Ethnic Diversity of DPD Activity and the DPYD Gene: Review of the Literature

Capecitabine-induced severe adverse events-therapeutic drug monitoring and DPYD-gene analysis are recommended

In this report, two cases of patients with severe adverse events after an adjuvant treatment with capecitabine are described in detail. The first patient suffered from a severe ileocolitis, where ultimately intensive care treatment, total colectomy and ileum resection was necessary. The second patient experienced a toxic enteritis, which could be managed conservatively. Post-therapeutic DPYD genotyping was negative in the former and positive in the latter case. Patients can be categorised in normal, moderate and poor DPYD metabolisers to predict the risk of adverse events of capecitabine treatment. Guidelines in various European countries recommend pretherapeutic DPYD genotyping, whereas it is not recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network in the USA. Irrespective of DPYD genotyping, strict therapeutic drug monitoring is highly recommended to reduce the incidence and severity of adverse events.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene variants for predicting grade 4-5 fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity: FUSAFE individual patient data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main known cause of life-threatening fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicities. We conducted a meta-analysis on individual patient data to assess the contribution of deleterious DPYD variants *2A/D949V/*13/HapB3 (recommended by EMA) and clinical factors, for predicting G4-5 toxicity.

METHODS

Study eligibility criteria included recruitment of Caucasian patients without DPD-based FP-dose adjustment. Main endpoint was 12-week haematological or digestive G4-5 toxicity. The value of DPYD variants *2A/p.D949V/*13 merged, HapB3, and MIR27A rs895819 was evaluated using multivariable logistic models (AUC).

RESULTS

Among 25 eligible studies, complete clinical variables and primary endpoint were available in 15 studies (8733 patients). Twelve-week G4-5 toxicity prevalence was 7.3% (641 events). The clinical model included age, sex, body mass index, schedule of FP-administration, concomitant anticancer drugs. Adding *2A/p.D949V/*13 variants (at least one allele, prevalence 2.2%, OR 9.5 [95%CI 6.7-13.5]) significantly improved the model (p < 0.0001). The addition of HapB3 (prevalence 4.0%, 98.6% heterozygous), in spite of significant association with toxicity (OR 1.8 [95%CI 1.2-2.7]), did not improve the model. MIR27A rs895819 was not associated with toxicity, irrespective of DPYD variants.

CONCLUSIONS

FUSAFE meta-analysis highlights the major relevance of DPYD *2A/p.D949V/*13 combined with clinical variables to identify patients at risk of very severe FP-related toxicity.

How to assess pharmacogenomic tests for implementation in the NHS in England

AIMS

Pharmacogenomic testing has the potential to target medicines more effectively towards those who will benefit and avoid use in individuals at risk of harm. Health economies are actively considering how pharmacogenomic tests can be integrated into health care systems to improve use of medicines. However, one of the barriers to effective implementation is evaluation of the evidence including clinical usefulness, cost-effectiveness, and operational requirements. We sought to develop a framework that could aid the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing. We take the view from the National Health Service (NHS) in England.

METHODS

We used a literature review using EMBASE and Medline databases to identify prospective studies of pharmacogenomic testing, focusing on clinical outcomes and implementation of pharmacogenomics. Using this search, we identified key themes relating to the implementation of pharmacogenomic tests. We used a clinical advisory group with expertise in pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, formulary evaluation, and policy implementation to review data from our literature review and the interpretation of these data. With the clinical advisory group, we prioritized themes and developed a framework to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomics tests.

RESULTS

Themes that emerged from review of the literature and subsequent discussion were distilled into a 10-point checklist that is proposed as a tool to aid evidence-based implementation of pharmacogenomic testing into routine clinical care within the NHS.

CONCLUSION

Our 10-point checklist outlines a standardized approach that could be used to evaluate proposals to implement pharmacogenomic tests. We propose a national approach, taking the view of the NHS in England. Using this approach could centralize commissioning of appropriate pharmacogenomic tests, reduce inequity and duplication using regional approaches, and provide a robust and evidence-based framework for adoption. Such an approach could also be applied to other health systems.

DPYD genotyping and dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) phenotyping in clinical oncology. A clinically focused minireview

BACKGROUND

In clinical oncology, systemic 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its oral pro-drugs are used to treat a broad group of solid tumours. Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme deficiency are at elevated risk of toxicity if treated with standard doses of 5-FU. DPYD genotyping and measurements of plasma uracil concentration (DPD phenotyping) can be applied as tests for DPD deficiency. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended pre-treatment DPD testing to reduce the risk of 5-FU-related toxicity.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to present the current evidence for DPD testing in routine oncological practice.

METHODS

Two systematic literature searches were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We identified studies examining the possible benefit of DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping on the toxicity risk.

FINDINGS

Nine and 12 studies met the criteria for using DPYD genotyping and DPD phenotyping, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence supporting either DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping as pre-treatment tests to reduce 5-FU toxicity is poor. Further evidence is still needed to fully understand and guide clinicians to dose by DPD activity.