Approaches to assessing the provider experience with clinical pharmacogenomic information: a scoping review

Pharmacogenetics Clinical Decision Support Systems for Primary Care in England: Co-Design Study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetics can impact patient care and outcomes through personalizing the selection of medicines, resulting in improved efficacy and a reduction in harmful side effects. Despite the existence of compelling clinical evidence and international guidelines highlighting the benefits of pharmacogenetics in clinical practice, implementation within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom is limited. An important barrier to overcome is the development of IT solutions that support the integration of pharmacogenetic data into health care systems. This necessitates a better understanding of the role of electronic health records (EHRs) and the design of clinical decision support systems that are acceptable to clinicians, particularly those in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

Explore the needs and requirements of a pharmacogenetic service from the perspective of primary care clinicians with a view to co-design a prototype solution.

METHODS

We used ethnographic and think-aloud observations, user research workshops, and prototyping. The participants for this study included general practitioners and pharmacists. In total, we undertook 5 sessions of ethnographic observation to understand current practices and workflows. This was followed by 3 user research workshops, each with its own topic guide starting with personas and early ideation, through to exploring the potential of clinical decision support systems and prototype design. We subsequently analyzed workshop data using affinity diagramming and refined the key requirements for the solution collaboratively as a multidisciplinary project team.

RESULTS

User research results identified that pharmacogenetic data must be incorporated within existing EHRs rather than through a stand-alone portal. The information presented through clinical decision support systems must be clear, accessible, and user-friendly as the service will be used by a range of end users. Critically, the information should be displayed within the prescribing workflow, rather than discrete results stored statically in the EHR. Finally, the prescribing recommendations should be authoritative to provide confidence in the validity of the results. Based on these findings we co-designed an interactive prototype, demonstrating pharmacogenetic clinical decision support integrated within the prescribing workflow of an EHR.

CONCLUSIONS

This study marks a significant step forward in the design of systems that support pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing in primary care settings. Clinical decision support systems have the potential to enhance the personalization of medicines, provided they are effectively implemented within EHRs and present pharmacogenetic data in a user-friendly, actionable, and standardized format. Achieving this requires the development of a decoupled, standards-based architecture that allows for the separation of data from application, facilitating integration across various EHRs through the use of application programming interfaces (APIs). More globally, this study demonstrates the role of health informatics and user-centered design in realizing the potential of personalized medicine at scale and ensuring that the benefits of genomic innovation reach patients and populations effectively.

Advanced practice nurse pharmacogenomics capacity and utilization

BACKGROUND

Guided by Clinical Pharmacogenomic Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines for >140 medications, pharmacogenomic tests inform medication selection and dosing to optimize efficacy while minimizing toxicities.

PURPOSE

This study assessed pharmacogenomic self-reported curricular content, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and usage in advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) with prescriptive privileges.

METHODOLOGY

An online survey was administered assessing pharmacogenomic curricular content, knowledge, skills, attitudes, and usage.

RESULTS

Data from 266 APRNs were analyzed. Most graduated with their highest nursing degree ∼10 years ago and reported pharmacogenomic curricular content ( n = 124, 48%). Pharmacogenomic curricular content was associated with pharmacogenomic familiarity ( p = .045) but not with knowledge confidence ( p = .615). Pharmacogenomic usage, defined as ordering a pharmacogenomic test within the past year, was low ( n = 76, 29%) and most ( n = 210, 84%) reported never using CPIC Guidelines. Advanced practice registered nurses ( n = 162) who did not anticipate ordering a pharmacogenomic test in the next year ( n = 77, 48%) indicated that they did not know what test to order.

CONCLUSIONS

Deficits were identified in APRN pharmacogenomic knowledge and skills despite academic training. Most reported not ordering pharmacogenomic tests, did not know what test to order, and did not use CPIC guidelines.

IMPLICATIONS

Pharmacogenomics is a quality and safety issue. Academic training did not result in practice integration and most reported capacity deficits. Recommendation for overcoming academic deficits include: (1) assessment of pharmacogenomics curricular content and faculty teaching capacity; (2) training addressing identified deficiencies; and (3) Commission of Collegiate Nursing Education policies that include pharmacogenomics in advanced pharmacology. Practicing APRN plans include on-the-job training and/or mandatory training at the time of relicensure.

Overcoming Barriers to Discovery and Implementation of Equitable Pharmacogenomic Testing in Oncology

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.

An updated examination of the perception of barriers for pharmacogenomics implementation and the usefulness of drug/gene pairs in Latin America and the Caribbean

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is considered an emergent field in developing countries. Research on PGx in the Latin American and the Caribbean (LAC) region remains scarce, with limited information in some populations. Thus, extrapolations are complicated, especially in mixed populations. In this paper, we reviewed and analyzed pharmacogenomic knowledge among the LAC scientific and clinical community and examined barriers to clinical application. We performed a search for publications and clinical trials in the field worldwide and evaluated the contribution of LAC. Next, we conducted a regional structured survey that evaluated a list of 14 potential barriers to the clinical implementation of biomarkers based on their importance. In addition, a paired list of 54 genes/drugs was analyzed to determine an association between biomarkers and response to genomic medicine. This survey was compared to a previous survey performed in 2014 to assess progress in the region. The search results indicated that Latin American and Caribbean countries have contributed 3.44% of the total publications and 2.45% of the PGx-related clinical trials worldwide thus far. A total of 106 professionals from 17 countries answered the survey. Six major groups of barriers were identified. Despite the region's continuous efforts in the last decade, the primary barrier to PGx implementation in LAC remains the same, the "need for guidelines, processes, and protocols for the clinical application of pharmacogenetics/pharmacogenomics". Cost-effectiveness issues are considered critical factors in the region. Items related to the reluctance of clinicians are currently less relevant. Based on the survey results, the highest ranked (96%-99%) gene/drug pairs perceived as important were CYP2D6/tamoxifen, CYP3A5/tacrolimus, CYP2D6/opioids, DPYD/fluoropyrimidines, TMPT/thiopurines, CYP2D6/tricyclic antidepressants, CYP2C19/tricyclic antidepressants, NUDT15/thiopurines, CYP2B6/efavirenz, and CYP2C19/clopidogrel. In conclusion, although the global contribution of LAC countries remains low in the PGx field, a relevant improvement has been observed in the region. The perception of the usefulness of PGx tests in biomedical community has drastically changed, raising awareness among physicians, which suggests a promising future in the clinical applications of PGx in LAC.