Explore the vast range of titles available.

Increasingly, pharmacogenetic testing helps providers with medication selection based upon patient-specific DNA results. While several government-funded organizations work towards consensus and standardization for testing and interpretation, compliance to these best practices remains inconsistent. Pharmacogenetic testing companies often develop proprietary practices for interpreting and reporting, which can lead to incongruency of reported results among companies and potential discrepancies in interpretation. To identify the differences of commercial pharmacogenetic testing vendors' interpretation of genotype-to-phenotype translations and medication recommendations from the Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines, a retrospective manual chart review was completed in a large rural healthcare system that utilizes two institution-approved pharmacogenetic vendors. One hundred patients were evaluated: 50 who completed testing through Company A and 50 who completed testing through Company B. Genes of interest for genotype-to-phenotype translation included , , and . Comparison of medication recommendations for drug-gene pairs sertraline ( and/or , escitalopram ( ), and paroxetine ( ) were compared with recommendations from CPIC, with consideration of the CPIC Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Antidepressants (SSRI) guideline 2023 update. This was accomplished via a novel binning process to enable comparison of company-provided binned medication recommendations with CPIC guideline recommendations. Briefly, the binning system included three categorizations based upon the relevant CPIC guideline recommendations-no action needed (green), recommend monitoring (yellow) and therapeutic intervention or alternative recommended (red). There were 32/250 (12.8%) genotype-to-phenotype translation discrepancies from CPIC guidelines, all from Company A. Of 266 evaluated binned medication recommendations, there were 114 (42.9%) discrepancies between the pharmacogenetic testing companies (Company A: 93 discrepancies, Company B: 21 discrepancies) and CPIC's guideline based upon comparison with the novel binning system. Significant differences were observed between testing companies' interpretations and recommendations, which is concerning as these discrepancies could lead to providers making medication decisions that are not supported by CPIC's clinical practice guidelines. This may result in suboptimal outcomes for patients, leading to patient and provider dissatisfaction and erosion of trust with pharmacogenetic testing. A proposed resolution for the discrepancies in company-to-company interpretation is adherence to the CPIC guidelines and transparency in interpretation practices.

Purpose Although already a lot of research has been done on pharmacogenetic tests to inform the choice and/or dosing of medicines, the implementation and clinical uptake remain limited. This study assessed the implementation of pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing on a national scale by analyzing access to and volumes of reimbursed PGx. Methods The use of pharmacogenetic tests was examined via a cross-sectional online survey among the Belgian laboratories, collecting data on PGx targets, testing volumes and technologies used. The focus was on reimbursed tests. Additional data were sourced from the national reimbursement database to describe uptake of testing per medication. Results The uptake of PGx testing in Belgium varied by medication, with significant implementation for fluoropyrimidines, abacavir, and thiopurines. DPYD gene testing was the most frequently performed PGx test, due to endorsed (inter)national guidelines. Reimbursement rules shape access to PGx, with the majority of PGx tests performed in dedicated centers for human genetics (CHG). Access to HLA laboratories for HLA targets was not optimal and some laboratories without a CHG also included constitutional PGx targets in somatic oncology panels. Conclusion This nationwide study demonstrates that in a country where the prescribers have access to a relatively extensive list of reimbursable PGx tests, the implementation of PGx testing is shaped by the presence of endorsed evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, as well as organizational and logistical factors.

ABSTRACT Purpose Biomedical databases combining electronic medical records and phenotypic and genomic data constitute a powerful resource for the personalization of treatment. To leverage the wealth of information provided, algorithms are required that systematically translate the contained information into treatment recommendations based on existing genotype–phenotype associations. Methods We developed and tested algorithms for translation of preexisting genotype data of over 44,000 participants of the Estonian biobank into pharmacogenetic recommendations. We compared the results obtained by genome sequencing, exome sequencing, and genotyping using microarrays, and evaluated the impact of pharmacogenetic reporting based on drug prescription statistics in the Nordic countries and Estonia. Results Our most striking result was that the performance of genotyping arrays is similar to that of genome sequencing, whereas exome sequencing is not suitable for pharmacogenetic predictions. Interestingly, 99.8% of all assessed individuals had a genotype associated with increased risks to at least one medication, and thereby the implementation of pharmacogenetic recommendations based on genotyping affects at least 50 daily drug doses per 1000 inhabitants. Conclusion We find that microarrays are a cost-effective solution for creating preemptive pharmacogenetic reports, and with slight modifications, existing databases can be applied for automated pharmacogenetic decision support for clinicians.

Pharmacogenomics test coverage and reimbursement are major obstacles to clinical uptake. Several early adopter programs have been successfully initiated through dedicated investments by federal and institutional research funding. As a result of research endeavors, evidence has grown sufficiently to support development of pharmacogenomics guidelines. However, clinical uptake is still limited. Third-party payer support plays an important role in increasing adoption, which to date has been limited to reactive single-gene testing. Access to and interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing are driving demand for increasing healthcare providers and third-party awareness of this burgeoning field. Pharmacogenomics implementation models developed by early adopters promise to expand patient access and options, as testing continues to increase due to growing consumer interest and falling test prices.

IntroductionSchizophrenia is socially significant mental disorder characterized by early onset and high time and financial expenditure on treatment. Antipsychotics (APs) are highly effective against positive and negative symptoms, but at same time have a wide range of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). APs efficiency and safety are variable and depend on characteristics of genetically determined mechanisms (transportation, biotransformation, and elimination).ObjectivesInvestigation role of pharmacogenetic testing (PhGT) on example of clinical case of severe ADRs in 47-year-old woman with schizophrenia.MethodsPatient’s medical history analysis; clinical observation; biochemical serum analysis; therapeutic drug monitoring; PhGT.ResultsThe clinical case of a woman with schizophrenia who has been noted to be unresponsive to APs for some years after schizophrenia onset. She was found to be homozygous for nonfunctional SNVs CYP2D6*4 and CYP2C9*2, heterozygous for CYP1A1*2A, which was reason for complete shutdown of isoenzymes 2D6, 2C9 and 1A1 activity and development of ADRs in use of initial doses of several APs, as well as for an increase in severity of ADRs with schizophrenia positive symptoms aggravation with an even slower titration of APs daily dose not only with polytherapy, but also with monotherapy. So, not recommented APs for patient: aripiprazole, haloperidol, zuclopenthixol, cariprazine, quetiapine, paliperidone, risperidone, thioridazine, sertindole, asenapine, alimemazine, chlorpromazine, etc. (CYP2D6); haloperidol, clozapine, olanzapine, perphenazine, promazine (CYP2C9); carefully: haloperidol, olanzapine, perospirone (СYP1A1).ConclusionsThis rare case demonstrates PhGT importance before APs therapy, because the patient had very high risk AP – induced ADRs. She needed PhGt before APs use, but not after severe ADRs during 12 years.DisclosureNo significant relationships.

Clinical research in high-income countries is increasingly demonstrating the cost- effectiveness of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in reducing the incidence of adverse drug reactions and improving overall patient care. Medications are prescribed based on an individual’s genotype (pharmacogenes), which underlies a specific phenotypic drug response. The advent of cost-effective high-throughput genotyping techniques coupled with the existence of Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) dosing guidelines for pharmacogenetic “actionable variants” have increased the clinical applicability of PGx testing. The implementation of clinical PGx testing in sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries can significantly improve health care delivery, considering the high incidence of communicable diseases, the increasing incidence of non-communicable diseases, and the high degree of genetic diversity in these populations. However, the implementation of PGx testing has been sluggish in SSA, prompting this review, the aim of which is to document the existing barriers. These include under-resourced clinical care logistics, a paucity of pharmacogenetics clinical trials, scientific and technical barriers to genotyping pharmacogene variants, and socio-cultural as well as ethical issues regarding health-care stakeholders, among other barriers. Investing in large-scale SSA PGx research and governance, establishing biobanks/bio-databases coupled with clinical electronic health systems, and encouraging the uptake of PGx knowledge by health-care stakeholders, will ensure the successful implementation of pharmacogenetically guided treatment in SSA.

Background Pharmacogenetics targets genetic variations that influence drug response. It is relatively a new science that has not been vastly employed in most developing countries including Syria. Therefore we aimed at evaluating the depth of knowledge in pharmacogenetics and the attitude towards it amongst Syrian pharmacists and physicians. Methods We carried out an internet-based questionnaire consisted of 26 questions, sent through specialized websites and private groups with a large number of pharmacists and physicians members. The survey was available online for a period of 1 month. Results The total number of respondents was 154, mostly female pharmacists. Our statistical analysis showed a strong positive association between profession (in favour of pharmacists) and pharmacogenetics knowledge p  = 0.049; however, no correlation with experience p  = 0.811 was found. A significant difference was reported between the knowledge of pharmacists and physicians p = 0.001 concerning drugs that need pharmacogenetics testing before being prescribed. The majority of respondents had no information about applying genetic tests in Syria before prescribing medications nor did they possess the knowledge regarding drugs that show differential responses in patients according to their unique genotypes. In our study, the percentage knowledge assessment score was low in general (mean ± Standard deviation, SD) (46% ± 13.9%). The majority of the respondents agreed that pharmacists should provide counselling to patients on the subject of pharmacogenetics. Respondents’ opinions varied concerning making pharmacogenetics learning a priority. Conclusion Lack of pharmacogenetics knowledge was found amongst respondents in general. Our findings raise concerns about the lack of awareness amongst physicians, which may hinder the implementation of this crucial field in Syria. We suggest an emphasis on the role of education, training, and conducting genotyping research on the Syrian population.

The incorporation of personalized medicine interventions into routine healthcare constitutes an opportunity to improve patients' quality of life, as it empowers implementation of innovative, individualized clinical interventions that maximize efficacy and/or minimize the risk of adverse drug reactions. In order to ensure equal access to genomic testing for all patients, the costs associated with these interventions must be reimbursed by payers and insurance bodies. As such, it is of utmost importance to thoroughly evaluate these interventions both in terms of their clinical effectiveness and their economic cost. This article discusses the impact of personalized medicine interventions in terms of both health outcomes and value, which directly impacts on their pricing and reimbursement by the various national healthcare systems.

Background Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing for germline variants in the DPYD and UGT1A1 genes can be used to guide fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan dosing, respectively. Despite the known association between PGx variants and chemotherapy toxicity, preemptive testing prior to chemotherapy initiation is rarely performed in routine practice. Methods We conducted a qualitative study of oncology clinicians to identify barriers to using preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies. Each participant completed a semi-structured interview informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Interviews were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach. Results Participants included sixteen medical oncologists and nine oncology pharmacists from one academic medical center and two community hospitals in Pennsylvania. Barriers to the use of preemptive PGx testing to guide chemotherapy dosing mapped to four CFIR domains: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, and characteristics of individuals. The most prominent themes included 1) a limited evidence base, 2) a cumbersome and lengthy testing process, and 3) a lack of insurance coverage for preemptive PGx testing. Additional barriers included clinician lack of knowledge, difficulty remembering to order PGx testing for eligible patients, challenges with PGx test interpretation, a questionable impact of preemptive PGx testing on clinical care, and a lack of alternative therapeutic options for some patients found to have actionable PGx variants. Conclusions Successful adoption of preemptive PGx-guided chemotherapy dosing in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies will require a multifaceted effort to demonstrate clinical effectiveness while addressing the contextual factors identified in this study.