Similarities and differences between US and Japan as to pharmacogenomic biomarker information in drug labels

Pharmacogenomic biomarker information on drug labels of the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Sanitary products: evaluation and comparison with other regulatory agencies

This work aimed to analyse the pharmacogenetic information in the Spanish Drug Regulatory Agency (AEMPS) Summary of Products Characteristics (SmPC), evaluating the presence of pharmacogenetic biomarkers, as well as the associated recommendations. A total of 55.4% of the 1891 drug labels reviewed included information on pharmacogenetic biomarker(s). Pharmacogenomic information appears most frequently in the "antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents", "nervous system", and "cardiovascular system" Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical groups. A total of 509 different pharmacogenetic biomarkers were found, of which CYP450 enzymes accounted for almost 34% of the total drug-biomarker associations evaluated. A total of 3679 drug-biomarker pairs were identified, 102 of which were at the 1A level (PharmGKB® classification system), and 33.33% of these drug-pharmacogenetic biomarker pairs were assigned to "actionable PGx", 12.75% to "informative PGx", 4.9% to "testing recommended", and 4.9% to "testing required". The rate of coincidence in the assigned PGx level of recommendation between the AEMPS and regulatory agencies included in the PharmGKB® Drug Label Annotations database (i.e., the FDA, EMA, SWISS Medic, PMDA, and HCSC) ranged from 45% to 65%, being 'actionable level' the most frequent. On the other hand, discrepancies between agencies did not exceed 35%. This study highlights the presence of relevant pharmacogenetic information on Spanish drug labels, which would help avoid interactions, toxicity, or lack of treatment efficacy.

Gene-drug pairings for antidepressants and antipsychotics: level of evidence and clinical application

Substantial inter-individual discrepancies exist in both therapeutic effectiveness and adverse effects of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications, which can, in part, be explained by genetic variation. Here, we searched the Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base for gene-antidepressant and gene-antipsychotic pairs with the highest level of evidence. We then extracted and compared the associated prescribing recommendations for these pairs developed by the Clinical Pharmacogenomics Implementation Consortium, the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group or approved product labels in the US, Canada, Europe, and Asia. Finally, we highlight key economical, educational, regulatory, and ethical issues that, if not appropriately considered, can hinder the implementation of these recommendations in clinical practice. Our review indicates that evidence-based guidelines are available to assist with the implementation of pharmacogenetic-guided antidepressant and antipsychotic prescribing, although the maximum impact of these guidelines on patient care will not be realized until key barriers are minimized or eliminated.

Pharmacogenetic information in Swiss drug labels - a systematic analysis

Implementation of pharmacogenetics (PGx) and individualization of drug therapy is supposed to obviate adverse drug reactions or therapy failure. Health care professionals (HCPs) use drug labels (DLs) as reliable information about drugs. We analyzed the Swiss DLs to give an overview on the currently available PGx instructions. We screened 4306 DLs applying natural language processing focusing on drug metabolism (pharmacokinetics) and we assigned PGx levels following the classification system of PharmGKB. From 5979 hits, 2564 were classified as PGx-relevant affecting 167 substances. 55% (n = 93) were classified as "actionable PGx". Frequently, PGx information appeared in the pharmacokinetics section and in DLs of the anatomic group "nervous system". Unstandardized wording, appearance of PGx information in different sections and unclear instructions challenge HCPs to identify and interpret PGx information and translate it into practice. HCPs need harmonization and standardization of PGx information in DLs to personalize drug therapies and tailor pharmaceutical care.

Pharmacogenomic biomarker information differences between drug labels in the United States and Hungary: implementation from medical practitioner view

Pharmacogenomic biomarker availability of Hungarian Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPC) was assembled and compared with the information in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug labels of the same active substance (July 2019). The level of action of these biomarkers was assessed from The Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase database. From the identified 264 FDA approved drugs with pharmacogenomic biomarkers in drug label, 195 are available in Hungary. From them, 165 drugs include pharmacogenomic data disposing 222 biomarkers. Most of them are metabolizing enzymes (46%) and pharmacological targets (41%). The most frequent therapeutic area is oncology (37%), followed by infectious diseases (12%) and psychiatry (9%) (p < 0.00001). Most common biomarkers in Hungarian SmPCs are CYP2D6, CYP2C19, estrogen and progesterone hormone receptor (ESR, PGS). Importantly, US labels present more specific pharmacogenomic subheadings, the level of action has a different prominence, and offer more applicable dose modifications than Hungarians (5% vs 3%). However, Hungarian SmPCs are at 9 oncology drugs stricter than FDA, testing is obligatory before treatment. Out of the biomarkers available in US drug labels, 62 are missing completely from Hungarian SmPCs (p < 0.00001). Most of these belong to oncology (42%) and in case of 11% of missing biomarkers testing is required before treatment. In conclusion, more factual, clear, clinically relevant pharmacogenomic information in Hungarian SmPCs would reinforce implementation of pharmacogenetics. Underpinning future perspective is to support regulatory stakeholders to enhance inclusion of pharmacogenomic biomarkers into Hungarian drug labels and consequently enhance personalized medicine in Hungary.

Pharmacogenetics and drug metabolism: historical perspective and appraisal

The events leading up to the discovery of genetically controlled polymorphic metabolism of xenobiotics and pharmaceutical chemicals are briefly summarised with the salient historical features being emphasised. Especial attention has been given to seminal works in the then emerging field.The evolving knowledge of such polymorphic metabolism and its role in the quest for personalised medicine and the individualisation of patient drug therapy are appraised. Opinion is offered as to whether or not the full potential has been exploited and if the practical application of this information may be regarded as a success or failure within the present clinical arena.

Clarifying the Discussion Points in New Drug Application Reviews for Approval in Japan by a Government Advisory Council

BACKGROUND

In Japan, the Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food Sanitation Council (PAFSC) of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare conducts discussions during the final stages of drug application reviews based on reports from the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Any disagreements or points of contention raised during these discussions can result in delays to drug approval. It is therefore important to characterize the points of discussion in the PAFSC meetings to optimize the process and enable more efficient drug approval reviews in Japan.

METHODS

We investigated the recorded minutes of PAFSC meetings concerning 229 drug applications (comprising 164 new drug applications and 65 supplemental applications) between fiscal years 2012 and 2014. The discussion points were characterized according to their main topics, and the frequency of each topic was examined.

RESULTS

Clinical trials were the most frequent topic of discussion. Issues concerning package inserts were also prominent because many required reconsiderations and follow-up after council meetings. In particular, additional precautions and further clarification regarding drug indications and dosage were major points for reconsideration and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The review process may be improved if the points identified in this study are taken into consideration during the drug review process by the PMDA.

Reviewing drug package inserts available in United Arab Emirates for USFDA recommended pharmacogenomic information

Pharmacogenomics aims to characterize the contribution of genetic polymorphisms to variability in therapeutic response and toxicity. The USFDA has issued a list of drugs which exhibit polymorphism and relevant sections in the package inserts for providing pharmacogenomic information and their biomarkers to reduce the risk of drug toxicity. A total of 67 Package inserts of 41 drugs in 5 therapeutic areas, available in UAE under various brand names, were thoroughly reviewed for direct and indirect pharmacogenomic information and compared with FDA recommendations. It was observed that only 26 package inserts of 17 drugs (41%) prescribed provided direct genetic evidence and information on the type of polymorphism influencing drug efficacy and toxicity. Indirect indicators describing genetic variation in metabolizing enzyme activity was present in 20 inserts (30%)., It was concluded that incorporating the necessary pharmacogenomic information, as recommended by the USFDA, in the package inserts of drugs available in UAE will help in enhancing drug efficacy, safety and awareness among the physicians, pharmacists and patients.

Differences between the United States and Japan in labels of oncological drugs

PURPOSE

Our study addresses how the information in the labels differed between United States (US) and Japan, what factors were associated with the decision to place the boxed warning on the label, and the relation of both countries in terms of drug label policy.

METHODS

We investigated adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in boxed warnings for 44 oncological drug labels approved from 2004 to 2014 in both Japan and the US. We applied conditional logistic regression to examine how likely it was for each ADR to be included in a boxed warning.

RESULTS

There were substantial differences in all sections of the labels. The concordance rate between US and Japanese labels was 44.1% for serious adverse reactions and 30.5% for boxed warnings. Our regression analysis indicated that deaths and/or terminations related to specific ADRs reported in clinical trials were significantly associated with inclusion of the ADR in boxed warnings in Japan, but not in the US. The boxed warnings of similar drugs seemed to affect those of follow-on drugs in both countries. US drug labels were likely to influence Japanese labels, but not vice versa.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the observed differences are not solely due to differences in clinical outcomes between the two countries, but rather due to differences in regulatory considerations and historical factors in both local and global contexts. Further research is needed to examine the impact of these differences on public health and to determine how and to what extent we should intervene with this status quo. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Comparing cytochrome P450 pharmacogenetic information available on United States drug labels and European Union Summaries of Product Characteristics

Regulatory agencies are increasing the pharmacogenomic information in their official drug labeling. However, despite the importance of regulatory harmonization, this implementation may not be running in parallel among major agencies. Comparing labeling of medicines approved by different agencies may identify gaps to solve. Our study compared the cytochrome P450 pharmacogenetic information included in the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug labels and European Union (EU) Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs). US labels presented significantly more specific pharmacogenetic subheadings (51 vs 26%), more prevalence and pharmacokinetic data for each metabolic phenotype (59 vs 25% and 82 vs 48%, respectively) and more applicable information about dose modifications required (25 vs 5%). Approximately 75% of the US labels evaluated scored higher on the overall quality than the analogous EU SmPCs, and this difference was not associated with the time since the EU SmPCs' last review. To enhance harmonization, regulatory agencies should simultaneously introduce the pharmacogenetic information in their drug labeling.

Health regulatory communications of well-established safety-related pharmacogenomics associations in six developed countries: an evaluation of alignment

Recommendations on genetic testing are typically conveyed by drug regulatory authorities through drug labels, which are legal requirements for market authorization of drugs. We conducted a cross-sectional study of drug labels focusing on three crucial aspects of regulatory pharmacogenomics communications: (i) intent; (ii) interpretation in the local context; and (iii) implications of the genetic information. Labels of drugs associated with well-established safety-related genetic markers for adverse drug reactions across six developed countries of United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were reviewed. We found differing medical advice for genotype-positive HLA-B*15:02, HLA-A*31:01, UGT1A1*28 and CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolisers in breastfeeding women. This raises questions on implications to clinical practice between these countries. Varying ways of presenting at-risk population and allele frequencies also raises question in incorporating such information in drug labels. An international guidance addressing these crucial aspects of regulatory pharmacogenomic communications in drug labels is long overdue.

A Critical Evaluation of Pharmacogenetic Information in Package Inserts for Selected Drugs Marketed in India and Its Comparison With US FDA-Approved Package Inserts

Our objective was to compare the pharmacogenetic information provided in the package inserts (PIs) of 7 drugs marketed in the United States and India, namely, abacavir, capecitabine, carbamazepine, clopidogrel, irinotecan, valproic acid, and warfarin. We evaluated the pharmacogenetic information provided in Indian PIs for the highest level where it was included, robustness and completeness, clinical validity, and clinical utility and compared it with corresponding data of US PIs. Pharmacogenetic studies carried out in India were identified using PubMed. Pharmacogenetic information was provided in Indian PIs of all the drugs except irinotecan. It appeared in the same section as in US PIs for abacavir, capecitabine, carbamazepine (HLA-*3101), valproic acid (urea cycle disorders), and warfarin (protein C and protein S), whereas it appeared at lower levels for other drug-gene combinations. The robustness of pharmacogenetic testing was graded convincing for abacavir, adequate for carbamazepine and clopidogrel, and incomplete for the remaining drugs, and only abacavir and clopidogrel PIs provided full details of supporting studies. These details, when provided in the Indian PIs were identical to those in the US PIs. The Indian PIs did not provide data on Indian patients, although published studies are available. Both US and Indian PIs lacked critical information on the clinical validity and utility of pharmacogenetic testing. The pharmacogenetic information should provide country/ethnicity-specific data so that they are useful to clinicians. Where data are not available, the prevalence of genetic variation in the population of a country needs to be determined and should then be translated to the PIs.

Pharmacogenetic information for patients on drug labels

Advances in pharmacogenetic research have improved our understanding of adverse drug responses and have led to the development of pharmacogenetic tests and targeted drugs. However, the extent of the communication process and provision of information to patients about pharmacogenetics is unclear. Pharmacogenetic information may be included in sections of a drug's package insert intended for patients, which is provided directly to patients or communicated via the health provider. To determine what pharmacogenetic information, if any, is included in patient-targeted sections of the drug label, we reviewed the labels listed in the US Food and Drug Administration's Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels. To date, 140 drugs include pharmacogenetic-related information in the approved label. Our analysis revealed that pharmacogenetic information is included in patient-targeted sections for a minority (n=29; 21%) of drug labels, with no obvious pattern associated with the inclusion of pharmacogenetic information. Therefore, patients are unlikely to learn about pharmacogenetics through written materials dispensed with the drug. Given that there are also inconsistencies with regard to inclusion of pharmacogenetic information in the patient counseling information section, it is also unlikely that patients are receiving adequate pharmacogenetic information from their provider. The inconsistent presence of pharmacogenetic information in patient-targeted sections of drug labels suggests a need to review the criteria for inclusion of information in patient-targeted sections in order to increase consistency and patient knowledge of pharmacogenetic information.

Global development strategy for companion diagnostics based on the usage and approval history for biomarkers in Japan, the USA and the EU

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify gaps between Japan and the West in biomarker usage and the development of companion diagnostics. We also elaborated potential scenarios for companion diagnostic development.

METHODS

Information on drug labels in Japan, the USA and the EU was obtained from each regulatory authority's web site, as well as label information on in vitro diagnostic testing in Japan and the USA.

RESULTS

It is necessary to consider two factors when developing companion diagnostics globally: ethnic differences in gene mutations, and the approach to patient selection in clinical trials. A flowchart covering four scenarios was developed.

CONCLUSION

Two factors that should be taken account when developing companion diagnostics globally was specified. This flowchart is expected to serve as a guide for streaming the development of companion diagnostics.

Pharmacogenetics and cardiovascular disease--implications for personalized medicine

The past decade has seen tremendous advances in our understanding of the genetic factors influencing response to a variety of drugs, including those targeted at treatment of cardiovascular diseases. In the case of clopidogrel, warfarin, and statins, the literature has become sufficiently strong that guidelines are now available describing the use of genetic information to guide treatment with these therapies, and some health centers are using this information in the care of their patients. There are many challenges in moving from research data to translation to practice; we discuss some of these barriers and the approaches some health systems are taking to overcome them. The body of literature that has led to the clinical implementation of CYP2C19 genotyping for clopidogrel, VKORC1, CYP2C9; and CYP4F2 for warfarin; and SLCO1B1 for statins is comprehensively described. We also provide clarity for other genes that have been extensively studied relative to these drugs, but for which the data are conflicting. Finally, we comment briefly on pharmacogenetics of other cardiovascular drugs and highlight β-blockers as the drug class with strong data that has not yet seen clinical implementation. It is anticipated that genetic information will increasingly be available on patients, and it is important to identify those examples where the evidence is sufficiently robust and predictive to use genetic information to guide clinical decisions. The review herein provides several examples of the accumulation of evidence and eventual clinical translation in cardiovascular pharmacogenetics.

Personalized medicine: is it a pharmacogenetic mirage?

The notion of personalized medicine has developed from the application of the discipline of pharmacogenetics to clinical medicine. Although the clinical relevance of genetically-determined inter-individual differences in pharmacokinetics is poorly understood, and the genotype-phenotype association data on clinical outcomes often inconsistent, officially approved drug labels frequently include pharmacogenetic information concerning the safety and/or efficacy of a number of drugs and refer to the availability of the pharmacogenetic test concerned. Regulatory authorities differ in their approach to these issues. Evidence emerging subsequently has generally revealed the pharmacogenetic information included in the label to be premature. Revised drugs labels, together with a flurry of other collateral activities, have raised public expectations of personalized medicine, promoted as 'the right drug at the right dose the first time.' These expectations place the prescribing physician in a dilemma and at risk of litigation, especially when evidence-based information on genotype-related dosing schedules is to all intent and purposes non-existent and guidelines, intended to improve the clinical utility of available pharmacogenetic information or tests, distance themselves from any responsibility. Lack of efficacy or an adverse drug reaction is frequently related to non-genetic factors. Phenoconversion, arising from drug interactions, poses another often neglected challenge to any potential success of personalized medicine by mimicking genetically-determined enzyme deficiency. A more realistic promotion of personalized medicine should acknowledge current limitations and emphasize that pharmacogenetic testing can only improve the likelihood of diminishing a specific toxic effect or increasing the likelihood of a beneficial effect and that application of pharmacogenetics to clinical medicine cannot adequately predict drug response in individual patients.

Regulatory perspective on remaining challenges for utilization of pharmacogenomics-guided drug developments

Pharmacogenomics-guided drug development has been implemented in practice in the last decade, resulting in increased labeling of drugs with pharmacogenomic information. However, there are still many challenges remaining in utilizing this process. Here, we describe such remaining challenges from the regulatory perspective, specifically focusing on sample collection, biomarker qualification, ethnic factors, codevelopment of companion diagnostics and means to provide drugs for off-target patients. To improve the situation, it is important to strengthen international harmonization and collaboration among academia, industries and regulatory agencies, followed by the establishment of an international guideline on this topic. Communication with a regulatory agency from an early stage of drug development is also a key to success.

Blood-direct InvaderPlus® as a new method for genetic testing

Aim: This study compared the efficiency of Blood-direct InvaderPlus® with existing methods for detecting genetic polymorphisms by using clinical samples, and to determine whether this new method can be used for future clinical studies. Materials & methods: We developed a new method, called Blood-direct InvaderPlus, for detecting genetic polymorphisms. Whole-blood samples were subjected to genetic analysis with the new method and also the conventional method. Results: The results obtained with the new method were consistent with those of direct sequencing. Blood-direct InvaderPlus was able to detect gene polymorphisms of UGT1A1*6, *27, *28, *60, VKORC1 -1639G>A, VKORC1 1173T>C and CYP2C9 *2 and *3 much faster than the conventional methods. Conclusion: Blood-direct InvaderPlus allowed accurate, simple and rapid detection of genetic polymorphisms.