Pilot study of multi-gene pharmacogenetic testing for pain management in oncology palliative medicine

Pharmacogenomics and symptom management in palliative and supportive care: A scoping review

CONTEXT

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is an area of expanding research, which could indicate whether an individual is likely to benefit from a symptom control medication. Palliative and supportive care (PSC) could be an area that benefits from PGx, however, little is known about the current evidence base for this.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how PGx can be applied in PSC, whether there is any evidence of benefit, and to understand the extent and type of evidence that supports the use of PGx in PSC.

METHODS

A search of six databases up to July 2024. Reference snowballing from review articles and screened papers was used to identify any missed articles.

RESULTS

11 articles were reviewed. A total of 550 patients had a PGx test across 8/11 studies. Up to half of the patients had an actionable PGx result, and in one study there were 4.6 drug-gene interactions per patient. Implementation of PGx was found to be feasible. Clinician adherence to advice given was under-reported. No studies reported health economics analysis, or was designed to definitively answer whether PGx was better than standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

It is both feasible and acceptable to conduct PGx testing in a supportive and palliative care setting. Many supportive care medications are amenable to PGx. Clinician adherence to recommendations is variable and there is no clear evidence that PGx enhances palliative/supportive care patient outcomes. Prospective, clinical trials are needed to establish whether PGx can improve symptom management for people receiving PSC.

Implementation and Evaluation Strategies for Pharmacogenetic Testing in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic testing in clinical settings has improved the safety and efficacy of drug treatment. There is a growing number of studies evaluating pharmacogenetic implementation and identifying barriers and facilitators. However, no review has focused on bridging the gap between identifying barriers and facilitators of testing and the clinical strategies adopted in response. This review was conducted to understand the implementation and evaluation strategies of pharmacogenetic testing programs.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant scoping review was conducted. The included studies discussed pharmacogenetic testing programs implemented in a hospital setting. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed design methods were included.

RESULTS

A total of 232 of the 7043 articles that described clinical pharmacogenetic programs were included. The most common specialties that described pharmacogenetic implementation were psychiatry (26%) and oncology (16%), although many studies described institutional programs implemented across multiple specialties (19%). Different specialties reported different clinical outcomes, but all reported similar program performance indicators, such as test uptake and the number of times the test recommendations were followed. There were benefits and drawbacks to delivering test results through research personnel, pharmacists, and electronic alerts, but active engagement of physicians was necessary for the incorporation of pharmacogenetic results into clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is required on the maintenance and sustainability of pharmacogenetic testing initiatives. These findings provide an overview of the implementation and evaluation strategies of different specialties that can be used to improve pharmacogenetic testing.

Implementation of a pharmacogenetic panel-based test for pharmacotherapy-based supportive care in an adult oncology clinic

The University of Florida Health conducted a pragmatic implementation of a pharmacogenetics (PGx) panel-based test to guide medications used for supportive care prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy. The implementation was in the context of a pragmatic clinical trial for patients with non-hematologic cancers being treated with chemotherapy. Patients were randomized to either the intervention arm or control arm and received PGx testing immediately or at the end of the study, respectively. Patients completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) to assess quality of life (QoL). A total of 150 patients received PGx testing and enrolled in the study. Clinical decision support and implementation infrastructure were developed. While the study was originally planned for 500 patients, we were underpowered in our sample of 150 patients to test differences in the patient-reported MDASI scores. We did observed a high completion rate (92%) of the questionnaires; however, there were few medication changes (n = 6 in the intervention arm) based on PGx test results. Despite this, we learned several lessons through this pragmatic implementation of a PGx panel-based test in an outpatient oncology setting. Most notably, patients were less willing to undergo PGx testing if the cost of the test exceeded $100. In addition, to enhance PGx implementation success, reoccurring provider education is necessary, clinical decision support needs to appear in a more conducive way to fit in with oncologists' workflow, and PGx test results need to be available earlier in treatment planning.

CYP2D6-guided opioid therapy for adults with cancer pain: A randomized implementation clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

The CYP2D6 enzyme metabolizes opioids commonly prescribed for cancer-related pain, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to variability in opioid response. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing for patients with cancer and reported pilot outcome data.

METHODS

Adult patients from two cancer centers were prospectively enrolled into a hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial and randomized to CYP2D6-genotype-guided opioid selection, with clinical recommendations, or usual care. Implementation metrics, including provider response, medication changes consistent with recommendations, and patient-reported pain and symptom scores at baseline and up to 8 weeks, were assessed.

RESULTS

Most (87/114, 76%) patients approached for the study agreed to participate. Of 85 patients randomized, 71% were prescribed oxycodone at baseline. The median (range) time to receive CYP2D6 test results was 10 (3-37) days; 24% of patients had physicians acknowledge genotype results in a clinic note. Among patients with CYP2D6-genotype-guided recommendations to change therapy (n = 11), 18% had a change congruent with recommendations. Among patients who completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires (n = 48), there was no difference in change in mean composite pain score (-1.01 ± 2.1 vs. -0.41 ± 2.5; p = 0.19) or symptom severity at last follow-up (3.96 ± 2.18 vs. 3.47 ± 1.78; p = 0.63) between the usual care arm (n = 26) and genotype-guided arm (n = 22), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed high acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing as part of a clinical trial among patients with cancer pain. However, provider response to genotype-guided recommendations was low, impacting assessment of pain-related outcomes. Addressing barriers to utility of pharmacogenetics results and clinical recommendations will be critical for implementation success.