Pharmacogenomically actionable medications in a safety net health care system

Clinical implementation of drug metabolizing gene-based therapeutic interventions worldwide

Over the last few years, the field of pharmacogenomics has gained considerable momentum. The advances of new genomics and bioinformatics technologies propelled pharmacogenomics towards its implementation in the clinical setting. Since 2007, and especially the last-5 years, many studies have focused on the clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics while identifying obstacles and proposed strategies and approaches for overcoming them in the real world of primary care as well as outpatients and inpatients clinics. Here, we outline the recent pharmacogenomics clinical implementation projects and provide details of the study designs, including the most predominant and innovative, as well as clinical studies worldwide that focus on outpatients and inpatient clinics, and primary care. According to these studies, pharmacogenomics holds promise for improving patients' health in terms of efficacy and toxicity, as well as in their overall quality of life, while simultaneously can contribute to the minimization of healthcare expenditure.

Assessment of the Implementation of Pharmacogenomic Testing in a Pediatric Tertiary Care Setting

IMPORTANCE

Pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing provides preemptive pharmacotherapeutic guidance regarding the lack of therapeutic benefit or adverse drug reactions of PGx targeted drugs. Pharmacogenomic information is of particular value among children with complex medical conditions who receive multiple medications and are at higher risk of developing adverse drug reactions.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the implementation outcomes of a PGx testing program comprising both a point-of-care model that examined targeted drugs and a preemptive model informed by whole-genome sequencing that evaluated a broad range of drugs for potential therapy among children in a pediatric tertiary care setting.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study was conducted at The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, Ontario, from January 2017 to September 2020. Pharmacogenomic analyses were performed among 172 children who were categorized into 2 groups: a point-of-care cohort and a preemptive cohort. The point-of-care cohort comprised 57 patients referred to the consultation clinic for planned therapy with PGx targeted drugs and/or for adverse drug reactions, including lack of therapeutic benefit, after the receipt of current or past medications. The preemptive cohort comprised 115 patients who received exploratory whole-genome sequencing-guided PGx testing for their heart conditions from the cardiac genome clinic at the Ted Rogers Centre for Heart Research.

EXPOSURES

Patients received PGx analysis of whole-genome sequencing data and/or multiplex genotyping of 6 pharmacogenes (CYP2C19, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, CYP3A5, VKORC1, and TPMT) that have established PGx clinical guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The number of patients for whom PGx test results warranted deviation from standard dosing regimens.

RESULTS

A total of 172 children (mean [SD] age, 8.5 [5.6] years; 108 boys [62.8%]) were enrolled in the study. In the point-of-care cohort, a median of 2 target genes (range, 1-5 genes) were investigated per individual, with CYP2C19 being the most frequently examined; genotypes in 21 of 57 children (36.8%) were incompatible with standard treatment regimens. As expected from population allelic frequencies, among the 115 children in the whole-genome sequencing-guided preemptive cohort, 92 children (80.0%) were recommended to receive nonstandard treatment regimens for potential drug therapies based on their 6-gene pharmacogenetic profile.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, among both the point-of-care and preemptive cohorts, the multiplex PGx testing program provided dosing recommendations that deviated from standard regimens at an overall rate that was similar to the population frequencies of relevant variants.

A model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacogenomic panel testing in cardiovascular disease management: preemptive, reactive, or none?

Purpose

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) studies how inherited genetic variations in individuals affect drug absorption, distribution, and metabolism. PGx panel testing can potentially help improve efficiency and accuracy in individualizing therapy. This study compared the cost-effectiveness between preemptive PGx panel testing, reactive PGx panel testing and usual care (no testing) in cardiovascular disease management.

Methods

We developed a decision analytic model from the US payer’s perspective for a hypothetical cohort of 10,000 patients ≥45 years old, using a short-term decision tree and long-term Markov model. The testing panel included the following gene–drug pairs: CYP2C19–clopidogrel, CYP2C9/VKORC1–warfarin, and SLCO1B1–statins with 30 test-return days. Costs were reported in 2019 US dollars and effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = ΔCost/ΔQALY), assuming 3% discount rate for costs and QALYs. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of demographics, risk level, and follow-up timeframe.

Results

Preemptive testing was found to be cost-effective compared with usual care (ICER $86,227/QALY) at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY while reactive testing was not (ICER $148,726/QALY). Sensitivity analyses suggested that our cost-effectiveness results were sensitive to longer follow-up, and the age group 45–64 years.

Conclusion

Compared with usual care, preemptive PGx panel testing was cost-effective in cardiovascular disease management.

Systematic review of the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment for cardiovascular diseases

PURPOSE

To examine the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomics (PGx) in cardiovascular disease (CVD) care.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review using multiple databases from inception to 2018. The titles and abstracts of cost-effectiveness studies on PGx-guided treatment in CVD care were screened, and full texts were extracted.

RESULTS

We screened 909 studies and included 46 to synthesize. Acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation were the predominantly studied conditions (59%). Most studies (78%) examined warfarin-CYP2C9/VKORC1 or clopidogrel-CYP2C19. A payer's perspective was commonly used (39%) for cost calculations, and most studies (46%) were US-based. The majority (67%) of the studies found PGx testing to be cost-effective in CVD care, but cost-effectiveness varied across drugs and conditions. Two studies examined PGx panel testing, of which one examined pre-emptive testing strategies.

CONCLUSION

We found mixed evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PGx in CVD care. Supportive evidence exists for clopidogrel-CYP2C19 and warfarin-CYP2C9/VKORC1, but evidence is limited in other drug-gene combinations. Gaps persist, including unclear explanation of perspective and cost inputs, underreporting of study design elements critical to economic evaluations, and limited examination of PGx panel and pre-emptive testing for their cost-effectiveness. This review identifies the need for further research on economic evaluations of PGx implementation.

Use of Pharmacogenetic Drugs by the Dutch Population

Introduction

The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) indicated a list of actionable genotypes that affect patients’ response to more 50 drugs; these drugs which show variable effects based on patients’ genetic traits were named as pharmacogenetics (PGX) drugs. Preemptive genetic testing before using these drugs may protect certain patients from serious adverse reactions and could help in avoiding treatment failures. The objectives of this study include identifying the rate of PGX drug usage among Dutch population, estimating the level of users who carry the actionable genotypes and determining the main genes involved in drug’s effect variability.

Methods

Usage of PGX drugs over 2011–2017 by the insured population (an average of 11.4 million) in outpatient clinics in Netherlands was obtained from the publically available GIP databank. The data of 45 drugs were analyzed and their interactions with selected pharmacogenes were estimated. Frequency of actionable genotypes of 249 Dutch parents was obtained from the public database: Genome of Netherlands (GoNL), to identify the pattern of genetic characteristics of Dutch population.

Results

Over a 7 year period, 51.3 million exposures of patients to PGX drugs were reported with an average of 5.3 exposures per each drug user. One quarterof the exposures (12.4 million) are predicted to be experienced by individuals with actionable genotypes (risky exposures). Up to 60% of the risky exposures (around 7.5 million) were related to drugs metabolized by CYP2D6. SLCO1B1, and CYP2C19 were also identified among the top genes affecting response of drugs users (involved in about 22 and 12.4% of the risky exposures, respectively). Cardiovascular medications were the top prescribed PGX drug class (43%), followed by gastroenterology (29%) and psychiatry/neurology medications (15%). Women use more PGX drugs than men (55.8 vs. 44.2%, respectively) with the majority (84%) of users in both sexes are above 45 years.

Conclusion

PGX drugs are commonly used in Netherlands. Preemptive panel testing for CYP2D6, SLCO1B1, and CYP2C19 only could be useful to predict 95% of vulnerable patients’ exposures to PGX drugs. Future studies to assess the economic impact of preemptive panel testing on patients of older age are suggested.

Drug-gene and drug-drug interactions associated with tramadol and codeine therapy in the INGENIOUS trial

Background: Tramadol and codeine are metabolized by CYP2D6 and are subject to drug-gene and drug-drug interactions. Methods: This interim analysis examined prescribing behavior and efficacy in 102 individuals prescribed tramadol or codeine while receiving pharmaco-genotyping as part of the INGENIOUS trial (NCT02297126). Results: Within 60 days of receiving tramadol or codeine, clinicians more frequently prescribed an alternative opioid in ultrarapid and poor metabolizers (odds ratio: 19.0; 95% CI: 2.8-160.4) as compared with normal or indeterminate metabolizers (p = 0.01). After adjusting the CYP2D6 activity score for drug-drug interactions, uncontrolled pain was reported more frequently in individuals with reduced CYP2D6 activity (odds ratio: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.25-0.94). Conclusion: Phenoconversion for drug-drug and drug-gene interactions is an important consideration in pharmacogenomic implementation; drug-drug interactions may obscure the potential benefits of genotyping.

Medication Exposure Patterns in Primary Care Patients Prescribed Pharmacogenetically Actionable Opioids

Current approaches to assessing medication exposure fail to capture the complexity of the phenomenon and the context in which it occurs. This study's purpose was to develop a typology of subgroups of patients who share common patterns of medication exposure. To create the typology, we used an exemplar sample of 30 patients in a large public healthcare system who had been prescribed the pharmacogenetically actionable opioids codeine or tramadol. Data related to medication exposure were drawn from large data repositories. Using a person-oriented qualitative approach, eight subgroups of patients who shared common patterns of medication exposure were identified. The subgroups had one of five opioid prescription patterns (i.e., singular, episodic, switching, sustained, multiplex), and one of three types of primary foci of medical care (i.e., pain, comorbidities, both). The findings reveal medication exposure patterns that are dynamic, multidimensional, and complex, and the typology offers an innovative approach to assessing medication exposure.

Benefit of Preemptive Pharmacogenetic Information on Clinical Outcome

The development of new knowledge around the genetic determinants of variable drug action has naturally raised the question of how this new knowledge can be used to improve the outcome of drug therapy. Two broad approaches have been taken: a point-of-care approach in which genotyping for specific variant(s) is undertaken at the time of drug prescription, and a preemptive approach in which multiple genetic variants are typed in an individual patient and the information archived for later use when a drug with a "pharmacogenetic story" is prescribed. This review addresses the current state of implementation, the rationale for these approaches, and barriers that must be overcome. Benefits to pharmacogenetic testing are only now being defined and will be discussed.

The challenges of implementing pharmacogenomic testing in the clinic

INTRODUCTION

Pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to greatly benefit patients by enabling personalization of medication management, ensuring better efficacy and decreasing the risk of side effects. However, to fully realize the potential of pharmacogenomic testing, there are several important issues that must be addressed. Areas covered: In this expert review we discuss current challenges impacting the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing in the clinical practice. We emphasize issues related to testing methods, reporting of the results, test selection, clinical interpretation of the results, cost-effectiveness, and the long-term use of pharmacogenomic results in clinical practice. We identify opportunities and future directions to facilitate clinical implementation. Expert commentary: Several key elements are necessary to optimally integrate pharmacogenomic testing into clinical practice. Collaborative efforts among laboratories are needed to improve standardization of testing and reporting of the results. Clinicians need educational opportunities to improve understanding of which test to order and how to interpret the results. The electronic health records and other clinical systems need to improve their storage of the pharmacogenomics test results and interoperability to facilitate the use of clinically actionable results to improve patient care.

Damschroder L, Cooper-DeHoff RM, Denny JC, Ginsburg GS, Guan Y, Horowitz CR, Levy KD, Levy MA, Madden EB, Matheny ME, Pollin TI, Pratt VM, Rosenman M, Voils CI, W. Weitzel K, Wilke RA, Ryanne Wu R, Orlando LA. Challenges and strategies for implementing genomic services in diverse settings: experiences from the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) network

BACKGROUND

To realize potential public health benefits from genetic and genomic innovations, understanding how best to implement the innovations into clinical care is important. The objective of this study was to synthesize data on challenges identified by six diverse projects that are part of a National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI)-funded network focused on implementing genomics into practice and strategies to overcome these challenges.

METHODS

We used a multiple-case study approach with each project considered as a case and qualitative methods to elicit and describe themes related to implementation challenges and strategies. We describe challenges and strategies in an implementation framework and typology to enable consistent definitions and cross-case comparisons. Strategies were linked to challenges based on expert review and shared themes.

RESULTS

Three challenges were identified by all six projects, and strategies to address these challenges varied across the projects. One common challenge was to increase the relative priority of integrating genomics within the health system electronic health record (EHR). Four projects used data warehousing techniques to accomplish the integration. The second common challenge was to strengthen clinicians' knowledge and beliefs about genomic medicine. To overcome this challenge, all projects developed educational materials and conducted meetings and outreach focused on genomic education for clinicians. The third challenge was engaging patients in the genomic medicine projects. Strategies to overcome this challenge included use of mass media to spread the word, actively involving patients in implementation (e.g., a patient advisory board), and preparing patients to be active participants in their healthcare decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first collaborative evaluation focusing on the description of genomic medicine innovations implemented in multiple real-world clinical settings. Findings suggest that strategies to facilitate integration of genomic data within existing EHRs and educate stakeholders about the value of genomic services are considered important for effective implementation. Future work could build on these findings to evaluate which strategies are optimal under what conditions. This information will be useful for guiding translation of discoveries to clinical care, which, in turn, can provide data to inform continual improvement of genomic innovations and their applications.

Preemptive Panel-Based Pharmacogenetic Testing: The Time is Now

While recent discoveries have paved the way for the use of genotype-guided prescribing in some clinical environments, significant debate persists among clinicians and researchers about the optimal approach to pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice. One crucial factor in this debate surrounds the timing and methodology of genotyping, specifically whether genotyping should be performed reactively for targeted genes when a single drug is prescribed, or preemptively using a panel-based approach prior to drug prescribing. While early clinical models that employed a preemptive approach were largely developed in academic health centers through multidisciplinary efforts, increasing examples of pharmacogenetic testing are emerging in community-based and primary care practice environments. However, educational and practice-based resources for these clinicians remain largely nonexistent. As such, there is a need for the health care system to shift its focus from debating about preemptive genotyping to developing and disseminating needed resources to equip frontline clinicians for clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics. Providing tools and guidance to support these emerging models of care will be essential to support the thoughtful, evidence-based use of pharmacogenetic information in diverse clinical practice environments. Specifically, the creation of efficient and accurate point-of-care resources, practice-based tools, and clinical models is needed, along with identification and dissemination of sustainable avenues for pharmacogenetic test reimbursement.

Lessons Learned When Introducing Pharmacogenomic Panel Testing into Clinical Practice

OBJECTIVES

Implementing new programs to support precision medicine in clinical settings is a complex endeavor. We describe challenges and potential solutions based on the Indiana GENomics Implementation: an Opportunity for the Underserved (INGenious) program at Eskenazi Health-one of six sites supported by the Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE network grant of the National Institutes of Health/National Human Genome Research Institute. INGenious is an implementation of a panel of genomic tests.

METHODS

We conducted a descriptive case study of the implementation of this pharmacogenomics program, which has a wide scope (14 genes, 27 medications) and a diverse population (patients who often have multiple chronic illnesses, in a large urban safety-net hospital and its outpatient clinics).

CHALLENGES

We placed the clinical pharmacogenomics implementation challenges into six categories: patient education and engagement in care decision making; clinician education and changes in standards of care; integration of technology into electronic health record systems; translational and implementation sciences in real-world clinical environments; regulatory and reimbursement considerations, and challenges in measuring outcomes. A cross-cutting theme was the need for careful attention to workflow. Our clinical setting, a safety-net health care system, presented some distinctive challenges. Patients often had multiple chronic illnesses and sometimes were taking more than one pharmacogenomics-relevant medication. Reaching patients for recruitment or follow-up was another challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

New, large-scale endeavors in health care are challenging. A description of the challenges that we encountered and the approaches that we adopted to address them may provide insights for those who implement and study innovations in other health care systems.

Pharmacogenetic polymorphism as an independent risk factor for frequent hospitalizations in older adults with polypharmacy: a pilot study

Pharmacogenetic testing identifies genetic biomarkers that are predictive of individual sensitivity to particular drugs. A significant proportion of medications that are widely prescribed for older adults are metabolized by enzymes that are encoded by highly polymorphic genes. Pharmacogenetic testing is increasingly used to optimize the medication regimen; however, its potential in older adults with polypharmacy has not been systematically explored. Following the initial case-series study, this study hypothesized that frequently hospitalized older adults with polypharmacy have higher frequency of pharmacogenetic polymorphism as compared to older adults with polypharmacy who are rarely admitted to a hospital. To test this hypothesis, a nested case-control study was conducted with pharmacogenetic polymorphism as an exposure and hospitalization rate as an outcome. In this study, frequently hospitalized older adults (≥65 years of age) with polypharmacy were matched with rarely hospitalized older adults with poly-pharmacy by age, gender, race, ethnicity, and chronic disease score. Average age and number of prescription drugs did not differ in cases and controls (77.2±5.0 and 78.3±5.1 years, 14.3±5.3 and 14.0±2.9 medications, respectively). No statistically significant difference in sociodemographic, clinical, and behavioral characteristics that are known to affect hospitalization risk was found between the cases and controls. Major pharmacogenetic polymorphism defined as presence of at least one allelic combination resulting in poor or rapid metabolizer status was identified in all the cases. No major pharmacogenetic polymorphisms were detected in controls. Based on the exact McNemar's test, the difference in major pharmacogenetic polymorphism frequency between cases and controls was statistically significant (p<0.05). In 50% of cases, more than one major pharmacogenetic polymorphism was found. The frequency of CYP2C19 rapid metabolizer, CYP3A4/5 poor metabolizer, VKORC1 low sensitivity, and CYP2D6 rapid metabolizer status in cases was 67%, 33%, 33%, and 17%, respectively, which significantly exceeded respective prevalence in general population. The mean number of major gene-drug interactions found in cases was 2.8±2.2, whereas no major drug-gene interactions were identified in controls. The difference in the number of major drug-gene interactions between cases and controls was statistically significant (p<0.05). The pilot data supported the hypothesis that pharmacogenetic polymorphism may represent an independent risk factor for frequent hospitalizations in older adults with polypharmacy. Due to small sample size, the results of this proof-of-concept study cannot be conclusive. Further work on the utility of pharmacogenetic testing for optimization of medication regimens in this vulnerable group of older adults is warranted.

Patient experiences with pharmacogenetic testing in a primary care setting

AIM

To investigate patient experiences with pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing.

METHODS

Patients were offered PGx testing through a study on pharmacist-assisted delivery of PGx testing and invited to complete pre- and post-testing surveys about their experience.

RESULTS

Of 63 patients tested, 17 completed the baseline survey (27%). Interest in testing was mostly impacted by desire to inform selection of best treatment (n = 13). Seven of 12 patients that completed the follow-up survey indicated that their provider discussed the test result with them. Five patients understood their test result very or somewhat well. All would be likely to have PGx testing again.

CONCLUSION

Patients perceived PGx testing to be useful, though more effort may be needed to improve patient-provider communication of test results.