Athreya, Arjun P.

Despite advances in pharmacogenomics that have led to innovative therapeutic strategies, substantial interindividual variability in drug efficacy and toxicity persists. Both endogenous and exogenous factors contribute to this unexplained variation, resulting in suboptimal treatment effectiveness, unnecessary healthcare costs, preventable mortality, and significant human suffering. The emerging field of exposomics is aimed at addressing the complex exposures that impact human health and offers an opportunity to interrogate how these exposures influence drug actions and outcomes. Here, we introduce pharmacoexposomics as a complementary framework that systematically quantifies the body's metabolic response to drug and environmental exposures using high-resolution mass spectrometry. We then present IndiPHARM (Individualized Pharmacology), a multi-institution, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health–supported platform designed to integrate population-scale pharmacoexposomics with pharmacogenomics and clinical data to elucidate interindividual variability in drug response, identify adverse reactions, and inform tailored, effective treatment strategies that advance precision medicine.

ABSTRACT Consumer‐grade wearables, including smartwatches, fitness trackers, and smart rings, are accessible tools for studying pharmacologic responses in real‐time, monitoring participant health in decentralized clinical trials, optimizing outcome measures, and delivering digital interventions that promote behavior change. However, incorporating consumer wearables into clinical studies is not as straightforward as simply purchasing devices and providing them to participants. It requires engaging with a complex engineering ecosystem with multiple investigator decisions on device selection, associated data management practices, and patient/participant engagement and technical support. This tutorial, based on experience running large clinical trials using consumer wearables, outlines the wearables market landscape across varying form factors and manufacturers as well as the data management software products supporting wearable use. It delineates the major decision processes involved in designing studies that incorporate wearables and presents a structured framework to guide the selection of devices and supporting data tools according to study objectives.

ABSTRACT Ischemic events after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncommon but carry high morbidity/mortality. Identifying patients at highest risk is critical to guide dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) intensity while minimizing bleeding. Current machine learning (ML) model‐developed risk scores do not incorporate pharmacogenetic data. To develop and externally validate ML models that integrate clinical, demographic, and CYP2C19 genetic information to predict 1‐year ischemic outcomes post‐PCI to refine clinical decision making. We analyzed 8317 patients from TAILOR‐PCI trial ( n = 4572) and the Precision PCI registry ( n = 3745). The outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and stent thrombosis at 1 year. Boruta feature selection identified 11 predictors. Multiple ML algorithms were trained in TAILOR‐PCI and validated in Precision PCI using cross‐validation and synthetic minority oversampling (SMOTE). Model performance was assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity. The best external performance was achieved with a support vector machine (SVM, polynomial kernel) (AUC 0.667; sensitivity 0.871; specificity 0.282), while XGBoost provided a more balanced profile (AUC 0.619; sensitivity 0.442; specificity 0.688). Variable importance for the SVM polynomial model demonstrated that all 11 included Boruta feature selected predictors had relatively high importance (> 75). ML models trained on large clinical trial and real‐world registry datasets can help identify the small subset of patients at high ischemic risk after PCI. This distinction is of relevance because ischemic events are rare, and most patients may safely de‐escalate DAPT to reduce bleeding risk while maintaining ischemic protection through a multimodal approach to risk stratification. Trial Registration: TAILOR‐PCI URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01742117

Abstract Rationale Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPF) is characterized by chronic progressive pulmonary fibrosis and high mortality. Genetic markers, summarized into a polygenic risk score (PRS), associate with IPF in well-phenotyped research cohorts. Objectives To evaluate the performance of the PRS using real-world data from routinely captured electronic healthcare records. Methods We conducted an observational study evaluating the association of a PRS for IPF with electronic healthcare record diagnosis of IPF as well as lung transplant-free survival in four independent cohorts; the Mass General Brigham Biobank (MGBB), Mayo Clinic Biobank (MCBB), Mayo Clinic Tapestry Cohort (Tapestry), and U.K. Biobank (UKBB). We used multivariable logistic regression and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models adjusting for age, gender, and principal components of ancestry. The cohorts then underwent fixed and random effects meta-analysis. Measurements and Main Results Of 37,709; 44,195; 43,202; and 447,422 participants from MGBB, MCBB, Tapestry and UKBB respectively, 1,015 (2.7%) 2,879 (6.5%), 1,310 (3.0%), and 2,742 (0.6%) participants had an IPF diagnosis. Meta-analysis demonstrated a high-risk PRS associated with IPF diagnosis, OR 2.88 (95%CI 2.41-3.44) compared to all other individuals. A high-risk PRS also associated with the composite endpoint of mortality or lung transplant among those with an IPF diagnosis, HR 1.23(95%CI 1.11-1.35) compared to all other individuals. Conclusions A PRS can identify those at risk for an IPF diagnosis and mortality in biobank-scale data, which may have implications for clinical decisions. Further work is necessary to evaluate the utility of adding genetics in clinical settings.

Background: Cardiac biomarkers are recognized as potential indicators for brain function, emotion regulation, and psychiatric risk. While research in adults has suggested associations between cardiac variables of autonomic function and neural changes, little is known about these relationships in children and young adults with psychiatric conditions. This systematic review aimed to examine the evidence linking cardiac biomarkers with structural, functional, and connectivity-based brain changes in this population. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Multiple databases were searched for studies examining associations between any cardiac biomarker and neuroimaging findings in individuals under 21 years old with psychiatric diagnoses. After screening and full-text review, 11 eligible studies were included. Results: The included studies investigating a range of psychiatric conditions and cardiac biomarkers were associated with brain changes across three domains: structure, connectivity, and neural responses. Associations were most consistent between higher vagal tone and structural and functional integrity of emotion-regulating regions such as the prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and insula. However, findings were heterogeneous and potentially moderated by symptom severity or environmental stressors. Conclusions: This review supports the potential of cardiac biomarkers, particularly high-frequency heart rate variability and root mean square of the successive differences, as proxies of brain changes in youth with psychiatric disorders. While promising, current evidence is too limited and variable for clinical applications. Future research should prioritize large-scale, longitudinal studies using harmonized protocols and wearable technologies to validate these indices as translational tools in child and adolescent psychiatry.

Introduction Sleep is routinely assessed in the management of mental health conditions. Wearable technologies like smartwatches offer a non-intrusive method to quantitatively measure sleep. However, there are limited empirical benchmarks for sleep duration and sleep quality measured by wearables against user reports. This study aims to evaluate the concordance between user-reported and smartwatch-measured hours of sleep and sleep quality. Methods Participants were recruited from two decentralized digital health well-being studies and completed a 7-day sleep diary while simultaneously wearing their smartwatch to sleep (November 7, 2023 - June 30, 2024). Participants self-reported sleep timestamps and perceived sleep quality using the Sleep Quality Scale. Sleep timestamps and quality were also derived from their smartwatches (Garmin Vívoactive 4 2019, Garmin Venu 2 Plus 2022, and Garmin Venu 3/3S 2023). Statistical analyses included paired t-tests, equipercentile linking, and chi-square tests to assess agreement between smartwatch and self-reported sleep parameters. Exploratory analyses established the difference between reported and recorded sleep duration in healthcare shift workers. Results From 841 sleep instances reported by 130 participants wearing three different generation smartwatches, the mean difference in sleep duration between smartwatch-recorded and participant-reported was 21.22 (Garmin Vívoactive), 11.67 (Garmin Venu 2 Plus), and 6.58 (Garmin Venu 3/3S) minutes, respectively. There were statistically significant between-group differences in mean sleep durations assessed by participant self-report vs. Vívoactive 4 smartwatches, but not self-report vs. Venu 2 Plus or Venu 3/3S smartwatches. Equipercentile linking revealed concordance between smartwatch sleep scores and self-reported sleep quality using the Sleep Quality Scale (SQS) between 4 and 7, with disagreements observed at the SQS ranges from 0–4 and 7-10. Conclusions These results suggest that wearables can reliably measure sleep duration, and future research warrants improvements in algorithms that estimate sleep quality with validations across different wearable vendors.

Importance The potential utility of real-time digital therapeutics that identify impending behavioral outbursts to proactively apply evidence-based interventions for managing children with disruptive behavior disorder has not been tested. Objectives To evaluate feasibility and adherence of a digitally augmented, real-time, proactive behavioral intervention (smartwatch) for children with disruptive behaviors. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial was conducted between March 1, 2022, and December 31, 2023, at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The study enrolled children aged 3 to 7 years with externalizing behavior problems rated above the clinically significant range (I score ≥120; T score ≥60) on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory (ECBI). Interventions Twelve weekly sessions of parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) (treatment as usual [TAU] arm) vs artificial intelligence (AI)–enhanced PCIT augmented with real-time behavioral outburst alerts (PCIT-AI arm). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was achieving the a priori feasibility benchmark set at greater than 70% for both completion of PCIT sessions and daily smartwatch wear. Parental reaction time to behavior prompts was measured in seconds. Secondary outcomes were percentage changes in ECBI and Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire scores. Behavioral outburst duration was examined based on parental logs of start and end times of observed tantrums using a smartphone application. Result This study enrolled 50 children (median [IQR] age, 5.0 [4.0-6.0] years; 34 [68%] male and 16 [32%] female; 28 randomized to the PCIT-AI arm and 22 to the PCIT-TAU arm). Of these children, 37 (74%; 21 in the PCIT-AI arm and 16 in the PCIT-TAU arm) completed PCIT, with children wearing the watch a median (IQR) 75.7% (67.8%-82.9%) of the time, thus achieving the feasibility benchmark (primary outcome). Median (IQR) response time to behavior prompts in the PCIT-AI arm was 3.65 (2.07-7.08) seconds. Assessing between-group differences, there was no statistically significantly greater numerical improvement in ECBI-intensity percentage change (13.86%; 95% CI, −1.41% to 29.14%), ECBI-problem percentage change subscale scores (38.59%; 95% CI, −1.22% to 78.40%), or absolute change in Pediatric Sleep Questionnaire scores (−0.16; 95% CI, −1.85 to 1.53) with the PCIT-AI arm than with the PCIT-TAU arm. Children in the PCIT-AI arm had significantly shorter mean (SD) tantrum durations (10.4 [20.8] minutes vs 22.1 [30.0] minutes; P < .001) and lower odds of tantrums lasting for 15 minutes or more (odds ratio, 3.66; 95% CI, 2.72-4.95). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, both recruitment and technology feasibility benchmarks were achieved. The findings inform the design of fully powered efficacy study of wearable, digitally augmented PCIT for children with disruptive behaviors. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05077722

ImportanceBurnout remains prevalent among physicians and can negatively affect quality, safety, and cost of patient care. Few randomized studies on interventions to address burnout have been conducted to date.ObjectiveTo determine whether wearing a smartwatch and having access to its physiological data (eg, sleep, step count, and heart rate) improves physician well-being (and if so, which dimensions of well-being).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial included physicians at 2 US medical centers (Mayo Clinic and the University of Colorado School of Medicine) who volunteered to wear a provided smartwatch beginning June 7, 2023. The study concluded on June 27, 2024.InterventionSix months of wearing a smartwatch.Main Outcomes and MeasuresBurnout, resilience, quality of life, depressive symptoms, stress, and sleepiness were measured using validated scales. Participants completed electronic surveys at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. An intention-to-treat analysis was conducted.ResultsThis study included 184 physicians (mean [SD] age, 37.5 [9.3] years; 107 females [58.8%]). A total of 83 of 183 physicians (45.4%) were residents or fellows, 103 of 184 (56.0%) lived in Colorado, and 99 of 182 (54.4%) worked in non–primary care settings. Baseline levels of well-being across the measured dimensions were similar for the 2 study arms. At 6 months, 35 of 85 physicians (41.2%) in the intervention arm had burnout compared with 46 of 91 (50.5%) in the control arm (P = .21). Mean (SD) resilience scores at 6 months were 31.9 (5.0) and 29.5 (6.2) among physicians in the intervention and control arms, respectively (P = .01). In multivariable analysis adjusting for baseline score, demographics, specialty, and work hours, the prevalence of burnout was lower (odds ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.21-0.99]; P = .046) and mean resilience score was higher (parameter estimate [scale, 0-40], 1.20 points [95% CI, 0.11-2.28 points]; P = .03; Cohen d = 0.17) among physicians in the intervention arm vs the control arm after 6 months.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of wearing a smartwatch and having access to its physiological data on physician well-being, physicians who wore a smartwatch experienced improvements in burnout and resilience. Future research should explore whether engagement with smartwatch data leads to actual behavior change (eg, adaptive coping or reflective habits) that reduces burnout risk and enhances resilience.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05463250