Pharmacogenetic Information in Clinical Guidelines: The European Perspective

Evaluating the evidence for genotype-informed Bayesian dosing of tacrolimus in children undergoing solid organ transplantation: A systematic literature review

Tacrolimus, a calcineurin inhibitor, is a highly effective immunosuppressant used in solid organ transplantation (SOT). However, it is characterized by a narrow therapeutic range and high inter-patient variability in pharmacokinetics. Standard weight-based dosing followed by empiric dose titration is suboptimal in controlling drug concentrations, increasing risk of rejection or toxicity, particularly in the initial months post transplantation. This review explores the potential of combined pre-transplant genotyping and pharmacokinetic (PK) modelling to improve tacrolimus dosing in paediatric SOT recipients. A systematic search of Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases identified studies published between March 2013 and March 2023 that investigated genotype- and PK model-informed tacrolimus dosing in children post-SOT. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed study quality. Seven studies encompassing paediatric kidney, heart, liver and lung transplants reported using genotype and model-informed dosing. A combination of clinical and genetic factors significantly impacts tacrolimus clearance and thus initial dose recommendation. Body size, transplant organ and co-medications were consistently important, while either time post-transplant or haematocrit emerged in some studies. Several models were identified, however, with limitations evident in some and with absence of evidence for their effectiveness in optimizing initial and subsequent dosing. This review highlights the development of PK models in paediatric SOT that integrate genotype and clinical covariates to personalize early tacrolimus dosing. While promising, prospective studies are needed to validate and confirm their effectiveness in improving time to therapeutic concentrations and reducing under- or overexposure. This approach has the potential to optimize tacrolimus therapy in paediatric SOT, thereby improving outcomes.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction of CYP2C9, HLA-A and HLA-B with anti-epileptic drugs

By developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy, the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to advance the implementation of pharmacogenetics (PGx). This guideline outlines the gene-drug interaction of CYP2C9 and HLA-B with phenytoin, HLA-A and HLA-B with carbamazepine and HLA-B with oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine. A systematic review was performed and pharmacotherapeutic recommendations were developed. For CYP2C9 intermediate and poor metabolisers, the DPWG recommends lowering the daily dose of phenytoin and adjust based on effect and serum concentration after 7-10 days. For HLA-B*15:02 carriers, the risk of severe cutaneous adverse events associated with phenytoin, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, and lamotrigine is strongly increased. For carbamazepine, this risk is also increased in HLA-B*15:11 and HLA-A*31:01 carriers. For HLA-B*15:02, HLA-B*15:11 and HLA-A*31:01 positive patients, the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative anti-epileptic drug. If not possible, it is recommended to advise the patient to report any rash while using carbamazepine, lamotrigine, oxcarbazepine or phenytoin immediately. Carbamazepine should not be used in an HLA-B*15:02 positive patient. DPWG considers CYP2C9 genotyping before the start of phenytoin "essential" for toxicity prevention. For patients with an ancestry in which the abovementioned HLA-alleles are prevalent, the DPWG considers HLA-B*15:02 genotyping before the start of carbamazepine, phenytoin, oxcarbazepine, and lamotrigine "beneficial", as well as genotyping for HLA-B*15:11 and HLA-A*31:01 before initiating carbamazepine.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6, CYP2C19 and non-SSRI/non-TCA antidepressants

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy based on pharmacogenetic test results. The current guideline describes the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6 and venlafaxine, mirtazapine and duloxetine. In addition, the interaction between CYP2C19 and mirtazapine and moclobemide is presented. The DPWG identified a gene-drug interaction that requires therapy adjustment for CYP2D6 and venlafaxine. However, as the side effects do not appear to be related to plasma concentrations, it is not possible to offer a substantiated advice for dose reduction. Therefore, the DPWG recommends avoiding venlafaxine for CYP2D6 poor and intermediate metabolisers. Instead, an alternative antidepressant, which is not, or to a lesser extent, metabolized by CYP2D6 is recommended. When it is not possible to avoid venlafaxine and side effects occur, it is recommended to reduce the dose and monitor the effect and side effects or plasma concentrations. No action is required for ultra-rapid metabolisers as kinetic effects are minimal and no clinical effect has been demonstrated. In addition, a gene-drug interaction was identified for CYP2D6 and mirtazapine and CYP2C19 and moclobemide, but no therapy adjustment is required as no effect regarding effectiveness or side effects has been demonstrated for these gene-drug interactions. Finally, no gene-drug interaction and need for therapy adjustment between CYP2C19 and mirtazapine and CYP2D6 and duloxetine were identified. The DPWG classifies CYP2D6 genotyping as being "potentially beneficial" for venlafaxine, indicating that genotyping prior to treatment can be considered on an individual patient basis.

[Translated article] Application of pharmacogenetic/pharmacogenomic data to personalise treatment in routine clinical practice. A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article was to perform a narrative review of how pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics is being applied in the clinics, especially in Spain.

METHOD

Publications and websites of major interest have been reviewed.

RESULTS

Pharmacogenes and variants used in several hospitals, available methodologies, and the implementation process are discussed.

Application of pharmacogenetic/pharmacogenomic data to personalize treatment in routine clinical practice. A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this article is to perform a narrative review of how pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics is being applied in the clinic, especially in Spain.

METHOD

Publications and websites of major interest have been reviewed.

RESULTS

Pharmacogenes and variants used in several hospitals, available methodologies, and the implementation process are discussed.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the impacts of germline pharmacogenomics on severe toxicity and symptom burden in adult patients with cancer

The clinical application of Pharmacogenomics (PGx) has improved patient safety. However, comprehensive PGx testing has not been widely adopted in clinical practice, and significant opportunities exist to further optimize PGx in cancer care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the safety outcomes of reported PGx-guided strategies (Analysis 1) and identify well-studied emerging pharmacogenomic variants that predict severe toxicity and symptom burden (Analysis 2) in patients with cancer. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to January 2023 for clinical trials or comparative studies evaluating PGx strategies or unconfirmed pharmacogenomic variants. The primary outcomes were severe adverse events (SAE; ≥ grade 3) or symptom burden with pain and vomiting as defined by trial protocols and assessed by trial investigators. We calculated pooled overall relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) using random effects models. PROSPERO, registration number CRD42023421277. Of 6811 records screened, six studies were included for Analysis 1, 55 studies for Analysis 2. Meta-analysis 1 (five trials, 1892 participants) showed a lower absolute incidence of SAEs with PGx-guided strategies compared to usual therapy, 16.1% versus 34.0% (RR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.57-0.91, p = 0.006, I2 = 34%). Meta-analyses 2 identified nine medicine(class)-variant pairs of interest across the TYMS, ABCB1, UGT1A1, HLA-DRB1, and OPRM1 genes. Application of PGx significantly reduced rates of SAEs in patients with cancer. Emergent medicine-variant pairs herald further research into the expansion and optimization of PGx to improve systemic anti-cancer and supportive care medicine safety and efficacy.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6, CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 and antipsychotics

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. A guideline describing the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2D6, CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 and antipsychotics is presented here. The DPWG identified gene-drug interactions that require therapy adjustments when respective genotype is known for CYP2D6 with aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol, and for CYP3A4 with quetiapine. Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained based on a systematic review of published literature. Reduction of the normal dose is recommended for aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6-predicted PMs, and for pimozide and zuclopenthixol also for CYP2D6 IMs. For CYP2D6 UMs, a dose increase or an alternative drug is recommended for haloperidol and an alternative drug or titration of the dose for risperidone. In addition, in case of no or limited clinical effect, a dose increase is recommended for zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6 UMs. Even though evidence is limited, the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative drug to treat symptoms of depression or a dose reduction for other indications for quetiapine and CYP3A4 PMs. No therapy adjustments are recommended for the other CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 predicted phenotypes. In addition, no action is required for the gene-drug combinations CYP2D6 and clozapine, flupentixol, olanzapine or quetiapine and also not for CYP1A2 and clozapine or olanzapine. For identified gene-drug interactions requiring therapy adjustments, genotyping of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 prior to treatment should not be considered for all patients, but on an individual patient basis only.

Dutch pharmacogenetics working group guideline for the gene-drug interaction of ABCG2, HLA-B and Allopurinol, and MTHFR, folic acid and methotrexate

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the gene-drug interaction of ABCG2 with allopurinol, HLA-B with allopurinol, MTHFR with folic acid, and MTHFR with methotrexate, relevant for the treatment of gout, cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review was performed based on which pharmacotherapeutic recommendations were developed. Allopurinol is less effective in patients with the ABCG2 p.(Gln141Lys) variant. In HLA-B*58:01 carriers, the risk of severe cutaneous adverse events associated with allopurinol is strongly increased. The DPWG recommends using a higher allopurinol dose in patients with the ABCG2 p.(Gln141Lys) variant. For HLA-B*58:01 positive patients the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative (for instance febuxostat). The DPWG indicates that another option would be to precede treatment with allopurinol tolerance induction. Genotyping of ABCG2 in patients starting on allopurinol was judged to be 'potentially beneficial' for drug effectiveness, meaning genotyping can be considered on an individual patient basis. Genotyping for HLA-B*58:01 in patients starting on allopurinol was judged to be 'beneficial' for drug safety, meaning it is advised to consider genotyping the patient before (or directly after) drug therapy has been initiated. For MTHFR-folic acid there is evidence for a gene-drug interaction, but there is insufficient evidence for a clinical effect that makes therapy adjustment useful. Finally, for MTHFR-methotrexate there is insufficient evidence for a gene-drug interaction.

Dutch pharmacogenetics working group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction of CYP2D6 and COMT with atomoxetine and methylphenidate

Pharmacogenetics (PGx) studies the effect of heritable genetic variation on drug response. Clinical adoption of PGx has remained limited, despite progress in the field. To promote implementation, the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) develops evidence-based guidelines on how to optimize pharmacotherapy based on PGx test results. This guideline describes optimization of atomoxetine therapy based on genetic variation in the CYP2D6 gene. The CYP2D6 enzyme is involved in conversion of atomoxetine into the metabolite 4-hydroxyatomoxetine. With decreasing CYP2D6 enzyme activity, the exposure to atomoxetine and the risk of atomoxetine induced side effects increases. So, for patients with genetically absent CYP2D6 enzyme activity (CYP2D6 poor metabolisers), the DPWG recommends to start with the normal initial dose, bearing in mind that increasing this dose probably will not be required. In case of side effects and/or a late response, the DPWG recommends to reduce the dose and check for sustained effectiveness for both poor metabolisers and patients with genetically reduced CYP2D6 enzyme activity (CYP2D6 intermediate metabolisers). Extra vigilance for ineffectiveness is required in patients with genetically increased CYP2D6 enzyme activity (CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolisers). No interaction was found between the CYP2D6 and COMT genes and methylphenidate. In addition, no interaction was found between CYP2D6 and clonidine, confirming the suitability of clonidine as a possible alternative for atomoxetine in variant CYP2D6 metabolisers. The DPWG classifies CYP2D6 genotyping as being "potentially beneficial" for atomoxetine. CYP2D6 testing prior to treatment can be considered on an individual patient basis.

Influence of pharmacogenetics on the diversity of response to statins associated with adverse drug reactions

Background

Statins are one of the most prescribed medications in developed countries as the treatment of choice for reducing cholesterol and preventing cardiovascular diseases. However, a large proportion of patients experience adverse drug reactions, especially myotoxicity. Among the factors that influence the diversity of response, pharmacogenetics emerges as a relevant factor of influence in inter-individual differences in response to statins and can be useful in the prevention of adverse drug effects.

Content

A systematic review was performed of current knowledge of the influence of pharmacogenetics on the occurrence and prevention of statin-associated adverse reactions and clinical benefits of preemptive pharmacogenetics testing.

Summary

Genetic variants SLCO1B1 (rs4149056) for all statins; ABCG2 (rs2231142) for rosuvastatin; or CYP2C9 (rs1799853 and rs1057910) for fluvastatin are associated with an increase in muscle-related adverse effects and poor treatment adherence. Besides, various inhibitors of these transporters and biotransformation enzymes increase the systemic exposure of statins, thereby favoring the occurrence of adverse drug reactions.

Outlook

The clinical preemptive testing of this pharmacogenetic panel would largely prevent the incidence of adverse drug reactions. Standardized methods should be used for the identification of adverse effects and the performance and interpretation of genotyping test results. Standardization would allow to obtain more conclusive results about the association between SLCO1B1, ABCG and CYP2C9 variants and the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. As a result, more personalized recommendations could be established for each statin.

Influencia de la farmacogenética en la diversidad de respuesta a las estatinas asociada a las reacciones adversas

Introducción

Las estatinas son unos de los medicamentos más prescritos en los países desarrollados por ser el tratamiento de elección para reducir los niveles de colesterol ayudando así a prevenir la enfermedad cardiovascular. Sin embargo, un gran número de pacientes sufre reacciones adversas, en especial miotoxicidad. Entre los factores que influyen en la diversidad de respuesta, la farmacogenética puede jugar un papel relevante especialmente en la prevención de los efectos adversos asociados a estos medicamentos.

Contenido

Revisión de los conocimientos actuales sobre la influencia de la farmacogenética en la aparición y prevención de las reacciones adversas asociadas a estatinas, así como del beneficio clínico del test farmacogenético anticipado.

Resumen

Variaciones genéticas en SLCO1B1 (rs4149056) para todas las estatinas; en ABCG2 (rs2231142) para rosuvastatina; o en CYP2C9 (rs1799853 y rs1057910) para fluvastatina están asociadas a un incremento de las reacciones adversas de tipo muscular y a una baja adherencia al tratamiento. Además, diversos fármacos inhibidores de estos transportadores y enzimas de biotransformación incrementan la exposición sistémica de las estatinas favoreciendo la aparición de las reacciones adversas.

Perspectiva

La implementación clínica del análisis anticipado de este panel de farmacogenética evitaría en gran parte la aparición de reacciones adversas. Además, la estandarización en la identificación de los efectos adversos, en la metodología e interpretación del genotipo, permitirá obtener resultados más concluyentes sobre la asociación entre las variantes genéticas del SLCO1B1, ABCG y CYP2C9 y la aparición de reacciones adversas y establecer recomendaciones para alcanzar tratamientos más personalizados para cada estatina.

Dutch pharmacogenetics working group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between UGT1A1 and irinotecan

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of the anti-cancer drug irinotecan to decrease the risk of severe toxicity, such as (febrile) neutropenia or diarrhoea. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase 1A1 (UGT1A1 encoded by the UGT1A1 gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of irinotecan-induced toxicity. Gene variants leading to UGT1A1 enzyme deficiency (e.g. UGT1A1*6, *28 and *37) can be used to optimize an individual's starting dose thereby preventing carriers from toxicity. Homozygous or compound heterozygous carriers of these allele variants are defined as UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (PM). DPWG recommends a 70% starting dose in PM patients and no dose reduction in IM patients who start treatment with irinotecan. Based on the DPWG clinical implication score, UGT1A1 genotyping is considered "essential", indicating that UGT1A1 testing must be performed prior to initiating irinotecan treatment.

The Role of Gender Pharmacogenetics in the Personalization of Drug Treatment

The use of pharmacogenetic guidelines in personalizing treatments has shown the potential to reduce interindividual variability in drug response by enabling genotype-matched dosing and drug selection. However, other important factors, such as patient gender, may interact strongly with pharmacogenetics in determining the individual profile of toxicity and efficacy but are still rarely considered when planning pharmacological treatment. The literature indicates that males and females respond differently to drugs, with women being at higher risk for toxicity and having different plasma exposure to drugs at standard doses. Recent studies have shown that pharmacogenetic variants may have different predictive value in different sexes, as in the case of treatment with opioids, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or proton pump inhibitors. Of particular interest is the case of treatment with fluoropyrimidines for cancer. A significant increase in toxicity has been described in female patients, with a more pronounced effect of specific DPYD and TYMS polymorphisms also noted. This manuscript reviews the major findings in the field of sex-specific pharmacogenomics. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Interindividual variability in drug response is an emerging issue in pharmacology. The genetic profile of patients, as well as their gender, may play a role in the identification of patients more exposed to the risk of adverse drug reactions or poor efficacy. This article reviews the current state of research on the interaction between gender and pharmacogenetics in addressing interindividual variability.

The Effect of Genotyping on the Number of Pharmacotherapeutic Gene–Drug Interventions in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage 3–5 are polypharmacy patients. Many of these drugs are metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP450) and CYP450. Genetic polymorphism is well known to result in altered drug metabolism capacity. This study determined the added value of pharmacogenetic testing to the routine medication evaluation in polypharmacy patients with CKD. In adult outpatient polypharmacy patients with CKD3-5 disease, a pharmacogenetic profile was determined. Then, automated medication surveillance for gene–drug interactions was performed based on the pharmacogenetic profile and the patients’ current prescriptions. Of all identified gene–drug interactions, the hospital pharmacist and the treating nephrologist together assessed clinical relevance and necessity of a pharmacotherapeutic intervention. The primary endpoint of the study was the total number of applied pharmacotherapeutic interventions based on a relevant gene–drug interaction. A total of 61 patients were enrolled in the study. Medication surveillance resulted in a total of 66 gene–drug interactions, of which 26 (39%) were considered clinically relevant. This resulted in 26 applied pharmacotherapeutic interventions in 20 patients. Systematic pharmacogenetic testing enables pharmacotherapeutic interventions based on relevant gene–drug interactions. This study showed that pharmacogenetic testing adds to routine medication evaluation and could lead to optimized pharmacotherapy in CKD patients.

Pharmacogenomics in Stroke and Cardiovascular Disease: State of the Art

There is considerable interindividual variability in the response to antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies, and this variation may be attributable to genetic variants. There has been an increased understanding of the genetic architecture of stroke and cardiovascular disease, which has been driven by advancements in genomic technologies and this has raised the possibility of more targeted pharmaceutical treatments. Pharmacogenetics promises to use a patient's genetic profile to treat those who are more likely to benefit from a particular intervention by selecting the best possible therapy. Although there are numerous studies indicating strong evidence for the effect of specific genotypes on the outcomes of vascular drugs, the adoption of pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice has been slow. This resistance may stem from sometimes conflicting findings among pharmacogenetic studies, a lack of stroke-specific randomized controlled trials to test the effectiveness of genetically-guided therapies, and the practical and cost-effective implementation of genetic testing within the clinic. Thus, this review provides an overview of the genetic variants that influence the individual responses to aspirin, clopidogrel, warfarin and statins and the different methods for pharmacogenetic testing and guidelines for clinical implementation for stroke patients.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and SSRIs

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline presented here, presents the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and antidepressants of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor type (SSRIs). Both genes' genotypes are translated into predicted normal metabolizer (NM), intermediate metabolizer (IM), poor metabolizer (PM), or ultra-rapid metabolizer (UM). Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained, based on a structured analysis of published literature. In CYP2C19 PM patients, escitalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 75% of the normal maximum dose. Escitalopram should be avoided in UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, citalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 70% (65-75%) of the normal maximum dose. In contrast to escitalopram, no action is needed for CYP2C19 UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, sertraline dose should not exceed 37.5% of the normal maximum dose. No action is needed for CYP2C19 IM and UM patients. In CYP2D6 UM patients, paroxetine should be avoided. No action is needed for CYP2D6 PM and IM patients. In addition, no action is needed for the other gene-drug combinations. Clinical effects (increase in adverse events or decrease in efficacy) were lacking for these other gene-drug combinations. DPWG classifies CYP2C19 genotyping before the start of escitalopram, citalopram, and sertraline, and CYP2D6 genotyping before the start of paroxetine as "potentially beneficial" for toxicity/effectivity predictions. This indicates that genotyping prior to treatment can be considered on an individual patient basis.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6 and opioids (codeine, tramadol and oxycodone)

The current Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline, describes the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6 and the opioids codeine, tramadol and oxycodone. CYP2D6 genotype is translated into normal metaboliser (NM), intermediate metaboliser (IM), poor metaboliser (PM) or ultra-rapid metaboliser (UM). Codeine is contraindicated in UM adults if doses >20 mg every 6 h (q6h), in children ≥12 years if doses >10 mg q6h, or with additional risk factors. In PMs, an alternative analgesic should be given which is not or to a lesser extent metabolised by CYP2D6 (not tramadol). In IMs with insufficient analgesia, a higher dose or alternative analgesic should be given. For tramadol, the recommendations for IMs and PMs are the same as the recommendation for codeine and IMs. UMs should receive an alternative drug not or to a lesser extent metabolised by CYP2D6 or the dose should be decreased to 40% of the commonly prescribed dose. Due to the absence of effect on clinical outcomes of oxycodone in PMs, IMs and UMs no action is required. DPWG classifies CYP2D6 genotyping for codeine "beneficial" and recommends testing prior to, or shortly after initiation of treatment in case of higher doses or additional risk factors. CYP2D6 genotyping is classified as "potentially beneficial" for tramadol and can be considered on an individual patient basis.

Pharmacogenetic testing in pediatric neurology: a pragmatic study evaluating clinician and patient perceptions

Aim: To evaluate clinicians' and patients' perceptions of pharmacogenetic testing in a clinical setting. Materials & methods: This is a pragmatic mixed-method prospective observational study. Hospital pharmacists and neurologists participated in focus groups regarding pharmacogenetic testing; patients who received pharmacogenetic testing and their community pharmacists completed surveys to assess their perception of these tests. Results: Most study participants had a positive view of pharmacogenetic testing. Three major themes were identified from the focus groups: receptiveness to pharmacogenetic testing, pharmacogenetic test characteristics and integrating pharmacogenetic tests into practice. Conclusion: The views reported are encouraging for the eventual implementation of pharmacogenetics in practice. Local integration of these tests is an essential step to improve patient care through personalized medicine.

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacogenomics-Guided Prescribing to Prevent Gene-Drug-Related Deaths: A Decision-Analytic Model

Aim: Prospective studies support the clinical impact of pharmacogenomics (PGx)-guided prescribing to reduce severe and potentially fatal adverse effects. Drug-gene interactions (DGIs) preventing potential drug-related deaths have been categorized as “essential” by the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG). The collective clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of this sub-set is yet undetermined. Therefore, we aim to assess impact and cost-effectiveness of “essential” PGx tests for prevention of gene-drug-related deaths, when adopted nation-wide.

Methods: We used a decision-analytic model to quantify the number and cost per gene-drug-related death prevented, from a 1-year Dutch healthcare perspective. The modelled intervention is a single gene PGx-test for CYP2C19, DPYD, TPMT or UGT1A1 to guide prescribing based on the DPWG recommendations among patients in the Netherlands initiating interacting drugs (clopidogrel, capecitabine, systemic fluorouracil, azathioprine, mercaptopurine, tioguanine or irinotecan).

Results: For 148,128 patients initiating one of seven drugs in a given year, costs for PGx-testing, interpretation, and drugs would increase by €21.4 million. Of these drug initiators, 35,762 (24.1%) would require an alternative dose or drug. PGx-guided prescribing would relatively reduce gene-drug related mortality by 10.6% (range per DGI: 8.1–14.5%) and prevent 419 (0.3% of initiators) deaths a year. Cost-effectiveness is estimated at €51,000 per prevented gene-drug-related death (range per DGI: €-752,000–€633,000).

Conclusion: Adoption of PGx-guided prescribing for “essential” DGIs potentially saves the lives of 0.3% of drug initiators, at reasonable costs.

Implementation of preemptive DNA sequence-based pharmacogenomics testing across a large academic medical center: The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study

PURPOSE

The Mayo-Baylor RIGHT 10K Study enabled preemptive, sequence-based pharmacogenomics (PGx)-driven drug prescribing practices in routine clinical care within a large cohort. We also generated the tools and resources necessary for clinical PGx implementation and identified challenges that need to be overcome. Furthermore, we measured the frequency of both common genetic variation for which clinical guidelines already exist and rare variation that could be detected by DNA sequencing, rather than genotyping.

METHODS

Targeted oligonucleotide-capture sequencing of 77 pharmacogenes was performed using DNA from 10,077 consented Mayo Clinic Biobank volunteers. The resulting predicted drug response-related phenotypes for 13 genes, including CYP2D6 and HLA, affecting 21 drug-gene pairs, were deposited preemptively in the Mayo electronic health record.

RESULTS

For the 13 pharmacogenes of interest, the genomes of 79% of participants carried clinically actionable variants in 3 or more genes, and DNA sequencing identified an average of 3.3 additional conservatively predicted deleterious variants that would not have been evident using genotyping.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of preemptive rather than reactive and sequence-based rather than genotype-based PGx prescribing revealed nearly universal patient applicability and required integrated institution-wide resources to fully realize individualized drug therapy and to show more efficient use of health care resources.

CYP1A2 mRNA Expression Rather than Genetic Variants Indicate Hepatic CYP1A2 Activity

CYP1A2, one of the most abundant hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes, is involved in metabolism of several drugs and carcinogenic compounds. Data on the significance of CYP1A2 genetic polymorphisms in enzyme activity are highly inconsistent; therefore, the impact of CYP1A2 genetic variants (−3860G>A, −2467delT, −739T>G, −163C>A, 2159G>A) on mRNA expression and phenacetin O-dealkylation selective for CYP1A2 was investigated in human liver tissues and in psychiatric patients belonging to Caucasian populations. CYP1A2*1F, considered to be associated with high CYP1A2 inducibility, is generally identified by the presence of −163C>A polymorphism; however, we demonstrated that −163C>A existed in several haplotypes (CYP1A2*1F, CYP1A2*1L, CYP1A2*1M, CYP1A2*1V, CYP1A2*1W), and consequently, CYP1A2*1F was a much rarer allelic variant (0.4%) than reported in Caucasian populations. Of note, −163C>A polymorphism was found to result in an increase of neither mRNA nor the activity of CYP1A2. Moreover, hepatic CYP1A2 activity was associated with hepatic or leukocyte mRNA expression rather than genetic polymorphisms of CYP1A2. Consideration of non-genetic phenoconverting factors (co-medication with CYP1A2-specific inhibitors/inducers, tobacco smoking and non-specific factors, including amoxicillin+clavulanic acid therapy or chronic alcohol consumption) did not much improve genotype−phenotype estimation. In conclusion, CYP1A2-genotyping is inappropriate for the prediction of CYP1A2 function; however, CYP1A2 mRNA expression in leukocytes can inform about patients’ CYP1A2-metabolizing capacity.

The interplay between pharmacogenetics, concomitant drugs and blood levels of amitriptyline and its main metabolites

Background: The research considers the impact of genotype-inferred variability on blood levels of amitriptyline and its main metabolites, as may be moderated by phenocopying. Patients & methods: CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes, and serum concentrations of amitriptyline, nortriptyline and hydroxymetabolites, were determined in 33 outpatients. Co-medications were reviewed to identify CYP inhibition risk. Results: CYP2C19 metabolizer status explained interpatient variation in nortriptyline to amitriptyline concentration ratios. The hydroxymetabolite to parent ratios increased with higher CYP2D6 activity scores and lower CYP2D6 inhibition risk. In patients at high CYP2D6 inhibition risk, the amitriptyline + nortriptyline concentration was, on average, 52% above the higher end of expected ranges. Conclusion: Practical construal of pharmacogenetics and drug interactions tantamount to aberrant metabolism can facilitate patient-tailored use of the established drug.

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: A prospective safety and cost analysis in poor metaboliser patients

AIM

To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study, patients intended for treatment with irinotecan were pre-therapeutically genotyped for UGT1A1∗28 and UGT1A1∗93. Homozygous variant carriers (UGT1A1 poor metabolisers; PMs) received an initial 30% dose reduction. The primary endpoint was incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first two cycles of treatment. Toxicity in UGT1A1 PMs was compared to a historical cohort of UGT1A1 PMs treated with full dose therapy, and to UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy in the current study. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, feasibility, and costs.

RESULTS

Of the 350 evaluable patients, 31 (8.9%) patients were UGT1A1 PM and received a median 30% dose reduction. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group was 6.5% compared to 24% in historical UGT1A1 PMs (P = 0.04) and was comparable to the incidence in UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy. Systemic exposure of SN-38 of reduced dosing in UGT1A1 PMs was still slightly higher compared to a standard-dosed irinotecan patient cohort (difference: +32%). Cost analysis showed that genotype-guided dosing was cost-saving with a cost reduction of €183 per patient.

CONCLUSION

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in UGT1A1 PM patients treated with irinotecan, results in a therapeutically effective systemic drug exposure, and is cost-saving. Therefore, UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan should be considered standard of care in order to improve individual patient safety.

Pharmacogenomic testing in paediatrics: clinical implementation strategies

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) relates to the study of genetic factors determining variability in drug response. Implementing PGx testing in paediatric patients can enhance drug safety, helping to improve drug efficacy or reduce the risk of toxicity. Despite its clinical relevance, the implementation of PGx testing in paediatric practice to date has been variable and limited.

As with most paediatric pharmacological studies, there are well‐recognised barriers to obtaining high‐quality PGx evidence, particularly when patient numbers may be small, and off‐label or unlicensed prescribing remains widespread. Furthermore, trials enrolling small numbers of children can rarely, in isolation, provide sufficient PGx evidence to change clinical practice, so extrapolation from larger PGx studies in adult patients, where scientifically sound, is essential.

This review paper discusses the relevance of PGx to paediatrics and considers implementation strategies from a child health perspective. Examples are provided from Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, with consideration of the different healthcare systems and their distinct approaches to implementation, followed by future recommendations based on these cumulative experiences.

Improving the evidence base demonstrating the clinical utility and cost‐effectiveness of paediatric PGx testing will be critical to drive implementation forwards. International, interdisciplinary collaborations will enhance paediatric data collation, interpretation and evidence curation, while also supporting dedicated paediatric PGx educational initiatives. PGx consortia and paediatric clinical research networks will continue to play a central role in the streamlined development of effective PGx implementation strategies to help optimise paediatric pharmacotherapy.

Pharmacogenomic Clinical Decision Support: A Review, How-to Guide, and Future Vision

Clinical decision support (CDS) is an essential part of any pharmacogenomics (PGx) implementation. Increasingly, institutions have implemented CDS tools in the clinical setting to bring PGx data into patient care, and several have published their experiences with these implementations. However, barriers remain that limit the ability of some programs to create CDS tools to fit their PGx needs. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarize the types, functions, and limitations of PGx CDS currently in practice. Then, we provide an approachable step‐by‐step how‐to guide with a case example to help implementers bring PGx to the front lines of care regardless of their setting. Particular focus is paid to the five “rights” of CDS as a core around designing PGx CDS tools. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of opportunities and areas of growth for PGx CDS.

Drug-drug-gene interactions as mediators of adverse drug reactions to diclofenac and statins: a case report and literature review

Concomitant treatment with drugs that inhibit drug metabolising enzymes and/or transporters, such as commonly prescribed statins and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), has been associated with prolonged drug exposure and increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to drug-drug interactions. The risk is further increased in patients with chronic diseases/comorbidities who are more susceptible because of their genetic setup or external factors. In that light, we present a case of a 46-year-old woman who had been experiencing acute renal and hepatic injury and myalgia over two years of concomitant treatment with diclofenac, atorvastatin, simvastatin/fenofibrate, and several other drugs, including pantoprazole and furosemide. Our pharmacogenomic findings supported the suspicion that ADRs, most notably the multi-organ toxicity experienced by our patient, may be owed to drug-drug-gene interactions and increased bioavailability of the prescribed drugs due to slower detoxification capacity and decreased hepatic and renal elimination. We also discuss the importance of CYP polymorphisms in the biotransformation of endogenous substrates such as arachidonic acid and their modulating role in pathophysiological processes. Yet even though the risks of ADRs related to the above mentioned drugs are substantially evidenced in literature, pre-emptive pharmacogenetic analysis has not yet found its way into common clinical practice.

Identification of populations likely to benefit from pharmacogenomic testing

OBJECTIVES

Pharmacogenomic testing (PGX) implementation is rapidly expanding, including pre-emptive testing funded by health systems. PGX continues to develop an evidence base that it saves money and improves clinical outcomes. Identifying the potential impact of pre-emptive testing in specific populations may aid in the development of a business case.

METHODS

We utilized a software tool that can evaluate patient drug lists and identified groups of patients most likely to benefit from implementation of a PGX testing program in a major medical system population.

RESULTS

Medication lists were obtained for sixteen patient groups with a total of 82 613 patients. The percent of patients in each group with testing 'Recommended', 'Strongly recommended', or 'Required' ranged from 12.7% in the outpatient pediatric psychiatry group to 75.7% in the any adult inpatient age >50 years group. Some of the highest yield drugs identified were citalopram, simvastatin, escitalopram, metoprolol, clopidogrel, tramadol, and ondansetron.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate a significant number of patients in each group may have benefit, but targeting certain ones for pre-emptive testing may result in the initial highest yield for a health system.

Pharmacogenetics Guidelines: Overview and Comparison of the DPWG, CPIC, CPNDS, and RNPGx Guidelines

Many studies have shown that the efficacy and risk of side effects of drug treatment is influenced by genetic variants. Evidence based guidelines are essential for implementing pharmacogenetic knowledge in daily clinical practice to optimize pharmacotherapy of individual patients. A literature search was performed to select committees developing guidelines with recommendations being published in English. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety (CPNDS), and the French National Network (Réseau) of Pharmacogenetics (RNPGx) were selected. Their guidelines were compared with regard to the methodology of development, translation of genotypes to predicted phenotypes, pharmacotherapeutic recommendations and recommendations on genotyping. A detailed overview of all recommendations for gene-drug combinations is given. The committees have similar methodologies of guideline development. However, the objectives differed at the start of their projects, which have led to unique profiles and strengths of their guidelines. DPWG and CPIC have a main focus on pharmacotherapeutic recommendations for a large number of drugs in combination with a patient’s genotype or predicted phenotype. DPWG, CPNDS and RNPGx also recommend on performing genetic testing in daily clinical practice, with RNPGx even describing specific clinical settings or medical conditions for which genotyping is recommended. Discordances exist, however committees also initiated harmonizing projects. The outcome of a consensus project was to rename “extensive metabolizer (EM)” to “normal metabolizer (NM)”. It was decided to translate a CYP2D6 genotype with one nonfunctional allele (activity score 1.0) into the predicted phenotype of intermediate metabolizer (IM). Differences in recommendations are the result of the methodologies used, such as assessment of dose adjustments of tricyclic antidepressants. In some cases, indication or dose specific recommendations are given for example for clopidogrel, codeine, irinotecan. The following drugs have recommendations on genetic testing with the highest level: abacavir (HLA), clopidogrel (CYP2C19), fluoropyrimidines (DPYD), thiopurines (TPMT), irinotecan (UGT1A1), codeine (CYP2D6), and cisplatin (TPMT). The guidelines cover many drugs and genes, genotypes, or predicted phenotypes. Because of this and their unique features, considering the totality of guidelines are of added value. In conclusion, many evidence based pharmacogenetics guidelines with clear recommendations are available for clinical decision making by healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders.

Effect of Pharmacogenetic Testing for Statin Myopathy Risk vs Usual Care on Blood Cholesterol: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Nonadherence to statin guidelines is common. The solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) genotype is associated with simvastatin myopathy risk and is proposed for clinical implementation. The unintended harms of using pharmacogenetic information to guide pharmacotherapy remain a concern for some stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of delivering SLCO1B1 pharmacogenetic results to physicians on the effectiveness of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) prevention (measured by low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels) and concordance with prescribing guidelines for statin safety and effectiveness.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial was performed from December 2015 to July 2019 at 8 primary care practices in the Veterans Affairs Boston Healthcare System. Participants included statin-naive patients with elevated ASCVD risk. Data analysis was performed from October 2019 to September 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

SLCO1B1 genotyping and results reporting to primary care physicians at baseline (intervention group) vs after 1 year (control group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the 1-year change in LDL-C level. The secondary outcomes were 1-year concordance with American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association and Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines for statin therapy and statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS).

RESULTS

Among 408 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [7.8] years; 25 women [6.1%]), 193 were randomized to the intervention group and 215 were randomized to the control group. Overall, 120 participants (29%) had a SLCO1B1 genotype indicating increased simvastatin myopathy risk. Physicians offered statin therapy to 65 participants (33.7%) in the intervention group and 69 participants (32.1%) in the control group. Compared with patients whose physicians did not know their SLCO1B1 results at baseline, patients whose physicians received the results had noninferior reductions in LDL-C at 12 months (mean [SE] change in LDL-C, -1.1 [1.2] mg/dL in the intervention group and -2.2 [1.3] mg/dL in the control group; difference, -1.1 mg/dL; 90% CI, -4.1 to 1.8 mg/dL; P < .001 for noninferiority margin of 10 mg/dL). The proportion of patients with American College of Cardiology-American Heart Association guideline-concordant statin prescriptions in the intervention group was noninferior to that in the control group (12 patients [6.2%] vs 14 patients [6.5%]; difference, -0.003; 90% CI, -0.038 to 0.032; P < .001 for noninferiority margin of 15%). All patients in both groups were concordant with CPIC guidelines for safe statin prescribing. Physicians documented 2 and 3 cases of SAMS in the intervention and control groups, respectively, none of which was associated with a CPIC guideline-discordant prescription. Among patients with a decreased or poor SLCO1B1 transporter function genotype, simvastatin was prescribed to 1 patient in the control group but none in the intervention group.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Clinical testing and reporting of SLCO1B1 results for statin myopathy risk did not result in poorer ASCVD prevention in a routine primary care setting and may have been associated with physicians avoiding simvastatin prescriptions for patients at genetic risk for SAMS. Such an absence of harm should reassure stakeholders contemplating the clinical use of available pharmacogenetic results.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02871934.

Using Personal Genomic Data within Primary Care: A Bioinformatics Approach to Pharmacogenomics

One application of personalized medicine is the tailoring of medication to the individual, so that the medication will have the highest chance of success. In order to individualize medication, one must have a complete inventory of all current pharmaceutical compounds (a detailed formulary) combined with pharmacogenetic datasets, the genetic makeup of the patient, their (medical) family history and other health-related data. For healthcare professionals to make the best use of this information, it must be visualized in a way that makes the most medically relevant data accessible for their decision-making. Similarly, to enable bioinformatics analysis of these data, it must be prepared and provided through an interface for controlled computational analysis. Due to the high degree of personal information gathered for such initiatives, privacy-sensitive implementation choices and ethical standards are paramount. The Personal Genetic Locker project provides an approach to enable the use of personal genomic data in primary care. In this paper, we provide a description of the Personal Genetic Locker project and show its utility through a use case based on open standards, which is illustrated by the 4MedBox system.

Pharmacogenetics in psychiatric care, a call for uptake of available applications

In this narrative, we evaluate the role of pharmacogenetics in psychiatry from a pragmatic clinical perspective and address current barriers of clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics. Pharmacogenetics has been successfully implemented to improve drug therapy in several clinical areas, but not psychiatry. Yet, psychotropics account for more than one-third of the drugs for which pharmacogenetic guidelines are available and drug therapy in mental disorders is suboptimal with insufficient effectiveness and frequent adverse events. The limited application of pharmacogenetics in psychiatry is influenced by several factors; e.g. the complexity of psychotropic drug metabolism, possibly impeding the clinical understanding of the benefits of pharmacogenetics. Also, recommendations for most psychotropics classify pharmacogenetic testing only as (potentially) beneficial, not as essential, possibly because life-threatening adverse events are often not involved in these drug-gene interactions. Implementing pharmacogenetics in psychiatry could improve the current practice of time-consuming switching of therapies causing undue delays associated with worse outcomes. We expect pharmacogenetics in psychiatry to expedite with panel-based genotyping, including clinically relevant variants, which will address the complex enzymatic metabolism of psychotropic drugs. Until then, we stress that available pharmacogenetic testing should be seen as an integrated companion, not a competitor, in current clinical psychiatric care.

Diagnostic Test Criteria for HLA Genotyping to Prevent Drug Hypersensitivity Reactions: A Systematic Review of Actionable HLA Recommendations in CPIC and DPWG Guidelines

Introduction

Certain HLA variants are associated with an increased risk of hypersensitivity reactions to specific drugs. Both the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) have issued actionable HLA gene - drug interaction guidelines but diagnostic test criteria remain largely unknown. We present an overview of the diagnostic test criteria of the actionable HLA - drug pairs.

Methods

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library. Original case-control and cohort studies were selected and sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and number needed to genotype (NNG) were calculated for the actionable HLA-drug pairs.

Results

In general, the HLA tests show high specificity and NPV for predicting hypersensitivity reactions. The sensitivity of HLA tests shows a wide range, from 0-33% for HLA-B*1502 testing to predict lamotrigine induced SJS/TEN up to 100% for HLA-B*5701 to predict immunologically confirmed abacavir hypersensitivity syndrome (ABC-HSR). PPV is low for all tests except for HLA-B*5701 and ABC-HSR which is approximately 50%. HLA-B*5701 to predict ABC-HSR shows the lowest NNG followed by HLA-B*5801 for allopurinol induced severe cutaneous adverse drug reactions and HLA-B*1502 for carbamazepine induced SJS/TEN.

Discussion

This is the first overview of diagnostic test criteria for actionable HLA-drug pairs. Studies researching HLA genes and hypersensitivity are scarce for some of the HLA-drug pairs in some populations and patient numbers in studies are small. Therefore, more research is necessary to calculate the diagnostic test criteria more accurately.

Drug Use among Nursing Home Residents in Denmark for Drugs Having Pharmacogenomics Based (PGx) Dosing Guidelines: Potential for Preemptive PGx Testing

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is most prevalent among the elderly population and in particular among nursing home residents. The frequency of the use of drugs with pharmacogenomics (PGx)-based dosing guidelines for CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and SLCO1B1 were measured among nursing home residents in the Capital Region of Denmark as well as drug-drug interactions. The aim was to evaluate the potential of applying PGx-test as a supportive tool in medication reviews.

METHODS

Drug use among nursing home residents during 2017-2018 in the Capital Region of Copenhagen, for drugs with PGx-based dosing guidelines available through the PharmGKB website, were measured. Drug-drug interactions were scored in severity by using drug interaction checkers.

RESULTS

The number of residents using drugs with PGx-based actionable dosing guidelines (AG) were 119 out of 141 residents (84.3%). Of these 119 residents, 87 residents used drugs with AG for CYP2C19, 47 residents for CYP2D6, and 42 residents for SLCO1B1. In addition, 30 residents used two drugs with an AG for CYP2C19, and for CYP2D6, it was only seven residents. The most used drugs with AG were clopidogrel (42), pantoprazole (32), simvastatin (30), metoprolol (25), and citalopram (24). The most frequent drug interactions found with warnings were combinations of proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel underscoring the potential for phenoconversion.

CONCLUSION

this study clearly showed that the majority of the nursing home residents were exposed to drugs or drug combinations for which there exist PGx-based AG. This indeed supports the notion of accessing and accounting for not only drug-gene but also drug-drug-gene interactions as a supplement to medication review.

Pharmacogenomics, concepts for the future of perioperative medicine and pain management: A review

Pharmacogenomics is the study of how genetic differences between individuals affect pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. These differences are apparent to clinicians when taking into account the wide range of responses to medications given in clinical practice. A review of literature involving pharmacogenomics and pain management was performed. The implementation of preoperative pharmacogenomics will allow us to better care for our patients by delivering personalized, safer medicine. This review describes the current state of pharmacogenomics as it relates to many aspects of clinical practice and how clinicians can use these tools to improve patient outcomes.

Prescription patterns of outpatients and the potential of multiplexed pharmacogenomic testing

BACKGROUND

Pre-emptive pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing is potentially an efficient approach to improve drug safety and efficacy but the target population to test is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

We aim to describe the prescription pattern of PGx drugs among adult medical outpatients.

METHODS

We estimated the 5-year cumulative incidence (CI) for receiving three groups of PGx drugs using competing risks analysis: (i) all PGx drugs, (ii) PGx drugs with guidelines and (iii) PGx drugs with serious clinical effects. Comparisons of CIs were also done by patient characteristics using Gray's test.

RESULTS

The 5-year CIs of receiving any new PGx drug, PGx drug with guidelines and serious clinical effects were 42.6%, 37.3% and 13.7%, respectively. The 5-year CI of receiving any new PGx drug was higher for patients >40 years old (43.6% vs ≤40 years old 36.0%, P < 2.2 × 10^-22 ), Malays and Indians (50.3% and 49.8% vs Chinese 31.1%, P < 2.2 × 10^-22 ), those who attended one of the following four specialties at the index visit compared to other specialties (infectious diseases [46.2% vs 42.6%, P = 2.9 × 10^-4 ], psychiatry [48.3% vs 42.3%, P = 7.4 × 10^-13 ], renal [49.8% vs 40.9%, P < 2.2 × 10^-22 ], and rheumatology and immunology [54.8% vs 41.7%, P < 2.2 × 10^-22 ]) and those prescribed ≥5 drugs at index visit (51.7% vs 0-4 drugs 41.7%, P < 2.2 × 10^-22 ).

CONCLUSIONS

Medical outpatients have a substantial probability of benefiting from pre-emptive PGx testing and this is higher in certain subgroups of patients.

Precision medicine for rheumatologists: lessons from the pharmacogenomics of azathioprine

Precision medicine aims to personalize treatment for both effectiveness and safety. As a critical component of this emerging initiative, pharmacogenomics seeks to guide drug treatment based on genetics. In this review article, we give an overview of pharmacogenomics in the setting of an immunosuppressant frequently prescribed by rheumatologists, azathioprine. Azathioprine has a narrow therapeutic index and a high risk of adverse events. By applying candidate gene analysis and unbiased approaches, researchers have identified multiple variants associated with an increased risk for adverse events associated with azathioprine, particularly bone marrow suppression. Variants in two genes, TPMT and NUDT15, are widely recognized, leading drug regulatory agencies and professional organizations to adopt recommendations for testing before initiation of azathioprine therapy. As more gene-drug interactions are discovered, our field will continue to face the challenge of balancing benefits and costs associated with genetic testing. However, novel approaches in genomics and the integration of clinical and genetic factors into risk scores offer unprecedented opportunities for the application of pharmacogenomics in routine practice. Key Points • Pharmacogenomics can help us understand how individuals' genetics may impact their response to medications. • Azathioprine is a success story for the clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics, particularly the effects of TPMT and NUDT15 variants on myelosuppression. • As our knowledge advances, testing and dosing recommendations will continue to evolve, with our field striving to balance costs and benefits to patients. • As we aim toward the goals of precision medicine, future research may integrate increasingly individualized traits-including clinical and genetic characteristics-to predict the safety and efficacy of particular medications for individual patients.

Pharmacogenetics in primary care

The use of pharmacogenetic information is becoming mainstream with insurance companies and others starting to pay for widescale implementation of this new technology starting with patients who have anxiety and depression. It has been introduced in response to the unpredictability of medication, the high number of adverse drug events, and lack of drug effectiveness. Greater than one-third of patients are identified as having one or more pharmacogenetic variants. Each pharmacogenetic variant may affect the metabolism of several medications used in primary care, in addition to the antidepressant and anti-anxiolytic medications. Pharmacogenetic information is evolving with major international working groups providing continuous updates. It is challenging to incorporate this new information along with all the other variables needed to identify safe and effective drug options within a normal consultation. Medication decision support software is one solution that can help address this.

Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline for the gene-drug interaction of DPYD and fluoropyrimidines

Despite advances in the field of pharmacogenetics (PGx), clinical acceptance has remained limited. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of three anti-cancer drugs (fluoropyrimidines: 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine and tegafur) to decrease the risk of severe, potentially fatal, toxicity (such as diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis or myelosuppression). Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD, encoded by the DPYD gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity. The DPYD-gene activity score, determined by four DPYD variants, predicts DPD activity and can be used to optimize an individual’s starting dose. The gene activity score ranges from 0 (no DPD activity) to 2 (normal DPD activity). In case it is not possible to calculate the gene activity score based on DPYD genotype, we recommend to determine the DPD activity and adjust the initial dose based on available data. For patients initiating 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine: subjects with a gene activity score of 0 are recommended to avoid systemic and cutaneous 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine; subjects with a gene activity score of 1 or 1.5 are recommended to initiate therapy with 50% the standard dose of 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. For subjects initiating tegafur: subjects with a gene activity score of 0, 1 or 1.5 are recommended to avoid tegafur. Subjects with a gene activity score of 2 (reference) should receive a standard dose. Based on the DPWG clinical implication score, DPYD genotyping is considered “essential”, therefore directing DPYD testing prior to initiating fluoropyrimidines.

[Pharmacogenetics for patient care in France: A discipline that evolves!]

Pharmacogenetics, which concepts are known for a long time, is entering a new period at least as far as its practical applications for patients are concerned. In recent years there have been more and more initiatives to promote widespread dissemination, and health authorities are increasingly incorporating these concepts into drug labels. In France, the national network of pharmacogenetics (RNPGx) works to promote these activities, both with health actors (biologists, clinicians) and health authorities. This article reviews the current situation in France and the milestones of the year 2018. It highlights recent advances in this field, in terms of currently recommended analyses, sharing of information or technological developments, and the prospects for future developments in the near future from targeted pharmacogenetics to eventually preemptive approaches.

Pharmacogenetics in the clinical analysis laboratory: clinical practice, research, and drug development pipeline

Introduction: Over the last decade, the spread of next-generation sequencing technology along with the rising cost in health management in national health systems has led to widespread use/abuse of pharmacogenetic tests (PGx) in the practice of many clinical disciplines. However, given their clinical significance, it is important to standardize these tests for having an interaction with the clinical analysis laboratory (CAL), in which a PGx service can meet these requirements. Areas covered: A diagnostic test must meet the criteria of reproducibility and validity for its utility in the clinical routine. This present review mainly describes the utility of introducing PGx tests in the CAL routine to produce correct results useful for setting up personalized drug treatments. Expert opinion: With a PGx service, CALs can provide the right tool to help clinicians to make better choices about different categories of drugs and their dosage and to manage the economic impact both in hospital-based settings and in National Health Services, throughout electronic health records. Advances in PGx also allow a new approach for pharmaceutical companies in order to improve drug development and clinical trials. As a result, CALs can achieve a powerful source of epidemiological, clinical, and research findings from PGx tests.

Translating pharmacogenomics into clinical decisions: do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good

The field of pharmacogenomics (PGx) is gradually shifting from the reactive testing of single genes toward the proactive testing of multiple genes to improve treatment outcomes, reduce adverse events, and decrease the burden of unnecessary costs for healthcare systems. Despite the progress in the field of pharmacogenomics, its implementation into routine care has been slow due to several barriers. However, in recent years, the number of studies on the implementation of PGx has increased, all providing a wealth of knowledge on different solutions for overcoming the obstacles that have been emphasized over the past years. This review focuses on some of the challenges faced by these initiatives, the solutions and different approaches for testing that they suggest, and the evidence that they provide regarding the benefits of preemptive PGx testing.

Pharmacogenomic Testing: Clinical Evidence and Implementation Challenges

Pharmacogenomics can enhance patient care by enabling treatments tailored to genetic make-up and lowering risk of serious adverse events. As of June 2019, there are 132 pharmacogenomic dosing guidelines for 99 drugs and pharmacogenomic information is included in 309 medication labels. Recently, the technology for identifying individual-specific genetic variants (genotyping) has become more accessible. Next generation sequencing (NGS) is a cost-effective option for genotyping patients at many pharmacogenomic loci simultaneously, and guidelines for implementation of these data are available from organizations such as the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG). NGS and related technologies are increasing knowledge in the research sphere, yet rates of genomic literacy remain low, resulting in a widening gap in knowledge translation to the patient. Multidisciplinary teams—including physicians, nurses, genetic counsellors, and pharmacists—will need to combine their expertise to deliver optimal pharmacogenomically-informed care.

Implementation and obstacles of pharmacogenetics in clinical practice: An international survey

AIMS

Eight years ago, a paper-based survey was administered during the World Pharma 2010 meeting, asking about the challenges of implementing pharmacogenetics (PGx) in clinical practice. The data collected at the time gave an idea about the progress of this implementation and what still needs to be done. Since then, although there have been major initiatives to push PGx forward, PGx clinical implementation may still be facing different challenges in different parts of the world. Our aim was therefore to distribute a follow-up international survey in electronic format to elucidate an overview on the current stage of implementation, acceptance and challenges of PGx in academic institutions around the world.

METHODS

This is an online anonymous LimeSurvey-based study launched on 11 November 2018. Survey questions were adapted from the initially published manuscript in 2010. An extensive web search for worldwide scientists potentially involved in PGx research resulted in a total of 1973 names. Countries were grouped based on the Human Development Index.

RESULTS

There were 204 respondents from 43 countries. Despite the wide availability of PGx tests, the consistently positive attitude towards their applications and advances in the field, progress of the clinical implementation of PGx still faces many challenges all around the globe.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical implementation of PGx started over a decade ago but there is a gap in progress around the globe and discrepancies between the challenges reported by different countries, despite some challenges being universal. Further studies on ways to overcome these challenges are warranted.

Estimating the Effectiveness of DPYD Genotyping in Italian Individuals Suffering from Cancer Based on the Cost of Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicity

Fluoropyrimidines (FLs) have been widely used for more than 60 years against a range of solid tumors and still remains the cornerstone for the treatment of colorectal, gastric, and breast cancer. Here, we performed an economic analysis to estimate the cost of DPYD-guided toxicity management and the clinical benefit expressed as quality adjusted life years (QALYs) in a large group of 571 individuals of Italian origin suffering from cancer and treated with a fluoropyrimidines-based chemotherapy. Individuals suffering from cancer with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of cancer, who received a fluoropyrimidines-based treatment, were retrospectively genotyped in the DPYD gene. Effectiveness was measured as survival of individuals from chemotherapy, while study data on safety and efficacy as well as on resource utilization associated with each adverse drug reaction were used to measure costs to treat these adverse drug reactions. A generalized linear regression model was used to estimate cost differences for both study groups. DPYD extensive metabolizers (528 individuals) had greater effectiveness and lesser cost, representing a cost-saving option over DPYD intermediate and poor metabolizers (43 individuals) with mean QALYs of 4.18 (95%CI: 3.16-5.55) versus 3.02 (95%CI: 1.94-4.25), respectively. Our economic analysis showed that there are some indications for differences in survival between the two groups (p > 0.05), while the cost of DPYD extensive metabolizers was significantly lower (p < 0.01) compared with those belonging to the group of intermediate/poor metabolizers. These findings suggest that DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidines treatment represent a cost-saving choice for individuals suffering from cancer in the Italian healthcare setting.