Cost-utility analysis and cross-country comparison of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment in colorectal cancer patients participating in the U-PGx PREPARE study

A Guide for Implementing DPYD Genotyping for Systemic Fluoropyrimidines into Clinical Practice

The safety of systemic fluoropyrimidines (e.g., 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine) is impacted by germline genetic variants in DPYD, which encodes the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme that functions as the rate-limiting step in the catabolism of this drug class. Genetic testing to identify those with DPD deficiency can help mitigate the risk of severe and life-threatening fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicities. Globally, the integration of DPYD genetic testing into patient care has varied greatly, ranging from being required as the standard of care in some countries to limited clinical use in others. Thus, implementation strategies have evolved differently across health systems and countries. The primary objective of this tutorial is to provide practical considerations and best practice recommendations for the implementation of DPYD-guided systemic fluoropyrimidine dosing. We adapted the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment (EPIS) framework to cover topics including the clinical evidence supporting DPYD genotyping to guide fluoropyrimidine therapy, regulatory guidance for DPYD genotyping, key stakeholder engagement, logistics for DPYD genotyping, development of point-of-care clinical decision support tools, and considerations for the creation of sustainable and scalable DPYD genotype-integrated workflows. This guide also describes approaches to counseling patients about DPYD testing and result disclosure, along with examples of patient and provider educational resources. Together, DPYD testing and clinical practice integration aim to promote safe prescribing of fluoropyrimidine therapy and decrease the risk of severe and life-threatening fluoropyrimidine toxicities.

The Cost Effectiveness of Genomic Medicine in Cancer Control: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Genomic medicine offers an unprecedented opportunity to improve cancer outcomes through prevention, early detection and precision therapy. Health policy makers worldwide are developing strategies to embed genomic medicine in routine cancer care. Successful translation of genomic medicine, however, remains slow. This systematic review aims to identify and synthesise published evidence on the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in cancer control. The insights could support efforts to accelerate access to cost-effective applications of human genomics.

METHODS

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024480842), and the review was conducted in line with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. The search was run in four databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and EconLit. Full economic evaluations of genomic technologies at any stage of cancer care, and published after 2018 and in English, were included for data extraction.

RESULTS

The review identified 137 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most economic evaluations focused on the prevention and early detection stage (n = 44; 32%), the treatment stage (n = 36; 26%), and managing relapsed, refractory or progressive disease (n = 51, 37%). Convergent cost-effectiveness evidence was identified for the prevention and early detection of breast and ovarian cancer, and for colorectal and endometrial cancers. For cancer treatment, the use of genomic testing for guiding therapy was highly likely to be cost effective for breast and blood cancers. Studies reported that genomic medicine was cost effective for advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. There was insufficient or mixed evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of genomic medicine in the management of other cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review mapped out the cost-effectiveness evidence of genomic medicine across the cancer care continuum. Gaps in the literature mean that potentially cost-effective uses of genomic medicine in cancer control, for example rare cancers or cancers of unknown primary, may be being overlooked. Evidence on the value of information and budget impact are critical, and advancements in methods to include distributional effects, system capacity and consumer preferences will be valuable. Expanding the current cost-effectiveness evidence base is essential to enable the sustainable and equitable translation of genomic medicine.

Systematic analysis of the pharmacogenomics landscape towards clinical implementation of precision therapeutics in Greece

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) aims to delineate a patient's genetic profile with differences in drug efficacy and/or toxicity, particularly focusing on genes encoding for drug-metabolizing enzymes and transporters. Clinical implementation of PGx is a complex undertaking involving a multidisciplinary approach that includes, among others, a thorough understanding of a country's preparedness to adopt this modern discipline and a detailed knowledge of PGx biomarkers allelic spectrum at a population level. In several European populations, particularly in countries with lower income, clinical implementation of PGx is still in its infancy. We have previously performed a pilot study to determine the prevalence of PGx biomarkers in 18 European populations, as the first step towards population PGx at the European level. Here, we provide a comprehensive analysis of the current state of PGx in Greece, including a detailed allelic frequency spectrum of clinically actionable PGx biomarkers, the level of PGx education in academia, the provision of PGx testing services from public and private laboratories, and the aspects of the regulatory PGx environment, especially with respect to the discrepancies between the Greek National Organization of Medicines and the European Medicine Agency and health technology assessment. This study would not only provide the foundations for expediting the adoption of PGx in clinical reality in Greece but can also serve as a paradigm for replicating future studies in other European countries, to expand on previously available pilot studies.

Pharmacogenetic Information on Drug Labels of the Italian Agency of Medicines (AIFA): Actionability and Comparison Across Other Regulatory Agencies

To plan future steps for the implementation and regulation of pharmacogenetic testing, any issue in the management of pharmacogenetic information by regulatory bodies must be identified. In this paper, an analysis of pharmacogenetic information in the summary of product characteristics (SmCPs) of drugs approved by Italian Drug Agency (AIFA) was conducted. Among 4214 SmCPs of 1063 active ingredients, 53.2% (n = 2240) included pharmacogenetic information in at least one section, most frequently for drugs in the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical category "Antineoplastic and immunomodulatory agents". To contextualize these data in the international scenario, a pharmacogenetic level of actionability, based on AIFA SmCPs, was assigned to 608 drug/gene pairs included in FDA's "Table of Pharmacogenomic Biomarkers in Drug Labels", according to PharmGKB (The Pharmacogenomics Knowledge Base). Approximately 67% of drug/gene pairs were deemed classifiable: Based on SmCPs phrasing, for half of them the genetic testing was cataloged as "required" or "recommended" (mainly tumor somatic variants), whereas 40% as "actionable" (mostly PK/PD-related germline variants). The comparison with other regulatory agencies highlighted a discordance in the assigned pharmacogenetic levels of actionability ranging from 1% to 14%. This discrepancy may also point out the need to rethink the language used in AIFA-approved SmCPs to clarify whether a pharmacogenetic test is necessary or not and for which subjects it has been recommended. For the first time, a detailed evaluation and comparative analysis of the pharmacogenetic information on Italian SmCPs was presented, placing it in an international context and laying the groundwork for rethinking pharmacogenetic indications in AIFA-approved SmCPs.

Novel Genetic Variants Explaining Severe Adverse Drug Events after Clinical Implementation of DPYD Genotype-Guided Therapy with Fluoropyrimidines: An Observational Study

Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are commonly prescribed in many cancer streams. The EMA and FDA-approved drug labels for FPs recommend genotyping the DPYD*2A (rs3918290), *13 (rs55886062), *HapB3 (rs56038477), alleles, and DPYD rs67376798 before treatment starts. We implemented the DPYD genotyping in our daily clinical routine, but we still found patients showing severe adverse drug events (ADEs) to FPs. We studied among these patients the DPYD rs1801265, rs17376848, rs1801159, rs1801160, rs1801158, and rs2297595 as explanatory candidates of the interindividual differences for FP-related toxicities, examining the association with the response to FPs . We also studied the impact of DPYD testing for FP dose tailoring in our clinical practice and characterized the DPYD gene in our population. We found a total acceptance among physicians of therapeutic recommendations translated from the DPYD test, and this dose tailoring does not affect the treatment efficacy. We also found that the DPYD*4 (defined by rs1801158) allele is associated with a higher risk of ADEs (severity grade ≥ 3) in both the univariate (O.R. = 5.66; 95% C.I. = 1.35-23.67; p = 0.014) and multivariate analyses (O.R. = 5.73; 95% C.I. = 1.41-28.77; p = 0.019) among FP-treated patients based on the DPYD genotype. This makes it a candidate variant for implementation in clinical practice.

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.

Public preferences for pharmacogenetic testing in the NHS: Embedding a discrete choice experiment within service design to better meet user needs

AIMS

Genetic testing can be used to improve the safety and effectiveness of commonly prescribed medicines-a concept known as pharmacogenetics. This study aimed to quantify members of the UK public's preferences for a pharmacogenetic service to be delivered in primary care in the National Health Service.

METHODS

Members of the UK population were surveyed via an online panel company. Respondents completed 1 of 2 survey versions, asking respondents to select their preferred pharmacogenetic testing service in the context of a presentation of low mood or pain. A conditional logit model was estimated, before the best functional form for the dataset was identified. Preference heterogeneity was identified via latent class analysis. Coefficients from the final selected models were used to estimate uptake in the context of different hypothetical pharmacogenetic services.

RESULTS

Responses from 1993 individuals were included in the analysis. There were no differences observed in preference between the 2 clinical scenarios. Conditional logit analysis, using maximum likelihood estimation, indicated that respondents preferred to have noninvasive tests and wanted their data to be shared between different healthcare organizations to guide future prescribing. There was a preference for regional over national data sharing initiatives, and respondents preferred to have access to their data. Predicted uptake varied considerably, ranging from 51% to >99%, depending on design of the service.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies public preferences for a pharmacogenetic testing service and demonstrates how predicted uptake can be impacted by relatively minor adaptations. This highlights areas for prioritization during development of future pharmacogenetic services.

Cost-utility analysis of pharmacogenomics-guided tacrolimus treatment in Austrian kidney transplant recipients participating in the U-PGx PREPARE study

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a global health issue. Kidney failure patients may undergo a kidney transplantation (KTX) and prescribed an immunosuppressant medication i.e., tacrolimus. Tacrolimus' efficacy and toxicity varies among patients. This study investigates the cost-utility of pharmacogenomics (PGx) guided tacrolimus treatment compared to the conventional approach in Austrian patients undergone KTX, participating in the PREPARE UPGx study. Treatment's effectiveness was determined by mean survival, and utility values were based on a Visual Analog Scale score. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio was also calculated. PGx-guided treatment arm was found to be cost-effective, resulting in reduced cost (3902 euros less), 6% less hospitalization days and lower risk of adverse drug events compared to the control arm. The PGx-guided arm showed a mean 0.900 QALYs (95% CI: 0.862-0.936) versus 0.851 QALYs (95% CI: 0.814-0.885) in the other arm. In conclusion, PGx-guided tacrolimus treatment represents a cost-saving option in the Austrian healthcare setting.

Assessing the utility of measurement methods applied in economic evaluations of pharmacogenomics applications

An increasing number of economic evaluations are published annually investigating the economic effectiveness of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing. This work was designed to provide a comprehensive summary of the available utility methods used in cost-effectiveness/cost-utility analysis studies of PGx interventions. A comprehensive review was conducted to identify economic analysis studies using a utility valuation method for PGx testing. A total of 82 studies met the inclusion criteria. A majority of studies were from the USA and used the EuroQol-5D questionnaire, as the utility valuation method. Cardiovascular disorders was the most studied therapeutic area while discrete-choice studies mainly focused on patients' willingness to undergo PGx testing. Future research in applying other methodologies in PGx economic evaluation studies would improve the current research environment and provide better results.