Communicating unexpected pharmacogenomic results to biobank contributors: A focus group study

British South Asian ancestry participants views of pharmacogenomics clinical implementation and research: a thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

South Asian ancestry populations are underrepresented in genomic studies and therapeutics trials. British South Asians suffer from multi-morbidity leading to polypharmacy. Our objective was to elucidate British South Asian ancestry community perspectives on pharmacogenomic implementation and sharing pharmacogenomic clinical data for research.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted (9-12 participants in each). Two groups were mixed gender, while one group was male only and one was female only. Simultaneous interpretation was available to participants in Urdu and Bengali. Focus groups were recorded and abridged transcription and thematic analysis were undertaken.

RESULTS

There were 42 participants, 64% female. 26% were born in the UK or Europe. 52% were born in Bangladesh and 17% in Pakistan. 36% reported university level education. Implementation of pharmacogenomics was perceived to be beneficial to individuals but pose a risk of overburdening resource limited systems. Pharmacogenomic research was perceived to be beneficial to the community, with concerns about data privacy and misuse. Data sharing was desirable if the researchers did not have a financial stake, and benefits would be shared. Trust was the key condition for the acceptability of both clinical implementation and research. Trust was linked with medication compliance. Education, outreach, and communication facilitate trust.

CONCLUSIONS (SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY)

Pharmacogenomics implementation with appropriate education and communication has the potential to enhance trust and contribute to increased medication compliance. Trust drives data sharing, which would enable enhanced representation in research. Representation in scientific evidence base could cyclically enhance trust and compliance.

Attitudes on pharmacogenomic results as secondary findings among medical geneticists

OBJECTIVES

As evidence mounts supporting the utility of pharmacogenomic-guided medication management, incorporating pharmacogenomic genes into secondary finding results from sequencing panels is increasingly under consideration. We studied medical geneticists' attitudes on receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding.

METHODS

Four focus groups with 16 medical geneticists total were conducted followed by thematic analysis.

RESULTS

All participants ordered genetic sequencing tests; however, the majority had rarely or never ordered pharmacogenomic tests (10/16) or prescribed medications with established response variability (11/16). In total 81.3% expressed low comfort interpreting pharmacogenomic results without appropriate clinical resources (13/16). The positives of receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding included prevention of adverse drug reactions in adults, grateful information-seeking patients, the ability to rapidly prescribe more effective treatments and appreciation of the recent advances in both pharmacogenomic knowledge and available guidelines. Negatives included laboratory reporting issues, exclusivity of pharmacogenomic results to certain populations, lengthy reports concealing pharmacogenomic results in patient charts and laboratories marketing to individuals without prior pharmacogenomic knowledge or targeting inappropriate populations. The most desirable pharmacogenomic resources included a universal electronic health record clinical decision support tool to assist identifying and implementing pharmacogenomic results, a specialized pharmacist as part of the care team, additional pharmacogenomic training during medical/graduate school, and a succinct interpretation of pharmacogenomic results included on laboratory reports.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of participants agreed that adding certain actionable pharmacogenomic genes to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics SF list is reasonable; however, this was qualified with a need for additional resources to support implementation.

Development and Validation of the Minnesota Assessment of Pharmacogenomic Literacy (MAPL)

Ensuring that patients have an adequate understanding of pharmacogenomic (PGx) test results is a critical component of implementing precision medicine into clinical care. However, no PGx-specific validated literacy assessment has yet been developed. To address this need, we developed and validated the Minnesota Assessment of Pharmacogenomic Literacy (MAPLTM). Foundational work included a scoping review of patient and general public attitudes and experiences with pharmacogenomic testing, three focus groups, readability assessments, and review by experts and members of the general public. This resulted in a 15-item assessment designed to assess knowledge in four domains: underlying concepts, limitations, benefits, and privacy. For validation, 646 participants completed the MAPL as a part of a larger survey about pharmacogenomic research and statewide PGx implementation. Two items were deemed to be “too easy” and dropped. The remaining 13 items were retained in the final MAPL with good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75). Confirmatory factor analysis validated the four-domain construct of MAPL and suggested good model performance and high internal validity. The estimated coefficient loadings across 13 questions on the corresponding domains are all positive and statistically significant (p < 0.05). The MAPL covers multiple knowledge domains of specific relevance to PGx and is a useful tool for clinical and research settings where quantitative assessment of PGx literacy is of value.

A clinician’s guide for counseling patients on results of a multigene pharmacogenomic panel

Disclaimer

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Purpose

This article explores approaches to pharmacogenomic counseling for patients who have undergone multigene panel testing by describing the collective experience of 5 institutions.

Summary

Multigene panel pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to unlock a myriad of information about a patient’s past, present, and future drug response. The multifaceted nature of drug response coupled with the complexity of genetic results necessitates some form of patient education through pharmacogenomic counseling. Published literature regarding disclosure of pharmacogenomic test results is limited. This article compares the counseling practices of pharmacists from 5 different institutions with pharmacogenomics clinics whose experience represents perspectives ranging from academia to community clinical environments. Overarching counseling themes discussed during result disclosure center around (1) pharmacogenomic results, (2) gene-drug interactions, (3) gene-drug-drug interactions, (4) drug changes (5) future, familial, or disease-risk implications, (6) updates in the interpretation and application of pharmacogenomic results, (7) gauging patient comprehension, and (8) sharing results and supplemental information.

Conclusion

Dedicating time to counseling patients on the results of a multigene pharmacogenomic panel is important given the lifelong applications of a test that is generally performed only once. The content and methods of disclosing test results shared by the experiences of pharmacists at 5 different institutions serve as guide to be further refined as research addresses effective communication strategies that enhance patient comprehension of pharmacogenomic results.

A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Experiences with Pharmacogenomic Testing among Patients and the General Public: Implications for Patient Counseling

The use of pharmacogenomic (PGx) tests is increasing, but there are not standard approaches to counseling patients on their implications or results. To inform approaches for patient counseling, we conducted a scoping review of published literature on patient experiences with PGx testing and performed a thematic analysis of qualitative and quantitative reports. A structured scoping review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute guidance. The search identified 37 articles (involving n = 6252 participants) published between 2010 and 2021 from a diverse range of populations and using a variety of study methodologies. Thematic analysis identified five themes (reasons for testing/perceived benefit, understanding of results, psychological response, impact of testing on patient/provider relationship, concerns about testing/perceived harm) and 22 subthemes. These results provide valuable context and potential areas of focus during patient counseling on PGx. Many of the knowledge gaps, misunderstandings, and concerns that participants identified could be mitigated by pre- and post-test counseling. More research is needed on patients’ PGx literacy needs, along with the development of a standardized, open-source patient education curriculum and the development of validated PGx literacy assessment tools.

Lay understandings of drug-gene interactions: The right medication, the right dose, at the right time, but what are the right words?

As pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing increases in popularity, lay concepts of drug‐gene interactions set the stage for shared decision making in precision medicine. Few studies explore what recipients of PGx results think is happening in their bodies when a drug‐gene interaction is discovered. To characterize biobank participants’ understanding of PGx research results, we conducted a focus group study, which took place after PGx variants conferring increased risk of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency were disclosed to biobank contributors. DPD deficiency confers an increased risk of adverse reaction to commonly used cancer chemotherapeutics. Ten focus groups were conducted, ranging from two to eight participants. Fifty‐four individuals participated in focus groups. A framework approach was used for descriptive and explanatory analysis. Descriptive themes included participants’ efforts to make sense of PGx findings as they related to: (1) health implications, (2) drugs, and (3) genetics. Explanatory analysis supplied a functional framework of how participant word choices can perform different purposes in PGx communication. Results bear three main implications for PGx research‐related disclosure. First, participants’ use of various terms suggest participants generally understanding their PGx results, including how positive PGx results differ from positive disease susceptibility genetic results. Second, PGx disclosure in biobanking can involve participant conflation of drug‐gene interactions with allergies or other types of medical reactions. Third, the functional framework suggests a need to move beyond a deficit model of genetic literacy in PGx communication. Together, findings provide an initial evidence base for supporting bidirectional expert‐recipient PGx results communication.