogenomic testing for patients undergoing TKA did not lead to better pain control or decreased opioid consumption. Future studies might focus on at-risk populations, such as patients with chronic pain or those undergoing complex, painful surgical procedures, to test whether pharmacogenomic results might be beneficial in certain circumstances. Level of Evidence Level I, therapeutic study.

AbstractIntroductionAdverse reactions to pain medication and pain can delay discharge after outpatient knee arthroplasty (TKA). Pharmacogenomics is an emerging tool that might help reduce adverse events by tailoring medication use based on known genetic variations in the CYP genes determining drug metabolism. This study was undertaken to evaluate whether pre-operative pharmacogenomic testing could optimize peri-operative pain management in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsThis prospective, randomized study was performed in adults undergoing primary TKA. Patients in the experimental group underwent pre-operative pharmacogenomic evaluation and medication adjustments. Medications were not optimized for control patients. The Overall Benefit of Analgesic Score (OBAS) at 24 hours post-op was the primary outcome. Postoperative pain scores (VAS scale), total opioid use, time in recovery, and time to discharge were also compared.Results76 patients enrolled. 93% of patients had a poor-intermediate phenotype for at least one of four CYP genes. OBAS did not differ significantly between the two groups (4.2 control vs. 4.7 experimental; 95% CI −1.1 to 2.1) and was below the minimum clinically important difference of 2.0 points. Furthermore, there were no differences in any OBAS subscale including pain, satisfaction, or nausea. There were no differences in time in the recovery area or to discharge from hospital, or narcotic use.ConclusionsDespite many patients having a poor-intermediate phenotype for a CYP gene, pharmacogenomic testing prior to TKA and medication adjustment did not improve anesthesia or pain management outcomes, time to discharge or mean total opioid use after surgery.

Background: The implementation of telemedicine for stroke has played a vital role in creating universal access to emergency stroke care for patients in both rural and urban communities, regardless of location or hospital resources. Objective: We evaluated the hypothesis that there is no difference in speed of assessment between vascular neurologist (VN) robotic telepresence and standard VN supervised stroke alert patients in a primary stroke center. Methods: A retrospective stroke alert database review was used to identify all robotic telepresence and standardly supervised stroke alert patient assessments at Mayo Clinic Hospital Emergency Department from 2009 to 2012. The robotic telepresence cohort was compared to a random sample of standard stroke alert patients, with an equal number of patients selected from each year. The primary outcome measure was the duration of assessment from stroke alert activation to treatment or downgrade. Results: The sample size was 196 subjects. The mean duration of time from stroke alert activation to initiation of IV thrombolytic treatment or downgrade was 8.6 minutes longer in the robotic telepresence group than in the standard group ( P =0.03). There was a higher percentage of patients diagnosed with acute stroke in the robotic stroke alert group than in the standard stroke alert group (77% vs 60%, P =0.01). Controlling for acute stroke, age, and NIHSS did not significantly reduce the time difference between groups. Among the subgroup of acute ischemic stroke patients requiring IV thrombolysis, the mean duration of time from activation to treatment was 18 minutes longer in the robotic group than in the standard group ( P =0.01). Safety outcomes including thrombolysis protocol violations (0% vs 1%), post-thrombolysis symptomatic intracranial hemorrhagic complications (3% vs 1%), and death during hospitalization (8% vs 6%) were low in the robotic group and not significantly different from that in the standard group. Conclusion: Standard VN supervised acute stroke team assessments are swifter than those supervised by robotic telepresence. Safety outcomes of robotic telepresence supervised stroke alerts are excellent, and this modality may be preferred in circumstances when a VN is not immediately available on-site.

Objective “Pain interference” and “headache impact” refer to negative consequences that pain and headache have on one’s life. This study investigated determinants of these negative impacts in a large patient cohort who have chronic migraine with medication overuse. Methods Six hundred and eleven adults were enrolled from 34 headache, neurology, and primary care clinics. Negative consequences of chronic migraine with medication overuse were determined using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference 6b questionnaire and the Headache Impact Test 6. Relationships between PROMIS-6b and Headache Impact Test 6 scores with demographics, headache characteristics, medication use, anxiety symptoms, and depression symptoms were assessed with linear regression. Elastic Net regression was used to develop a multiple regression model. Results PROMIS-6b T-Scores averaged 65.2 (SD 5.4) and Headache Impact Test 6 scores averaged 65.0 (SD 5.3), indicating severe negative consequences of chronic migraine with medication overuse. Chronic migraine with medication overuse interfered with enjoyment of life, concentration, daily activities, doing tasks away from home, and socializing. Depression symptom severity had the strongest relationship with pain interference and headache impact. Moderate-to-severe headache frequency, headache intensity, and anxiety symptoms were also associated with pain interference and headache impact. Conclusions Chronic migraine with medication overuse is associated with substantial negative consequences, the extent of which is most strongly related to depression symptoms.

Abstract Objective To describe headache characteristics, medication use, disability, and quality of life in a large patient cohort from the United States who have chronic migraine (CM) and medication overuse headache (MOH). Methods In all, 610 adult patients were enrolled into the Medication Overuse Treatment Strategy trial from 34 healthcare clinics, including headache specialty, general neurology, and primary care clinics. Descriptive statistics characterize baseline demographics, headache characteristics, medication use, disability (Headache Impact Test 6 [HIT‐6] and Migraine Functional Impact Questionnaire [MFIQ]), pain interference (PROMIS Pain Interference), and quality of life (EQ‐5D‐5L). Relationships with headache frequency were assessed. Results Mean age was 45 years (SD 13) and 531/608 (87.3%) were females. Mean headache days per 30 was 24.3 (SD 5.5), including 13.6 (SD 7.1) with moderate to severe headache. Daily headaches were reported by 36.1% (219/607) of patients. Acute headache medications were used on 21.5 (SD 7.5) per 30 days. The most commonly overused medications were simple analgesics (378/607, 62% of patients), combination analgesics (246/607, 41%), and triptans (128/607, 21%). HIT‐6, MFIQ, PROMIS Pain Interference, and EQ‐5D‐5L scores demonstrated substantial negative impact from CM with MOH on patient functioning and quality of life. Higher headache frequency was associated with more moderate–severe headache days, more frequent acute headache medication use, greater headache‐related disability, and lower quality of life. Only 272/606 (44.9%) were taking migraine preventive medication. Conclusions CM with MOH is associated with a large burden on patients in the United States. Higher headache frequency is associated with greater impact on functioning, pain interference, and quality of life.

Abstract Background: Elastomeric respirators are reusable and reliable protection from infectious aerosol particles such as SARS-CoV-2. There is a lack of safety data for use in sterile fields limiting application to operating room settings where high-risk aerosol generating procedures are performed. We hypothesized an equivalent reduction in sterile field contamination would be achieved using an elastomeric respirator covered by a surgical mask as compared to a standard surgical mask or N95.Methods: Randomized controlled crossover experiment with repeat measurement comparing microbial and aerosol contamination of operating room surfaces for elastomeric respirators, elastomeric respirators covered by a surgical mask, N95, surgical mask, and no mask. 80 experiments were performed by participants with randomized order and balanced crossover to all masking groups (n=16 per masking group). Participants executed droplet and aerosol generating procedures while wearing: (Group 1) elastomeric respirator with mask, (Group 2) elastomeric respirator only, (Group 3) N95, and (Group 4) surgical mask. Positive control was established with the participant unmasked (Group 5). Contamination was measured by microbial growth on settling plates and optical particle counters (0.2+ and 2 um+ particles).Results: There was a reduction in microbial contamination at the sterile field (p<0.001) for all masks (Groups 1-4) compared to unmasked (Group 5). The mean colony forming units (CFU) at the sterile field was 0 CFUs for elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical mask versus unmasked growing 1.875 CFUs. Compared to the unmasked control, the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask), N95, and surgical masks all resulted in a -0.75 difference in contamination (95% CI -0.91 to -0.48, p < 0.001). No significant difference in contamination between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a surgical mask was detected. No significant difference in particle counts (0.2 µm+ and 2.0 µm+) between the elastomeric respirator (+/- mask) and a standard surgical mask.Conclusion and Relevance: Elastomeric respirators with or without mitigation are as effective as a surgical mask and N95 for reducing contamination at the sterile field in an operating room. Consideration should be given to expanding the use of elastomeric respirators to operating rooms during high-risk aerosol generating procedures.

Abstract Background: We previously reported an 85% response rate with 54% CR/nCR using a combination of cyclophosphamide (Cy), prednisone, and bortezomib (BZ) in relapsed myeloma (MM). We now report a Phase II clinical trial using a combination of Cy, BZ, and dexamethasone (Dex) [Cybor-D] in newly-diagnosed MM. We then compare the activity of this combination with historical controls treated with our current induction standard of Lenalidomide-Dexamethasone (L-Dex). Methods: 30 patients have been enrolled on Cybor-D. Treatment consists of Cy 300mg/m2 p.o. days 1, 8, 15, and 22; BZ 1.3 mg/m2 days 1, 4, 8, and 11, and Dex 40mg p.o. days 1–4, 9–12, 17–20. Prophylactic use of acyclovir, a quinolone and antifungal prophylaxis was highly recommended for all patients on study. Growth factors were allowed. As a relevant contemporaneous control for speed and depth of response, we used 33 patients treated on a recent Mayo Clinic trial of L-Dex (Rajkumar. Blood: 2005 106;4050–3). Response was defined according to IMWG criteria although in the current trial, bone marrows for confirmation of CR are not yet available on all patients. Results: At time of current analysis, 17 patients on Cybor-D were evaluable through at least one cycle for response and toxicity. Baseline characteristics included mean age of 57, 29% female, 41/24% ISS stage II/III. There were statistically more early stage patients on L-Dex; otherwise, baseline patient characteristics were similar. The mean % decline in monoclonal (M) protein from baseline following cycles 1–4 of Cybor-D were 71%, 90%, 93%, 96%. This compares favorably with L-Dex where equivalent % decline in M proteins were 66%, 77%, 80%, and 79%. Thus, in preliminary results, Cybor-D produces a more rapid initial decline and mean % reduction in M protein than L-Dex. Overall response rate (≥ PR) after one cycle of Cybor-D was 77% with 36% obtaining ≥VGPR (L-Dex 73% and 18% respectively). The % of patients obtaining ≥VGPR after each cycle was 36%, 64%, 77%, and 100% for Cybor-D as compared to 18%, 36%, 42%, and 33% for L-Dex. The overall ≥VGPR at the end of four cycles of Cybor-D is currently100% (≥ 66%nCR using older nomeclature). Major toxicities ≥ grade 3 for Cybor-D included hematologic (37%), hyperglycemia (15%) and neuropathy (11%). Conclusions: In summary, for newly-diagnosed MM patients, four cycles of Cybor-D produces more frequent, rapid and deep responses when contrasted with historical L-Dex controls. Further confirmation of response rates and effect on TTP will be required.