Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2024 Apr 10;19(4):e0300511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300511

Pharmacogenomics-assisted schizophrenia management: A hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation study protocol to compare the clinical utility, cost-effectiveness, and barriers

Aniruddha Basu 1,, Atanu Kumar Dutta 2,, Bhavani Shankara Bagepally 3,, Saibal Das 4,5,‡,*, Jerin Jose Cherian 5,6, Sudipto Roy 6, Pawan Kumar Maurya 4, Indranil Saha 4, Deepasree Sukumaran 7, Kumari Rina 1, Sucharita Mandal 1, Sukanto Sarkar 1, Manoj Kalita 4, Kalyan Bhowmik 4, Asim Saha 4, Amit Chakrabarti 4
Editor: Hoh Boon-Peng8
PMCID: PMC11006179  PMID: 38598465

Abstract

Objectives

The response to antipsychotic therapy is highly variable. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) factors play a major role in deciding the effectiveness and safety of antipsychotic drugs. A hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research will be conducted to evaluate the clinical utility (safety and efficacy), cost-effectiveness, and facilitators and barriers in implementing PGx-assisted management compared to standard of care in patients with schizophrenia attending a tertiary care hospital in eastern India.

Methods

In part 1, a randomized controlled trial will be conducted. Adult patients with schizophrenia will be randomized (2: 1) to receive PGx-assisted treatment (drug and regimen selection depending on the results of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in genes DRD2, HTR1A, HTR2C, ABCB1, CYP2D6, CYP3A5, and CYP1A2) or the standard of care. Serum drug levels will be measured. The patients will be followed up for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint is the difference in the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side-Effect Rating Scale score between the two arms. In part 2, the cost-effectiveness of PGx-assisted treatment will be evaluated. In part 3, the facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted treatment for schizophrenia will be explored using a qualitative design.

Expected outcome

The study findings will help in understanding whether PGx-assisted management has a clinical utility, whether it is cost-effective, and what are the facilitators and barriers to implementing it in the management of schizophrenia.

Trial registration

The study has been registered with the Clinical Trials Registry–India (CTRI/2023/08/056210).

Introduction

The global burden of schizophrenia is 23.6 (95% confidence interval: 20.2–27.2) millions [1] and the prevalence of schizophrenia in India is 0.3% (95% confidence interval: 0.2–0.3%) [2]. The response to antipsychotic therapy is highly variable, and it is not possible to predict those patients who will or will not respond to drugs. Furthermore, around 30% of these patients are treatment-resistant [3]. Across several studies, it has been found that the proportion of patients receiving antipsychotic polypharmacy ranged from 15.9–60.5% before they received clozapine, the last pharmacotherapeutic resort [4]. Treatment of these patients imposes a huge burden on the patient, their caregivers, and the health system. The typical and atypical antipsychotics derive their therapeutic benefit predominantly from the antagonism of dopamine (D2) and serotonin (5-HT2A) receptors. Many of these compounds are associated with common and significant adverse effects [e.g. metabolic syndrome, hyperprolactinemia (in females) extrapyramidal symptoms, anticholinergic effects, sedation, etc.] [5] which negatively impact adherence. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) factors play a major role in deciding treatment responses to antipsychotic drugs [3].

Multiple studies have investigated PGx approaches to identify genotype-specific dosing and predict antipsychotic responses and/or adverse effects [6]. Currently, the United States Food and Drug Administration provides information on PGx biomarkers in their drug labeling of nine antipsychotic drugs [7]. Similarly, the Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base website lists ten antipsychotics where caution is advised for patients who are poor cytochrome 2D6 (CYP2D6) metabolizers [8]. Drug labels with PGx information are provided for specific antipsychotics. The Royal Dutch Association for the Advancement of Pharmacy-Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group has provided PGx drug dosing guidelines based on CYP2D6 genotypes for six antipsychotics [9]. However, negative result was also been reported. In the Danish population, it was found that routine CYP testing does not affect the persistence of antipsychotic drug treatments [10].

Medication optimization interventions (e.g. PGx-assisted treatment) based on the concept of precision medicine in people on polypharmacy due to psychotic disorders are complex and limited; a more holistic and integrated approach is warranted [11,12]. Several observational studies have reported associations between genetic variants and treatment response; however, there are limited studies that have used PGx as an interventional tool in assisting the selection of antipsychotic drugs and their doses to optimize schizophrenia treatment. This is particularly important in the ethnically diverse Indian context as differential pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antipsychotic drugs can lead to a major impact on their effects. Further, it is also important to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of PGx-assisted treatment in schizophrenia in a lower-middle-income country like India. Finally, it is important to generate insights from the patients, caregivers, and psychiatrists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted treatment in schizophrenia. Hence, this hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research will be conducted to evaluate the clinical utility (safety and efficacy), cost-effectiveness, and facilitators and barriers in implementing PGx-assisted management as compared to the standard of care in patients with schizophrenia. Hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research combines elements of both effectiveness and implementation research within a single study. This approach aims to not only assess the effectiveness of an intervention or program in real-world settings but also focuses on understanding and enhancing the implementation process.

Methods

The study duration will be three years and the three parts of the study will be performed chronologically. The study will be conducted at the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR)-Centre for Ageing and Mental Health, Kolkata, India, in collaboration with the Departments of Psychiatry, Biochemistry, and Pharmacology, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, India; ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai, India; and ICMR Headquarters, New Delhi.

Part 1

Study design and setting

This will be a randomized, parallel-arm, patient and assessor-blinded study. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) checklist has been followed (Fig 1, S1 File).

Fig 1. SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) diagram for Part 1.

Fig 1

CGI, Clinical Global Impressions Scale; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; PANSS, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; PGx, Pharmacogenomics; SMARTS, Systematic Monitoring of Adverse events Related to TreatmentS; UKU-SERS, Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side-Effect Rating Scale.

Eligibility criteria

Adult (age ≥18 years) patients of any gender residing in the eastern Indian region for at least three consecutive generations; attending the outpatient Department of Psychiatry, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, India; diagnosed with schizophrenia (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition) for ≥6 months; Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) [13,14] total score of >60 with at least two positive items scored >4; those who are not previously genotyped; who will be adjudicated by the treating psychiatrist to be treated with one or more of the following first-line antipsychotic drugs: olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, amisulpride, quetiapine, aripiprazole, and trifluoperazine; will be recruited [1517]. Patients having a history of treatment-resistant schizophrenia [3] and/or any past documented history of clozapine therapy, those who required electroconvulsive therapy over the past month or those who presently require urgent electroconvulsive therapy before initiating pharmacotherapy in the present study, those having a history of drug hypersensitivity or contraindication to the above-mentioned antipsychotic drugs, those with any organic mental health disorder, those with a well-documented history of epilepsy or hyperpyretic convulsion, those with severe violent or self-harm behavior that would limit the patient’s ability to complete and/or participate in the study (based on investigator’s judgment), those with severe unstable medical comorbidities (based on investigator’s judgment), those who require long-acting injectable drug(s) to maintain treatment adherence, those with a history of neurolept malignant syndrome, those who are pregnant or breastfeeding at the time of enrolment, and those who will be unwilling to provide informed consent will be excluded (Table 1) [18]. Based on the existing patient load at the Department of Psychiatry, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, India, the patient recruitment process is expected to be completed in 1.5 years.

Table 1. Eligibility criteria of the study population.
Inclusion criteria
  • Adult (≥18 years) patients of any gender residing in the eastern Indian region for at least three consecutive generations and diagnosed with schizophrenia (DSM, fifth edition) for ≥6 months

  • Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total score of >60 with at least two positive items scored >4

  • Not previously genotyped

  • Adjudicated to be treated with one or more of olanzapine, risperidone, haloperidol, amisulpride, quetiapine, aripiprazole, and trifluoperazine

Exclusion criteria
  • History of treatment-resistant schizophrenia and/or any past documented history of clozapine therapy

  • History of electroconvulsive therapy over the past month or those who presently require urgent electroconvulsive therapy

  • History of drug hypersensitivity or contraindication to the above-mentioned antipsychotic drugs

  • Any organic mental health disorder

  • A well-documented history of epilepsy or hyperpyretic convulsion

  • Severe violent or self-harm behavior (investigator’s judgment)

  • Severe unstable medical comorbidities (investigator’s judgment)

  • Requirement of long-acting injectable drug(s) to maintain treatment adherence

  • History of drug-induced malignant syndrome

  • Pregnant or breastfeeding at the time of enrolment

  • Unwilling to provide informed consent

DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Genotyping

Peripheral venous blood (3 ml) will be collected from patients of PGx arm (Arm A). Specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) [19,20] will be detected based on their role in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the mentioned antipsychotics and their prevalence (The 1000 Genomes Project [21] and Genome Asia [22] in the eastern Indian population (Table 2). Real-time TaqMan-based quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Sanger sequencing will be performed [20]. Genomic DNA will be extracted from peripheral blood using a commercial kit as per the manufacturer’s instructions. The respective gene loci will be amplified by using specific forward and reverse primers. The primer sequences will be checked for dimer and helix formation by using the Gene Runner® software. PCR will be carried from 100 ng genomic DNA in a total reaction volume of 20 μl. The reaction mixture will consist of 2 μl of 10X buffer, 0.3 μl of 10 mM dNTP, 0.3 μl of each 10 mM forward and reverse primers, and 0.2 μl of 5U/μl of Taq polymerase. Nuclease-free water will be added to make the final reaction volume to 20 μl. The amplified products will be checked on 1.5% agarose gel electrophoresis. Sanger sequencing and TaqMan-based genotyping would be carried out using specific protocols available from the kit manufacturers. The polymorphisms will be classified as wild type, homozygous, or heterozygous mutation by melting-curve analysis [20].

Table 2. Genes and respective single-nucleotide polymorphisms that will be detected by genotyping.
Gene SNP Gene SNP
CYP2D6 rs1058164 ABCB1 rs1045642
rs1065852 (CYP2D6*10) rs2032582
rs1135840 (CYP2D6*10) rs3842
rs16947 (CYP2D6*14) CYP3A5 rs776746
rs28371699 DRD2 rs1079597
rs28371702 rs2514218
rs28371725 (CYP2D6*41) rs4436578
rs3892097 (CYP2D6*4) rs6277
HTR1A rs10042486 HTR2C rs1283677
rs6313 CYP1A2 rs762551
Gene SNP Gene SNP
CYP2D6 rs1058164 ABCB1 rs1045642
rs1065852 (CYP2D6*10) rs2032582
rs1135840 (CYP2D6*10) rs3842
rs16947 (CYP2D6*14) CYP3A5 rs776746
rs28371699 DRD2 rs1079597
rs28371702 rs2514218
rs28371725 (CYP2D6*41) rs4436578
rs3892097 (CYP2D6*4) rs6277
HTR1A rs10042486 HTR2C rs1283677
rs6313 CYP1A2 rs762551

SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

Randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment

Variable-sized block randomization will be performed based on computer-generated random numbers using open-access software (sealed envelope) [23]. Allocation concealment will be ensured using serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes. The randomization code and the envelopes for allocation concealment will be prepared by the study statistician having no role in the participant enrolment process. The treating psychiatrists will be enrolling the trial participants and will assign them to the treatment arms as per the allocation sequence. The treating psychiatrists will be aware of the patient’s treatment arm (unblinded). The patients and the outcome assessors will not be revealed the treatment arms and the genotyping results (patient and assessor blind) until the study completion (follow-up for 12 weeks).

Intervention

The recruited patients will be randomized (2: 1) into two arms as follows (Fig 2):

Fig 2. Study flowchart.

Fig 2

TDM: Therapeutic drug monitoring.

  • Arm A: PGx-assisted treatment (antipsychotic drug and regimen selection depending on the results of the mentioned SNPs).

  • Arm B: Standard of care (as per standard practice).

Till the genotyping results come (7±2 days), the patients will be treated as per the standard treatment guidelines of the Indian Psychiatry Society. Based on the genotype results, the patients of Arms A will be classified as follows:

  • Poor metabolizers: Those having two inactive alleles.

  • Intermediate metabolizers: Those having decreased activity alleles or one active and one inactive allele or one decreased activity and one inactive allele.

  • Fast metabolizers: Those having two functional alleles (wild type).

The standard dosages of the relevant antipsychotic drugs for first and multiple-episode schizophrenia are enlisted in Table 3 [24]. The antipsychotic drug selection and dosing algorithm [based on package inserts of United States Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Japan; and professional PGx guidelines (Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base, and Royal Dutch Association for the Advancement of Pharmacy–Pharmacogenetics Working Group), and primary scientific literature] for initial treatment and follow-up treatment (including any change in drugs) are illustrated in Fig 3 [6,10,11,19,20]. The pharmacokinetics-related dosage adjustment will be based on the primary CYP450 metabolic enzymes. The antipsychotic drug and regimen in both arms may be altered based on the clinical response (efficacy or adverse events) as adjudicated by the treating psychiatrists during follow-up visits and the same will be recorded and used for the analysis. The algorithm will be updated during the study, if required, based on the findings of the interim analysis. The patients will be followed up at the end of 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks.

Table 3. Standard dose range of antipsychotic drugs.
Antipsychotic drug Usual daily dose (mg/day) Maximum daily dose (mg/day)
Olanzapine 10–30 30
Risperidone 2–8 16
Haloperidol 5–20 20
Amisulpride 50–800 1200
Quetiapine 300–800 800
Aripiprazole 10–30 30
Trifluoperazine 15–30 30
Fig 3. Pharmacogenomics-assisted treatment algorithm.

Fig 3

rs, reference single nucleotide polymorphism; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism.

Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)

After reaching a steady state, TDM (measurement of serum drug levels) will be performed for each antipsychotic drug using trough samples. This will be performed by the high throughput ultra-performance liquid chromatographic method. A column size of 100 mm × 2.1 mm internal diameter and 1.7 m particle size will be used to separate the samples with gradient elution consisting of 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid and acetonitrile with a photodiode array detector. The elution time is expected to be 7 min with a 0.3 ml/min flow rate, 1 μl injection volume, and a 45°C column oven temperature [25]. The Levey-Jennings chart will be used for quality assurance and quality control.

Data collection and outcome measurements

At the beginning, the functional capacity of the patients will be assessed as per the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 [26]. The socio-demographic characteristics (gender, age, and body mass index), lifestyle (diet, sleep, and exercise), addiction history (other than behavioral addiction), present medical history, present drug history, relevant family history of psychiatric and neurological diseases, and details of the present psychotic disorder (age of onset, duration, and the severity of present illness) will be assessed at baseline. The primary endpoint will be the difference in the Udvalg for Kliniske Undersøgelser Side-Effect Rating Scale (UKU-SERS) [27] score between the two arms. The secondary endpoints will be clinical response at week 12 [PANSS [14.15] and Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI) scale [28]] scores; change in the cognitive function [Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) [29]; the proportion of patients developing adverse events and serious adverse events [Systematic Monitoring of Adverse events Related to Treatment S (SMARTS)] [3032], including metabolic syndrome (based on waist circumference, serum fasting glucose, and lipid profile) [33], hyperprolactinemia (for females), anticholinergic effects, sedation, and extrapyramidal effects [5]; the proportion of patients requiring hospitalization; the duration of hospitalization; the time-to-achieve clinical response through 12 weeks; the proportion of patients unresponsive to treatment (<20% reduction in PANSS score at the end of six weeks as compared to the score at baseline) [34]; the number and olanzapine-equivalent doses of various antipsychotic drugs; the correlation between serum drug level, dosing, and clinical response; drug adherence (pill-counting method) [35]; and the quality of life (EQ-5D-5L) [36]. The scales selected are widely used and validated for determining the efficacy and safety outcomes of antipsychotic drugs. Fig 1 depicts the schedule of assessment of various outcome measurements.

Sample size estimation

Considering a difference of 0.62 [10] in the UKU-SERS score between the two arms, a standard deviation of 1.34 [10], a clinically meaningful difference of 1.18, a two-sided alpha error of 5%, a power of 90%, a randomization ratio of 2: 1, and a drop-out rate of 10%, the final estimated sample size will be 249 (round-up to 250) [166 in Arm A (PGx arm) and 83 in Arm B (standard of care arm)].

Data management and statistical analyses

The investigators will be responsible for assuring completeness, accuracy, and timely collection of data. Data will be entered in REDCap software (Vanderbilt, USA) by the study sites, and case record forms will be scanned in REDCap. The data will be checked for normal distribution (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). The chi-squared test will be used for categorical variables (e.g., response rates, safety outcomes, etc.). For continuous variables (e.g. scale scores, duration of hospitalization), analysis of covariance with treatment in the model and baseline clinical and demographic characteristics and drug dosage as covariates will be used. Subgroup analysis will be performed based on the treatment status (treatment naïve and those who received prior treatment), socio-demographic characteristics, negative symptoms from the first psychotic episode, PANSS and CGI scores, comorbid substance use; age at onset, lack of early response, and treatment adherence.

The Kaplan-Meier estimate will be used to draw the survival curves denoting the time-to-achieve response. Cox’s proportional hazards model will be used to assess the difference in the time to respond between the two arms allowing for other covariates. For violation in the proportional hazards assumption in Cox’s proportional hazards model, violations will be identified through graphical methods and a sensitivity analysis will be performed to evaluate the robustness of the results to different modeling assumptions. This might involve using different cutoffs for time intervals or assessing the impact of different modeling strategies. If assumptions are not violated, based on the statistical criteria, we will choose an appropriate model.

For correlation between drug dosing, drug levels, and clinical response Pearson’s or Spearman correlation test will be applied. Both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses will be performed. A p-value of <0.05 will be considered significant. Interim analyses will be performed after the follow-up of 80, 160, and 240 patients. The O’Brien-Fleming boundary will be used for stopping rules [37].

Data monitoring

The data monitoring will be performed by designated officials appointed by ICMR Headquarters, New Delhi.

Part 2

Study design

This will be the cost-effectiveness component of the study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis

The intervention and outcome data of the same patients from Part 1 will be used. A decision analytic model will be developed from the health system’s perspective from the patients’ data using a short-term decision tree (Fig 4) and a long-term (lifetime horizon) Markov model. The simulation will begin with a study of individuals entering the model as the target population and proceeding into one of two treatment strategies. The Markov model structure will be developed as per the experience obtained from the trial as well as from a literature review. The trial findings will be used as transitional probabilities for the decision tree and the Markov model. The intervention costs will be estimated from the study using a testing panel including respective gene-drug pairs with 30 test-return days. The other relevant model input parameters, the utility values, the prevalence of schizophrenia, etc., will be retrieved from the literature and used in the models.

Fig 4. Short-term decision tree model.

Fig 4

Pr: Probability.

The model will estimate the health outcomes in terms of life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs. All future costs and consequences will be discounted at 3%. This implies that implies the application of a discount rate of 3% to account for the time value of money when considering future costs and consequences in the cost-effectiveness. The costs will be reported in 2023 Indian rupees and also in United States dollars. The effectiveness will be measured in terms of QALYs. The outcome will be the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = ΔCostQALY). One-way, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses will be performed to assess the robustness of the findings due to variations in demographics, risk levels, and follow-up timeframe. The intervention will be considered cost-effective if the ICER is lower than the willingness to pay threshold, fixed based on the per capita gross domestic product as suggested by the World Health Organization [38]. A budget impact analysis will also be performed if the intervention is found to be cost-effective.

A budget impact analysis of the implementation of the PGx intervention strategy will be performed using the standard methods as per guidelines suggested by Health Technology Assessment India, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India [39] only if it is found to be cost-effective. The annual budget impact will be estimated for a period of five years. The input costs for the budget impact analysis will be taken from the previously estimated model. The budget impact at the state level for each of the Indian states will be assessed considering the state-wise prevalence of schizophrenia and state-level eligible patient population who will likely utilize PGx-assisted treatment if implemented at district-level hospitals. The budget required for offering the PGx-assisted treatment under the national program will be estimated using the following formula [40]:

B=N×Cdt+CMy1

where B is the budget required for offering psychiatric treatment services to the eligible population, n is the eligible population estimated using a top-down approach, Cdt is the unit cost of antipsychotic treatment from the decision tree Markov model (dt), and CMy1 is the cost of schizophrenia management for the first year as derived from the Markov model (M).

The estimated budget as the percentage increase will be calculated from the existing total healthcare budget for each of the respective states. No discount will be applied as the budget impact is the estimation of the financial cost. The health budget will be projected based on a 5% annual increase in health expenditure, while the estimated budget for schizophrenia will be projected using the population’s annual growth rate until 2027. Further, the same method will be used to estimate the state-specific budget impact for the country-wide expansion of the treatment of schizophrenia.

Part 3

Study design

This will be the qualitative component of the study.

Methodology

The facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted management in patients with schizophrenia will be explored. A narrative approach will be adopted. In-depth interviews and focused-group discussions of patients and their primary caregivers will be conducted. Key informant interviews will be conducted among psychiatrists. The interview guide will be prepared based on the following framework [4146].

  • General issues (facilitators and barriers) of the management of schizophrenia from the patient and familial perspectives.

  • Impact of schizophrenia on individual, family, and societal well-being.

  • Drug adherence and adverse reactions of antipsychotics.

  • Hospitalization and the adverse consequences.

  • The financial impact of management of schizophrenia.

  • Expectations on precision medicine using PGx.

  • Consideration of PGx-assisted management.

  • Satisfaction with the quality of PGx testing and reports.

  • Acceptability, feasibility, availability, and affordability of PGx-assisted management at different healthcare levels.

  • Sustainability and scalability of PGx-assisted management.

  • Facilitators and barriers in implementing PGx-assisted management.

Sample size estimation and analysis

Patients, primary caregivers, and psychiatrists (six to twelve each) will be interviewed until saturation is obtained [47]. This sample size is tentative and the interview will continue till data saturation. Thematic saturation will be based on the three primary elements in its calculation and assessment: base size, run length, and new information threshold [48]. A thematic analysis will be performed. This will involve a meticulous process of familiarization with the data, coding segments into meaningful units, and iteratively organizing these codes into coherent themes that encapsulate key concepts or patterns. Because of the flexible yet rigorous approach, thematic analysis will enable the exploration of diverse perspectives, facilitating the extraction of rich, contextually embedded insights that deepen our understanding of the facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted management in patients with schizophrenia.

Ethics

The study has been approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of ICMR-Centre for Ageing and Mental Health, Kolkata, India (18th IEC/CAM/1.1, dated 30.05.2023) and the Institutional Ethics Committee of All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, India (IEC/AIIMS/Kalyani/certificate/2024/015, dated 31.01.2024). All participants will be recruited after obtaining written informed consent from themselves or their legally authorized representatives. The study will conform to the requirements of the Declaration of Helsinki, 1964; the Indian Good Clinical Practice guidelines; and the ICMR-National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research Involving Human Participants, 2017. Personal information about screened and enrolled participants will be collected, shared, and maintained to protect confidentiality before, during, and after the trial. A 2: 1 randomization technique will allow more patients to be enrolled in the PGx arm and benefit if the PGx-assisted treatment is favorable. The genotyping data will be revealed to the patients after 12 weeks. If PGx-assisted treatment is beneficial, it will be implemented for patients in Arm B (standard of care arm). All data source documents, including clinical reports and records necessary for the evaluation and reconstruction of the clinical trial, will be stored securely for five years, with a focus on ensuring the patient’s confidentiality. The blood samples will be stored for future research in the systems pharmacology of antipsychotics.

Protocol registration

The study has been registered with the Clinical Trials Registry–India (CTRI/2023/08/056210). The full protocol is available in the S2 File.

Discussion

This study aims to set up an individualized preferred treatment prediction model through the genetic analysis of patients using different kinds of antipsychotics. It is important to ensure effective and safe management for patients with schizophrenia by improving the use of antipsychotic drugs. It has been found that patient characteristics and clinical circumstances could affect drug effectiveness; these patient factors are important in making treatment choices [49]. Treatment optimization using precision medicine is required to improve the efficacy and reduce the development of ADRs in patients on antipsychotic therapy. One of the main goals of precision medicine in such conditions is to use genetic information to improve safety, efficacy, and outcomes. PGx testing can be seen as a companion decision-support tool, under consideration of all relevant individual clinical and demographic information available.

To date, no randomized controlled trial has been conducted in patients with schizophrenia to evaluate the outcomes following treatment assisted by PGx using an extensive array of genes and antipsychotic drugs. Further, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the qualitative component (hybrid effectiveness-implementation design type 2 study) are the study novelties. The findings of this study will help in understanding whether PGx-assisted management (drug and dosage selection) supported by therapeutic drug monitoring has a clinical utility (safety and efficacy) or is cost-effective in patients with schizophrenia. Another similar study is underway in China to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of antipsychotics and create a standard clinical cohort with a multi-dimensional index assessment (including PGx) of antipsychotic treatment for schizophrenia [50]. However, there is a limitation to this study. Since patients from the eastern Indian region will only be recruited, the generalizability of the study results is limited. Hence, a larger follow-up study is warranted in other populations. If the results are encouraging, PGx-assisted management could be incorporated into the standard treatment guideline for treating schizophrenia.

Supporting information

S1 File. SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) checklist.

(PDF)

pone.0300511.s001.pdf (109.6KB, pdf)
S2 File. Full protocol.

(DOCX)

pone.0300511.s002.docx (1.4MB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the feedback received in the protocol from Dr. Hisham Moosan, Scientist E (Medical), ICMR-National Institute of Implementation Research in Non-communicable Diseases, Jodhpur, India; Dr. Tamilarasu Kadhiravan, Professor, Department of Medicine, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research, Puducherry, India; and Dr. Nabendu Sekhar Chatterjee, Head, Discovery Research Division (Extramural Projects), ICMR, New Delhi, India through a protocol development workshop conducted by the ICMR, New Delhi, India. The authors also acknowledge the scientific input received by the Technical Advisory Group, ICMR-National Taskforce on Safe and Rational Use of Medicines. Finally, the authors thank the Improving Use of Medicines team, Health System and Policy, Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden for providing support.

Data Availability

This is a study protocol and does not contain any study data.

Funding Statement

This study is funded by ICMR, New Delhi, India through the ICMR-National Taskforce on Safe and Rational Use of Medicines (extra-mural fund). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.GBD 2019 Mental Disorders Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of 12 mental disorders in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9:137–150. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(21)00395-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.National Mental Health Survey of India, 2015–16. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. http://indianmhs.nimhans.ac.in/Docs/Report2.pdf (accessed on 17.02.2023).
  • 3.Yoshida K, Müller DJ. Pharmacogenetics of Antipsychotic Drug Treatment: Update and Clinical Implications. Mol Neuropsychiatry. 2020;5:s1–s26. doi: 10.1159/000492332 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Patel MX, Bishara D, Jayakumar S, et al. Quality of prescribing for schizophrenia: evidence from a national audit in England and Wales. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;24:499–509. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2014.01.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Muench J, Hamer AM. Adverse effects of antipsychotic medications. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81:617–622. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Beunk L, Nijenhuis M, Soree B, et al. Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6, CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 and antipsychotics. Eur J Hum Genet. 2023. (ahead of print). doi: 10.1038/s41431-023-01347-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.United States Food and Drug Administration. Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labeling. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/science-and-research-drugs/table-pharmacogenomic-biomarkers-drug-labeling (accessed on 17.02.2023).
  • 8.Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base. https://www.pharmgkb.org (accessed on 17.02.2023).
  • 9.Routhieaux M, Keels J, Tillery EE. The use of pharmacogenetic testing in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: A systematic review. Ment Health Clin. 2018;8:294–302. doi: 10.9740/mhc.2018.11.294 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Jürgens G, Andersen SE, Rasmussen HB, et al. Effect of Routine Cytochrome P450 2D6 and 2C19 Genotyping on Antipsychotic Drug Persistence in Patients With Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3:e2027909. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.27909 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Arranz MJ, Gonzalez-Rodriguez A, Perez-Blanco J, et al. A pharmacogenetic intervention for the improvement of the safety profile of antipsychotic treatments. Transl Psychiatry. 2019;9:177. doi: 10.1038/s41398-019-0511-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mizzi C, Dalabira E, Kumuthini J, et al. A European Spectrum of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers: Implications for Clinical Pharmacogenomics. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0162866. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2017;12:e0172595. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0162866 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13:261–276. doi: 10.1093/schbul/13.2.261 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Opler MGA, Yavorsky C, Daniel DG. Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) Training: Challenges, Solutions, and Future Directions. Innov Clin Neurosci. 2017;14:77–81. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grover S, Avasthi A. Antipsychotic prescription pattern: A preliminary survey of Psychiatrists in India. Indian J Psychiatry. 2010;52:257–9. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.70982 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Grover S, Avasthi A, Sinha V, et al. Indian Psychiatric Society multicentric study: Prescription patterns of psychotropics in India. Indian J Psychiatry. 2014;56:253–64. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.140632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Grover S, Chakrabarti S, Kulhara P, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Schizophrenia. Indian J Psychiatry. 2017;59:S19–S33. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.196972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Su Y, Yu H, Wang Z, et al. Protocol for a pharmacogenomic study on individualised antipsychotic drug treatment for patients with schizophrenia. BJPsych Open. 2021;7:e121. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2021.945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC®). https://cpicpgx.org/genes-drugs/ (accessed on 24/03/2023).
  • 20.Genomind Pharmacogenetic Report. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gtr/tests/523653/methodology/ (accessed on 24/03/2023).
  • 21.1000 Genomes Project Consortium; Auton A, Brooks LD, Durbin RM, Garrison EP, Kang HM, Korbel JO, Marchini JL, McCarthy S, McVean GA, Abecasis GR. A global reference for human genetic variation. Nature. 2015;526:68–74. doi: 10.1038/nature15393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.GenomeAsia100K Consortium. The GenomeAsia 100K Project enables genetic discoveries across Asia. Nature. 2019;576:106–111. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1793-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sealed Envelope Ltd. https://www.sealedenvelope.com/simple-randomiser/v1/lists (accessed on 11.01.2024).
  • 24.Grover S, Chakrabarti S, Kulhara P, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Schizophrenia. Indian J Psychiatry. 2017;59:S19–S33. doi: 10.4103/0019-5545.196972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jebaliya H, Shah A, Karad SC, et al. Quantification of panel of most potent antipsychotic medicines by high throughput UPLC method. Results Chem. 2022;4:100427. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Math SB, Gowda MR, Sagar R, et al. Mental Health Care Act, 2017: How to organize the services to avoid legal complications? Indian J Psychiatry. 2022;64:S16–S24. doi: 10.4103/indianjpsychiatry.indianjpsychiatry_743_21 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Lingjaerde O, Ahlfors UG, Bech P, et al. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1987.tb10566.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Guy W, editor. ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Public Health Service Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:695–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Muench J, Hamer AM. Adverse effects of antipsychotic medications. Am Fam Physician. 2010;81:617–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Stroup TS, Gray N. Management of common adverse effects of antipsychotic medications. World Psychiatry. 2018;17:341–356. doi: 10.1002/wps.20567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Haddad PM, Fleischhacker WW, Peuskens J, et al. SMARTS (Systematic Monitoring of Adverse events Related to TreatmentS): The development of a pragmatic patient-completed checklist to assess antipsychotic drug side effects. Ther Adv Psychopharmacol. 2014;4:15–21. doi: 10.1177/2045125313510195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Alberti KG, Zimmet P, Shaw J. Metabolic syndrome—a new world-wide definition. A Consensus Statement from the International Diabetes Federation. Diabet Med. 2006;23:469–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2006.01858.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kane JM, Agid O, Baldwin ML, et al. Clinical Guidance on the Identification and Management of Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenia. J Clin Psychiatry. 2019. Mar 5;80:18com12123. doi: 10.4088/JCP.18com12123 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Lee Y, Lee MS, Jeong HG, et al. Medication Adherence Using Electronic Monitoring in Severe Psychiatric Illness: 4 and 24 Weeks after Discharge. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2019;17:288–296. doi: 10.9758/cpn.2019.17.2.288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.EQ-5D. https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/eq-5d-5l-about/ (accessed on 17.02.2023).
  • 37.O’Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:549–556. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Marseille E, Larson B, Kazi DS, et al. Thresholds for the cost-effectiveness of interventions: alternative approaches. Bull World Health Organ. 2015;93:118–24. doi: 10.2471/BLT.14.138206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Health Technology Assessment in India. Department of Health Research. https://htain.icmr.org.in/ (accessed on 29.06.2023).
  • 40.Prinja S, Chugh Y, Rajsekar K, et al. National Methodological Guidelines to Conduct Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment in India. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19:811–823. doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00668-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Huber CG, Naber D, Lambert M. Incomplete remission and treatment resistance in first-episode psychosis: definition, prevalence and predictors. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2008; 9:2027–38. doi: 10.1517/14656566.9.12.2027 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cooper RE, Hanratty É, Morant N, et al. Mental health professionals’ views and experiences of antipsychotic reduction and discontinuation. PLoS One. 2019;14:e0218711. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Lewins A, Morant N, Akther-Robertson J, et al. A qualitative exploration of family members’ perspectives on reducing and discontinuing antipsychotic medication. J Ment Health. 2022:1–8. doi: 10.1080/09638237.2022.2069710 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Younas M, Bradley E, Holmes N, et al. Mental health pharmacists views on shared decision-making for antipsychotics in serious mental illness. Int J Clin Pharm. 2016;38:1191–9. doi: 10.1007/s11096-016-0352-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Crellin NE, Priebe S, Morant N, et al. An analysis of views about supported reduction or discontinuation of antipsychotic treatment among people with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22:185. doi: 10.1186/s12888-022-03822-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bondre AP, Shrivastava R, Raghuram H, et al. A qualitative exploration of perceived needs and barriers of individuals with schizophrenia, caregivers and clinicians in using mental health applications in Madhya Pradesh, India. SSM Ment Health. 2022;2:100063. doi: 10.1016/j.ssmmh.2022.100063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vasileiou K, Barnett J, Thorpe S, et al. Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:148. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Guest G, Namey E, Chen M. A simple method to assess and report thematic saturation in qualitative research. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0232076. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Swartz MS, Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, et al. What CATIE found: results from the schizophrenia trial. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59:500–6. doi: 10.1176/ps.2008.59.5.500 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Su Y, Yu H, Wang Z, et al. Protocol for a pharmacogenomic study on individualised antipsychotic drug treatment for patients with schizophrenia. BJPsych Open. 2021;7:e121. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2021.945 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hoh Boon-Peng

3 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-31935Pharmacogenomics-Assisted Schizophrenia Management: A Hybrid Type 2 Effectiveness-Implementation Study Protocol to Compare the Clinical Utility, Cost-Effectiveness, and BarriersPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Das,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: The reviewers have raised several comments on the statistical analysis. Authors are recommended to address the comments accordingly.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hoh Boon-Peng, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This study is funded by ICMR, New Delhi, India through the ICMR-National Taskforce on Safe and Rational Use of Medicines (extra-mural fund).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers have raised some comments on the statistical analysis. Authors are suggested to address the comments accordingly before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript is a study protocol for conducting a study in 3 phases: a randomized trial (phase 1), followed by a cost-effectiveness study (phase 2), and finally exploring a qualitative design (phase 3). The trial was approved by the respective Ethics/IRB board, and was registered under the Indian Clinical Trials Registry. The study objectives are on target. However, I mostly have some concerns/comments in the statistical design and analytical framework, and CONSORT guidelines, which may require attention:

1. Methods:

Methods reporting need some work. An orderly manner is suggested, following CONSORT guidelines, without repeating information, such as Trial Design, Participant Eligibility Criteria and settings, Interventions, Outcomes, sample size/power considerations, Interim analysis and stopping rules, Randomization (details on random number generation, allocation concealment, implementation), Blinding issues, etc, should be mentioned. The authors are advised to create "separate subsections" for each of the possible topics (whichever necessary), and that way produce a very clear writeup. They are advised to write it carefully, following nice examples in the manuscript below:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889540619300010

In the submitted version, there is an attempt in that regard in the right direction, and systematic presentation will enhance the appeal for readers.

Specific comments:

(a) For instance, the randomization and allocation concealment should be made very clear (they are NOT the same thing); the trial staff recruiting patients should NOT have the randomization list. Randomization should be prepared by the trial statistician, and he/she would not participate in the recruiting. Create a separate subsection!

(b) Sample size/power: The sample size/power statement presented (phase 1) does not provide the name of the test used, and the corresponding effect size the study was powered on.

The sample size statement for Phase 3 needs more details; it's not clear what 6-12 patients mean.

(c) Statistical analysis plan:

(c1) What's the plan under violations of the proportional hazards assumptions (phase 1) during analysis?

(c2) Mention the basis of the budget formula; is there any reference for considering it?

(c3) Some additional details regarding the proposed thematic analysis (phase 3) will be helpful for the readers.

2. Writing style:

Discussion Section: Given that the study will only enroll Indian nationals, the Discussion section should clearly allude to future studies on other populations and geographical regions to further validate the current findings. The findings from this protocol will only be limited to this population.

Reviewer #2: A well designed protocol. However, it would be better if authors can address the following comments:

1. Would be good to clarify what’s the meaning of “hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research” in Introduction section.

2. Line 97: “The study duration is three years”. Since this is a study protocol paper, it should use future tense instead of present tense in the manuscript. Kindly amend the rest of the typo-mistakes throughout the manuscript.

3. Figure 1 is a table, rather than figure. Perhaps should renamed it.

4. Figure 1 (or table) needs more descriptive explanation since Line 104-106 didn’t provide enough description on whats the key message and rationale of the information provided. The figure (or table) should be self-explained as well so readers can apply the same study protocol in their future studies.

5. Line 108-126 should not be the exact wordings from Table 1. Ideally, authors should describe Table 1 in text and provides more information/justification/rationale to the readers.

6. Table 2, the rationale of selecting these genes should be clearly stated in the protocol.

7. Line 156: Perhaps more description on how the “computer generated random number” will work. What is the recommended software and how robust is the software?

8. Line 260: Kindly elaborate the rationale for this statement: “All future costs and consequences will be discounted at 3%.”

9. Line 297: “In-depth interviews and focused-group discussions of patients and their primary caregivers will be conducted” Would the patient/caregiver knows whether they are receiving PGx? Previously it was mentioned patient will be blinded in this study.If the patient is unaware of their arm, how would patient able to provide effective qualitative feedback?

10. PGx treatment protocol is not a new approach. It would be good to discuss the difference of this protocol vs other established protocols. Highlighting why certain amendment has been proposed or incorporated in this protocol in the Discussions section.

11. There are inconsistency in referencing format. Authors should relook into the formatting again.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 10;19(4):e0300511. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300511.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


24 Jan 2024

Response to reviewers’ comments

We thank the editor and the reviewers for taking the time and effort to review the manuscript. We appreciate the valuable comments received; these will certainly improve the quality of the manuscript. We have responded to each comment below.

Additional Editor’s Comments

1. The reviewers have raised some comments on the statistical analysis. Authors are suggested to address the comments accordingly before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Response: We have now modified the statistical analysis section.

Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Methods reporting need some work. An orderly manner is suggested, following CONSORT guidelines, without repeating information, such as Trial Design, Participant Eligibility Criteria and settings, Interventions, Outcomes, sample size/power considerations, Interim analysis and stopping rules, Randomization (details on random number generation, allocation concealment, implementation), Blinding issues, etc., should be mentioned. The authors are advised to create "separate subsections" for each of the possible topics (whichever necessary), and that way produce a very clear writeup. They are advised to write it carefully, following nice examples in the manuscript below:

Comparative assessment of plaque removal and motivation between a manual toothbrush and an interactive power toothbrush in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances: A single-center, examiner-blind randomized controlled trial - ScienceDirect

In the submitted version, there is an attempt in that regard in the right direction, and systematic presentation will enhance the appeal for readers.

Response: We have followed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (submitted as a supplementary file) that provides evidence-based recommendations for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. SPIRIT is widely endorsed as an international standard for trial protocols (Table 1 SPIRIT 2013 checklist: recommended items to address in a clinical trial protocol and related documents* (spirit-statement.org)). We have created the suggested sub-sections.

2. For instance, the randomization and allocation concealment should be made very clear (they are NOT the same thing); the trial staff recruiting patients should NOT have the randomization list. Randomization should be prepared by the trial statistician, and he/she would not participate in the recruiting. Create a separate subsection!

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have created a separate subsection on Randomization, blinding, and allocation concealment and described the details as follows:

Variable-sized block randomization will be performed based on computer-generated random numbers using an open-access software (sealed envelope™). Allocation concealment will be ensured using serially numbered opaque sealed envelopes. The randomization code and the envelopes for allocation concealment will be prepared by the study statistician having no role in the participant enrolment process. The treating psychiatrists will be enrolling the trial participants and will assign them to the treatment arms as per the allocation sequence but will not have the randomization list. The treating psychiatrists will be aware of the patient’s treatment arm (unblinded). The patients and the outcome assessors will not be revealed of the treatment arms and the genotyping results (patient and assessor blind) until the study completion (follow-up for 12 weeks).

3. Sample size/power: The sample size/power statement presented (phase 1) does not provide the name of the test used, and the corresponding effect size the study was powered on. The sample size statement for Phase 3 needs more details; it's not clear what 6-12 patients mean.

Response: For the Phase 1, we have mentioned the effect size:

Considering a difference of 0.6210 in the UKU-SERS score between the two arms, a standard deviation of 1.3410, a clinically meaningful difference of 1.18, a two-sided alpha error of 5%, a power of 90%, a randomization ratio of 2: 1, and a drop-out rate of 10%, the final estimated sample size is 249 (round-up to 250) [166 in Arm A (PGx arm) and 83 in Arm B (standard of care arm)]. The statistical tests are mentioned under Data management and statistical analyses section.

Patients, primary caregivers, and psychiatrists (six to twelve each) will be interviewed until saturation is obtained.39 This sample size is tentative and interview will continue till data saturation.

4. Statistical analysis plan:

What's the plan under violations of the proportional hazards assumptions (phase 1) during analysis?

Mention the basis of the budget formula; is there any reference for considering it?

Some additional details regarding the proposed thematic analysis (phase 3) will be helpful for the readers.

Response: Thank you for identifying this. For violation in the proportional hazards assumption in Cox's proportional hazards model, violations will be identified through graphical methods and a sensitivity analysis will be performed to evaluate the robustness of the results to different modeling assumptions. This might involve using different cutoffs for time intervals or assessing the impact of different modeling strategies. If assumptions are not violated, based on the statistical criteria, we will choose an appropriate model.

The reference to the budget formula is: Prinja S, Chugh Y, Rajsekar K, et al. National Methodological Guidelines to Conduct Budget Impact Analysis for Health Technology Assessment in India. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2021;19:811-823.

A thematic analysis will be performed. This will involve a meticulous process of familiarization with the data, coding segments into meaningful units, and iteratively organizing these codes into coherent themes that encapsulate key concepts or patterns. Because of the flexible yet rigorous approach, thematic analysis will enable the exploration of diverse perspectives, facilitating the extraction of rich, contextually embedded insights that deepen our understanding of the facilitators and barriers to implementing PGx-assisted management in patients with schizophrenia.

5. Discussion Section: Given that the study will only enrol Indian nationals, the Discussion section should clearly allude to future studies on other populations and geographical regions to further validate the current findings. The findings from this protocol will only be limited to this population.

Response: We have mentioned this under the Discussion section. However, there is a limitation to this study. Since patients from eastern Indian region will only be recruited, the generalizability of the study results is limited.

Reviewer 2 Comments

1. A well-designed protocol. However, it would be better if authors can address the following comments:

Would be good to clarify what’s the meaning of “hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research” in Introduction section.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following sentences in the Introduction:

Hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation research combines elements of both effectiveness and implementation research within a single study. This approach aims to not only assess the effectiveness of an intervention or program in real-world settings but also focuses on understanding and enhancing the implementation process.

2. Line 97: “The study duration is three years”. Since this is a study protocol paper, it should use future tense instead of present tense in the manuscript. Kindly amend the rest of the typo-mistakes throughout the manuscript.

Response: Thank you. We have made the necessary changes.

3. Figure 1 is a table, rather than figure. Perhaps should renamed it.

Response: I agree; however, this is as per the Author’s Guidelines of PLOS ONE (Submission Guidelines | PLOS ONE)

4. Figure 1 (or table) needs more descriptive explanation since Line 104-106 didn’t provide enough description on what’s the key message and rationale of the information provided. The figure (or table) should be self-explained as well so readers can apply the same study protocol in their future studies.

Response: We have updated Figure 1. Figure 1 depicts the schedule of assessment of various outcome measurements. The same is detailed under the Data collection and outcome measurements section.

5. Line 108-126 should not be the exact wordings from Table 1. Ideally, authors should describe Table 1 in text and provides more information/justification/rationale to the readers.

Response: We have now described the eligibility criteria in more details.

6. Table 2, the rationale of selecting these genes should be clearly stated in the protocol.

Response: The genes and the specific single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are selected based on their role in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the mentioned antipsychotics and their prevalence in the eastern Indian population.18,19

7. Line 156: Perhaps more description on how the “computer generated random number” will work. What is the recommended software and how robust is the software?

Response: Variable-sized block randomization will be performed based on computer-generated random numbers using an open-access software (sealed envelope™). This online program provides reliable randomization services to randomized controlled trials and has been used by many trial groups globally.

8. Line 260: Kindly elaborate the rationale for this statement: “All future costs and consequences will be discounted at 3%.”

Response: This implies that implies the application of a discount rate of 3% to account for the time value of money when considering future costs and consequences in the cost-effectiveness. Discounting is a common practice in pharmacoeconomics and it recognizes that the value of money tends to decrease over time due to factors like inflation, opportunity costs, and uncertainty.

9. Line 297: “In-depth interviews and focused-group discussions of patients and their primary caregivers will be conducted” Would the patient/caregiver knows whether they are receiving PGx? Previously it was mentioned patient will be blinded in this study. If the patient is unaware of their arm, how would patient able to provide effective qualitative feedback?

Response: Part 3 of the study will be performed chronologically after the completion of Part 1 and Part 2. The patients will then know their treatment arm. In fact, the genotyping data will be revealed to the patients after 12 weeks of treatment (Part 1). This is mentioned under the Ethics section.

10. PGx treatment protocol is not a new approach. It would be good to discuss the difference of this protocol vs other established protocols. Highlighting why certain amendment has been proposed or incorporated in this protocol in the Discussions section.

Response: Thank you. We have mentioned the following points in the Discussion section:

To date, no randomized controlled trial has been conducted in patients with schizophrenia to evaluate the outcomes following treatment assisted by PGx using an extensive array of genes and antipsychotic drugs. Further, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the qualitative component are the study novelties (hybrid effectiveness-implementation design type 2 study).

11. There is inconsistency in referencing format. Authors should relook into the formatting again.

Response: We have now corrected the reference formatting.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0300511.s003.docx (24KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Hoh Boon-Peng

29 Feb 2024

Pharmacogenomics-Assisted Schizophrenia Management: A Hybrid Type 2 Effectiveness-Implementation Study Protocol to Compare the Clinical Utility, Cost-Effectiveness, and Barriers

PONE-D-23-31935R1

Dear Dr. Das,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Hoh Boon-Peng, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does the manuscript provide a valid rationale for the proposed study, with clearly identified and justified research questions?

The research question outlined is expected to address a valid academic problem or topic and contribute to the base of knowledge in the field.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Is the protocol technically sound and planned in a manner that will lead to a meaningful outcome and allow testing the stated hypotheses?

The manuscript should describe the methods in sufficient detail to prevent undisclosed flexibility in the experimental procedure or analysis pipeline, including sufficient outcome-neutral conditions (e.g. necessary controls, absence of floor or ceiling effects) to test the proposed hypotheses and a statistical power analysis where applicable. As there may be aspects of the methodology and analysis which can only be refined once the work is undertaken, authors should outline potential assumptions and explicitly describe what aspects of the proposed analyses, if any, are exploratory.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Is the methodology feasible and described in sufficient detail to allow the work to be replicable?

Descriptions of methods and materials in the protocol should be reported in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce all experiments and analyses. The protocol should describe the appropriate controls, sample size calculations, and replication needed to ensure that the data are robust and reproducible.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors described where all data underlying the findings will be made available when the study is complete?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception, at the time of publication. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above and, if applicable, provide comments about issues authors must address before this protocol can be accepted for publication. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about research or publication ethics.

You may also provide optional suggestions and comments to authors that they might find helpful in planning their study.

(Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors were able to address my previous set of queries with a great degree of satisfaction. I have no further comments.

Reviewer #2: Authors addressed all concerns. it is recommended that this paper should be ready to be considered for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Hoh Boon-Peng

1 Apr 2024

PONE-D-23-31935R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Das,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Professor Dr Hoh Boon-Peng

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) checklist.

    (PDF)

    pone.0300511.s001.pdf (109.6KB, pdf)
    S2 File. Full protocol.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0300511.s002.docx (1.4MB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0300511.s003.docx (24KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    This is a study protocol and does not contain any study data.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES