Search

Pharmacogenomic testing interrogates germline sequence variants implicated in interindividual drug response variability to infer a drug response phenotype and to guide medication management for certain drugs. Specifically, discrete aspects of pharmacokinetics, such as drug metabolism, and pharmacodynamics, as well as drug sensitivity, can be predicted by genes that code for proteins involved in these pathways. Pharmacogenomics is unique and differs from inherited disease genetics because the drug response phenotype can be drug-dependent and is often unrecognized until an unexpected drug reaction occurs or a patient fails to respond to a medication. Genes and variants with sufficiently high levels of evidence and consensus may be included in a clinical pharmacogenomic test; however, result interpretation and phenotype prediction can be challenging for some genes and medications. This document provides a resource for laboratories to develop and implement clinical pharmacogenomic testing by summarizing publicly available resources and detailing best practices for pharmacogenomic nomenclature, testing, result interpretation, and reporting., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest M.K.T., E.L., G.A.M., S.R., V.M.P., and S.A.S. serve as directors in clinical laboratories that perform a breadth of genetic and genomic analyses on a fee for service basis. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The increased availability of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) guidelines and decreasing costs for genetic testing have slowly led to increased utilization of PGx testing in clinical practice. Pre-emptive PGx testing, where testing is performed in advance of drug prescribing, is one means to ensure results are available at the time of prescribing decisions. However, the most efficient and effective methods to clinically implement this strategy remain unclear., Methods: In this report, we compare and contrast implementation strategies for pre-emptive PGx testing by 15 early-adopter institutions. We surveyed these groups, collecting data on testing approaches, team composition, and workflow dynamics, in addition to estimated third-party reimbursement rates., Results: We found that while pre-emptive PGx testing models varied across sites, institutions shared several commonalities, including methods to identify patients eligible for testing, involvement of a precision medicine clinical team in program leadership, and the implementation of pharmacogenes with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines available. Finally, while reimbursement rate data were difficult to obtain, the data available suggested that reimbursement rates for pre-emptive PGx testing remain low., Conclusion: These findings should inform the establishment of future implementation efforts at institutions considering a pre-emptive PGx testing program., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics.)

Purpose: A critical gap in the adoption of genomic medicine into medical practice is the need for the rigorous evaluation of the utility of genomic medicine interventions., Methods: The Implementing Genomics in Practice Pragmatic Trials Network (IGNITE PTN) was formed in 2018 to measure the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of genomic medicine interventions, to assess approaches for real-world application of genomic medicine in diverse clinical settings, and to produce generalizable knowledge on clinical trials using genomic interventions. Five clinical sites and a coordinating center evaluated trial proposals and developed working groups to enable their implementation., Results: Two pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) have been initiated, one evaluating genetic risk APOL1 variants in African Americans in the management of their hypertension, and the other to evaluate the use of pharmacogenetic testing for medications to manage acute and chronic pain as well as depression., Conclusion: IGNITE PTN is a network that carries out PCTs in genomic medicine; it is focused on diversity and inclusion of underrepresented minority trial participants; it uses electronic health records and clinical decision support to deliver the interventions. IGNITE PTN will develop the evidence to support (or oppose) the adoption of genomic medicine interventions by patients, providers, and payers.

Purpose: A number of institutions have clinically implemented CYP2D6 genotyping to guide drug prescribing. We compared implementation strategies of early adopters of CYP2D6 testing, barriers faced by both early adopters and institutions in the process of implementing CYP2D6 testing, and approaches taken to overcome these barriers., Methods: We surveyed eight early adopters of CYP2D6 genotyping and eight institutions in the process of adoption. Data were collected on testing approaches, return of results procedures, applications of genotype results, challenges faced, and lessons learned., Results: Among early adopters, CYP2D6 testing was most commonly ordered to assist with opioid and antidepressant prescribing. Key differences among programs included test ordering and genotyping approaches, result reporting, and clinical decision support. However, all sites tested for copy-number variation and nine common variants, and reported results in the medical record. Most sites provided automatic consultation and had designated personnel to assist with genotype-informed therapy recommendations. Primary challenges were related to stakeholder support, CYP2D6 gene complexity, phenotype assignment, and sustainability., Conclusion: There are specific challenges unique to CYP2D6 testing given the complexity of the gene and its relevance to multiple medications. Consensus lessons learned may guide those interested in pursuing similar clinical pharmacogenetic programs.

Purpose: While there is growing scientific evidence for and significant advances in the use of genomic technologies in medicine, there is a significant lag in the clinical adoption and sustainability of genomic medicine. Here we describe the findings from the National Human Genome Research Institute's (NHGRI) Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) Network in identifying key constructs, opportunities, and challenges associated with driving sustainability of genomic medicine in clinical practice., Methods: Network members and affiliates were surveyed to identify key drivers associated with implementing and sustaining a genomic medicine program. Tallied results were used to develop and weigh key constructs/drivers required to support sustainability of genomic medicine programs., Results: The top three driver-stakeholder dyads were (1) genomic training for providers, (2) genomic clinical decision support (CDS) tools embedded in the electronic health record (EHR), and (3) third party reimbursement for genomic testing., Conclusion: Priorities may differ depending on healthcare systems when comparing the current state of key drivers versus projected needs for supporting genomic medicine sustainability. Thus we provide gap-filling guidance based on IGNITE members' experiences. Although results are limited to findings from the IGNITE network, their implementation, scientific, and clinical experience may be used as a road map by others considering implementing genomic medicine programs.

Purpose: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Clinical Pharmacogenetics Subcommittee is charged with making recommendations about whether specific pharmacogenetic tests should be used in healthcare at VHA facilities. We describe a process to inform VHA pharmacogenetic testing policy., Methods: After developing consensus definitions of clinical validity and utility, the Subcommittee identified salient drug-gene pairs with potential clinical application in VHA. Members met monthly to discuss each drug-gene pair, the evidence of clinical utility for the associated pharmacogenetic test, and any VHA-specific testing considerations. The Subcommittee classified each test as strongly recommended, recommended, or not routinely recommended before drug initiation., Results: Of 30 drug-gene pair tests reviewed, the Subcommittee classified 4 (13%) as strongly recommended, including HLA-B*15:02 for carbamazepine-associated Stevens-Johnston syndrome and G6PD for rasburicase-associated hemolytic anemia; 12 (40%) as recommended, including CYP2D6 for codeine toxicity; and 14 (47%) as not routinely recommended, such as CYP2C19 for clopidogrel dosing., Conclusion: Only half of drug-gene pairs with high clinical validity received Subcommittee support for policy promoting their widespread use across VHA. The Subcommittee generally found insufficient evidence of clinical utility or available, effective alternative strategies for the remainders. Continual evidence review and rigorous outcomes research will help promote the translation of pharmacogenetic discovery to healthcare.

Tamoxifen, a widely prescribed drug for the treatment and prevention of breast cancer, is metabolized to more potent metabolites by the cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme. Variants in the CYP2D6 gene can cause patients to be either intermediate or poor metabolizers, thereby rendering tamoxifen treatment less effective. Testing for CYP2D6 gene variants is available in Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified clinical laboratories; however, the biological complexity of the variants makes result interpretation and phenotype prediction challenging. This article describes the clinical significance of variants as well as important analytical, interpretative, and reporting issues. It is designed to be a guideline for clinical laboratory professionals in performing tests and interpreting results with respect to CYP2D6 genetic variants.

The process of obtaining Medicare coverage for clinical services (both at the national and local levels) can be complex and often leads to considerable confusion among external stakeholders. The entry of molecular diagnostic testing into the clinical arena of laboratory medicine has posed some special challenges, both for those providing the testing, and those paying for such technology. This commentary will seek to clarify Medicare's pursuit of defining medical necessity by describing both the local and national Medicare coverage policy processes. However, it should be understood that the Medicare reimbursement for such esoteric testing is a work-in-progress, without an established step-by-step process for obtaining a positive coverage decision. Yet, this evolving process provides all stakeholders (payers, laboratories, industry, clinicians, etc.) with an opportunity to fully understand the health policy implications of complex molecular diagnostic testing. In addition, brief case study vignettes are incorporated into our discussion, to show how laboratorians, in conjunction with their clinical colleagues, can effectively engage the payer community in developing more medically sound and fiscally responsible coverage policies.

Purpose: To provide a summary of the outcomes of two working conferences organized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to develop recommendations for practical, sustainable mechanisms to make quality control (QC) materials available to the genetic testing community., Methods: Participants were selected to include experts in genetic testing and molecular diagnostics from professional organizations, government agencies, industry, laboratories, academic institutions, cell repositories, and proficiency testing (PT)/external Quality Assessment (EQA) programs. Current efforts to develop QC materials for genetic tests were reviewed; key issues and areas of need were identified; and workgroups were formed to address each area of need and to formulate recommendations and next steps., Results: Recommendations were developed toward establishing a sustainable process to improve the availability of appropriate QC materials for genetic testing, with an emphasis on molecular genetic testing as an initial step., Conclusions: Improving the availability of appropriate QC materials is of critical importance for assuring the quality of genetic testing, enhancing performance evaluation and PT/EQA programs, and facilitating new test development. To meet the needs of the rapidly expanding capacity of genetic testing in clinical and public health settings, a comprehensive, coordinated program should be developed. A Genetic Testing Quality Control Materials Program has therefore been established by CDC in March 2005 to serve these needs.

Purpose: Genotyping 37,026 individuals as part of a thrombophilia evaluation, we determined and analyzed the genotypic frequencies of the 677CT and 1298AC mutations in the methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene., Methods: The 677CT and 1298AC mutations in the MTHFR gene were determined by either a laboratory-developed test involving PCR amplification and restriction digestion utilizing the ABI 3100 capillary electrophoresis apparatus (Applied Biosystems Inc) or by using an Analyte Specific Reagent (ASR) supplied by Third Wave Technologies. The genotype for three specimens with triple variant MTHFR mutations were confirmed by DNA sequencing on the ABI 3100 capillary electrophoresis apparatus., Results: The MTHFR frequencies of the 677CT/1298AA, 677CC/1298AC, 677CT/1298AC, 677CC/1298AA, 677TT/1298AA, 677CC/1298CC, 677TT/1298AC, and 677CT/1298CC genotypes were 0.228, 0.208, 0.198, 0.153, 0.122, 0.088, 0.0005, and 0.0003, respectively., Conclusions: Individuals containing double variant MTHFR mutations on one allele (cis) cannot be distinguished between compound heterozygotes (trans) for 677CT and 1298AC mutations in routine clinical testing, a genotype associated with thrombophilia. Such patients could be inappropriately counseled for being at high risk for thrombotic episodes. Until information regarding prevalence and the clinical consequences of this double variant (cis) allele becomes available, caution should be used in interpreting the genotyping results of compound heterozygosity for 677CT and 1298AC.

Purpose: We expect that the mutation panel currently recommended for preconception/prenatal CF carrier screening will be modified as new information is learned regarding the phenotype associated with specific mutations and allele frequencies in various populations. One such example is the I148T mutation, originally described as a severe CF mutation. After implementation of CF population-based carrier screening, we learned that I148T exists as a complex allele with 3199del6 in patients with clinical CF, whereas asymptomatic compound heterozygotes for I148T and a second severe CF mutation were negative for 3199del6., Methods: We performed reflex testing for 3199del6 on 663 unrelated specimens, including I148T heterozygotes, compound heterozygotes, and a homozygous individual., Results: Less than 1% of I148T carriers were also positive for 3199del6. Excluding subjects tested because of a suspected or known CF diagnosis or positive family history, 0.6% of I148T-positive individuals were also positive for 3199del6. We identified 1 I148T homozygote and 6 unrelated compound heterozygous individuals with I148T and a second CF variant (2 of whom also carried 3199del6). In addition, one fetus with echogenic bowel and one infertile male were heterozygous for I148T (3199del6 negative)., Conclusions: Reflex testing for 3199del6 should be considered whenever I148T is identified. Reflex testing is of particular importance for any symptomatic patient or whenever one member of a couple carries a deleterious CF mutation and the other member is an I148T heterozygote. Further population data are required to determine if I148T, in the absence of 3199del6, is associated with mild or atypical CF or male infertility.