Assessment of Patient Knowledge and Perceptions of Pharmacogenomics Before and After Using a Mock Results Patient Web Portal

How to Implement a Pharmacogenetics Service at your Institution

The vast majority of patients possess one or more pharmacogenetic variants that can influence optimal medication use. When pharmacogenetic data are used to guide drug choice and dosing, evidence points to improved disease outcomes, fewer adverse effects, and lower healthcare spending. Although its science is well established, clinical use of pharmacogenetic data to guide drug therapy is still in its infancy. Pharmacogenetics essentially involves the intersection of an individual's genetic data with their medications, which makes pharmacists uniquely qualified to provide clinical support and education in this field. In fact, most pharmacogenetics implementations, to date, have been led by pharmacists as leaders or members of a multidisciplinary team or as individual practitioners. A successful large-scale pharmacogenetics implementation requires coordination and synergy among administrators, clinicians, informatics teams, laboratories, and patients. Because clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics is in its early stages, there is an urgent need for guidance and dissemination of shared experiences to provide a framework for clinicians. Many early adopters of pharmacogenetics have explored various strategies among diverse practice settings. This article relies on the experiences of early adopters to provide guidance for critical steps along the pathway to implementation, including strategies to engage stakeholders; evaluate pharmacogenetic evidence; coordinate laboratory testing, results interpretation and their integration into the electronic health record; identify reimbursement avenues; educate providers and patients; and maintain a successful program. Learning from early adopters' published experiences and strategies can allow clinicians leading a new pharmacogenetics implementation to avoid pitfalls and adapt and apply lessons learned by others to their own practice.

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 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.

Underrepresented patient views and perceptions of personalized medication treatment through pharmacogenomics

Within an institutional pharmacogenomics implementation program, we surveyed 463 outpatients completing preemptive pharmacogenomic testing whose genetic results were available to providers for guiding medication treatment. We compared views and experiences from self-reported White and Black patients, including education level as a covariate across analyses. Black patients were less confident about whether their providers made personalized treatment decisions, and overwhelmingly wanted a greater role for their genetic information in clinical care. Both groups similarly reported that providers asked their opinions regarding medication changes, but White patients were more likely (59% vs. 49%, P = 0.005) to discuss the impact of personal/genetic makeup on medication response with providers, and Black patients reported initiating such discussions much less frequently (4% vs. 15%, P = 0.037). Opportunities exist for enhanced communication with underrepresented patients around personalized care. Tailored communication strategies and development of support tools employed in diverse healthcare settings may facilitate pharmacogenomically guided medication treatment that equitably benefits minority patient populations.

Delivery of Pharmacogenetic Testing with or without Medication Therapy Management in a Community Pharmacy Setting

Objective

The delivery of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has primarily been through clinical and hospital settings. We conducted a study to explore the feasibility of delivering PGx testing through community pharmacies, a less-studied setting.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomized trial of community pharmacies in North Carolina through two approaches: the provision of PGx testing alone or PGx testing with medication therapy management (MTM).

Results

A total of 150 patient participants were enrolled at 17 pharmacies and reported high satisfaction with their testing experience. Participants in the PGx plus MTM arm were more likely to recall a higher number of results (p=0.04) and more likely to clearly understand their choices for prevention or early detection of side effects (p=0.01). A medication or dose change based on the PGx results was made for 8.7% of participants.

Conclusion

Limited differences were observed in the provision of PGx testing as a standalone test or combined with MTM. A limited number of treatment changes were made based on PGx test results. Patient acceptance of PGx testing offered through the community pharmacy was very high, but the addition of MTM did not impact patient-reported perceptions about PGx testing or medication adherence.

Creation of a pharmacogenomics patient portal complementary to an existing institutional provider-facing clinical decision support system

BACKGROUND

Applied pharmacogenomics presents opportunities for improving patient care through precision medicine, particularly when paired with appropriate clinical decision support (CDS). However, a lack of patient resources for understanding pharmacogenomic test results may hinder shared decision-making and patient confidence in treatment. We sought to create a patient pharmacogenomics education and results delivery platform complementary to a CDS system to facilitate further research on the relevance of patient education to pharmacogenomics.

METHODS

We conceptualized a model that extended the data access layer of an existing institutional CDS tool to allow for the pairing of decision supports offered to providers with patient-oriented summaries at the same level of phenotypic specificity. We built a two-part system consisting of a secure portal for patient use and an administrative dashboard for patient summary creation. The system was built in an ASP.NET and AngularJS architecture, and all data was housed in a HIPAA-compliant data center, with PHI secure in transit and at rest.

RESULTS

The YourPGx Patient Portal was deployed on the institutional network in June 2019. Fifty-eight unique patient portal summaries have been written so far, which can provide over 4500 results modules to the pilot population of 544 patients. Patient behavior on the portal is being logged for further research.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first automated system designed and deployed to provide detailed, personalized patient pharmacogenomics education complementary to a clinical decision support system. Future work will expand upon this system to allow for telemedicine and patient notification of new or updated results.

Patient insights on features of an effective pharmacogenomics patient portal

OBJECTIVES

We built a novel mock pharmacogenomics web portal to deliver pharmacogenomic information and results to patients. Utilizing a patient focus group, we then sought to understand patient insights on desired features of an effective pharmacogenomics patient portal.

METHODS

The mock YourPGx Portal delivered four sample pharmacogenomic results (omeprazole, simvastatin, clopidogrel, and codeine). Patients from our existing institutional, prospective pharmacogenomics implementation study were recruited to pilot the mock portal and then asked to participate in a focus group discussion led by two facilitators. All patients had been previously genotyped, but none had been directly provided access to their own genotyping results and none had previously used the YourPGx portal. The focus group discussion explored nine domains: (1) factors influencing drug response, (2) concerns about drug effects, (3) understanding of genomics and pharmacogenomics, (4) reasons to undergo pharmacogenomic testing, (5) sources of pharmacogenomic information for patient education, (6) attributes of pharmacogenomic sources of information, (7) considerations about privacy and personal pharmacogenomic information, (8) sharing of pharmacogenomic information, and (9) features of an effective patient portal.

RESULTS

The median age of patients (n = 10) was 65.5 years old (range 38-72), 70% female, 50% Caucasian/30% Black, and 60% held a bachelor/advanced degree. When asked about resources for seeking pharmacogenomic information, patients preferred consulting their providers first, followed by self-education, then using information provided by university research organizations. A theme emerged regarding attributes of these sources, namely a desire for understandability and trust. Patients said that the effectiveness of a pharmacogenomics patient portal is improved with use of symbolisms/graphics and clear and concise content. Effective use of colors, quantifying information, consistency, and use of layperson's language were additional important facets. Patients communicated the appeal of secured phone/app-enabled access and said that they would desire linking to their electronic medical records to allow sharing of information with different members of their healthcare team.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients named providers as their primary source of pharmacogenomic information, but a pharmacogenomics patient portal that is carefully constructed to incorporate desired features may be a favorable tool to effectively deliver pharmacogenomic information and results to patients.

Patient Portal Functionalities and Uptake: Systematic Review Protocol

Background

Patient portals are digital health tools adopted by health care organizations. The portals are generally connected to the electronic health record of the health care organization and offer patients functionalities such as access to the medical record, ability to order repeat prescriptions, make appointments, or message the health care provider. Patient portals may be beneficial for both patients and the health care system. Patient portals can widely differ from one context to another due to the differences in the portal functionalities and capabilities and it is anticipated that outcomes associated with the functionalities also differ. Current systematic reviews report outcomes associated with patient portal uptake but do not explicitly specify the patient portal functionalities.

Objective

The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence on health and health care quality outcomes associated with patient portal use among adult (18 years or older) patients. The review research questions are as follows: What kind of health outcomes do tethered patient portals and patient portal functionalities contribute to in adult patients (18 years or older)? and What kind of health care quality outcomes, including health care utilization outcomes, do tethered patient portals and patient portal functionalities contribute to in adult patients (18 years or older)?

Methods

The systematic review will be conducted by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for relevant literature. The review inclusion criteria will be studies about adult patients (18 years or older), studies only about tethered patient portals, and studies with or without a comparator. We will report patient portal–associated health and health care quality outcomes based on the patient portal functionalities. All quantitative primary study types will be included. Risk of bias of included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s quality assessment tools. Data will be synthesized using narrative synthesis and will be reported according to the patient portal functionalities, country, disease, and health care system model.

Results

Searches will be conducted in September 2019, and the review is anticipated to be completed by the end of June 2020.

Conclusions

This systematic review will provide an overview of health and health care quality outcomes associated with patient portal use among adult patients, providing detailed information about the functionalities of the portals and their associations with the outcomes. The review could potentially help patient portal evaluation studies by providing insights into outcomes associated with the different functionalities of patient portals.

Trial Registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42019141131; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=141131

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/14975