Implementing pharmacogenetic testing in rural primary care practices: a pilot feasibility study

Improving prescribing: a feasibility study of pharmacogenetic testing with clinical decision support in primary healthcare in Singapore

BACKGROUND

The study of genetic variation as a factor influencing drug safety, efficacy, and effectiveness has brought about significant breakthroughs in understanding the clinical application of gene-drug interactions to better manage drug therapy.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to assess the feasibility of collecting buccal samples by general practitioners (GPs) at private practices in Singapore within a usual consultation, incorporating use of a pharmacogenetics-based medical decision support system to guide subsequent drug dosing.

METHODS

We used a prospective cohort study design, with GPs recruiting 189 patients between October 2020 and March 2021. The genotypes of 51 biallelic SNPs were determined using Illumina Infinium Global Screening Array.

RESULTS

Seven GPs from 6 private practices recruited and obtained buccal samples from a total of 189 patients. All patients had at least one actionable variant. The prevalence of patients having 2, 3, or 4 variants was 37.0%, 32.8%, and 12.7%, respectively. Potential alterations to medications were identified using the Clinical Decision Support System. Patients were accepting and the GPs were enthusiastic about the potential of pharmacogenetics to personalize medicine for their patients.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study in Singapore to demonstrate the feasibility of pharmacogenetic testing in primary care. The high prevalence of genetic variants underscores the potential use of pharmacogenetics in this setting.

Current published evidence on barriers and proposed strategies for genetic testing implementation in health care settings: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

The slow uptake of genetic testing in routine clinical practice warrants the attention of researchers and practitioners to find effective strategies to facilitate implementation.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify the barriers to and strategies for pharmacogenetic testing implementation in a health care setting from published literature.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted in August 2021 with an expanded literature search using Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, and Google Scholar to identify studies reporting implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in a health care setting, from a health care system's perspective. Articles were screened using DistillerSR and findings were organized using the 5 major domains of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

A total of 3536 unique articles were retrieved from the above sources, with only 253 articles retained after title and abstract screening. Upon screening the full texts, 57 articles (representing 46 unique practice sites) were found matching the inclusion criteria. We found that most reported barriers and their associated strategies to the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing surrounded 2 CFIR domains: intervention characteristics and inner settings. Factors relating to cost and reimbursement were described as major barriers in the intervention characteristics. In the same domain, another major barrier was the lack of utility studies to provide evidence for genetic testing uptake. Technical hurdles, such as integrating genetic information to medical records, were identified as an inner settings barrier. Collaborations and lessons from early implementers could be useful strategies to overcome majority of the barriers across different health care settings. Strategies proposed by the included implementation studies to overcome these barriers are summarized and can be used as guidance in future.

CONCLUSION

Barriers and strategies identified in this scoping review can provide implementation guidance for practice sites that are interested in implementing genetic testing.

Addressing disparities in pharmacogenomics through rural and underserved workforce education

Introduction: While pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing is routine in urban healthcare institutions or academic health centers with access to existing expertise, uptake in medically-underserved areas is lagging. The primary objective of this workforce education program is to extend access to didactic, case-based and clinical PGx training for pharmacists serving rural Minnesota and populations experiencing health disparities in Minnesota. Methods: A PGx workforce training program funded through the Minnesota Department of Health was offered through the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy (COP) to pharmacists working in rural and/or underserved areas in the state of Minnesota. Learning activities included a 16-week, asynchronous PGx didactic course covering PGx topics, a 15-min recorded presentation, an in-person PGx case-based workshop, and a live international PGx Conference hosted by the University of Minnesota COP and attendance at our PGx Extension of Community Health Outcomes (ECHO). Results: Twenty-nine pharmacists applied for the initial year of the program, with 12 (41%) being accepted. Four (33%) practiced in a hospital setting, four (33%) in retail pharmacy, two (17%) in managed care, and two (17%) in other areas. The majority had not implemented a PGx program as part of their practice, although nearly all responded definitely or probably yes when asked if they expected their organization to increase its use of PGx testing services over the next three years. All participants either strongly or somewhat agreed that this program helped them identify how and where to access clinical PGx guidelines and literature and improved their ability to read and interpret PGx test results. Eight participants (67%) strongly or somewhat agreed that they expected to increase the number of PGx consultations in their practice, while ten (83%) strongly or somewhat agreed they would be able to apply what they learned in this program to their practice in the next six months to a year. Discussion: This novel PGx training program focused exclusively on pharmacists in rural and/or underserved areas with a delivery method that could be accomplished conveniently and remotely. Although most participants' organizations had yet to implement PGx testing routinely, most anticipated this to change in the next few years.

Genotyping genetic variants of CYP2C19 for precision antiplatelet dosing: state of the art and future perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Clopidogrel is the only antiplatelet agent whose activity is significantly affected by CYP2C19 polymorphism.

AREAS COVERED

This review has summarized the available evidence on the clinically significant association between CYP2C19 polymorphism and clopidogrel-based therapy; reviewed the current recommendations for clinical use of CYP2C19 genotype test results in patients on clopidogrel treatment; and discussed possible pitfalls of routine application, and future perspectives of antiplatelets pharmacogenetics.

EXPERT OPINION

The available body of evidence, reflected in several meta-analyses and high-quality clinical practice guidelines, shows that the presence of CYP2C19 LOF alleles, especially CYP2C19*2, correlates with impaired activation of clopidogrel and variable platelet inhibition, followed by minimal or no antiplatelet effect, and higher risk of treatment failure. In combination with other known risk factors, CYP2C19 genetic testing could be very valuable in predicting low clopidogrel efficacy. At the same time, it could be very successful in selecting patients who will most probably benefit from the clopidogrel-based therapy, thus decreasing the pool of those who might need more expensive and otherwise riskier antiplatelet alternatives.

General practitioners' (GPs) experience, attitudes and needs on clinical genetic services: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The proliferation and growing demands of genetic testing are anticipated to revolutionise medical practice. As gatekeepers of healthcare systems, general practitioners (GPs) are expected to play a critical role in the provision of clinical genetic services. This paper aims to review existing literature on GPs' experience, attitudes and needs towards clinical genetic services.

DESIGN

A systematic mixed studies review of papers published between 2010 and 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

The inclusion criterion was peer-reviewed articles in English and related to GPs' experience, views and needs on any genetic testing.

INFORMATION SOURCES

The PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane, EMBASE databases were searched using Mesh terms, Boolean and wildcards combinations to identify peer-reviewed articles published from 2010 to 2022. Study quality was assessed using Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Only articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were selected. A thematic meta-synthesis was conducted on the final sample of selected articles to identify key themes.

RESULTS

A total of 62 articles were included in the review. Uncertainty over GPs' role in providing genetic services were attributed by the lack of confidence and time constraints and rarity of cases may further exacerbate their reluctance to shoulder an expanded role in clinical genetics. Although educational interventions were found to increasing GPs' knowledge and confidence to carry out genetic tasks, varied interest on genetic testing and preference for a shared care model with other genetic health professionals have resulted in minimal translation to clinical adoption.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the need for deeper exploration of GPs' varied experience and attitudes towards clinical genetic services to better facilitate targeted intervention in the adoption of clinical genetics.

A Theory-Informed Systematic Review of Barriers and Enablers to Implementing Multi-Drug Pharmacogenomic Testing

PGx testing requires a complex set of activities undertaken by practitioners and patients, resulting in varying implementation success. This systematic review aimed (PROSPERO: CRD42019150940) to identify barriers and enablers to practitioners and patients implementing pharmacogenomic testing. We followed PRISMA guidelines to conduct and report this review. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and PubMed Central were systematically searched from inception to June 2022. The theoretical domain framework (TDF) guided the organisation and reporting of barriers or enablers relating to pharmacogenomic testing activities. From the twenty-five eligible reports, eleven activities were described relating to four implementation stages: ordering, facilitating, interpreting, and applying pharmacogenomic testing. Four themes were identified across the implementation stages: IT infrastructure, effort, rewards, and unknown territory. Barriers were most consistently mapped to TDF domains: memory, attention and decision-making processes, environmental context and resources, and belief about consequences.

Ensuring equity: Pharmacogenetic implementation in rural and tribal communities

Implementation strategies for pharmacogenetic testing have been largely limited to major academic medical centers and large health systems, threatening to exacerbate healthcare disparities for rural and tribal populations. There exists a need in Montana (United States)—a state where two-thirds of the population live in rural areas and with a large proportion of tribal residents—to develop novel strategies to make pharmacogenetic testing more broadly available. We established partnerships between University of Montana (UM) and three early adopter sites providing patient-centered care to historically neglected populations. We conducted 45 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders at each site and solicited participant feedback on the utility of a centralized pharmacogenetic service at UM offering consultations to patients and providers statewide via telehealth. For settings serving rural patients—tribal and non-tribal—participants described healthcare facilities without adequate infrastructure, personnel, and funding to implement pharmacogenetic services. Participants serving tribal communities stressed the need for ethical practices for collecting biospecimens and returning genetic results to patients, largely due to historical and contemporary traumas experienced by tribal populations with regard to genetic research. Participants expressed that pharmacogenetic testing could benefit patients by achieving therapeutic benefit sooner, reducing the risk of side effects, and improving adherence outcomes for patients with limited access to follow-up services in remote areas. Others expressed concern that financial barriers to pharmacogenetic testing for patients of lower socioeconomic status would further exacerbate inequities in care. Participants valued the role of telehealth to deliver pharmacogenetic consults from a centralized service at UM, describing the ability to connect providers and patients to resources and expertise as imperative to driving successful pharmacogenetic implementation. Our results support strategies to improve access to pharmacogenetic testing for neglected patient populations and create opportunities to reduce existing healthcare inequities. By exploring critical challenges for pharmacogenetic implementation focused on serving underserved communities, this work can help guide equitable frameworks to serve as a model for other resource-limited settings looking to initiate pharmacogenetic testing.

A Mixed-Methods Protocol to Identify Best Practices for Implementing Pharmacogenetic Testing in Clinical Settings

Using a patient’s genetic information to inform medication prescriptions can be clinically effective; however, the practice has not been widely implemented. Health systems need guidance on how to engage with providers to improve pharmacogenetic test utilization. Approaches from the field of implementation science may shed light on the complex factors affecting pharmacogenetic test use in real-world settings and areas to target to improve utilization. This paper presents an approach to studying the application of precision medicine that utilizes mixed qualitative and quantitative methods and implementation science frameworks to understand which factors or combinations consistently account for high versus low utilization of pharmocogenetic testing. This approach involves two phases: (1) collection of qualitative and quantitative data from providers—the cases—at four clinical institutions about their experiences with, and utilization of, pharmacogenetic testing to identify salient factors; and (2) analysis using a Configurational Comparative Method (CCM), using a mathematical algorithm to identify the minimally necessary and sufficient factors that distinguish providers who have higher utilization from those with low utilization. Advantages of this approach are that it can be used for small to moderate sample sizes, and it accounts for conditions found in real-world settings by demonstrating how they coincide to affect utilization.

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.

Understanding the barriers and enablers of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care: a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis

Introduction: Pharmacogenomic testing can indicate which drugs may have limited therapeutic action or lead to adverse effects, hence guiding rational and safe prescribing. However, in the UK and other countries, there are still significant barriers to implementation of testing in primary care. Objective: This systematic review presents the barriers and enablers to the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care setting. Materials & methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched through to July 2020 for studies that reported primary qualitative data of primary care professionals and patient views. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, data synthesis was undertaken using meta-aggregation based on the theoretical domain's framework (TDF). Confidence in the synthesized findings relating to credibility and dependability was established using CONQual. Eligible papers were categorized into six TDF domains - knowledge; social and professional roles; behavioral regulation; beliefs and consequences; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Results: From 1669 citations, eighteen eligible studies were identified across seven countries, with a sample size of 504 participants including both primary care professionals and patients. From the data, 15 synthesized statements, all with moderate CONQual rating emerged. These categories range from knowledge, awareness among Primary Care Physicians and patients, professional relationships, negative impact of PGx, belief that PGx can reduce adverse drug reactions, clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, informatics, reporting issues and social issues. Conclusion: Through use of TDF, fifteen synthesized statements provide policymakers with valuable recommendations for the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care. In preparation, policymakers need to consider the introduction of effective educational strategies for both PCPs and patients to raise knowledge, awareness, and engagement. The actual introduction of PGx will require reorganization with decision support tools to aid use of PGx in primary care, with a clear delegation of roles and responsibilities between general professionals and pharmacists supplemented by a local pool of experts. Furthermore, policy makers need to address the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics and having appropriate infrastructure supporting testing and interpretation including informatic solutions for utilizing pharmacogenomic results.

Pharmacogenomic testing to support prescribing in primary care: a structured review of implementation models

The application of pharmacogenomics could meaningfully contribute toward medicines optimization within primary care. This review identified 13 studies describing eight implementation models utilizing a multi-gene pharmacogenomic panel within a primary care or community setting. These were small feasibility studies (n <200). They demonstrated importance and feasibility of pre-test counseling, the role of the pharmacist, data integration into the electronic medical record and point-of-care clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Findings were considered alongside existing primary care prescribing practices and implementation frameworks to demonstrate how issues may be addressed by existing nationalized healthcare and primary care infrastructure. Development of point-of-care CDSS should be prioritized; establishing clinical leadership, education programs, defining practitioner roles and responsibilities and addressing commissioning issues will also be crucial.

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

PURPOSE

Barriers to the implementation of pharmacogenomics in clinical practice have been thoroughly discussed over the past decade.

METHODS

The objective of this scoping review was to characterize the peer-reviewed literature surrounding the experiences and actions of prescribers, pharmacists, or genetic counselors when using pharmacogenomic information in real-world or hypothetical research settings.

RESULTS

A total of 33 studies were included in the scoping review. The majority of studies were conducted in the United States (70%), used quantitative or mixed methods (79%) with physician or pharmacist respondents (100%). The qualitative content analysis revealed five major methodological approaches: hypothetical clinical case scenarios, real-world studies evaluating prescriber response to recommendations or alerts, cross-sectional quantitative surveys, cross-sectional qualitative surveys/interviews, and a quasi-experimental real-world study.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this scoping review can guide further research on the factors needed to successfully integrate pharmacogenomics into clinical care.

North Carolina's multi-institutional pharmacogenomics efforts with the North Carolina Precision Health Collaborative

The North Carolina Precision Health Collaborative is an interdisciplinary, public-private consortium of precision health experts who strategically align statewide resources and strengths to elevate precision health in the state and beyond. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is a key area of focus for the North Carolina Precision Health Collaborative. Experts from Atrium Health's Levine Cancer Institute, Duke University/Duke Health System, Mission Health and the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill/UNC Health System have collaborated since 2017 to implement strategic PGx initiatives, including basic sciences research, translational research and clinical implementation of germline testing into practice and policy. This institutional profile highlights major PGx programs and initiatives across these organizations and how the collaborative is working together to advance PGx science and implementation.

Costing Methods as a Means to Measure the Costs of Pharmacogenomics Testing

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine interventions relies on addressing important financial aspects of the delivery of genetic testing to the patients, be it from public or private providers. Details on how to determine the cost items of the genetic testing are often limited. The goal of this study is to present a costing methodology in order to estimate and measure the costs as far as the technical process of pharmacogenomics testing is concerned. Moreover, an overall cost mindset strategy based on the selective genotyping workflow to guide specialized laboratories of interest effectively is provided. We particularly accounted for the resources consumed within the laboratory premises such as cost of reagents for DNA isolation, cost of consumables, cost of personnel, while costs associated with patient recruitment, blood sample collection and maintenance, administration costs in the hospital, and costs of blood sample shipment were not taken into consideration. Our article presents the first-time detailed information on a costing framework for pharmacogenomic testing that could be employed to laboratories involved in routine clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics.

Design and Early Implementation Successes and Challenges of a Pharmacogenetics Consult Clinic

Pharmacogenetic testing (PGT) is increasingly being used as a tool to guide clinical decisions. This article describes the development of an outpatient, pharmacist-led, pharmacogenetics consult clinic within internal medicine, its workflow, and early results, along with successes and challenges. A pharmacogenetics-trained pharmacist encouraged primary care physicians (PCPs) to refer patients who were experiencing side effects/ineffectiveness from certain antidepressants, opioids, and/or proton pump inhibitors. In clinic, the pharmacist confirmed the need for and ordered CYP2C19 and/or CYP2D6 testing, provided evidence-based pharmacogenetic recommendations to PCPs, and educated PCPs and patients on the results. Operational and clinical metrics were analyzed. In two years, 91 referred patients were seen in clinic (mean age 57, 67% women, 91% European-American). Of patients who received PGT, 77% had at least one CYP2C19 and/or CYP2D6 phenotype that would make conventional prescribing unfavorable. Recommendations suggested that physicians change a medication/dose for 59% of patients; excluding two patients lost to follow-up, 87% of recommendations were accepted. Challenges included PGT reimbursement and referral maintenance. High frequency of actionable results suggests physician education on who to refer was successful and illustrates the potential to reduce trial-and-error prescribing. High recommendation acceptance rate demonstrates the pharmacist's effectiveness in providing genotype-guided recommendations, emphasizing a successful pharmacist-physician collaboration.