How to Transition from Single-Gene Pharmacogenetic Testing to Preemptive Panel-Based Testing: A Tutorial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Marrero RJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7704727 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposePreemptive pharmacogenetic testing aims to optimize medication use by having genetic information at the point of prescribing. Payers' decisions influence implementation of this technology. We investigated US payers' knowledge, awareness, and perspectives on preemptive pharmacogenetic testing.MethodsA qualitative study was conducted using semistructured interviews. Participants were screened for eligibility through an online survey. A blended inductive and deductive approach was used to analyze the transcripts. Two authors conducted an iterative reading process to code and categorize the data.ResultsMedical or pharmacy directors from 14 payer organizations covering 122 million US lives were interviewed. Three concept domains and ten dimensions were developed. Key findings include clinical utility concerns and limited exposure to preemptive germ-line testing, continued preference for outcomes from randomized controlled trials, interest in guideline development, importance of demonstrating an impact on clinical decision making, concerns of downstream costs and benefit predictability, and the impact of public stakeholders such as the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.ConclusionBoth barriers and potential facilitators exist to developing cohesive reimbursement policy for pharmacogenetics, and there are unique challenges for the preemptive testing model. Prospective outcome studies, more precisely defining target populations, and predictive economic models are important considerations for future research.
| S-EPMC5920773 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Introduction: This manuscript reports on a pilot program focused on implementing pharmacogenetic testing within the framework of an employer-sponsored medical plan at University of Florida (UF) Health. The aim was to understand the challenges associated with program implementation and to gather insights into patient attitudes towards PGx testing. Methods: The pilot program adopted a partially preemptive approach, targeting patients on current prescriptions for medications with relevant gene-drug associations. Patients were contacted via phone or through the MyChart system and offered pharmacogenetic testing with no additional direct costs. Results: Of 244 eligible patients, 110 agreed to participate. However, only 61 returned the mailed DNA collection kits. Among these, 89% had at least one potentially actionable genotype-based phenotype. Post-test follow-up revealed that while the majority viewed the process positively, 71% preferred a consultation with a pharmacogenetic specialist for better understanding of their results. Barriers to implementation ranged from fatigue with the healthcare system to a lack of understanding of the pharmacogenetic testing and concerns about privacy and potential misuse of genetic data. Conclusion: The findings underscore the need for clearer patient education on pharmacogenetic results and suggest the importance of the role of pharmacogenetic-trained pharmacists in delivering this education. They also highlight issues with relying on incomplete or inaccurate medication lists in patients' electronic health record. The implementation revealed less obvious challenges, the understanding of which could be beneficial for the success of future preemptive pharmacogenetic implementation programs. The insights from the pilot program served to bridge the information gap between patients, providers, and pharmacogenetic -specialists, with the ultimate goal of improving patient care.
| S-EPMC10482099 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:As a preliminary evaluation of the outcomes of implementing pharmacogenetic testing within a large rural healthcare system, patients who received pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing and warfarin dosing were monitored until June 2017. SUMMARY:Over a 20-month period, 749 patients were genotyped for VKORC1 and CYP2C9 as part of the electronic Medical Records and Genomics Pharmacogenetics (eMERGE PGx) study. Of these, 27 were prescribed warfarin and received an alert for pharmacogenetic testing pertinent to warfarin; 20 patients achieved their target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0-3.0, and 65% of these patients achieved target dosing within the recommended pharmacogenetic alert dose (± 0.5 mg/day). Of these, 10 patients had never been on warfarin prior to the alert and were further evaluated with regard to time to first stable target INR, bleeds and thromboembolic events, hospitalizations, and mortality. There was a general trend of faster time to first stable target INR when the patient was initiated at a warfarin dose within the alert recommendation versus a dose outside of the alert recommendation with a mean (± SD) of 34 (± 28) days versus 129 (± 117) days, respectively. No trends regarding bleeds, thromboembolic events, hospitalization, or mortality were identified with respect to the pharmacogenetic alert. The pharmacogenetic alert provided pharmacogenetic dosing information to prescribing clinicians and appeared to deploy appropriately with the correct recommendation based upon patient genotype. CONCLUSION:Implementing pharmacogenetic testing as a standard of care service in anticoagulation monitoring programs may improve dosage regimens for patients on anticoagulation therapy.
| S-EPMC6479622 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous findings suggest that medically underserved patients are prescribed medications with pharmacogenetic (PGx) guidelines at a high frequency. Thus, underserved patients may especially benefit from PGx testing, but little evidence exists regarding the effect of testing in this population. This pilot study aimed to generate key feasibility data and explore clinical outcomes of PGx implementation in underserved populations. Black and Latino patients were recruited from an outpatient clinic and underwent PGx testing. Feasibility measures included enrollment metrics and actionable genotype frequencies. The primary clinical outcome was patient medication treatment satisfaction 6 months after testing. Implementation outcomes included the number of healthcare provider encounters and medication changes within the 6-month follow-up. Effectiveness outcomes included medication adherence, patient-perceived test value, and time spent discussing medications with providers. Ninety-nine patients completed the study. Proton-pump inhibitors were the most frequent PGx drug class prescribed at baseline (61%) followed by nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (36%). Patients with an actionable genotype constituted 96% of the population, whereas 28% had an actionable genotype related to their PGx drug. Patient treatment satisfaction significantly increased over the 6 months after PGx testing. In addition, medication adherence and the number of provider encounters significantly increased over the study period. In a pilot study, preemptive PGx testing was feasible in primary care clinics, improved patient treatment satisfaction and adherence, and increased the number of provider encounters in medically underserved patients. Future clinical trials are warranted to assess the long-term effects of PGx testing in a larger diverse patient population.
| S-EPMC10772669 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We discuss a decision-theoretic approach to building a panel-based, preemptive genotyping program. The method is based on findings that a large percentage of patients are prescribed medications that are known to have pharmacogenetic associations, and over time, a substantial proportion are prescribed additional such medication. Preemptive genotyping facilitates genotype-guided therapy at the time medications are prescribed; panel-based testing allows providers to reuse previously collected genetic data when a new indication arises. Because it is cost-prohibitive to conduct panel-based genotyping on all patients, we describe a three-step approach to identify patients with the highest anticipated benefit. First, we construct prediction models to estimate the risk of being prescribed one of the target medications using readily available clinical data. Second, we use literature-based estimates of adverse event rates, variant allele frequencies, secular death rates, and costs to construct a discrete event simulation that estimates the expected benefit of having an individual's genetic data in the electronic health record after an indication has occurred. Finally, we combine medication prescription risk with expected benefit of genotyping once a medication is indicated to calculate the expected benefit of preemptive genotyping. For each patient-clinic visit, we calculate this expected benefit across a range of medications and select patients with the highest expected benefit overall. We build a proof of concept implementation using a cohort of patients from a single academic medical center observed from July 2010 through December 2012. We then apply the results of our modeling strategy to show the extent to which we can improve clinical and economic outcomes in a cohort observed from January 2013 through December 2015.
| S-EPMC6699004 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPharmacogenetics (PGx) is currently implemented in hospitals to optimize therapy with high-risk drugs. However, many drugs with dosing recommendations from the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium are used in primary care. Actionable phenotypes for the genes covered in these guidelines are common with estimates ranging from 85 to 95% of the population carrying at least one actionable phenotype. The goal of this study was to estimate the clinical impact of implementation of an upfront panel-based pharmacogenetic screening for eight genes related to drugs used in primary care for 2016.MethodsFor this study, dispensing data concerning first prescription for the period January 1-December 31, 2016, were combined with frequency data obtained in the "Implementation of Pharmacogenetics into Primary Care Project" (IP3) study to estimate the occurrence of actionable gene-drug pairs in daily practice in community pharmacies.ResultsIn 23.6% of all new prescriptions of 45 drugs (n?=?856,002 new prescriptions/year), an actionable gene-drug interaction (GDI) was present according to the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group. More importantly, these GDIs would result in a dose adjustment or switch to another drug in 5.4% of all new prescriptions.ConclusionsConsequently, with an anticipated near future where healthcare professionals will be regularly confronted with PGx test results, adjusting pharmacotherapy based on this information will become a routine task in healthcare.
| S-EPMC6567386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We aimed to determine the potential value of panel-based pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in patients with chronic pain or gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) who underwent single-gene PGx testing to guide opioid or proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, respectively. Of 448 patients included (chronic pain, n = 337; GERD, n = 111), mean age was 57 years, 68% were female, and 73% were white. Excluding opiates for the pain cohort and PPIs for the GERD cohort, 76.6% of patients with pain and 71.2% with GERD were prescribed at least one additional medication with a high level of PGx evidence, most commonly ondansetron or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The most common genes that could inform PGx drug prescribing were CYP2C19, CYP2D6, CYP2C9, and SLCO1B1. Our findings suggest that patients with chronic pain or GERD are commonly prescribed drugs with a high level of evidence for a PGx-guided approach, supporting panel-based testing in these populations.
| S-EPMC8605985 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPharmacogenetic (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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsParticipants 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.ConclusionsSuccessful 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.
| S-EPMC8742388 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A large number of inborn errors of metabolism present with hypoglycemia. Impairment of glucose homeostasis may arise from different biochemical pathways involving insulin secretion, fatty acid oxidation, ketone bodies formation and degradation, glycogen metabolism, fructose and galactose metabolism, branched chain aminoacids and tyrosine metabolism, mitochondrial function and glycosylation proteins mechanisms. Historically, genetic analysis consisted of highly detailed molecular testing of nominated single genes. However, more recently, the genetic heterogeneity of these conditions imposed to perform extensive molecular testing within a useful timeframe via new generation sequencing technology. Indeed, the establishment of a rapid diagnosis drives specific nutritional and medical therapies. The biochemical and clinical phenotypes are critical to guide the molecular analysis toward those clusters of genes involved in specific pathways, and address data interpretation regarding the finding of possible disease-causing variants at first reported as variants of uncertain significance in known genes or the discovery of new disease genes. Also, the trio's analysis allows genetic counseling for recurrence risk in further pregnancies. Besides, this approach is allowing to expand the phenotypic characterization of a disease when pathogenic variants give raise to unexpected clinical pictures. Multidisciplinary input and collaboration are increasingly key for addressing the analysis and interpreting the significance of the genetic results, allowing rapidly their translation from bench to bedside.
| S-EPMC9001947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gastric cancer (GC) has long been a 'Cinderella' among hereditary cancers. Until recently, single-gene testing (SGT) was the only approach to identify high-risk individuals. With the spread of multigene panel testing (MGPT), a debate arose on the involvement of other genes, particularly those pertaining to homologous recombination (HR) repair. We report our mono-institutional experience in genetic counseling and SGT for 54 GC patients, with the detection of nine pathogenic variants (PVs) (9/54:16.7%). Seven out of fifty (14%) patients who underwent SGT for unknown mutations were carriers of a PV in CDH1 (n = 3), BRCA2 (n = 2), BRCA1 (n = 1), and MSH2 (n = 1), while one patient (2%) carried two variants of unknown significance (VUSs). CDH1 and MSH2 emerged as genes involved in early-onset diffuse and later-onset intestinal GCs, respectively. We additionally conducted MGPT on 37 patients, identifying five PVs (13.5%), including three (3/5:60%) in an HR gene (BRCA2, ATM, RAD51D) and at least one VUS in 13 patients (35.1%). Comparing PV carriers and non-carriers, we observed a statistically significant difference in PVs between patients with and without family history of GC (p-value: 0.045) or Lynch-related tumors (p-value: 0.036). Genetic counseling remains central to GC risk assessment. MGPT appeared advantageous in patients with unspecific phenotypes, although it led to challenging results.
| S-EPMC10218517 | biostudies-literature