Pharmacogenomics in diverse practice settings: implementation beyond major metropolitan areas

Healthcare professionals' and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs in oncology pharmacogenomics: A systematic review

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomic (PGx)-guided prescribing in oncology lags behind research evidence generation. We aimed to identify healthcare professionals' (HCPs) and consumers' knowledge, attitudes, perspectives, and education needs to inform strategies for implementation of scalable and sustainable oncology PGx programs. Systematic review of original articles indexed in EMBASE, EMCARE, MEDLINE, and PsycInfo from January 2012 until June 2022, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022352348. Of 1442 identified studies; 23 met inclusion criteria with 87% assessed high quality. Of these, 52% reported on HCPs, 35% on consumers, and 13% on both HCPs and consumers. Most were conducted in the United States (70%) and included multiple cancer types (74%). Across studies, HCPs and consumers mostly perceived value in PGx, however, both groups reported barriers to utilization, including cost, lack of consistent recommendations across guidelines, and limited knowledge among HCPs; test accuracy, clear testing benefits, and genomic information confidentiality among consumers. HCPs and consumers value and want to engage in PGx strategies in oncology care, however, are inhibited by unmet needs and practice and knowledge gaps. Implementation strategies aimed at addressing these issues may best support increased PGx uptake in oncology practice.

British South Asian ancestry participants views of pharmacogenomics clinical implementation and research: a thematic analysis

BACKGROUND

South Asian ancestry populations are underrepresented in genomic studies and therapeutics trials. British South Asians suffer from multi-morbidity leading to polypharmacy. Our objective was to elucidate British South Asian ancestry community perspectives on pharmacogenomic implementation and sharing pharmacogenomic clinical data for research.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted (9-12 participants in each). Two groups were mixed gender, while one group was male only and one was female only. Simultaneous interpretation was available to participants in Urdu and Bengali. Focus groups were recorded and abridged transcription and thematic analysis were undertaken.

RESULTS

There were 42 participants, 64% female. 26% were born in the UK or Europe. 52% were born in Bangladesh and 17% in Pakistan. 36% reported university level education. Implementation of pharmacogenomics was perceived to be beneficial to individuals but pose a risk of overburdening resource limited systems. Pharmacogenomic research was perceived to be beneficial to the community, with concerns about data privacy and misuse. Data sharing was desirable if the researchers did not have a financial stake, and benefits would be shared. Trust was the key condition for the acceptability of both clinical implementation and research. Trust was linked with medication compliance. Education, outreach, and communication facilitate trust.

CONCLUSIONS (SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY)

Pharmacogenomics implementation with appropriate education and communication has the potential to enhance trust and contribute to increased medication compliance. Trust drives data sharing, which would enable enhanced representation in research. Representation in scientific evidence base could cyclically enhance trust and compliance.

Beyond the Individual: Community-Centric Approaches to Increase Diversity in Biomedical Research

Community-centric approaches to engage underrepresented populations-including community engagement, community-level consent practices, and capacity development for research-are means to enhance diversity in biomedical research populations in a more ethical way. Low diversity is a known problem in biomedical research that presents challenges in translating the benefits of research to the global population. Through long-term partnerships built on trust and collaboration, communities who would otherwise avoid research may be more willing to participate. When communities are engaged in research as partners and research questions are motivated by community health priorities, research is more meaningful and research methods are more respectful. Conversely, a lack of consultation throughout the research process can further alienate the very communities that these efforts are designed to engage. A number of underserved populations-for example American Indian and Alaska Native peoples-may value the benefits of research to a community equally or more than individual benefits. A community's autonomy must be considered, particularly when that community is not adequately protected by traditional informed consent processes. Opportunities for capacity development to support collaborative partnerships between communities and researchers are required to support engagement and understanding of the research process. Changes to research processes and infrastructure that encourage a higher level of research oversight within the community should be supported. In this paper, we present approaches that may improve diversity and equitable access to research and the delivery of health innovations for people that have historically been left out of biomedical research.

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.

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.

Communicating Precision Medicine Research: Multidisciplinary Teams and Diverse Communities

INTRODUCTION

Precision medicine research investigates the differences in individuals' genetics, environment, and lifestyle to tailor health prevention and treatment options as part of an emerging model of health care delivery. Advancing precision medicine research will require effective communication across a wide range of scientific and health care disciplines and with research participants who represent diverse segments of the population.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary group convened over the course of a year and developed precision medicine research case examples to facilitate precision medicine research discussions with communities.

RESULTS

A shared definition of precision medicine research as well as six case examples of precision medicine research involving genetic risk, pharmacogenetics, epigenetics, the microbiome, mobile health, and electronic health records were developed.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

The precision medicine research definition and case examples can be used as planning tools to establish a shared understanding of the scope of precision medicine research across multidisciplinary teams and with the diverse communities in which precision medicine research will take place. This shared understanding is vital for successful and equitable progress in precision medicine.

Tribal Deliberations about Precision Medicine Research: Addressing Diversity and Inequity in Democratic Deliberation Design and Evaluation

Deliberative democratic engagement is used around the globe to gather informed public input on contentious collective questions. Yet, rarely has it been used to convene individuals exclusively from Indigenous communities. The relative novelty of using this approach to engage tribal communities and concerns about diversity and inequities raise important methodological questions. We describe the design and quality outcomes for a 2.5-day deliberation that elicited views of American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) leaders about the potential value and ethical conduct of precision medicine research (PMR), an emerging approach to research that investigates the health effects of individual genetic variation in tandem with variation in health-relevant practices, social determinants, and environmental exposures. The event met key goals, such as relationship and rapport formation, cross-site learning, equality of opportunity to participate, and respect among participants in the context of disagreement.

A systematic review of geographical inequities for accessing clinical genomic and genetic services for non-cancer related rare disease

Place plays a significant role in our health. As genetic/genomic services evolve and are increasingly seen as mainstream, especially within the field of rare disease, it is important to ensure that where one lives does not impede access to genetic/genomic services. Our aim was to identify barriers and enablers of geographical equity in accessing clinical genomic or genetic services. We undertook a systematic review searching for articles relating to geographical access to genetic/genomic services for rare disease. Searching the databases Medline, EMBASE and PubMed returned 1803 papers. Screening led to the inclusion of 20 articles for data extraction. Using inductive thematic analysis, we identified four themes (i) Current service model design, (ii) Logistical issues facing clinicians and communities, (iii) Workforce capacity and capability and iv) Rural culture and consumer beliefs. Several themes were common to both rural and urban communities. However, many themes were exacerbated for rural populations due to a lack of clinician access to/relationships with genetic specialist staff, the need to provide more generalist services and a lack of genetic/genomic knowledge and skill. Additional barriers included long standing systemic service designs that are not fit for purpose due to historically ad hoc approaches to delivery of care. There were calls for needs assessments to clarify community needs. Enablers of geographically equitable care included the uptake of new innovative models of care and a call to raise both community and clinician knowledge and awareness to demystify the clinical offer from genetics/genomics services.

Patients’ Perceptions of Pharmacogenetic Testing and Access to Their Results: State of the Art in Spain and Systematic Review

The process of clinical pharmacogenetics implementation depends on patients’ and general population’s perceptions. To date, no study has been published addressing Spanish patients’ opinions on pharmacogenetic testing, the availability of the results, and the need for signing informed consent. In this work, we contacted 146 patients that had been previously genotyped at our laboratory and 46 healthy volunteers that had participated in a bioequivalence clinical trial at the Clinical Pharmacology Department of Hospital Universitario de La Princesa and consented to pharmacogenetic testing for research purposes. From the latter, 108 and 34, respectively, responded to the questionnaire (i.e., a response rate of 74%); Participants were scheduled for a face-to-face, telephone, or videoconference interview and were asked a total of 27 questions in Spanish. Great or almost complete acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing was observed (99.3%), age and university education level being the main predictors of acceptance rates and understanding (multivariate analysis, p = 0.004, R2 = 0.17, age being inversely proportional to acceptance rates and understanding and university level being related to higher acceptance rates and understanding compared to other education levels). Mixed perceptions were observed on the requirement of written informed consent (55.6% in favor); therefore, it seems recommendable to continue requesting it for the upcoming years until more perceptions are collected. The majority of participants (95.8%) preferred storing pharmacogenetic results in medical records rather than in electronic sources (55.6%) and highly agreed with the possibility of carrying their results on a portable card (91.5%). Patients agreed to broad genetic testing, including biomarkers unrelated to their disease (93.7%) or with little clinically relevant evidence (94.4%). Patients apparently rely on clinician’s or pharmacogeneticist’s interpretation and seem, therefore, open to the generation of ethically challenging information. Finally, although most patients (68.3%) agreed with universal population testing, some were reluctant, probably due to the related costs and sustainability of the Spanish Health System. This was especially evident in the group of patients who were older and with a likely higher proportion of pensioners.

Preemptive pharmacogenetic testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies: a qualitative study of barriers to implementation

Background

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for germline variants in the DPYD and UGT1A1 genes can be used to guide fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan dosing, respectively. Despite the known association between PGx variants and chemotherapy toxicity, preemptive testing prior to chemotherapy initiation is rarely performed in routine practice.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study of oncology clinicians to identify barriers to using preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Each participant completed a semi-structured interview informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach.

Results

Participants included sixteen medical oncologists and nine oncology pharmacists from one academic medical center and two community hospitals in Pennsylvania. Barriers to the use of preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing mapped to four CFIR domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. The most prominent themes included 1) a limited evidence base, 2) a cumbersome and lengthy testing process, and 3) a lack of insurance coverage for preemptive PGx testing. Additional barriers included clinician lack of knowledge, difficulty remembering to order PGx testing for eligible patients, challenges with PGx test interpretation, a questionable impact of preemptive PGx testing on clinical care, and a lack of alternative therapeutic options for some patients found to have actionable PGx variants.

Conclusions

Successful adoption of preemptive PGx-guided chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies will require a multifaceted effort to demonstrate clinical effectiveness while addressing the contextual factors identified in this study.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09171-6.

Current developments in delivering customized care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in health care personalization and customization (i.e. personalized medicine and patient-centered care). While some positive impacts of these approaches have been reported, there has been a dearth of research on how these approaches are implemented and combined for health care delivery systems. The present study undertakes a scoping review of articles on customized care to describe which patient characteristics are used for segmenting care, and to identify the challenges face to implement customized intervention in routine care.

METHODS

Article searches were initially conducted in November 2018, and updated in January 2019 and March 2019, according to Prisma guidelines. Two investigators independently searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Science Direct and JSTOR, The search was focused on articles that included "care customization", "personalized service and health care", individualized care" and "targeting population" in the title or abstract. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined. Disagreements on study selection and data extraction were resolved by consensus and discussion between two reviewers.

RESULTS

We identified 70 articles published between 2008 and 2019. Most of the articles (n = 43) were published from 2016 to 2019. Four categories of patient characteristics used for segmentation analysis emerged: clinical, psychosocial, service and costs. We observed these characteristics often coexisted with the most commonly described combinations, namely clinical, psychosocial and service. A small number of articles (n = 18) reported assessments on quality of care, experiences and costs. Finally, few articles (n = 6) formally defined a conceptual basis related to mass customization, whereas only half of articles used existing theories to guide their analysis or interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no common theory based strategy for providing customized care. In response, we have highlighted three areas for researchers and managers to advance the customization in health care delivery systems: better define the content of the segmentation analysis and the intervention steps, demonstrate its added value, in particular its economic viability, and align the logics of action that underpin current efforts of customization. These steps would allow them to use customization to reduce costs and improve quality of care.

Utility and Diversity: Challenges for Genomic Medicine

Genomic information is poised to play an increasing role in clinical care, extending beyond highly penetrant genetic conditions to less penetrant genotypes and common disorders. But with this shift, the question of clinical utility becomes a major challenge. A collaborative effort is necessary to determine the information needed to evaluate different uses of genomic information and then acquire that information. Another challenge must also be addressed if that process is to provide equitable benefits: the lack of diversity of genomic data. Current genomic knowledge comes primarily from populations of European descent, which poses the risk that most of the human population will be shortchanged when health benefits of genomics emerge. These two challenges have defined my career as a geneticist and have taught me that solutions must start with dialogue across disciplinary and social divides.

Implementation of a pharmacist-provided pharmacogenomics service in an executive health program

PURPOSE

We describe the implementation of a pharmacist-provided pharmacogenomics (PGx) service in an executive health program (EHP) at an academic medical center.

SUMMARY

As interest in genomic testing grows, pharmacists have the opportunity to advance the use of PGx in EHPs, in collaboration with other healthcare professionals. In November 2018, a pharmacist-provided PGx service was established in the EHP at the University of Colorado Hospital. The team members included 3 physicians, a pharmacist trained in PGx, a registered dietitian/exercise physiologist, a nurse, and 2 medical assistants. We conducted 4 preimplementation steps: (1) assessment of the patient population, (2) selection of a PGx test, (3) establishment of a visit structure, and (4) selection of a billing model. The PGx consultations involved two 1-hour visits. The first visit encompassed pretest PGx education, review of the patient's current medications and previous medication intolerances, and DNA sample collection for genotyping. After this visit, the pharmacist developed a therapeutic plan based on the PGx test results, discussed the results and plan with the physician, and created a personalized PGx report. At the second visit, the pharmacist reviewed the PGx test results, personalized the PGx report, and discussed the PGx-guided therapeutic plan with the patient. Overall, the strategy worked well; minor challenges included evaluation of gene-drug pairs with limited PGx evidence, communication of information to non-EHP providers, scheduling issues, and reimbursement.

CONCLUSION

The addition of a PGx service within an EHP was feasible and provided pharmacists the opportunity to lead PGx efforts and collaborate with physicians to expand the precision medicine footprint at an academic medical center.

Rural Community Perceptions and Interests in Pharmacogenomics

Pharmacogenomics testing is a rapidly expanding field with increasing importance to individualized patient care. However, it remains unclear whether the general public in rural areas would be willing to engage in this service. The objective of this survey was to determine rural community-dwelling members' perceptions of pharmacogenomics. A questionnaire was developed consisting of five Likert-style questions on knowledge and perceptions of pharmacogenomics, a single multiple-choice question on cost of testing, and a free-response question. Two cohorts received the same questionnaire: attendees at a university-sponsored health fair and patients presenting to two independent community pharmacies in southeastern Idaho. While both showed positive reception to the implementation and value of pharmacogenomics, those at the health fair were more in favor of pharmacogenomics, suggesting a need for greater outreach and education to the general public. The findings suggest that interest of rural community-dwelling individuals may be amenable to the expansion of pharmacogenomics testing.

Primary Care Clinicians Attitudes and Knowledge of Pharmacogenetics in a Large, Multi-state, Healthcare System

BACKGROUND

Considerable progress has been made in the way of pharmacogenetic research and the development of clinical recommendations; however, its implementation into clinical practice has been slower than anticipated. We sought to better understand its lack of clinical uptake within primary care.

AIM

The primary objective of this survey was to ascertain primary care clinicians' perceptions of pharmacogenetic use and implementation in an integrated health system of metropolitan and rural settings across several states.

METHODS

Primary care clinicians (including MDs, DOs, NPs, and PAs) were invited to participate in a survey via email. Questions about pharmacogenetics knowledge and perceptions were presented to assess current understanding and usage of pharmacogenetics in practice.

RESULTS

The rate of response for the survey was 17%. Of the 90 respondents, 58% were female, 69% were MDs/DOs, 20% were NPs, and 11% were PAs. Fifty-eight percent of respondents received their clinical degree in or after 2000. Ninety percent of respondents noted that they were uncomfortable ordering a pharmacogenetics test, with 76% stating they were uncomfortable applying the results of a pharmacogenetic test. Notably, 78% of respondents were interested in having pharmacogenetic testing available through Medication Therapy Management (MTM) services, although PAs were significantly less interested as compared to NPs and MD/DOs. Ninety-five percent of respondents were interested in a clinical decision support tool relevant to pharmacogenetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

As a whole, prescribing clinicians in primary care clinics are uncomfortable in the ordering, interpreting, and applying pharmacogenetic results to individual patients. However, favorable attitudes towards providing pharmacogenetic testing through existing MTM clinics provides the opportunity for pharmacists to advance existing practices.

Patient Perceptions of Care as Influenced by a Large Institutional Pharmacogenomic Implementation Program

Despite growing clinical use of genomic information, patient perceptions of genomic-based care are poorly understood. We prospectively studied patient-physician pairs who participated in an institutional pharmacogenomic implementation program. Trust/privacy/empathy/medical decision-making (MDM)/personalized care dimensions were assessed through patient surveys after clinic visits at which physicians had access to preemptive pharmacogenomic results (Likert scale, 1 = minimum/5 = maximum; mean [SD]). From 2012-2015, 1,261 surveys were issued to 507 patients, with 792 (62.8%) returned. Privacy, empathy, MDM, and personalized care scores were significantly higher after visits when physicians considered pharmacogenomic results. Importantly, personalized care scores were significantly higher after physicians used pharmacogenomic information to guide medication changes (4.0 [1.4] vs. 3.0 [1.6]; P < 0.001) compared with prescribing visits without genomic guidance. Multivariable modeling controlling for clinical factors confirmed personalized care scores were more favorable after visits with genomic-influenced prescribing (odds ratio [OR] = 3.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] = (1.31-8.14); P < 0.05). Physicians seem to individualize care when utilizing pharmacogenomic results and this decision-making augmentation is perceived positively by patients.

Partnership with the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes: Establishing an Advisory Committee for Pharmacogenetic Research

BACKGROUND

Inclusion of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations in pharmacogenetic research is key if the benefits of pharmacogenetic testing are to reach these communities. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) offers a model to engage these communities in pharmacogenetics.

OBJECTIVES

An academic-community partnership between the University of Montana (UM) and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (CSKT) was established to engage the community as partners and advisors in pharmacogenetic research.

METHODS

A community advisory committee, the Community Pharmacogenetics Advisory Council (CPAC), was established to ensure community involvement in the research process. To promote bidirectional learning, researchers gave workshops and presentations about pharmacogenetic research to increase research capacity and CPAC members trained researchers in cultural competencies. As part of our commitment to a sustainable relationship, we conducted a self-assessment of the partnership, which included surveys and interviews with CPAC members and researchers.

RESULTS

Academic and community participants agree that the partnership has promoted a bidirectional exchange of knowledge. Interviews showed positive feedback from the perspectives of both the CPAC and researchers. CPAC members discussed their trust in and support of the partnership, as well as having learned more about research processes and pharmacogenetics. Researchers discussed their appreciation of CPAC involvement in the project and guidance the group provided in understanding the CSKT community and culture.

DISCUSSION

We have created an academic-community partnership to ensure CSKT community input and to share decision making about pharmacogenetic research. Our CBPR approach may be a model for engaging AI/AN people, and other underserved populations, in genetic research.

"Getting off the Bus Closer to Your Destination": Patients' Views about Pharmacogenetic Testing

The authors conducted focus groups with patients prescribed antidepressants (pilot session plus 2 focus groups, n = 27); patients prescribed carbamazepine (2 focus groups, n = 17); and healthy patients (2 focus groups, n = 17). Although participants understood the potential advantages of pharmacogenetic testing, many felt that the risks (discrimination, stigmatization, physician overreliance on genomic results, and denial of certain medications) may outweigh the benefits. These concerns were shared across groups but were more strongly expressed among participants with chronic mental health diagnoses.