Search

Pharmacogenomics (PGx), the study of inherited genomic variation and drug response or safety, is a vital tool in precision medicine. In oncology, testing to identify PGx variants offers patients the opportunity for customized treatments that can minimize adverse effects and maximize the therapeutic benefits of drugs used for cancer treatment and supportive care. Because individuals of shared ancestry share specific genetic variants, PGx factors may contribute to outcome disparities across racial and ethnic categories when genetic ancestry is not taken into account or mischaracterized in PGx research, discovery, and application. Here, we examine how the current scientific understanding of the role of PGx in differential oncology safety and outcomes may be biased toward a greater understanding and more complete clinical implementation of PGx for individuals of European descent compared with other genetic ancestry groups. We discuss the implications of this bias for PGx discovery, access to care, drug labeling, and patient and provider understanding and use of PGx approaches. Testing for somatic genetic variants is now the standard of care in treatment of many solid tumors, but the integration of PGx into oncology care is still lacking despite demonstrated actionable findings from PGx testing, reduction in avoidable toxicity and death, and return on investment from testing. As the field of oncology is poised to expand and integrate germline genetic variant testing, it is vital that PGx discovery and application are equitable for all populations. Recommendations are introduced to address barriers to facilitate effective and equitable PGx application in cancer care.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) account for a significant mortality, morbidity, and cost burden. Pharmacogenetic testing has the potential to reduce ADEs and inefficacy. The objective of this INGENIOUS trial (NCT02297126) analysis was to determine whether conducting and reporting pharmacogenetic panel testing impacts ADE frequency. The trial was a pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial, adapted as a propensity matched analysis in individuals (N = 2612) receiving a new prescription for one or more of 26 pharmacogenetic-actionable drugs across a community safety-net and academic health system. The intervention was a pharmacogenetic testing panel for 26 drugs with dosage and selection recommendations returned to the health record. The primary outcome was occurrence of ADEs within 1 year, according to modified Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). In the propensity-matched analysis, 16.1% of individuals experienced any ADE within 1-year. Serious ADEs (CTCAE level ≥ 3) occurred in 3.2% of individuals. When combining all 26 drugs, no significant difference was observed between the pharmacogenetic testing and control arms for any ADE (Odds ratio 0.96, 95% CI: 0.78-1.18), serious ADEs (OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.58-1.40), or mortality (OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.28-1.21). However, sub-group analyses revealed a reduction in serious ADEs and death in individuals who underwent pharmacogenotyping for aripiprazole and serotonin or serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.12-0.85). In conclusion, no change in overall ADEs was observed after pharmacogenetic testing. However, limitations incurred during INGENIOUS likely affected the results. Future studies may consider preemptive, rather than reactive, pharmacogenetic panel testing., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

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.)

The goals of the Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee's Pharmacogenomics (PGx) Working Group are to define the key attributes of pharmacogenetic alleles recommended for clinical testing, and to determine a minimal set of variants that should be included in clinical PGx genotyping assays. This document series provides recommendations on a minimal panel of variant alleles (Tier 1) and an extended panel of variant alleles (Tier 2) that will aid clinical laboratories in designing assays for PGx testing. When developing these recommendations, the Association for Molecular Pathology PGx Working Group considered the functional impact of the variant alleles, allele frequencies in multiethnic populations, the availability of reference materials, as well as other technical considerations with regard to PGx testing. The ultimate goal of this Working Group is to promote standardization of PGx gene/allele testing across clinical laboratories. This document is focused on clinical CYP2D6 PGx testing that may be applied to all cytochrome P450 2D6-metabolized medications. These recommendations are not meant to be interpreted as prescriptive but to provide a reference guide for clinical laboratories that may be either implementing PGx testing or reviewing and updating their existing platform., (Copyright © 2021 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients in the pediatric intensive care unit are exposed to multiple medications and are at high risk for adverse drug reactions. Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing could help decrease their risk of adverse reactions. Although whole blood is preferred for PGx testing, blood volume in this population is often limited. However, for patients on mechanical ventilation, tracheal secretions are abundant, frequently suctioned, and discarded. Thus, the aim of this pilot study was to determine if tracheal aspirates could be used as a source of human genomic DNA for PGx testing. We successfully extracted DNA from tracheal secretions of all 23 patients in the study. The samples were successfully genotyped for 10 clinically actionable single nucleotide variants across 3 cytochrome P450 genes (CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP3A5). Using DNA from whole blood samples in 11 of the patients, we confirmed the accuracy of the genotyping with 100% concordance. Therefore, our results support the use of tracheal aspirates from mechanically ventilated children as an adequate biospecimen for clinical genetic testing., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) testing can be used for detecting genetic variations that may affect an individual's anticipated metabolism of, or response to, medications. Although several studies have focused on developing tools for delivering results from PGx testing, there is a relative dearth of information about how to design provider-friendly electronic order-entry systems for PGx. The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is preparing to implement a new electronic health records system. In this study, VA PGx test end users were surveyed about their preferences for how electronic test orders for PGx should be structured, including the nomenclature that should be used to search for and identify PGx-test orders, whether to offer single- versus multigene tests, and whether information about test methodology should be included in the order name. Responses were analyzed systematically to identify areas of agreement and disagreement with the survey options, and areas where respondents' opinions diverged. End users endorsed preferences for flexible ways to identify and order PGx tests and multigene panel tests; opinions on whether test methodology should be included in the test name were divergent. The results could be used for both informing the VA's new electronic health records implementation (including how PGx tests are searched for and ordered) and for providing insights for other health systems implementing PGx-testing programs., (Copyright © 2020 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The goals of the Association for Molecular Pathology Pharmacogenomics (PGx) Working Group of the Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee are to define the key attributes of PGx alleles recommended for clinical testing and a minimum set of variants that should be included in clinical PGx genotyping assays. This document provides recommendations for a minimum panel of variant alleles (Tier 1) and an extended panel of variant alleles (Tier 2) that will aid clinical laboratories when designing assays for CYP2C9 testing. The Working Group considered the functional impact of the variants, allele frequencies in different populations and ethnicities, the availability of reference materials, and other technical considerations for PGx testing when developing these recommendations. Our goal is to promote standardization of testing PGx genes and alleles across clinical laboratories. These recommendations are not to be interpreted as restrictive but to provide a reference guide. The current document will focus on CYP2C9 testing that can be applied to all CYP2C9-related medications. A separate recommendation on warfarin PGx testing is being developed to include recommendations on CYP2C9 alleles and additional warfarin sensitivity-associated genes and alleles., (Copyright © 2019 American Society for Investigative Pathology and the Association for Molecular Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention is increasingly implemented in clinical practice. However, challenges such as selecting a testing platform, communicating test results, building clinical decision support processes, providing patient and provider education, and integrating methods to support the translation of emerging evidence to clinical practice are barriers to broad adoption. In this report, we compare and contrast implementation strategies of 12 early adopters, describing solutions to common problems and initial performance metrics for each program. Key differences between programs included the test result turnaround time and timing of therapy changes, which are both related to the CYP2C19 testing model and platform used. Sites reported the need for new informatics infrastructure, expert clinicians such as pharmacists to interpret results, physician champions, and ongoing education. Consensus lessons learned are presented to provide a path forward for those seeking to implement similar clinical pharmacogenomics programs within their institutions., (© 2018 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Successfully implementing pharmacogenomics into routine clinical practice requires an efficient process to order genetic tests and report the results to clinicians and patients. Lack of standardized approaches and terminology in clinical laboratory processes, ordering of the test and reporting of test results all impede this workflow. Expert groups such as the Association for Molecular Pathology and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium have published recommendations for standardizing laboratory genetic testing, reporting and terminology. Other resources such as PharmGKB, ClinVar, ClinGen and PharmVar have established databases of nomenclature for pharmacogenetic alleles and variants. Opportunities remain to develop new standards and further disseminate existing standards which will accelerate the implementation of pharmacogenomics.

Objectives: This multicenter pragmatic investigation assessed outcomes following clinical implementation of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles impair clopidogrel effectiveness after PCI., Methods: After clinical genotyping, each institution recommended alternative antiplatelet therapy (prasugrel, ticagrelor) in PCI patients with a loss-of-function allele. Major adverse cardiovascular events (defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death) within 12 months of PCI were compared between patients with a loss-of-function allele prescribed clopidogrel versus alternative therapy. Risk was also compared between patients without a loss-of-function allele and loss-of-function allele carriers prescribed alternative therapy. Cox regression was performed, adjusting for group differences with inverse probability of treatment weights., Results: Among 1,815 patients, 572 (31.5%) had a loss-of-function allele. The risk for major adverse cardiovascular events was significantly higher in patients with a loss-of-function allele prescribed clopidogrel versus alternative therapy (23.4 vs. 8.7 per 100 patient-years; adjusted hazard ratio: 2.26; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 4.32; p = 0.013). Similar results were observed among 1,210 patients with acute coronary syndromes at the time of PCI (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.87; 95% confidence interval: 1.35 to 6.09; p = 0.013). There was no difference in major adverse cardiovascular events between patients without a loss-of-function allele and loss-of-function allele carriers prescribed alternative therapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.14; 95% confidence interval: 0.69 to 1.88; p = 0.60)., Conclusions: These data from real-world observations demonstrate a higher risk for cardiovascular events in patients with a CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele if clopidogrel versus alternative therapy is prescribed. A future randomized study of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy may be of value., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Implementing new programs to support precision medicine in clinical settings is a complex endeavor. We describe challenges and potential solutions based on the Indiana GENomics Implementation: an Opportunity for the Underserved (INGenious) program at Eskenazi Health-one of six sites supported by the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE network grant of the National Institutes of Health/National Human Genome Research Institute. INGenious is an implementation of a panel of genomic tests., Methods: We conducted a descriptive case study of the implementation of this pharmacogenomics program, which has a wide scope (14 genes, 27 medications) and a diverse population (patients who often have multiple chronic illnesses, in a large urban safety-net hospital and its outpatient clinics)., Challenges: We placed the clinical pharmacogenomics implementation challenges into six categories: patient education and engagement in care decision making; clinician education and changes in standards of care; integration of technology into electronic health record systems; translational and implementation sciences in real-world clinical environments; regulatory and reimbursement considerations, and challenges in measuring outcomes. A cross-cutting theme was the need for careful attention to workflow. Our clinical setting, a safety-net health care system, presented some distinctive challenges. Patients often had multiple chronic illnesses and sometimes were taking more than one pharmacogenomics-relevant medication. Reaching patients for recruitment or follow-up was another challenge., Conclusions: New, large-scale endeavors in health care are challenging. A description of the challenges that we encountered and the approaches that we adopted to address them may provide insights for those who implement and study innovations in other health care systems., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)