Back

Retrospective Analysis of the Utility of Genetic Testing in Predicting Drug Response in Chronic Pain

Gupta, G.; Paquet-Proulx, E.; Burton, K.; Lalonde, S.; Besemann, M.; Minerbi, A.

2021-05-04 rehabilitation medicine and physical therapy
10.1101/2021.04.29.21256336
Show abstract

IntroductionChronic pain is often unrecognized and/or undertreated, and as a result has significant impact on functional abilities, quality of life, societal participation and health care utilization. Medications remain a mainstay of treatment, but selection for any given patient remains a challenge when trying to predict efficacy and/or side effects. There is interest to see whether genetic analysis of how a given drug is processed for a patient can help with rational drug choices. This appears to have some early support in cardiac, psychiatric and acute pain studies. We studied whether genetic analysis of drug processing using the Pillcheck program could have helped in choosing the appropriate medications in a cohort of patients suffering from chronic pain. To our knowledge this type of study has not been completed in this environment and/or patient population. MethodsWe retrospectively studied a 31 patient cohort seen in the Canadian Forces Health Services Unit (Ottawa) Physiatry clinic. All patients suffered from a diagnosed chronic pain condition, completed the Pillcheck genetic drug processing analysis and filled-in questionnaires looking at efficacy and side effects of the drugs. We analyzed the correlation between the Pillcheck predictions and participants self-reported treatment efficacy and tolerability. The goal was to explore the clinical utility of Pillcheck results in guiding prescriptions for chronic pain patients. Results31 patients returned completed questionnaires and had samples taken. Forty eight percent of the participants were actively treated with one of the study pain medications, and 84% had been taking at least one of these medications and discontinued. Pillcheck scores did not correlate with self-reported efficacy of any of the medications, nor did it correlate with self-reported side effects. Furthermore, active medications were more likely to receive a score indicating caution should be exerted, than were medications which had been discontinued. DiscussionIn a small cohort of pain patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders, genetic profiling using Pillcheck did not seem to correlate with reported benefit or side effect profile of commonly prescribed pain medications. Furthermore, discontinued medications were no more likely to be marked as warranting caution than did actively used medications. ConclusionRetrospectively using pharmacogenetics to guide medication selection in Canadian Forces members with chronic pain did not correlate with response or side effects. A larger prospective controlled study, measuring numerous clinical and non- clinical outcomes would be worthwhile in the future before widespread adoption for patients living with chronic pain.

Matching journals

1
PLOS ONE
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 1737 published papers
Top 19%
1.5× avg
2
The Journal of Pain
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
#1
221× avg
3
BMJ Open
BMJ · based on 553 published papers
Top 9%
3.3× avg
4
Journal of Clinical Medicine
MDPI AG · based on 77 published papers
Top 4%
5.4× avg
5
Frontiers in Neurology
Frontiers Media SA · based on 74 published papers
Top 6%
4.2× avg
6
Trials
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 24 published papers
Top 1%
17× avg
7
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 12 published papers
Top 0.3%
39× avg
8
Scientific Reports
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 701 published papers
Top 58%
2.6%
9
Open Heart
BMJ · based on 18 published papers
Top 3%
9.4× avg
10
Gait & Posture
Elsevier BV · based on 11 published papers
Top 1%
18× avg
11
PLOS Medicine
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 95 published papers
Top 7%
3.3× avg
12
F1000Research
F1000 Research Ltd · based on 28 published papers
Top 1%
9.5× avg
13
PLOS Digital Health
Public Library of Science (PLoS) · based on 88 published papers
Top 8%
2.7× avg
14
Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
SAGE Publications · based on 11 published papers
Top 2%
13× avg
15
Frontiers in Psychiatry
Frontiers Media SA · based on 56 published papers
Top 6%
4.0× avg
16
Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation
Springer Science and Business Media LLC · based on 14 published papers
Top 2%
6.1× avg
17
Health Expectations
Wiley · based on 12 published papers
Top 1%
14× avg
18
International Journal of Medical Informatics
Elsevier BV · based on 25 published papers
Top 5%
4.4× avg
19
EClinicalMedicine
Elsevier BV · based on 21 published papers
Top 1%
7.3× avg
20
Frontiers in Digital Health
Frontiers Media SA · based on 18 published papers
Top 4%
5.4× avg