Role of dermatology in pharmacogenomics: drug-induced skin injury

Pharmacogenomics of Alzheimer's Disease: Novel Strategies for Drug Utilization and Development

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a priority health problem in developed countries with a high cost to society. Approximately 20% of direct costs are associated with pharmacological treatment. Over 90% of patients require multifactorial treatments, with risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) for the treatment of concomitant diseases such as hypertension (>25%), obesity (>70%), diabetes mellitus type 2 (>25%), hypercholesterolemia (40%), hypertriglyceridemia (20%), metabolic syndrome (20%), hepatobiliary disorder (15%), endocrine/metabolic disorders (>20%), cardiovascular disorder (40%), cerebrovascular disorder (60-90%), neuropsychiatric disorders (60-90%), and cancer (10%).For the past decades, pharmacological studies in search of potential treatments for AD focused on the following categories: neurotransmitter enhancers (11.38%), multitarget drugs (2.45%), anti-amyloid agents (13.30%), anti-tau agents (2.03%), natural products and derivatives (25.58%), novel synthetic drugs (8.13%), novel targets (5.66%), repository drugs (11.77%), anti-inflammatory drugs (1.20%), neuroprotective peptides (1.25%), stem cell therapy (1.85%), nanocarriers/nanotherapeutics (1.52%), and other compounds (<1%).Pharmacogenetic studies have shown that the therapeutic response to drugs in AD is genotype-specific in close association with the gene clusters that constitute the pharmacogenetic machinery (pathogenic, mechanistic, metabolic, transporter, pleiotropic genes) under the regulatory control of epigenetic mechanisms (DNA methylation, histone/chromatin remodeling, microRNA regulation). Most AD patients (>60%) are carriers of over ten pathogenic genes. The genes that most frequently (>50%) accumulate pathogenic variants in the same AD case are A2M (54.38%), ACE (78.94%), BIN1 (57.89%), CLU (63.15%), CPZ (63.15%), LHFPL6 (52.63%), MS4A4E (50.87%), MS4A6A (63.15%), PICALM (54.38%), PRNP (80.7059), and PSEN1 (77.19%). There is also an accumulation of 15 to 26 defective pharmagenes in approximately 85% of AD patients. About 50% of AD patients are carriers of at least 20 mutant pharmagenes, and over 80% are deficient metabolizers for the most common drugs, which are metabolized via the CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4/5 enzymes.The implementation of pharmacogenetics can help optimize drug development and the limited therapeutic resources available to treat AD, and personalize the use of anti-dementia drugs in combination with other medications for the treatment of concomitant disorders.

Genophenotypic Factors and Pharmacogenomics in Adverse Drug Reactions

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) rank as one of the top 10 leading causes of death and illness in developed countries. ADRs show differential features depending upon genotype, age, sex, race, pathology, drug category, route of administration, and drug–drug interactions. Pharmacogenomics (PGx) provides the physician effective clues for optimizing drug efficacy and safety in major problems of health such as cardiovascular disease and associated disorders, cancer and brain disorders. Important aspects to be considered are also the impact of immunopharmacogenomics in cutaneous ADRs as well as the influence of genomic factors associated with COVID-19 and vaccination strategies. Major limitations for the routine use of PGx procedures for ADRs prevention are the lack of education and training in physicians and pharmacists, poor characterization of drug-related PGx, unspecific biomarkers of drug efficacy and toxicity, cost-effectiveness, administrative problems in health organizations, and insufficient regulation for the generalized use of PGx in the clinical setting. The implementation of PGx requires: (i) education of physicians and all other parties involved in the use and benefits of PGx; (ii) prospective studies to demonstrate the benefits of PGx genotyping; (iii) standardization of PGx procedures and development of clinical guidelines; (iv) NGS and microarrays to cover genes with high PGx potential; and (v) new regulations for PGx-related drug development and PGx drug labelling.

Precision medicine: does ethnicity information complement genotype-based prescribing decisions?

Inter-ethnic differences in drug response are all too well known. These are underpinned by a number of factors, including pharmacogenetic differences across various ethnic populations. Precision medicine relies on genotype-based prescribing decisions with the aim of maximizing efficacy and mitigating the risks. When there is no access to genotyping tests, ethnicity is frequently regarded as a proxy of the patient's probable genotype on the basis of overall population-based frequency of genetic variations in the ethnic group the patient belongs to, with some variations being ethnicity-specific. However, ever-increasing transcontinental migration of populations and the resulting admixing of populations have undermined the utility of self-identified ethnicity in predicting the genetic ancestry, and therefore the genotype, of the patient. An example of the relevance of genetic ancestry of a patient is the inadequate performance of European-derived pharmacogenetic dosing algorithms of warfarin in African Americans, Brazilians and Caribbean Hispanics. Consequently, genotyping a patient potentially requires testing for all known clinically actionable variants that the patient may harbour, and new variants that are likely to be identified using state-of the art next-generation sequencing-based methods. Furthermore, self-identified ethnicity is associated with a number of ethnicity-related attributes and non-genetic factors that potentially influence the risk of phenoconversion (genotype-phenotype discordance), which may adversely impact the success of genotype-based prescribing decisions. Therefore, while genotype-based prescribing decisions are important in implementing precision medicine, ethnicity should not be disregarded.

Sulthiame-induced drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome

BACKGROUND

Drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS) syndrome is a rare and potentially life-threatening acute drug-induced hypersensitivity reaction. Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) predominantly aromatic AEDs are commonly reported in DRESS. To date there are no reports of sulthiame AED causing DRESS syndrome.

METHOD

We report a 10-year-old girl of Indian descent with AED resistant epilepsy on maintenance sodium valproate and clonazepam. Sulthiame AED was initiated to try to improve her seizure control. Five weeks after commencing sulthiame, she developed fever with a diffuse erythematous morbilliform maculopapular rash, elevated transaminases and atypical lymphocytes. At day 3 of illness, she deteriorated with worsening elevation of liver transaminases, thrombocytopenia, progression of rash, hepatosplenomegaly, pneumonitis and markedly elevated inflammatory markers. Immunomodulatory treatment of pulse methylprednisolone was given from day 7 which was associated with improvement inflammatory markers and complete resolution of rash from day 30 of illness.

RESULTS

The diagnosis of sulthiame-induced DRESS syndrome was made based on clinical, laboratory and skin histology findings. She was HLA-B heterozygous for HLA-B^∗15:123 and 15:240 and HLA-A homozygous for HLA-A^∗11:01:09. Both these HLA-A and HLA-B typing has not been reported before in cutaneous drug reactions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first reported case of sulthiame-induced DRESS syndrome. Our case expands the list of possible susceptible HLA alleles associated with cutaneous drug reactions. It also raises the awareness of possible DRESS syndrome among patients commenced on sulthiame who will require immediate discontinuation of sulthiame and consideration of prompt treatment of corticosteroids.