Expirience of implementation of personalized clinical decision support system for dosing of bromdihydrochlorphenylbenzodiazepine in patients with alcohol withdraw syndrome based on the pharmacogenomic markers

Introduction: Implementation of the clinical decision support systems capable of forming the recommendations on drug and dose selec- tion according to the results of pharmacogenetic testing is an urgent task. Fulfillment of this task will allow increasing the efficacy of ther- apy and decreasing the risk of undesirable side effects.Materials and methods: The study involved 51 patients (21 - the main group receiving appointments in accordance with the recommenda- tions based on the results of pharamogenetic testing, and 30 - the comparison control group receiving appointments without them) male with alcohol withdrawal syndrome. In order to assess the effectiveness and safety of alcohol withdrawal syndrome, which was performed with the benzodiazepine tranquilizer of phenazepam (bromodihydrochlorophenylbenzodiazepine), as well as standard detoxification and vitamin therapy, international psychometric scales and scales of assessment in expressions of adverse reactions. Genotyping Determination of genetic polymorphisms CYP2D6*4 (1846G>A, rs3892097), CYP2C19*2 (681G>A, rs4244285), CYP2C19*3 (636G>A, rs4986893), CYP2C19*17 (-806C>T, rs12248560), CYP3A5*3 (6986A>G, rs776746) and ABCB1*6 (3435C>T, rs1045642) were realized using real-time polymerase chain reaction with allele specific hybridization. Interpretation of the results of pharmacogenetic testing was carried out with the help of free soft- ware PharmacoGenomeX2 (www.pgx2.com)Results: Statistically significant differences in the number of scores for all psychometric scales in the patients of the main group and the comparison group were obtained. For example, on the scale of assessing the severity of alcohol withdrawal syndrome by the 3rd day of the study, the score in the main group was 13.5 [11.2; 16,0], and in the control group - 18,0 [17,0; 22.0] (p <0.001); to the 5th in the main group - 6.5 [4.2; 8.0], in the control group - 15.0 [14.0; 16.0] (p <0.001). On the UKU security scale, a statistically significant difference was also obtained. By the 3rd day of the study, the UKU score in the main group was 6.0 [5.0; 7,0], and in the control group - 7,0 [6,0; 8.0] (p = 0.030); by the 5th day the difference increased. In the main group, 5.5 [3.0; 9.0], in the control group - 14.0 [12.0; 19.0] (p <0.001). The groups were representative (when included in the study, the difference in the number of points was absent).Conclusion: Personalization of the dose of drugs in accordance with pharmacogenetic algorithms in patients with alcohol withdrawal syn- drome, can reduce the risk of unwanted reactions and pharmacoresistance, which allows to recommend the use of pharmacogenetic deci- sion support systems for drug dosage selection.

персонализированная медицина, фармакогенетика, CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP3A5, система поддержки принятия решений, транквилизаторы, бензодиазепины, синдром отмены алкоголя, personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, CYP2D6, CYP2C19, CYP3A5, decision support system, tranquilizers, benzodiazepines, alcohol withdrawal syndrome

1. Sachdeva A., Choudhary M., Chandra M. Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: Benzodiazepines and Beyond. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2015; 9 (9): VE01-VE07. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.04.011.

2. Weintraub S.J. Diazepam in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Alcohol Withdrawal. CNS Drugs 2017; 31 (2): 87-95. doi: 10.1007/s40263-016-0403-y.

3. Kattimani S., Bharadwaj B. Clinical management of alcohol withdrawal: A systematic review. Ind. Psychiatry J. 2013; 22 (2): 100-108. doi: 10.4103/0972-6748.132914.

4. Mayo-Smith M.F. American Society of Addiction Medicine Working Group on Pharmacological Management of Alcohol Withdrawal. Pharmacological management of alcohol withdrawal. A meta-analysis and evidence-based practice guideline. JAMA 1997; 278 (2): 144-151.

5. Dean L. Diazepam Therapy and CYP2C19 Genotype. Medical Genetics Summaries. Bethesda (MD): National Center for Biotechnology Information (US) 2012.

6. Inomata S., Nagashima A., Itagaki F. CYP2C19 genotype affects diazepam pharmacokinetics and emergence from general anesthesia. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 2005; 78: 647-655. doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2005.08.020.

7. Singh A.B. Improved Antidepressant Remission in Major Depression via a Pharmacokinetic Pathway Polygene Pharmacogenetic Report. Clinical Psychopharmacology and Neuroscience 2015; 13 (2): 150-156. doi:10.9758/cpn.2015.13.2.150.

8. Fagerness J., Fonesca E., Hess G.P. Pharmacogenetic-guided psychiatric intervention associated with increased adherence and cost savings. The Amercian Journal of Managed Care 2014; 20 (5): e146-e156.

9. Brener S., Holubowich C. Pharmacogenomic Testing for Psychotropic Medication Selection: A Systematic Review of the Assurex GeneSight Psychotropic Test. Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2017; 17 (4): 1-39.

10. Elliott L.S., Henderson J.C., Neradilek M.B., Moyer N.A., Ashcraft K.C., Thirumaran R.K. Clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool in polypharmacy home health patients: A prospective pilot randomized controlled trial. PLoS One 2017; 12 (2): e0170905.

11. Bousman C.A., Hopwood M. Commercial Pharmacogenetic - Based Decision-Support Tools in Psychiatry. The Lancet Psychiatry 2016; (3): 585-590. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)00017-1.

12. Hua T., Quertermous T., Beatriz R., Sharon L.R., Xiaofeng Z., Brown A., Pankow J.S., Province M.A., Hunt S.C., Boerwinkle E., Schork N.J., Risch N.J. Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies. American Journal of Human Genetics 2005; 76: 268-275. doi: 10.1086/427888.

13. Sullivan J.T., Sykora K., Schneiderman J., Naranjo C.A., Sellers E.M. Assessment of alcohol withdrawal: the revised clinical institute withdrawal assessment for alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). Br. J. Addict. 1989; 84 (11): 1353-1357.

14. Bharadwaj B., Kattimani S. Clinical management of alcohol withdrawal: A systematic review. Industrial Psychiatry Journal 2013; 2 (22): 100-108.

15. Zigmond A.S., Snaith R.P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 1983; 67 (6): 361-370.

16. Busner J., Targum S.D. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont) 2007; 4 (7): 28-37.

17. Lingjaerde O., Ahlfors U.G., Bech P., Dencker S.J., Elgen K. The UKU side effect rating scale. A new comprehensive rating scale for psychotropic drugs and a cross-sectional study of side effects in neuroleptic-treated patients. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. Suppl 1987; 334: 1-100.