Pharmacogenomics in the United States Community Pharmacy Setting: The Clopidogrel-CYP2C19 Example

Implementing CYP2C19-guided clopidogrel therapy: a scoping review of pharmacogenomic testing services

Pharmacogenomic testing for CYP2C19 helps personalise clopidogrel therapy and reduces the risk of experiencing a secondary myocardial infarction in individuals with impaired CYP2C19 function. Routine testing, however, is uncommon and it is proposed that the key requirements and processes of testing services are poorly understood. This scoping review aimed to explore the literature for CYP2C19 testing services for clopidogrel and identify their commonalities to inform the design and delivery of future services. In total, 37 eligible studies describing services across hospital and community settings were retrieved. Key elements of delivery included a multi-disciplinary approach involving physicians and pharmacists, provision of pre-implementation training and education, and electronic communication of test results. Result integration into clinical decision support systems improved the practical application of pharmacogenomic testing. The identification of the key requirements and processes may be used by institutions looking to design and deliver CYP2C19 testing services to guide clopidogrel therapy.

One Step Ahead in Realizing Pharmacogenetics in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: What Should We Do?

Pharmacogenetics is a promising approach in future personalized medicine. This field holds excellent prospects for healthcare quality acceleration. It promotes the transition to the precision medicine era, whereby a health treatment is driven by a deeper understanding of individual characteristics by interpreting the underlying genomic variation. Pharmacogenetics has been developing rapidly since the human genome project. Many pharmacogenetics studies have shown the association between genetic variants and therapy outcomes. Several pharmacogenetics working groups have recommended guidelines for the clinical application of pharmacogenetics. However, the development of pharmacogenetics in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is still retarded behind. The problems mainly include clinical evidence, technology, policy and regulation, and human resources. Currently, available genome and drug effect data in LMICs are scarce. Pharmacogenetics development should be escalated with evidence proof through research collaboration across countries. The challenges of pharmacogenetics implementation are discussed comprehensively in this article, along with the prospect of pharmacogenetics-guided personalized medicine in developed countries. Stepwise is expected to help the researchers and stakeholders define the problem that hindered the pharmacogenetics application.

Investigation of community pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes of pharmacogenomics testing: implication for improved pharmacogenomic testing practice

BACKGROUND

Community pharmacists must be well-equipped to advance pharmacogenomics services. Nevertheless, limited data is available regarding pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes toward pharmacogenomics testing. The present study aimed to evaluate community pharmacists' knowledge and attitudes toward pharmacogenomics testing in the UAE.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a validated, online, self-administered survey, was randomly distributed to community pharmacists across the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

RESULTS

The participants demonstrated poor knowledge about pharmacogenomic testing (median score < 8). Having 10-29 (Adjusted odds ration [AOR]: 0.038; 95% CI: 0.01-0.146, p = 0.001) and 30-49 (AOR: 0.097; 95% CI: 0.04-0.237, p = 0.001) patients per day was associated with poorer knowledge. Also, receiving 10-29 (AOR: 0.046; 95% CI: 0.005-0.401, p = 0.005), 30-49 (AOR: 0.025; 95% CI: 0.003-0.211, p = 0.001), and > 50 (AOR: 0.049; 95% CI: 0.005-0.458, p = 0.008) prescriptions decreased the odds of having good knowledge. Around half (43.9%) of the participants did not show a positive attitude toward pharmacogenomic testing (median score < 11). Having 30-49 patients per day (AOR: 5.351; 95% CI: 2.414-11.860, p = 0.001) increased the odds of good knowledge while receiving 10-29 (AOR: 0.133; 95% CI: 0.056-0.315, p = 0.001) and 30-49 (AOR: 0.111; 95% CI: 0.049-0.252, p = 0.001) prescriptions a day were associated with decreased odds of positive attitude toward the pharmacogenomics testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate a lack of knowledge and less-than-ideal attitudes among community pharmacists regarding pharmacogenomics testing. Enhanced efforts focused on educational initiatives and training activities related to pharmacogenomics testing is needed. Additionally, reducing workload can facilitate better knowledge acquisition and help mitigate unfavorable attitudes.

Applications for pharmacogenomics in pharmacy practice: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) can provide valuable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information for the pharmacist's assessment of drug therapy, especially within medication therapy management (MTM) services. However, no review has comprehensively mapped the pharmacists' use of PGx in practice-based research. Doing so would allow future researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers to identify the ideal populations and settings for PGx implementation within the pharmacy.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this review is to identify the evidence to date of PGx use in pharmacy practice.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to find all studied non-oncologic pharmacy practices incorporating PGx testing. Search terms were applied to 5 databases and relevant journals. Characteristics of patients, pharmacy settings, genetic tests, and outcomes were summarized to determine models most likely to benefit patients.

RESULTS

The search identified 43 studies on the use of PGx by pharmacists published between 2007 and 2020. CYP2C19 testing with antiplatelets was the most studied model, found in both community and institutional settings. It also was the most actionable test: approximately 30% of patients have polymorphisms indicating a need for alternative antiplatelets, and identifying these patients can reduce morbidity and mortality by more than 50%. As technology shifts, broader studies using multi-gene panel tests within MTM demonstrate an approximate 50% decrease in emergency visits and hospitalizations in elderly polypharmacy patients. Clinical benefit or drug-gene interactions are also found in other cardiovascular, psychiatric, analgesic, and gastrointestinal indications. No evaluations of actual costs or of pharmacist prescribing within pharmacy-based PGx have been performed. Facilitators towards successful PGx implementation included pharmacist education, collaboration with other healthcare providers, and the use of clinical decision software.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacogenomic testing has demonstrated feasibility and improved medication outcomes in pharmacy practice, including in the community pharmacy. Further PGx research should be directed towards pharmacist prescribing, pharmacist education, and pharmacoeconomics.

Independent Community Pharmacists' Experience in Offering Pharmacogenetic Testing

Objective

This study assessed pharmacist experiences with delivering pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in independent community pharmacies.

Methods

We conducted a cluster randomized trial of independent community pharmacies in North Carolina randomized to provide either PGx testing as a standalone service or integrated into medication therapy management (MTM) services. Surveys and pharmacist data about the delivery of PGx testing were collected. Semi-structured interviews were also conducted.

Results

A total of 36 pharmacists participated in the study from 22 pharmacies. Sixteen pharmacists completed the pre-study and post-study surveys, and four pharmacists completed the semi-structured interviews. Thirty-one percent (11/36) of pharmacists had had some education in personalized medicine or PGx prior to the study. The only outcome that differed by study arm was the use of educational resources, with significantly higher utilization in the PGx testing only arm (p=0.007). Overall, compared to the pre-study assessment, pharmacists' knowledge about PGx significantly improved post-study (p=0.018). In the post-study survey, almost all pharmacists indicated that they felt qualified/able to provide PGx testing at their pharmacy. While 75% of pharmacists indicated that they may continue to provide PGx testing at their pharmacy after the study, the major concerns were lack of reimbursement for PGx counseling and consultation given the necessary time required.

Conclusion

Our findings demonstrated a positive experience with delivering PGx testing in the community pharmacy setting with little difference in pharmacists' experiences in providing PGx testing with or without MTM. Pharmacists were confident in their ability to provide PGx testing and were interested in continuing to offer testing, though sustained delivery may be challenged by lack of prescribing provider engagement and reimbursement.