Search

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 a minimum set of variants that should be included in clinical PGx genotyping assays. This document series provides recommendations for a minimum set of variant alleles (tier 1) and an extended list of variant alleles (tier 2) that will aid clinical laboratories when designing assays for PGx testing. 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, and other technical considerations for PGx testing when developing these recommendations. The goal of this Working Group is to promote standardization of PGx testing across clinical laboratories. This document will focus on clinical DPYD PGx testing that may be applied to all dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase-related medications. These recommendations are not to be interpreted as prescriptive but to provide a reference guide., Competing Interests: Disclosure Statement The University of North Carolina Medical Genetics Laboratory, RPRD Diagnostics, AccessDx Laboratory, and the Stanford Medicine Clinical Genomics Laboratory are fee-for-service clinical laboratories that offer clinical pharmacogenomic testing. V.M.P. is the director of Scientific Affairs for Agena Bioscience, is a member of the Pharmacogene Variation Consortium (PharmVar) Steering Committee and PharmVar CYP2C and CYP3A Gene Expert Panels, and is the Association for Molecular Pathology liaison to the National Academy of Medicine Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health. L.H.C. is supported by NIH/National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) grant U01 HG007269 and NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences grant UL1 TR001427 and serves on the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) steering committee. A.G. is the director of PharmVar, a member of CPIC, and a member of the CPIC and Pharmacogenomics Clinical Annotation Tool Scientific Advisory Boards. H.H. is an employee of AccessDx Holdings and serves on the CPIC Scientific Advisory Board and on the PharmVar CYP2D6 Gene Expert Panel. Y.J. serves as the Vice Chair of the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Membership Committee. R.C.L. is a member of the PharmVar CYP2D6 Gene Expert Panel. A.M.M. is a member of the College of American Pathologists (CAP)/ACMG Biochemical and Molecular Genetics Committee and Pharmacogenetics Workgroup, the PharmVar CYP2D6 Gene Expert Panel, the ClinGen Pharmacogenomics (PGx) Working Group, and the ClinPGx Scientific Advisory Board. S.A.S. serves on the steering committees of CPIC and PharmVar and is a member of the PharmVar CYP2C Gene Expert Panel. A.J.T.'s efforts are supported in part by RPRD Diagnostics, an independent clinical laboratory offering pharmacogenetic testing services; she also serves on the PharmVar CYP1A2, CYP2D6, DPYD, and NUDT15 Gene Expert Panels. R.H.N.v.S. is a member of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group of the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association, is a board member and past president of the European Society for Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Therapy, serves on the PharmVar CYP3A Gene Expert Panel, and is a member of the CPIC Scientific Advisory Board. M.W.-C. is supported by NIH/NHGRI/National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Institute on Drug Abuse grant U24 HG010615 and NIH/NHGRI grant U24 HG013077, is a co-investigator of CPIC, is co–principal investigator and director of the Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase, and serves on the steering committee and multiple Gene Expert Panels for PharmVar. K.E.W. serves as the CAP liaison to the National Academy of Medicine Roundtable on Genomics and Precision Health. The remaining authors have declared no related conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Association for Molecular Pathology and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

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.)

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.

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.

Background: To realize potential public health benefits from genetic and genomic innovations, understanding how best to implement the innovations into clinical care is important. The objective of this study was to synthesize data on challenges identified by six diverse projects that are part of a National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded network focused on implementing genomics into practice and strategies to overcome these challenges., Methods: We used a multiple-case study approach with each project considered as a case and qualitative methods to elicit and describe themes related to implementation challenges and strategies. We describe challenges and strategies in an implementation framework and typology to enable consistent definitions and cross-case comparisons. Strategies were linked to challenges based on expert review and shared themes., Results: Three challenges were identified by all six projects, and strategies to address these challenges varied across the projects. One common challenge was to increase the relative priority of integrating genomics within the health system electronic health record (EHR). Four projects used data warehousing techniques to accomplish the integration. The second common challenge was to strengthen clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about genomic medicine. To overcome this challenge, all projects developed educational materials and conducted meetings and outreach focused on genomic education for clinicians. The third challenge was engaging patients in the genomic medicine projects. Strategies to overcome this challenge included use of mass media to spread the word, actively involving patients in implementation (e.g., a patient advisory board), and preparing patients to be active participants in their healthcare decisions., Conclusions: This is the first collaborative evaluation focusing on the description of genomic medicine innovations implemented in multiple real-world clinical settings. Findings suggest that strategies to facilitate integration of genomic data within existing EHRs and educate stakeholders about the value of genomic services are considered important for effective implementation. Future work could build on these findings to evaluate which strategies are optimal under what conditions. This information will be useful for guiding translation of discoveries to clinical care, which, in turn, can provide data to inform continual improvement of genomic innovations and their applications.

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.)