Search

OBJECTIVE To describe the proposed mechanisms of chemotherapy-associated cardiomyopathy (CAC) and potential cardioprotective therapies for CAC including a comprehensive review of existing systematic analyses, guideline recommendations, and ongoing clinical trials. DATA SOURCES A literature search of MEDLINE was performed (from 1990 to June 2020) using the following search terms: anthracycline, trastuzumab, cardiomyopathy, cardiotoxicity, primary prevention, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), beta blocker, dexrazoxane (DEX) as well as using individual names from select therapeutic categories. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION Existing English language systematic analyses and guidelines were considered. DATA SYNTHESIS The mechanisms of CAC are multifaceted, but various cardioprotective therapies target many of these pathways. To date, anthracyclines and HER-2 targeted therapies have been the focus of cardioprotective trials to date as they are the most commonly implicated therapies in CAC. While traditional neurohormonal antagonists (ACEIs, ARBs, and beta blockers) and DEX performed favorably in many small clinical trials, the quality of available evidence remains limited. Hence, major guidelines lack consensus on an approach to primary prevention of CAC. Given the uncertain role of preventive therapy, monitoring for a symptomatic or asymptomatic decline in LV function is imperative with prompt evaluation should this occur. Numerous ongoing randomized controlled trials seek to either confirm the findings of these previous studies or identify new therapeutic agents to prevent CAC. Clinical implications are derived from the available literature as well as current guideline recommendations for CAC cardioprotection. CONCLUSION At this time, no single therapy has a clear cardioprotective benefit in preventing CAC nor is any therapy strongly recommended by current guidelines. Additional studies are needed to determine the optimal preventative regimens.

There is growing interest in utilizing pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing to guide antidepressant use, but there is lack of clarity on how to implement testing into clinical practice. We administered two surveys at 17 sites that had implemented or were in the process of implementing PGx testing for antidepressants. Survey 1 collected data on the process and logistics of testing. Survey 2 asked sites to rank the importance of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs using best‐worst scaling choice experiments. Of the 17 sites, 13 had implemented testing and four were in the planning stage. Thirteen offered testing in the outpatient setting, and nine in both outpatient/inpatient settings. PGx tests were mainly ordered by psychiatry (92%) and primary care (69%) providers. CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 were the most commonly tested genes. The justification for antidepressants selected for PGx guidance was based on Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines (94%) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 75.6%) guidance. Both institutional (53%) and commercial laboratories (53%) were used for testing. Sites varied on the methods for returning results to providers and patients. Sites were consistent in ranking CFIR constructs and identified patient needs/resources, leadership engagement, intervention knowledge/beliefs, evidence strength and quality, and the identification of champions as most important for implementation. Sites deployed similar implementation strategies and measured similar outcomes. The process of implementing PGx testing to guide antidepressant therapy varied across sites, but key drivers for successful implementation were similar and may help guide other institutions interested in providing PGx‐guided pharmacotherapy for antidepressant management.