FDA's draft guidance on laboratory-developed tests increases clinical and economic risk to adoption of pharmacogenetic testing

Temporary Regulatory Deviations and the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) PCR Labeling Update Study Indicate What Laboratory-Developed Test Regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Could Look Like

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) response necessitated innovations and a series of regulatory deviations that also affected laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). To examine real-world consequences and specify regulatory paradigm shifts, legislative proposals were aligned on a common timeline with Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of LDTs and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-orchestrated severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) labeling update study. The initial EUA adoption by LDT developers shows that the FDA can have oversight over LDTs. We used efficiency-corrected microcosting of our EUA PCR assay to estimate the national cost of the labeling update study to $0.3 to $1.4 million US dollars. Labeling update study performance data showed lower average detection limits in commercial in vitro diagnostic (IVD) assays versus LDTs (32,000 ± 75,000 versus 71,000 ± 147,000 nucleic acid amplification tests/mL; P = 0.04); however, comparison also shows that FDA review of IVD assays and LDTs did not prevent differences between initial and labeling update performance (IVD assay, P < 0.0001; LDT, P = 0.003). The regulatory shifts re-emphasized that both commercial tests and LDTs rely heavily on laboratory competence and procedures; however, lack of performance data on authorized tests, when clinically implemented, precludes assessment of the benefit related to regulatory review. Temporary regulatory deviations during the pandemic and regulatory science tools (ie, reference material) have generated valuable real-world evidence to inform pending legislation regarding LDT regulation.

Clinical Pharmacogenetics for Precision Medicine: Successes and Setbacks

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetics is a key component in the delivery of therapeutics to maximize pharmacologic efficacy and minimize toxicity. There are numerous identified gene-drug pairs that demonstrate the utility of pharmacogenetics testing for drug or dose selection. Although some of these pairs have translated into clinical use, pharmacogenetic testing has not yet made its way into routine clinical practice at many institutions.

CONTENT

This review provides an overview of clinically actionable pharmacogenetics in precision medicine. Examples of successfully implemented gene-drug pairs, along with common testing methodologies and guidelines for application, are discussed. Remaining barriers to widespread clinical implementation are also examined.

SUMMARY

There is a recognized role for genotyping in the guidance of therapeutic drug regimens and the prevention of adverse drug reactions. Evidence-based guidelines are available to aid in the selection of treatment upon pharmacogenetics testing for established gene-drug pairs. Multidisciplinary clinical collaboration and clinical decision support tools will be critical for widespread adoption, and financial reimbursement barriers remain.

Integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary care

Introduction

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has greatly expanded due to enhanced understanding of the role of genes in drug response and advances in DNA-based testing technology development. As many primary care visits result in a prescription, the use of PGx testing may be particularly beneficial in this setting. However, integration of PGx testing may be limited as no uniform approach to delivery of tests has been established and providers are ill-prepared to integrate PGx testing into routine care.

Areas covered

In this paper, the readiness of primary care practitioners are reviewed as well as strategies to address these barriers based on published research and ongoing activities on education and implementation of PGx testing.

Expert Commentary

Widespread integration of PGx testing will warrant continued education and point-of-care decisional support. Primary care providers may also benefit from consultation services or team-based care with laboratory medicine specialists, pharmacists, and genetic counselors.

Precision medicine: from pharmacogenomics to pharmacoproteomics

Disease progression and drug response may vary significantly from patient to patient. Fortunately, the rapid development of high-throughput ‘omics’ technologies has allowed for the identification of potential biomarkers that may aid in the understanding of the heterogeneities in disease development and treatment outcomes. However, mechanistic gaps remain when the genome or the proteome are investigated independently in response to drug treatment. In this article, we discuss the current status of pharmacogenomics in precision medicine and highlight the needs for concordant analysis at the proteome and metabolome levels via the more recently-evolved fields of pharmacoproteomics, toxicoproteomics, and pharmacometabolomics. Integrated ‘omics’ investigations will be critical in piecing together targetable mechanisms of action for both drug development and monitoring of therapy in order to fully apply precision medicine to the clinic.

Challenges of development and implementation of point of care pharmacogenetic testing

INTRODUCTION

Just as technology was the underlying driver of the sequencing of the human genome and subsequent generation of volumes of genome sequence data from healthy and affected individuals, animal, plant, and microbial species alike, so too will technology revolutionize diagnostic testing. One area of intense interest is the use of genetic data to inform decisions regarding drug selection and drug dosing, known as pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, to improve likelihood of successful treatment outcomes with minimal risks.

AREAS COVERED

This commentary will provide an overview of implementation research of PGx testing, the benefits of point-of-care (POC) testing and overview of POC testing platforms, available PGx tests, and barriers and facilitators to the development and integration of POC-PGx testing into clinical settings. Sources include the published literature, and databases from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, Food and Drug Administration. Expert commentary: The utilization of POC PGx testing may enable more routine test use, but the development and implementation of such tests will face some barriers before personalized medicine is available to every patient. In particular, provider training, availability of clinical decision supports, and connectivity will be key areas to facilitate routine use.

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.