Efficacy and tolerability of therapies set under pharmacogenetic tools suggestions: A systematic review with meta-analysis about mood disorders

Implementation and Evaluation Strategies for Pharmacogenetic Testing in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic testing in clinical settings has improved the safety and efficacy of drug treatment. There is a growing number of studies evaluating pharmacogenetic implementation and identifying barriers and facilitators. However, no review has focused on bridging the gap between identifying barriers and facilitators of testing and the clinical strategies adopted in response. This review was conducted to understand the implementation and evaluation strategies of pharmacogenetic testing programs.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant scoping review was conducted. The included studies discussed pharmacogenetic testing programs implemented in a hospital setting. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed design methods were included.

RESULTS

A total of 232 of the 7043 articles that described clinical pharmacogenetic programs were included. The most common specialties that described pharmacogenetic implementation were psychiatry (26%) and oncology (16%), although many studies described institutional programs implemented across multiple specialties (19%). Different specialties reported different clinical outcomes, but all reported similar program performance indicators, such as test uptake and the number of times the test recommendations were followed. There were benefits and drawbacks to delivering test results through research personnel, pharmacists, and electronic alerts, but active engagement of physicians was necessary for the incorporation of pharmacogenetic results into clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is required on the maintenance and sustainability of pharmacogenetic testing initiatives. These findings provide an overview of the implementation and evaluation strategies of different specialties that can be used to improve pharmacogenetic testing.

Efficacy and safety of pharmacogenomic-guided antidepressant prescribing in patients with depression: an umbrella review and updated meta-analysis

Aim

To determine the efficacy and safety of pharmacogenomics (PGx)-guided antidepressant prescribing in patients with depression through an umbrella review and updated meta-analysis.

Methods

A comprehensive systematic search was conducted on PsycINFO, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane databases. The pooled effect sizes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were expressed as mean differences for continuous data and risk ratios for noncontinuous data.

Results

Patients who received PGx-guided medications were 41% to 78% more likely to achieve remission and 20% to 49% more likely to respond to antidepressants than patients receiving treatment-as-usual (TAU).

Conclusion

PGx-guided antidepressant prescribing improves the treatment of depression. However, the significance and magnitude of the benefit varies widely between studies and different PGx testing panels.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022321324.

Pharmacogenomic Clinical Support Tools for the Treatment of Depression

OBJECTIVE

In this review, the authors update the 2018 position statement of the American Psychiatric Association Council of Research Workgroup on Biomarkers and Novel Treatments on pharmacogenomic (PGx) tools for treatment selection in depression.

METHODS

The literature was reviewed for new clinical trials and meta-analyses, published from 2017 to 2022, of studies using PGx tools for treatment selection in depression. The blinding and control conditions, as well as primary and secondary outcomes and post hoc analyses, were summarized.

RESULTS

Eleven new clinical trials and five meta-analyses were identified; all studies had primary outcome measures related to speed or efficacy of treatment response. Three trials (27%) demonstrated efficacy on the primary outcome measure with statistical significance; the three studies used different PGx tools; one study was open-label and the other two were small single-blind trials. Five trials (45%) did not detect efficacy with statistical significance on either primary or secondary outcome measures. Only one trial (9%) used adverse events as a primary outcome measure. All studies had significant limitations; for example, none adopted a fully blinded study design, only two studies attempted to blind the treating clinician, and none incorporated measures to estimate the effectiveness of the blinds or the influence of lack of blinding on the study results.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of these new data do not alter the recommendations of the 2018 report, or the advice of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, that the evidence does not support the use of currently available combinatorial PGx tools for treatment selection in major depressive disorder. Priority efforts for future studies and the development and testing of effective tools include fully blinded study designs, inclusion of promising genetic variants not currently included in any commercially available tests, and investigation of other uses of pharmacogenomics, such as estimating the likelihood of rare adverse drug effects, rather than increasing the speed or magnitude of drug response.

Effectiveness of pharmacogenomic tests including CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genomic variants for guiding the treatment of depressive disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Major depressive disorders are prevalent conditions with limited treatment response and remission. Pharmacogenomics tests including CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genomic variants provide the most reliable actionable approach to guide choice and dosing of antidepressants in major depression to improve outcomes. We carried out a meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses of randomised controlled trials evaluating pharmacogenomic tests with CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 polymorphisms in major depression. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines to search several electronic databases. Logarithmically transformed odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) for improvement, response and remission were calculated. A random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression analyses were subsequently carried out. Twelve randomised controlled trials were included. Pharmacogenomic tests in the treatment of depression were more effective than treatment as usual for improvement (OR:1.63, CI: 1.19-2.24), response (OR: 1.46; CI: 1.16-1.85) and remission (OR: 1.85; CI: 1.23-2.76) with no evidence of publication bias. Remission was less favourable in recent studies. The results are promising but cautious use of pharmacogenomics in major depression is advisable. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42021261143.