Striking a balance in communicating pharmacogenetic test results: promoting comprehension and minimizing adverse psychological and behavioral response

Addressing language barriers in access to genetic testing under the United States 21st Century Cures Act

The Final Rule of the 21st Century Cures Act ("Cures") in the United States, which healthcare professionals (HCPs) were required to comply with starting in 2021, transformed clinical care by providing patients with immediate electronic access to their medical records. This often included the option to view their genetic testing results before discussing them with HCPs. "Cures" overarching goal was to enhance healthcare access and empower patients. However, a crucial limitation within the implementation of this legislation is the absence of language concordance in the dissemination of test results. While immediate access to test results may be a significant advancement, these results are predominantly offered in English, creating a formidable barrier for patients with limited English proficiency (LEP), exacerbating healthcare inequities. Consequently, this has the potential for misinterpretations, misdiagnoses, and inappropriate medical interventions. There is an urgent need to provide accessible, culturally sensitive, and language concordant genetic testing and counseling services, especially as results may also carry a direct impact on family members' medical management. This paper underscores the importance of recognizing that the issue extends beyond the availability of genetic testing results; it exemplifies a broader systemic challenge that disenfranchises patients with LEP, limiting their ability to comprehend and engage effectively with their healthcare. This paper advocates for the role of genetic counselors in developing and implementing solutions that bridge the language gap and promote equitable access to genetic healthcare. By leveraging our advocacy skills, genetic counselors can contribute to positive changes that benefit patients with LEP, ensuring that the promise of "Cures" is realized for patients of all linguistic backgrounds.

A feasibility study on implementing pre-emptive pharmacogenomics testing in outpatient clinics in Singapore (IMPT study)

In view of the limited data related to preemptive pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in the primary care setting, we designed a study to assess the feasibility of implementing preemptive PGx services at outpatient clinics, with the aim to assess the practicality and challenges of implementing preemptive PGx testing within primary care, and its impact on clinical workflows and patient care. This prospective study was conducted between October 2022 and August 2023 at five outpatient clinics located in Singapore. Patients aged 21 to 65 with a reported history or risk of developing any of the target chronic conditions or any patients receiving one of the 29 PGx-associated medications were recruited. Patients' buccal samples were processed using a multi-gene qPCR-based panel of 21 allele variants of five pharmacogenes. Surveys were administered to study participants and clinicians to assess their perceptions and outcomes related to PGx testing. Among the 222 patients, 95% had at least one clinically actionable variant. Of these patients, 113 reported taking at least one of the 29 studied drugs, with 21.2% of them receiving at least one clinically actionable recommendation based on their PGx results. A total of 150 patients (67.6%) participated in the post-test follow-up survey. Among them, 70% expressed feeling relieved and happy upon receiving their test reports and reported increased confidence in taking their prescribed medication. Furthermore, clinicians identified the necessity for clearer legal regulations regarding PGx testing and insurance coverage to enhance future adoption of PGx testing. Given a high prevalence of clinically actionable variants in almost all tested patients, this study underscores the feasibility and clinical benefits of preemptive PGx testing in primary care clinics in Singapore.Clinical Trial Registration: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05504135, with the registration date of August 17, 2022.

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.

Overcoming Barriers: Strategies for Implementing Pharmacist-Led Pharmacogenetic Services in Swiss Clinical Practice

There is growing evidence that pharmacogenetic analysis can improve drug therapy for individual patients. In Switzerland, pharmacists are legally authorized to initiate pharmacogenetic tests. However, pharmacogenetic tests are rarely conducted in Swiss pharmacies. Therefore, we aimed to identify implementation strategies that facilitate the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service into clinical practice. To achieve this, we conducted semi-structured interviews with pharmacists and physicians regarding the implementation process of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service. We utilized the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify potential facilitators and barriers in the implementation process. Additionally, we employed Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to identify strategies mentioned in the interviews and used the CFIR-ERIC matching tool to identify additional strategies. We obtained interview responses from nine pharmacists and nine physicians. From these responses, we identified 7 CFIR constructs as facilitators and 12 as barriers. Some of the most commonly mentioned barriers included unclear procedures, lack of cost coverage by health care insurance, insufficient pharmacogenetics knowledge, lack of interprofessional collaboration, communication with the patient, and inadequate e-health technologies. Additionally, we identified 23 implementation strategies mentioned by interviewees using ERIC and 45 potential strategies using the CFIR-ERIC matching tool. In summary, we found that significant barriers hinder the implementation process of this new service. We hope that by highlighting potential implementation strategies, we can advance the integration of a pharmacist-led pharmacogenetic service in Switzerland.

Assessment of the current status of real-world pharmacogenomic testing: informed consent, patient education, and related practices

Introduction: The practice of informed consent (IC) for pharmacogenomic testing in clinical settings varies, and there is currently no consensus on which elements of IC to provide to patients. This study aims to assess current IC practices for pharmacogenomic testing. Methods: An online survey was developed and sent to health providers at institutions that offer clinical germline pharmacogenomic testing to assess current IC practices. Results: Forty-six completed surveys representing 43 clinical institutions offering pharmacogenomic testing were received. Thirty-two (74%) respondents obtain IC from patients with variability in elements incorporated. Results revealed that twenty-nine (67%) institutions discuss the benefits, description, and purpose of pharmacogenomic testing with patients. Less commonly discussed elements included methodology and accuracy of testing, and laboratory storage of samples. Discussion: IC practices varied widely among survey respondents. Most respondents desire the establishment of consensus IC recommendations from a trusted pharmacogenomics organization to help address these disparities.

Pharmacogenomic knowledge and awareness among diverse patients treated with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors

We developed novel electronic phenotyping algorithms for the BioMe biobank data, which accurately identified angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi)-induced angioedema cases and controls. A survey was mailed to all 1075 patients and 91 were returned. Over a third reported that prescribing physicians had not discussed with them the concepts of interindividual drug response variability or adverse event risk, and 73% of patients were previously unaware of pharmacogenomics; however, most patients were interested in having pharmacogenomic testing. Moreover, 67% of patients indicated that pharmacogenomic testing would positively influence their medication compliance. In addition to identifying an innovative approach to define biobank cohorts for pharmacogenomic studies, these results indicate that patients are interested in pharmacogenomic testing, which could translate to improved adherence.

A randomized controlled trial of analogue pharmacogenomic testing feedback for psychotropic medications

Objective

To examine the impact of various presentations of pharmacogenomic testing results using a published, color-coded decision support tool (DST) format as a standard stimulus to list possible medications.

Methods

Participants were randomly assigned to groups and asked to decide which psychotropic medication they would prefer if depressed. Three of the groups varied the color-coded category of fluoxetine and received a statement indicating that this was the most prescribed drug for depression. A fourth control condition omitted base rate information. Participants also provided detail about their decision-making processes through a qualitative interview.

Results

Comparison of the first three groups indicated that significantly more participants selected medications from the highest category of likely effectiveness when fluoxetine appeared in this list. Comparison of the control group to its relevant analogue suggested no significant differences in selection strategy. Qualitative interview responses indicated participant comfort with genetic testing despite awareness of having very limited understanding of these techniques and their implications.

Conclusions

Both DST color-coding and base rates were influential in driving drug selection decisions, despite most participants indicating they did not understand this information.

Innovation

Efforts to standardize pharmacogenomic stimuli may lead to advances in methods of studying quantifiable healthcare decisions. Attention to the context for presenting test results may also be a useful source of understanding patient responses, particularly regarding complex tests that are likely to be interpreted heuristically.

Pharmacogenetic testing and counselling in the community pharmacy: mixed-methods study of a new pharmacist-led service

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing and counselling (short: PGx service) in the community pharmacy is not routinely practiced. We propose a comprehensive pharmacist-led service where PGx information is integrated into medication reviews.

AIM

To evaluate the pharmacist-led service comprising PGx testing and counselling (PGx service) from the perspective of patients.

METHOD

For this mixed-methods study, we conducted two follow-up interviews F1 and F2 with patients recruited for the PGx service in a community pharmacy after 1st of January 2020. The semi-structured interviews were held by phone call and covered understanding of PGx, the implementation of recommendations, handling of PGx documents (list of concerned substances and PGx recommendation), gain in medication knowledge, and willingness to pay for the PGx service.

RESULTS

We interviewed 25 patients in F1 and 42 patients in F2. Patients were generally able to understand and use results of the PGx service. At least one PGx recommendation was implemented for 69% of the patients. Handling of PGx documents ranged from patients having forgotten about the PGx results to patients consulting the list for every medication-related decision; the latter often expecting negative effects. Finally, 62% of the patients were willing to pay for the PGx service.

CONCLUSION

For future PGx testing and counselling, HCPs should consider the patients' health literacy in a standardized way and use adequate communication skills to enhance the patient's understanding in PGx and to attenuate potential negative expectations.

Personalizing Personalized Medicine: The Confluence of Pharmacogenomics, a Person's Medication Experience and Ethics

Truly personalized precision medicine combines pharmacogenomics (PGx), a person's lived medication experiences and ethics; person-centeredness lies at the confluence of these considerations. A person-centered perspective can help inform PGx-related treatment guidelines, shared decision-making for PGx-related therapeutics and PGx-related healthcare policy. This article examines the interplay between these components of person-centered PGx-related care. Ethics concepts addressed include privacy, confidentiality, autonomy, informed consent, fiduciary responsibility, respect, the burden of pharmacogenomics knowledge for both the patient and healthcare provider and the pharmacist's ethical role in PGx-testing. Incorporating the patient's lived medication experience and ethics principles into PGx-based discussions of treatment can optimize the ethical, person-centered application of PGx testing to patient care.

Pharmacogenomics in practice: a review and implementation guide

Considerable efforts have been exerted to implement Pharmacogenomics (PGx), the study of interindividual variations in DNA sequence related to drug response, into routine clinical practice. In this article, we first briefly describe PGx and its role in improving treatment outcomes. We then propose an approach to initiate clinical PGx in the hospital setting. One should first evaluate the available PGx evidence, review the most relevant drugs, and narrow down to the most actionable drug-gene pairs and related variant alleles. This is done based on data curated and evaluated by experts such as the pharmacogenomics knowledge implementation (PharmGKB) and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), as well as drug regulatory authorities such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicinal Agency (EMA). The next step is to differentiate reactive point of care from preemptive testing and decide on the genotyping strategy being a candidate or panel testing, each of which has its pros and cons, then work out the best way to interpret and report PGx test results with the option of integration into electronic health records and clinical decision support systems. After test authorization or testing requirements by the government or drug regulators, putting the plan into action involves several stakeholders, with the hospital leadership supporting the process and communicating with payers, the pharmacy and therapeutics committee leading the process in collaboration with the hospital laboratory and information technology department, and healthcare providers (HCPs) ordering the test, understanding the results, making the appropriate therapeutic decisions, and explaining them to the patient. We conclude by recommending some strategies to further advance the implementation of PGx in practice, such as the need to educate HCPs and patients, and to push for more tests' reimbursement. We also guide the reader to available PGx resources and examples of PGx implementation programs and initiatives.

Role of Pharmacogenomics in Comprehensive Medication Management: Considerations for Employers

Rising prescription costs, poor medication adherence, and safety issues pose persistent challenges to employer-sponsored health care plans and their beneficiaries. Comprehensive medication management (CMM), a patient-centered approach to medication optimization, enriched by pharmacogenomics (PGx), has been shown to improve the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical regimens. This has contributed to improved health care outcomes, reduced costs of treatments, better adherence, shorter durations of treatment, and fewer adverse effects from drug therapy. Despite compelling clinical and economic evidence to justify the application of CMM guided by PGx, implementation in clinical settings remains sparse; notable barriers include limited physician adoption and health insurance coverage. Ultimately, these challenges may be overcome through comprehensive programs that include clinical decision support systems and education through employer-sponsored population health management channels to the benefit of the employees, employers, health care providers, and health care systems. This article discusses benefits, considerations, and barriers of scalable PGx-enriched CMM programs in the context of self-insured employers.

A clinician’s guide for counseling patients on results of a multigene pharmacogenomic panel

Disclaimer

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

Purpose

This article explores approaches to pharmacogenomic counseling for patients who have undergone multigene panel testing by describing the collective experience of 5 institutions.

Summary

Multigene panel pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to unlock a myriad of information about a patient’s past, present, and future drug response. The multifaceted nature of drug response coupled with the complexity of genetic results necessitates some form of patient education through pharmacogenomic counseling. Published literature regarding disclosure of pharmacogenomic test results is limited. This article compares the counseling practices of pharmacists from 5 different institutions with pharmacogenomics clinics whose experience represents perspectives ranging from academia to community clinical environments. Overarching counseling themes discussed during result disclosure center around (1) pharmacogenomic results, (2) gene-drug interactions, (3) gene-drug-drug interactions, (4) drug changes (5) future, familial, or disease-risk implications, (6) updates in the interpretation and application of pharmacogenomic results, (7) gauging patient comprehension, and (8) sharing results and supplemental information.

Conclusion

Dedicating time to counseling patients on the results of a multigene pharmacogenomic panel is important given the lifelong applications of a test that is generally performed only once. The content and methods of disclosing test results shared by the experiences of pharmacists at 5 different institutions serve as guide to be further refined as research addresses effective communication strategies that enhance patient comprehension of pharmacogenomic results.

Preferences for and acceptability of receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail: A focus group study with a primarily African-American cohort

Although genetic counseling is traditionally done through in-person, one-on-one visits, workforce shortages call for efficient result return mechanisms. Studies have shown that telephone and in-person return of cancer genetic results are equivalent for patient outcomes. Few studies have been conducted with other modes, result types or racially diverse participants. This study explored participants' perspectives on receiving pharmacogenomic results by mail. Two experienced moderators facilitated six focus groups with 49 individuals who self-identified primarily as African-American and consented to participate in a genome sequencing cohort study. Participants were given a hypothetical pharmacogenomic result report (positive for c.521T>C in SLCO1B1). An accompanying letter explained that the result was associated with statin intolerance along with a recommendation to share it with one's doctor and immediate relatives. Participants reacted to the idea of receiving this type of result by mail, discussing whether the letter's information was sufficient and what they predicted they would do with the result. Two researchers coded the focus group transcripts and identified themes. Many participants thought that it was appropriate to receive the result through the mail, but some suggested a phone call alerting the recipient to the letter. Others emphasized that although a letter was acceptable for disclosing pharmacogenomic results, it would be insufficient for what they perceived as life-threatening results. Most participants found the content sufficient. Some participants suggested resources about statin intolerance and warning signs be added. Most claimed they would share the result with their doctor, yet few participants offered they would share the result with their relatives. This exploratory study advances the evidence that African-American research participants are receptive to return of certain genetic results by approaches that do not involve direct contact with a genetic counselor and intend to share results with providers. ClinSeq: A Large-Scale Medical Sequencing Clinical Research Pilot Study (NCT00410241).

Using a Genomics Taxonomy: Facilitating Patient Care Safety and Quality in the Era of Precision Oncology

Oncology nurses need to be competent in the ever-expanding application of genomics in cancer care, and understanding foundational terms is necessary. A landscape analysis of Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) materials, a literature review, and expert opinion revealed inconsistencies and varying use of genomic terms, some of which are outdated. In response, the ONS Genomics Taxonomy was built to address inaccuracies and discrepancies in terms and to be an accessible resource for oncology nurses. The taxonomy is a living document that is updated to reflect evolving science and evidence and serves to diminish confusion, improve genomic literacy, and assist oncology nurses in providing safe genomic care.

Knowledge and Attitudes About Genetic Testing Among Black and White Women with Breast Cancer

Prior to embarking on a large descriptive evaluation of genetic/racial variations in symptom phenotype, we sought foundational information to determine racial differences in (1) feasibility (consent) and acceptability of collecting genomic samples, (2) genetic literacy, and (3) concerns of genomic research during breast cancer (BC) chemotherapy. Women with early-stage BC undergoing chemotherapy were recruited from an academic, urban breast care center. Information was collected for consent to participate, genetic literacy, and concerns about genetic testing in Black and White women with BC. Fifty-six women were eligible, and 48 were consented (24 Black, 24 White). All participants consented to blood testing. This highly educated sample's mean age was 52.5 + 12.05 (years). Education (years) and genetic knowledge were positively correlated (p = .038). Genetic scores were high, and only one question significantly differed by race. On interview, most participants thought conducting genetic research helped to better understand hereditary disease and/or identify genes that cause disease and stated that they participated in the research to help other people. The majority of participants responded that friends/family would participate in genetic research without concerns, though three Black participants cited mistrust as a possible concern. Overall, there were high levels of genetic knowledge, slightly different between Black and White women. There were no high levels of personal concern regarding genetic testing. Black women reported more concern than White women that friends/family would have hesitations about participating in genetic research. There was general acceptability of blood collection for genetic testing among women with early-stage BC without racial difference.

Patient perceptions of pharmacogenomic testing in the community pharmacy setting

BACKGROUND

In order to optimize community pharmacist roles and patient outcomes, a better understanding of patient perceptions of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing may be helpful for successful integration into community pharmacy practice.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to identify patient perceptions related to PGx testing in the community pharmacy setting.

METHODS

Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with adults ≥18 years of age to gather their perceptions of PGx testing. Interview participants were taking either an antiplatelet agent or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor listed in Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines and were patients at one of two community pharmacies in West Michigan. Interview questions were designed to follow the Theory of Planned Behavior and to take into account existing literature on patient perceptions of PGx. Interviews were recorded, transcribed by a third party transcription service, coded by a team of three researchers to identify themes, and analyzed using nVivo qualitative analysis software.

RESULTS

A total of 19 interviews were conducted over a period of 16 days in June 2016. Upon preliminary evaluation, four themes related to patient perceptions of PGx testing were consistently observed across multiple interviews: 1) trust, 2) experience, 3) risk/benefit, and 4) clarity.

CONCLUSIONS

Semi-structured patient interviews revealed four themes related to PGx testing in the community pharmacy setting. These themes may influence the desire to pursue PGx testing. Future research may seek to identify how community pharmacists can communicate with patients about PGx in the context of these themes to empower patients to make positive health care decisions.

Sauver JL, Olson JE, Rohrer Vitek CR. An assessment of patient perspectives on pharmacogenomics educational materials

Aim: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) holds potential to improve patient treatment; yet, effective patient educational materials are limited. Materials & methods: Using a 'think aloud' technique, we sought to understand comprehension and perceptions of a multimedia PGx results packet including a cover letter with QR code to an educational video, brochure and prototype report in the context of PGx case vignettes. Results: The cover letter and video components were viewed less favorably due to excess detail, complex jargon and technology challenges. Recommendations were to enhance comprehension and utility and to customize materials to each patient's medications or disease conditions. Conclusion: Educational materials were revised to improve comprehension and usability, and diminish concerns to better prepare patients to understand the importance of discussing test results with their provider.

A stepwise approach to implementing pharmacogenetic testing in the primary care setting

Pharmacogenetic testing can help identify primary care patients at increased risk for medication toxicity, poor response or treatment failure and inform drug therapy. While testing availability is increasing, providers are unprepared to routinely use pharmacogenetic testing for clinical decision-making. Practice-based resources are needed to overcome implementation barriers for pharmacogenetic testing in primary care.The NHGRI's IGNITE I Network (Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE; www.ignite-genomics.org) explored practice models, challenges and implementation barriers for clinical pharmacogenomics. Based on these experiences, we present a stepwise approach pharmacogenetic testing in primary care: patient identification; pharmacogenetic test ordering; interpretation and application of test results, and patient education. We present clinical factors to consider, test-ordering processes and resources, and provide guidance to apply test results and counsel patients. Practice-based resources such as this stepwise approach to clinical decision-making are important resources to equip primary care providers to use pharmacogenetic testing.

Patient-provider communications about pharmacogenomic results increase patient recall of medication changes

Effective doctor-patient communication is critical for disease management, especially when considering genetic information. We studied patient-provider communications after implementing a point-of-care pharmacogenomic results delivery system to understand whether pharmacogenomic results are discussed and whether medication recall is impacted. Outpatients undergoing preemptive pharmacogenomic testing (cases), non-genotyped controls, and study providers were surveyed from October 2012-May 2017. Patient responses were compared between visits where pharmacogenomic results guided prescribing versus visits where pharmacogenomics did not guide prescribing. Provider knowledge of pharmacogenomics, before and during study participation, was also analyzed. Both providers and case patients frequently reported discussions of genetic results after visits where pharmacogenomic information guided prescribing. Importantly, medication changes from visits where pharmacogenomics influenced prescribing were more often recalled than non-pharmacogenomic guided medication changes (OR=3.3 [1.6–6.7], p=0.001). Case patients who had separate visits where pharmacogenomics did and did not respectively influence prescribing more often remembered medication changes from visits where genomic-based guidance was used (OR=3.4 [1.2–9.3], p=0.02). Providers also displayed dramatic increases in personal genomic understanding through program participation (94% felt at least somewhat informed about pharmacogenomics post-participation, compared to 61% at baseline, p=0.04). Using genomic information during prescribing increases patient-provider communications, patient medication recall, and provider understanding of genomics, important ancillary benefits to clinical use of pharmacogenomics.

Parental Perception of Self-Empowerment in Pediatric Pharmacogenetic Testing: The Reactions of Parents to the Communication of Actual and Hypothetical CYP2D6 Test Results

Concerns about the ethical and social implications of genetics persist as more applications of genetic and genomic technology have become available. Pediatric testing for genetic influences on response to opioids like codeine is one area of application. We interviewed parents of children enrolled in a mixed-methods study following the communication of actual or hypothetical results for CYP2D6, which impacts opioid response. Forty-one parents of children naive to opioids and 42 parents of children previously exposed to opioids participated in qualitative interviews. Findings did not differ by the child's opioid exposure or by actual versus hypothetical results. Parents' responses centered on the experience of the parent(s) and the potential impact of that information on the parent, rather than the result's impact on the child. Parents also emphasized that the results did not impact their perceptions of the child, reaffirming that the child was still "normal" regardless of test result. When asked about the impact of receiving secondary results, parents' responses emphasized how the results would impact their ability to advocate for the child or impact their state of mind. While the answers reflect parents' role as surrogate decision maker for their child, they also reinforced concerns that health care decisions might be influenced by secondary parental concerns as much as by the best interests of the child. Emphasis on the child's "normality" challenges concerns about the impact of genetic essentialism, but further research is required to see whether the type of testing done or the way results were communicated shaped this response.

Availability of CYP2D6 genotyping results in general practitioner and community pharmacy medical records

Aim: To investigate the availability of CYP450–2D6 (CYP2D6) genotyping results in general practitioner (GP) and/or community pharmacy records, and the influence thereof on psychotropic CYP2D6 substrate dosing. Materials & methods: Primary outcome was the percentage of patients genotyped for CYP2D6 with their genotype/phenotype registered in GP and/or pharmacy records. Secondary outcome was the number of defined daily doses of psychotropic CYP2D6 substrates prescribed after genotyping. Results: For 216 out of 1307 eligible patients, medication overviews could be obtained. Genotyping results were available at GPs for 3.1% and at pharmacies for 5.9%. The average psychotropic CYP2D6 substrate dose was not different between any non-extensive metabolizer group and extensive metabolizer group (all p ≥ 0.486). Conclusion: Valuable information for individualizing psychiatric pharmacotherapy is lost on a large scale.

Assessment of patient perceptions of genomic testing to inform pharmacogenomic implementation

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacogenomics seeks to improve prescribing by reducing drug inefficacy/toxicity. However, views of patients during pharmacogenomic-guided care are largely unknown. We sought to understand the attitudes and perceptions of patients in an institutional implementation project and hypothesized that views would differ on the basis of experience with pharmacogenomic-guided care.

METHODS

Two focus groups were conducted - one group included patients who had previously been subjected to broad pharmacogenomic genotyping with results available to physicians (pharmacogenomic group), whereas the other had not been offered genotyping (traditional care). Five domains were explored: (i) experiences with medications/side effects, (ii) understanding of pharmacogenomics, (iii) impact of pharmacogenomics on relationships with healthcare professionals, (iv) scenarios involving pharmacogenomic-guided prescribing, and (v) responses to pharmacogenomic education materials.

RESULTS

Nine pharmacogenomic and 13 traditional care participants were included. Participants in both groups agreed that pharmacogenomics could inform prescribing and help identify problem prescriptions, but expressed concerns over insurance coverage and employment discrimination. Both groups diverged on who should be permitted to access pharmacogenomic results, with some preferring access only for providers with a longstanding relationship, whereas others argued for open access. Notably, traditional care participants showed greater skepticism about how results might be used. Case scenarios and tested educational materials elicited strong desires on the part of patients for physicians to engage participants when considering pharmacogenomic-based prescribing and to utilize shared decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Participants experiencing pharmacogenomic-guided care were more receptive toward pharmacogenomic information being used than traditional care participants. As key stakeholders in implementation, addressing patients' concerns will be important to successfully facilitate clinical dissemination.

How can psychological science inform research about genetic counseling for clinical genomic sequencing?

Next generation genomic sequencing technologies (including whole genome or whole exome sequencing) are being increasingly applied to clinical care. Yet, the breadth and complexity of sequencing information raise questions about how best to communicate and return sequencing information to patients and families in ways that facilitate comprehension and optimal health decisions. Obtaining answers to such questions will require multidisciplinary research. In this paper, we focus on how psychological science research can address questions related to clinical genomic sequencing by explaining emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes in response to different types of genomic sequencing information (e.g., diagnostic results and incidental findings). We highlight examples of psychological science that can be applied to genetic counseling research to inform the following questions: (1) What factors influence patients' and providers' informational needs for developing an accurate understanding of what genomic sequencing results do and do not mean?; (2) How and by whom should genomic sequencing results be communicated to patients and their family members?; and (3) How do patients and their families respond to uncertainties related to genomic information?

Ethical perspectives on translational pharmacogenetic research involving children

Children represent a special population characterized by dynamic changes which may affect drug safety and efficacy. The interplay of pharmacogenetics with physiological alterations that occur throughout development is an area of increasing research focus. Given the translational nature of pharmacogenetic research, it is possible that pharmacogenetic research results may possess clinically actionable information. The potential long-term implications of pharmacogenetic test results throughout the lifespan of the child, and the potential impact of the results for other members of the family need to be considered. Comprehensive counselling and communication strategies may need to be integrated as part of pharmacogenetic research studies in children.