Patients with geographic barriers to health care access are prescribed a higher proportion of drugs with pharmacogenetic testing guidelines

Development of an Ancestrally Inclusive Preemptive Pharmacogenetic Testing Panel

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing can individualize pharmacotherapy, but many current panels lack inclusivity for diverse populations and are often cost-prohibitive for medically underserved communities. This study aimed to develop and validate GatorPGx Plus, a low-cost, preemptive PGx panel tailored for diverse patient populations. Pharmacogenes were selected based on the drug/drug classes potentially influenced by their variants, the clinical severity of drug-gene interactions, or the strength of guideline recommendations or emerging evidence. Variants within the pharmacogenes were included if their allele frequencies were approximately 1% or greater in any major ancestral population. The panel was validated for accuracy, precision, and analytical sensitivity and applied to 124 participants from an ongoing pharmacogenetic clinical implementation trial. To reduce costs, a high-throughput platform was chosen, laboratory technician hands-on time was minimized, and result translation and reporting were automated. The panel comprised tests for 62 variants in 14 genes/gene regions, including a CYP2D6 copy number assay. It demonstrated 100% concordance with reference methods. The average turnaround time between test order and results was 14.3 (±6.4) days. Among the 124 genotyped trial participants (mean age 60 years, 57.3% female), 99% had at least one non-normal function (less common or higher-risk) phenotype. The most frequently identified non-normal function phenotypes were in CYP2C19 (69.4%). CYP2D6 *17, *29, and CYP2C19 *9 were captured at higher frequencies than reported in European populations. GatorPGx Plus is a low per-test cost, clinically validated, preemptive PGx panel that effectively captures key variants in a mixed-ancestry population, underscoring its potential clinical utility in diverse, medically underserved populations.

Implementation of clinical pharmacogenetic testing in medically underserved patients: a narrative review

As an emerging health technology, pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing has the capacity to improve medication therapy. However, implementation in medically underserved populations (MUPs) remains limited, which has the potential to increase healthcare disparities. While there is no single accepted definition for MUPs, demographic, socioeconomic, cultural, and geographic factors can lead to reduced access to healthcare, which contributes to disparate health outcomes in these populations. In the case of PGx testing, as MUPs have an increased risk of adverse drug events, have lower numbers of healthcare encounters, and are prescribed more medications which can be guided by PGx testing, additional benefits from PGx testing may occur in MUPs. Study of the acceptability and perceptions of PGx testing in MUPs, as reported in literature, provides support for the development of successful PGx testing implementations. Additionally, a few limited pilot PGx testing implementations in MUPs have assessed feasibility. However, further studies establishing the feasibility and effectiveness of PGx testing implementations in MUPs will enable more widespread PGx testing in those who are medically underserved. Thus, this narrative review explores the impact of medical underservice on health, PGx testing's potential impact on MUPs, and the research and early clinical implementations of PGx in MUPs.

Patient perspectives of a multidisciplinary Pharmacogenomics clinic

AIM

To assess patient perspectives following evaluation in a multidisciplinary pharmacogenomics clinic run by a clinical pharmacist, genetic counselor, and physician.

METHODS

A survey was distributed to 187 adults seen in the Brigham and Women's Hospital Pharmacogenomics Clinic. Participants who completed the survey were invited to complete a semi-structured interview. Interview subjects were selected based on order of responses, scheduling availability, and range of participant experiences with testing and the clinic process. Surveys were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and interview transcripts were analyzed with thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Forty-two survey responses were received; 13 participants were interviewed. Quantitative data demonstrated high satisfaction with the multidisciplinary clinic model and belief that pharmacogenomic testing has value. Qualitative analysis identified four themes: 1) Self-Advocacy as a Patient Responsibility in the Utilization of Pharmacogenomic Results, 2) High Satisfaction with Multidisciplinary Pharmacogenomics Clinic Model and Team, 3) Utility of Pharmacogenomics, and 4) Desire for Pharmacogenomics Resources.

CONCLUSION

Patients value the care provided by a multidisciplinary pharmacogenomics clinic team, but they need to advocate for the use of their results with other healthcare professionals.

Disparities in Clinical Outcomes Observed Within Electronic Health Record Data From a Statewide Cohort of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Patients

Health disparities in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have not been extensively reported in the United States. The aim of this project was to characterize the extent of demographic and socioeconomic disparities in clinical outcomes within a large, diverse PAH patient population. A retrospective, population-based study of electronic health record data from the OneFlorida Data Trust was completed. Adult patients seeking care within one of the 12 OneFlorida Network partner healthcare systems with a documented diagnosis of any form of pulmonary hypertension (PH), including PAH, via ICD-10 code were included. Social deprivation index and healthcare provider access scores were calculated from population-based centroids derived from patient home addresses. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, with secondary outcomes including hospitalization, emergency department (ED) visits, and similar clinical outcomes in a combined cohort of patients with other forms PH. A total of 6379 patients were included in the PAH cohort, and 37,412 patients were included in the nonspecific PH cohort. PAH patients with the greatest social deprivation exhibited increased rates of ED visits and hospitalizations. Despite having similar rates of ED visits and hospitalizations compared to non-Hispanics, Hispanic PAH patients had markedly lower mortality rates. Similar associations were also observed in the combined cohort of 37,412 patients with other forms of PH. In conclusion, healthcare disparities exist in PAH outcomes across both demographic and socioeconomic boundaries. Patients identifying as Hispanic appear to have decreased rates of mortality compared to other races/ethnicities.

Barriers and facilitators of the use of clinical informatics resources to facilitate pharmacogenomic implementation in resource-limited settings

Objective

Understand perceived barriers to and facilitators of using clinical informatics applications for pharmacogenomic (PGx) implementation in resource-limited settings.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a qualitative research study using a semi-structured interview guide informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interview questions assessed CFIR contextual determinants related to: electronic health record (EHR) infrastructure; clinical informatics personnel and resources; EHR integration of PGx test results; PGx clinical decision support (CDS) tools; institutional resources; and partner receptivity. Transcripts were coded and analyzed to identify themes.

Results

We interviewed 24 clinical informaticists and executive leaders working in rural or underserved health care settings in Montana (n = 15) and Colorado (n = 9) and identified three major themes: (1) EHR infrastructure limitations, (2) insufficient supporting resources, and (3) unique contextual considerations for resource-limited settings. EHR infrastructure limitations included limited agency related to EHR build and interoperability concerns. Theme 1 highlighted challenges associated with integrating structured data into the EHR and inadequate vendor support. Theme 2 included limited familiarity with PGx across the care team, cost concerns, and allocation of non-financial resources. Theme 3 highlighted perceptions about the clinical utility of PGx within rural and underrepresented populations. Potential facilitators, such as being able to act nimbly, were found to coexist among the reported barriers.

Discussion and Conclusion

Our results provide insight into the clinical informatics infrastructure in resource-limited settings and identify unique considerations for clinical informatics-facilitated PGx implementation. Future efforts in these settings should consider innovative partnerships and strategies to leverage facilitators and minimize barriers associated with integrating PGx CDS applications.

Enhancing the Integration of Pre-Emptive Pharmacogenetic (PGx) Testing in Primary Care: Prioritizing Underserved Patients' Preferences in Implementation

Background/Objectives: The integration of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing into primary care has not been widely implemented, despite its benefits for patients and providers. PGx testing could also reduce health disparities as patients with lower healthcare access are prescribed higher proportions of medications with PGx guidelines. Little is known about the preferences of patients who have experienced PGx testing to inform implementation across the care process. This qualitative study aimed to refine implementation by capturing patient preferences on (1) testing and prescription timing, (2) patient-clinician discussion of results during post-test counseling, and (3) usability of a card during results dissemination. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 25 primary care patients from clinics primarily serving medically underserved populations. Interview transcripts were thematically analyzed using a constant comparative approach. Results: While patients supported both reactive and pre-emptive testing, they valued pre-emptive PGx testing because it is proactive for future health needs, expedites treatment, and is convenient. Patients' preferences for receiving prescriptions depended on several factors: having immediate access to needed medications, avoiding experiencing medication side effects and interactions, avoiding taking ineffective medications, and avoiding inconveniences. Patients identified three issues critical to patient-clinician interactions when receiving testing results: information specific to medications, clarification and further information about their results, and enhanced clinician accessibility related to the results. Lastly, they liked that the results card could facilitate discussions with clinicians and was informative and convenient but said it lacked clarity. Conclusions: These findings should inform implementation strategies for integrating PGx testing in primary care for underserved patients.

Estimating preferences and willingness to pay for pharmacogenetic testing in populations who are medically underserved: a discrete choice experiment

Background: The implementation of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing may contribute to health disparities if access to testing is inequitable, as medically underserved patients are prescribed higher rates of drugs with PGx guidelines and often experience the benefits of emerging health technologies last. Limited research has evaluated potential implementation of PGx testing in populations who are medically underserved and none have evaluated their preferences regarding PGx test characteristics and cost. Our study endeavored to assess the willingness to pay for PGx testing and key PGx test preferences in a nationwide cohort of medically underserved respondents. Methods: A survey was developed to assess willingness to pay and preferences for PGx testing through a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Five attributes of PGx tests were included in the DCE: doctor recommendation, wait time, number of actionable results, benefit of the test (avoid a side effect or address a health problem), and out-of-pocket cost. A convenience sample of U.S. adults with an average yearly household income of $42,000 or less was collected utilizing an online survey fielded by Qualtrics Research Services (Provo, UT). For the DCE analysis, conditional logit and mixed-logit regression models were utilized to determine relative utility of attributes and levels, conditional relative importance for each attribute, and marginal willingness to pay. Results: Respondents completed the survey with an 83.1% response completion rate. Following quality control procedures, 1,060 respondents were included in the final nationwide cohort. Approximately, 82% of respondents were willing to pay less than $100 for PGx testing, and a strong price ceiling was identified at $200. Out-of-pocket cost was the attribute identified as having the greatest relative importance on choice, while wait time had the lowest importance. Greater utility was observed if the PGx test was doctor recommended, had a higher number of actionable results, and resolved major or minor health problems compared with avoiding side effects. Conclusion: This first-of-its-kind study provides important insights into the willingness to pay for PGx testing and PGx test preferences of a large medically underserved population. Applying these findings can potentially lead to improvements in the successful implementation of PGx testing in this population.

Feasibility of preemptive pharmacogenetic testing and improvement of medication treatment satisfaction among medically underserved patients

Previous findings suggest that medically underserved patients are prescribed medications with pharmacogenetic (PGx) guidelines at a high frequency. Thus, underserved patients may especially benefit from PGx testing, but little evidence exists regarding the effect of testing in this population. This pilot study aimed to generate key feasibility data and explore clinical outcomes of PGx implementation in underserved populations. Black and Latino patients were recruited from an outpatient clinic and underwent PGx testing. Feasibility measures included enrollment metrics and actionable genotype frequencies. The primary clinical outcome was patient medication treatment satisfaction 6 months after testing. Implementation outcomes included the number of healthcare provider encounters and medication changes within the 6-month follow-up. Effectiveness outcomes included medication adherence, patient-perceived test value, and time spent discussing medications with providers. Ninety-nine patients completed the study. Proton-pump inhibitors were the most frequent PGx drug class prescribed at baseline (61%) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (36%). Patients with an actionable genotype constituted 96% of the population, whereas 28% had an actionable genotype related to their PGx drug. Patient treatment satisfaction significantly increased over the 6 months after PGx testing. In addition, medication adherence and the number of provider encounters significantly increased over the study period. In a pilot study, preemptive PGx testing was feasible in primary care clinics, improved patient treatment satisfaction and adherence, and increased the number of provider encounters in medically underserved patients. Future clinical trials are warranted to assess the long-term effects of PGx testing in a larger diverse patient population.

Evaluation of Potential Racial Disparities in CYP2C19-Guided P2Y12 Inhibitor Prescribing After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Black patients suffer worse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) than White patients. Inequities in antiplatelet prescribing may contribute to this health disparity. We compared P2Y12 inhibitor prescribing by race following CYP2C19 genotyping to guide antiplatelet therapy selection after PCI. Patients from 9 sites that performed clinical CYP2C19 genotyping after PCI were included. Alternative therapy (e.g., prasugrel or ticagrelor) was recommended for CYP2C19 no-function allele carriers, in whom clopidogrel is predicted to be less effective. The primary outcome was choice of P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel vs. alternative therapy) based on genotype. Of 3,342 patients included, 2,448 (73%) were White, and 659 (20%) were Black. More Black than White patients had a no-function allele (34.3% vs. 29.7%, P = 0.024). At hospital discharge following PCI, 44.2% of Black and 44.0% of White no-function allele carriers were prescribed alternative therapy. At the time of the last follow-up within 12 months, numerically fewer Black (51.8%) than White (56.7%) no-function allele carriers were prescribed alternative therapy (P = 0.190). However, the difference was not significant after accounting for other factors associated with P2Y12 inhibitor selection (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.58-1.08). Alternative therapy use did not differ between Black (14.3%) and White (16.7%) patients without a no-function allele (P = 0.232). Among real-world patients who received CYP2C19 testing after PCI, P2Y12 inhibitor prescribing rates did not differ between Black and White patients. Our data suggest an absence of racial disparity in genotype-guided antiplatelet prescribing among patients receiving CYP2C19 testing.

Exploring perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes regarding pharmacogenetic testing in the medically underserved

Introduction: Pharmacogenetic testing may hold promise in addressing health disparities, as medically underserved patients appear to be prescribed medications with pharmacogenetic guidelines at higher rates. While routine clinical implementation of testing in medically underserved populations has not yet been achieved, using patient perspectives to inform implementation should increase the likelihood of success. The aim of this study was to assess the perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes regarding pharmacogenetic testing in medically underserved patients. Methods: We developed a survey instrument to assess respondent views on pharmacogenetic testing. The survey instrument was developed through a process of literature review, expert input, iterative pilot testing, and final refinement. The survey instrument was fielded to US adults with an estimated household income of $42,000 per year or less. Results: During the survey instrument development, 59 pilot testers provided 133 comments which lead to 38 revisions to the survey instrument. The nationwide survey resulted in 1,060 respondents, of which half (49.8%) reported having no health insurance or being on Medicaid. Most patients (78.9%) had not previously heard of pharmacogenetic testing. After being provided an explanation of pharmacogenetic testing, 60.5% were very or moderately interested in receiving testing if there were no cost and 75.8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that pharmacogenetic testing should be available to help with medication selection regardless of cost. Respondents shared that their greatest concern with pharmacogenetic testing was that the test would cost them money, which was expressed by over half (52.7%). This was followed by concerns that the results could reveal a risk for a disease, could affect health insurance, and would not improve care. Discussion: Our results indicate a strong interest in pharmacogenetic testing and identify key perceptions, attitudes, concerns, and potential barriers that can be addressed as pharmacogenetic testing is clinically implemented in medically underserved patient populations.

Patients' Perspectives of Factors That Influence Pharmacogenetic Testing Uptake: Enhancing Patient Counseling and Results Dissemination

Patient preferences for pharmacogenetic (PGx) counseling, testing and results dissemination are not well-established, especially in medically underserved Black and Latino populations. The aim of this study was to capture the preferences of Black and Latino patients who received PGx testing to ascertain: (1) factors enhancing their willingness to do testing and (2) preferences for the dissemination of results. Using the constant comparative method, we thematically analyzed interviews with 13 patients from medically underserved populations who had undergone PGx testing. The findings describe participants wanting better medication options, receiving a clear explanation about the testing, valuing or having an interest in science or medicine and having misconceptions about testing results as factors affecting one's willingness to undergo PGx testing. Additionally, patients confirmed preferring receiving results of PGx testing in a sharable format and described the significance of discussing results in a clinical appointment. The findings provide insight into what Black and Latino patients may prefer in terms of clinical implementation of PGx testing. These results can be utilized for tailoring future implementation of PGx testing and informing best pre- and post-test patient counseling and education practices.