Implementing Pharmacogenetic Testing in Gastrointestinal Cancers (IMPACT-GI): Study Protocol for a Pragmatic Implementation Trial for Establishing DPYD and UGT1A1 Screening to Guide Chemotherapy Dosing

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.

Implementation and Evaluation Strategies for Pharmacogenetic Testing in Hospital Settings: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Pharmacogenetic testing in clinical settings has improved the safety and efficacy of drug treatment. There is a growing number of studies evaluating pharmacogenetic implementation and identifying barriers and facilitators. However, no review has focused on bridging the gap between identifying barriers and facilitators of testing and the clinical strategies adopted in response. This review was conducted to understand the implementation and evaluation strategies of pharmacogenetic testing programs.

METHODS

A PRISMA-compliant scoping review was conducted. The included studies discussed pharmacogenetic testing programs implemented in a hospital setting. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed design methods were included.

RESULTS

A total of 232 of the 7043 articles that described clinical pharmacogenetic programs were included. The most common specialties that described pharmacogenetic implementation were psychiatry (26%) and oncology (16%), although many studies described institutional programs implemented across multiple specialties (19%). Different specialties reported different clinical outcomes, but all reported similar program performance indicators, such as test uptake and the number of times the test recommendations were followed. There were benefits and drawbacks to delivering test results through research personnel, pharmacists, and electronic alerts, but active engagement of physicians was necessary for the incorporation of pharmacogenetic results into clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is required on the maintenance and sustainability of pharmacogenetic testing initiatives. These findings provide an overview of the implementation and evaluation strategies of different specialties that can be used to improve pharmacogenetic testing.

The Use of Precision Medicine to Support the Precision of Clinical Decisions in care delivery

OBJECTIVES

Objective: Precision medicine uses individualized patient data, including genomic and social determinants of health SDoH), to provide optimized personalized patient treatment. In this scoping review, we summarize studies published in the last two years that reported on implementation of precision medicine in clinical decision support (CDS) related to precision medicine.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for manuscripts published in 2022 and 2023 to retrieve publications that included CDS and precision medicine keywords and Mesh terms. We reviewed the abstracts and full texts to apply the inclusion criteria that the study must have described the implementation of precision medicine related CDS within electronic health records. We extracted the domain, type of data used in CDS, target population included in the implementation from the final set of included manuscripts.

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 285 manuscripts and papers. Sixteen (16) papers met inclusion criteria after manual review of the full text. Eight of the reviewed papers studied the successful implementation of pharmacogenomics in CDS, four studies investigated the implementation of disease risk, and only one paper described the implementation of CDS integrating social determinants of health.

CONCLUSION

Our scoping review of recent literature highlighted several findings. Pharmacogenomics is the most implemented precision medicine intervention based on published studies. Few reports describing disease risk and polygenic risk scores were found and no study addressed CDS for continuous biometric monitoring. Despite the increasing attention to social determinants of health as a key predictor of health outcomes, only one CDS incorporating SDoH have been publicly reported. Regular updates to scoping reviews can investigate barriers to implementation and identify solutions.

Overcoming Barriers to Discovery and Implementation of Equitable Pharmacogenomic Testing in Oncology

Pharmacogenomics (PGx), the study of inherited genomic variation and drug response or safety, is a vital tool in precision medicine. In oncology, testing to identify PGx variants offers patients the opportunity for customized treatments that can minimize adverse effects and maximize the therapeutic benefits of drugs used for cancer treatment and supportive care. Because individuals of shared ancestry share specific genetic variants, PGx factors may contribute to outcome disparities across racial and ethnic categories when genetic ancestry is not taken into account or mischaracterized in PGx research, discovery, and application. Here, we examine how the current scientific understanding of the role of PGx in differential oncology safety and outcomes may be biased toward a greater understanding and more complete clinical implementation of PGx for individuals of European descent compared with other genetic ancestry groups. We discuss the implications of this bias for PGx discovery, access to care, drug labeling, and patient and provider understanding and use of PGx approaches. Testing for somatic genetic variants is now the standard of care in treatment of many solid tumors, but the integration of PGx into oncology care is still lacking despite demonstrated actionable findings from PGx testing, reduction in avoidable toxicity and death, and return on investment from testing. As the field of oncology is poised to expand and integrate germline genetic variant testing, it is vital that PGx discovery and application are equitable for all populations. Recommendations are introduced to address barriers to facilitate effective and equitable PGx application in cancer care.

Pharmacogenomics implementation across multiple clinic settings: a qualitative evaluation

Aim: To advance clinical adoption and implementation of pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing, barriers and facilitators to these efforts must be understood. This study identified and examined barriers and facilitators to active implementation of a PGx program across multiple clinic settings in an academic healthcare system. Materials & methods: 28 contributors to the PGx implementation (e.g., clinical providers, informatics specialists) completed an interview to elicit their perceptions of the implementation. Results: Qualitative analysis identified several barriers and facilitators that spanned different stages of the implementation process. Specifically, unclear test payment mechanisms, decision support tool development, rigid workflows and provider education were noted as barriers to the PGx implementation. A multidisciplinary implementation team and leadership support emerged as key facilitators. Furthermore, participants also suggested strategies to overcome or maintain these factors. Conclusion: Assessing real-world implementation perceptions and suggested strategies from a range of implementation contributors facilitates a more comprehensive framework and best-practice guidelines for PGx implementation.

Implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in oncology: DPYD-guided dosing to prevent fluoropyrimidine toxicity in British Columbia

Background: Fluoropyrimidine toxicity is often due to variations in the gene (DPYD) encoding dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). DPYD genotyping can be used to adjust doses to reduce the likelihood of fluoropyrimidine toxicity while maintaining therapeutically effective drug levels. Methods: A multiplex QPCR assay was locally developed to allow genotyping for six DPYD variants. The test was offered prospectively for all patients starting on fluoropyrimidines at the BC Cancer Centre in Vancouver and then across B.C., Canada as well as retrospectively for patients suspected to have had an adverse reaction to therapy. Dose adjustments were made for variant carriers. The incidence of toxicity in the first three cycles was compared between DPYD variant allele carriers and non-variant carriers. Subsequent to an initial implementation phase, this test was made available province-wide. Results: In 9 months, 186 patients were tested and 14 were found to be heterozygous variant carriers. Fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers. Of 127 non-variant carriers who have completed chemotherapy, 18 (14%) experienced severe (grade ≥3, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0). Of note, 22% (3 patients) of the variant carriers experienced severe toxicity even after DPYD-guided dose reductions. For one of these carriers who experienced severe thrombocytopenia within the first week, DPYD testing likely prevented lethal toxicity. In DPYD variant carriers who tolerate reduced doses, a later 25% increase led to chemotherapy discontinuation. As a result, a recommendation was made to clinicians based on available literature and expert opinion specifying that variant carriers who tolerated two cycles without toxicity can have a dose escalation of only 10%. Conclusion: DPYD-guided dose reductions were a feasible and acceptable method of preventing severe toxicity in DPYD variant carriers. Even with dose reductions, there were variant carriers who still experienced severe fluoropyrimidine toxicity, highlighting the importance of adhering to guideline-recommended dose reductions. Following the completion of the pilot phase of this study, DPYD genotyping was made available province-wide in British Columbia.

UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan: time to prioritize patient safety

Tweetable abstract Pretreatment UGT1A1 genotyping and a 70% irinotecan dose intensity in poor metabolizers is safe, feasible, cost-effective and essential for safe irinotecan treatment in cancer patients. It is time to update guidelines to swiftly enable the implementation of UGT1A1 genotype-guided irinotecan dosing in routine oncology care.

Pharmacogenomics in practice: a review and implementation guide

Considerable efforts have been exerted to implement Pharmacogenomics (PGx), the study of interindividual variations in DNA sequence related to drug response, into routine clinical practice. In this article, we first briefly describe PGx and its role in improving treatment outcomes. We then propose an approach to initiate clinical PGx in the hospital setting. One should first evaluate the available PGx evidence, review the most relevant drugs, and narrow down to the most actionable drug-gene pairs and related variant alleles. This is done based on data curated and evaluated by experts such as the pharmacogenomics knowledge implementation (PharmGKB) and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), as well as drug regulatory authorities such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicinal Agency (EMA). The next step is to differentiate reactive point of care from preemptive testing and decide on the genotyping strategy being a candidate or panel testing, each of which has its pros and cons, then work out the best way to interpret and report PGx test results with the option of integration into electronic health records and clinical decision support systems. After test authorization or testing requirements by the government or drug regulators, putting the plan into action involves several stakeholders, with the hospital leadership supporting the process and communicating with payers, the pharmacy and therapeutics committee leading the process in collaboration with the hospital laboratory and information technology department, and healthcare providers (HCPs) ordering the test, understanding the results, making the appropriate therapeutic decisions, and explaining them to the patient. We conclude by recommending some strategies to further advance the implementation of PGx in practice, such as the need to educate HCPs and patients, and to push for more tests' reimbursement. We also guide the reader to available PGx resources and examples of PGx implementation programs and initiatives.