Estimated nationwide impact of implementing a preemptive pharmacogenetic panel approach to guide drug prescribing in primary care in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenetics (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. METHODS: For 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. RESULTS: In 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. CONCLUSIONS: Consequently, 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.

Comparison of the Guidelines of the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group.

Both the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) and Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group provide therapeutic recommendations for well-known gene-drug pairs. Published recommendations show a high rate of concordance. However, as a result of different guideline development methods used by these two consortia, differences between the published guidelines exist. The aim of this paper is to compare both initiatives and explore these differences, with the objective to achieve harmonization.