Unveiling the guidance heterogeneity for genome-informed drug treatment interventions among regulatory bodies and research consortia.

Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine interventions hold promise to optimize drug treatment modalities and hence, improve the quality of life of the patients by minimizing the occurrence of adverse drug reactions and/or maximizing drug treatment efficacy. To this end, proper guidance for accurately prescribing the correct drug at the right dose is empowered by major regulatory bodies, namely the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA), and well-recognized research consortia, like the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), that propose therapeutic recommendations after the thorough evaluation of the existing scientific evidence base. In this context, the consistency of these recommendations is crucial for smoothly integrating pharmacogenomics into the clinic. Here, we collected all of the important and clinically actionable pharmacogenomics information provided by the aforementioned renowned sources and documented it in order to assess potential similarities and, most importantly, differences. Our data show that the level of concordance regarding the guidance provided for the same drug-gene association pairs varies significantly, despite the fact that it all derives from a single evidence base. In particular, apart from the expected similarities in a number of association pairs, especially the ones related to cancer genomics, there are still major discrepancies that create confusion as to which guidance should be followed in order to properly inform drug prescribing. This regulatory deficiency calls for the fruitful engagement of the regulatory agencies involved with the contribution of other experts engaged in the field of pharmacogenomics in an effort to harmonize the existing arsenal of guidance for genome-informed drug prescription. The achievement of harmonization would in turn expedite bringing personalized medicine closer to clinical fruition.

The Ethical, Legal and Regulatory Issues Associated with Pharmacogenomics: Systematically Quantifying the Literature.

Since the human genome was successfully mapped much academic attention has been given to ethical, legal and regulatory issues associated with the integration and application of genomics in health care. In line with the recent political commitment to promoting precision medicine that relies heavily on omic knowledge, it is timely to review the issues that this body of literature has addressed. Focusing on pharmacogenomics, this review quantifies the issues identified in this body of academic work. It reveals that, after nearly two decades, interest in the regulatory and legal issues associated with pharmacogenomics continues to generate significant attention. The ethical issues, while not as predominant, also persist. The analyses highlights that there is a dearth of empirical research exploring the impact that these issues have had.

Health regulatory communications of well-established safety-related pharmacogenomics associations in six developed countries: an evaluation of alignment.

Recommendations on genetic testing are typically conveyed by drug regulatory authorities through drug labels, which are legal requirements for market authorization of drugs. We conducted a cross-sectional study of drug labels focusing on three crucial aspects of regulatory pharmacogenomics communications: (i) intent; (ii) interpretation in the local context; and (iii) implications of the genetic information. Labels of drugs associated with well-established safety-related genetic markers for adverse drug reactions across six developed countries of United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were reviewed. We found differing medical advice for genotype-positive HLA-B*15:02, HLA-A*31:01, UGT1A1*28 and CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolisers in breastfeeding women. This raises questions on implications to clinical practice between these countries. Varying ways of presenting at-risk population and allele frequencies also raises question in incorporating such information in drug labels. An international guidance addressing these crucial aspects of regulatory pharmacogenomic communications in drug labels is long overdue.

[Pharmacogenetics in anesthesia and intensive care medicine : Clinical and legal challenges exemplified by malignant hyperthermia]. / Pharmakogenetik in Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin : Klinische und juristische Herausforderung am Beispiel der Malignen Hyperthermie.

Pharmacotherapy is a key component of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine. The individual genetic profile influences not only the effect of pharmaceuticals but can also completely alter the mode of action. New technologies for genetic screening (e.g. next generation sequencing) and increasing knowledge of molecular pathways foster the disclosure of pharmacogenetic syndromes, which are classified as rare diseases. Taking into account the high genetic variability in humans and over 8000 known rare diseases, up to 20 % of the population may be affected. In summary, rare diseases are not rare. Most pharmacogenetic syndromes lead to a weakening or loss of pharmacological action. In contrast, malignant hyperthermia (MH), which is the most relevant pharmacogenetic syndrome for anesthesia, is characterized by a pharmacologically induced overactivation of calcium metabolism in skeletal muscle. Volatile anesthetic agents and succinylcholine trigger life-threatening hypermetabolic crises. Emergency treatment is based on inhibition of the calcium release channel of the sarcoplasmic reticulum by dantrolene. After an adverse pharmacological event patients must be informed and a clarification consultation must be carried out during which the hereditory character of MH is explained. The patient should be referred to a specialist MH center where a predisposition can be diagnosed by the functional in vitro contracture test from a muscle biopsy. Additional molecular genetic investigations can yield mutations in the genes for calcium-regulating proteins in skeletal muscle, e.g. ryanodine receptor 1 (RyR1) and calcium voltage-gated channel subunit alpha 1S (CACNA1S). Currently, an association to MH has only been shown for 35 mutations out of more than 400 known and probably hundreds of unknown genetic variations. Furthermore, MH predisposition is not excluded by negative mutation screening. For anesthesiological patient safety it is crucial to identify individuals at risk and warn genetic relatives; however, the legal requirements of the Patients Rights Act and the Human Genetic Examination Act must be strictly adhered to. Specific features of insurance and employment law must be respected under consideration of the Human Genetic Examination Act.

The 3-I framework: a framework for developing public policies regarding pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in Canada.

The 3-I framework of analyzing the ideas, interests, and institutions around a topic has been used by political scientists to guide public policy development. In Canada, there is a lack of policy governing pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing compared to other developed nations. The goal of this study was to use the 3-I framework, a policy development tool, and apply it to PGx testing to identify and analyze areas where current policy is limited and challenges exist in bringing PGx testing into wide-spread clinical practice in Canada. A scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the extent and challenges of PGx policy implementation at federal and provincial levels. Based on the 3-I analysis, contentious ideas related to PGx are (i) genetic discrimination, (ii) informed consent, (iii) the lack of knowledge about PGx in health care, (iv) the value of PGx testing, (v) the roles of health care workers in the coordination of PGx services, and (vi) confidentiality and privacy. The 3-I framework is a useful tool for policy makers, and applying it to PGx policy development is a new approach in Canadian genomics. Policy makers at every organizational level can use this analysis to help develop targeted PGx policies.

Priorities and standards in pharmacogenetic research.

The current enthusiasm for pharmacogenetics draws much of its inspiration from the relatively few examples of polymorphisms that have marked and seemingly clinically relevant effects on drug response. In this regard, pharmacogenetic research has paralleled the study of human disease, which has enjoyed success in identifying mutations underlying mendelian conditions. Progress in deciphering the genetics of complex diseases, involving the interaction of multiple genes with each other and with the environment has been considerably less successful. In most instances, drug responses will probably also prove to be complex, influenced by both the environment and multiple genetic factors. For pharmacogenetics to deliver on its potential, this complexity will need to be recognized and accommodated, both in basic research and in clinical application of pharmacogenetics. As the attention of researchers begins to shift toward more systematic pharmacogenetic investigations, we suggest some priorities and standards for pharmacogenetic research.

Pharmacogenomics: history, barriers, and regulatory solutions.

Pharmacogenomics is the branch of pharmacology which looks at the influence of genetic variation on drug response, connecting particular genetic markers with the effectiveness or safety of a drug. Pharmacogenomic products promise to improve medical treatment, lower health care costs, and make the new drug pipeline for FDA approval more efficient. In the last fifteen years, the FDA has approved pharmacogenomic drugs to treat a variety of cancers, HIV-AIDS, and coronary artery disease. Yet, progress in the field of pharmacogenomics has lagged behind the optimistic predictions of many researchers and policymakers. A lack of clear regulatory guidance dealing with pharmacogenomic products has been a major barrier to progress in the field. The FDA has, however, made some headway. In a series of guidance documents released between 2005 and 2011, the FDA has clarified much of its policy with respect to the development, approval, and labeling of pharmacogenomic products. Despite these efforts, many regulatory questions remain unanswered. This paper highlights a number of these regulatory gaps and provides recommendations to address them in a way which encourages increased development and clinical uptake of pharmacogenomic products.

Consent and privacy in pharmacogenetic testing.

The clinical use of pharmacogenetic drugs will require that a sample of a patient's DNA be tested before a drug is prescribed. Although pharmacogenetic tests pose fewer risks than genetic tests for disease mutations, they might still reveal personal information that could be used adversely to a patient's interests. Informed consent and privacy of pharmacogenetic test results may be essential in most clinical uses of pharmacogenetic drugs.

Hepatitis C pharmacogenetics: state of the art in 2010.

In 2009, a correlated set of polymorphisms in the region of the interleukin-28B (IL28B) gene were associated with clearance of genotype 1 hepatitis C virus (HCV) in patients treated with pegylated interferon-alfa and ribavirin. The same polymorphisms were subsequently associated with spontaneous clearance of HCV in untreated patients. The link between IL28B genotype and HCV clearance may impact decisions regarding initiation of current therapy, the design and interpretation of clinical studies, the economics of treatment, and the process of regulatory approval for new anti-HCV therapeutic agents.

Personalized medicine: is it a pharmacogenetic mirage?

The notion of personalized medicine has developed from the application of the discipline of pharmacogenetics to clinical medicine. Although the clinical relevance of genetically-determined inter-individual differences in pharmacokinetics is poorly understood, and the genotype-phenotype association data on clinical outcomes often inconsistent, officially approved drug labels frequently include pharmacogenetic information concerning the safety and/or efficacy of a number of drugs and refer to the availability of the pharmacogenetic test concerned. Regulatory authorities differ in their approach to these issues. Evidence emerging subsequently has generally revealed the pharmacogenetic information included in the label to be premature. Revised drugs labels, together with a flurry of other collateral activities, have raised public expectations of personalized medicine, promoted as 'the right drug at the right dose the first time.' These expectations place the prescribing physician in a dilemma and at risk of litigation, especially when evidence-based information on genotype-related dosing schedules is to all intent and purposes non-existent and guidelines, intended to improve the clinical utility of available pharmacogenetic information or tests, distance themselves from any responsibility. Lack of efficacy or an adverse drug reaction is frequently related to non-genetic factors. Phenoconversion, arising from drug interactions, poses another often neglected challenge to any potential success of personalized medicine by mimicking genetically-determined enzyme deficiency. A more realistic promotion of personalized medicine should acknowledge current limitations and emphasize that pharmacogenetic testing can only improve the likelihood of diminishing a specific toxic effect or increasing the likelihood of a beneficial effect and that application of pharmacogenetics to clinical medicine cannot adequately predict drug response in individual patients.

Informed consent in the context of pharmacogenomic research: ethical considerations.

Although the scientific research surrounding pharmacogenomics (PGx) has been relatively plentiful, the ethical research concerning this discipline has developed rather conservatively. Following investigation of the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) of PGx research, as well as consulting with key stakeholders, we identified six outstanding ethical issues raised by the informed consent process in PGx research: (1) scope of consent; (2) consent to 'add-on' studies; (3) protection of personal information; (4) commercialization; (5) data sharing; and (6) potential risks stemming from population-based research. In discussing these six areas as well as offering specific considerations, this article offers a solid base from which future practical guidelines for informed consent in PGx research can be constructed. As such, this effort works toward filling the ELSI gap and provides ethical support to the numerous PGx projects undertaken by researchers every year.

Regulatory approval for new pharmacogenomic tests: a comparative overview.

Pharmacogenomics is the study of how genetic variants affect the way in which an individual or subgroup responds to drugs. This developing field aims to inform individual drug therapy and to minimize adverse drug reactions (ADRs). It also promises great benefits in the drug development process. Innovation in pharmacogenomics and its translation into clinical practice is desirable, but appropriate regulation of the safety and effectiveness of pharmacogenomics testing is necessary. This article will describe the current regulatory framework applicable to pharmacogenomic tests in Canada, the United States and Europe. In particular, it will examine the different regulatory pathways for pharmacogenomic tests marketed as test kits and for laboratory-developed tests (LDTs). Recent and upcoming changes to the regulation of pharmacogenomic tests will also be discussed. For example, FDA's proposal to regulate LDTs could have a major impact on the development and availability of pharmacogenomic tests. This review will lead to an evaluation of the issues raised by the regulatory framework and the impact of regulatory changes in relation to meeting the goals of ensuring public safety and promoting the advancement of pharmacogenomics. Regulatory policies which successfully achieve the dual objectives of ensuring public safety and promoting innovation in health technology are imperative in order to reap the benefits of this emerging field.

Pharmacogenomics: bridging the gap between science and practice.

OBJECTIVE: To educate pharmacists about principles and concepts in pharmacogenomics, clinical applications of pharmacogenomic information, and the social, ethical, and legal aspects of pharmacogenomics and to describe a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-supported pharmacogenomics education program for pharmacists and other health professionals. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature from PubMed, recommendations from the Food and Drug Administration and Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention Working Group, prescribing information, websites of government agencies and professional organizations, and relevant textbooks. STUDY SELECTION: Not applicable. DATA EXTRACTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Principles and concepts of pharmacogenomic nomenclature, polymorphism types, and systematic approach to understanding polymorphisms were reviewed. Drug therapy for select therapeutic areas that highlight the applicability of pharmacogenomics are presented, including abacavir, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, tamoxifen, and warfarin. Challenges of translating pharmacogenomics into clinical practice included ethical, social, legal, and economic issues. We have developed a pharmacogenomics education program to disseminate evidence-based pharmacogenomics information and provide a resource for health professionals, including pharmacists. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists play a critical role in the education of patients and health professionals in the area of pharmacogenomics.

Personalized medicine and rescuing "unsafe" drugs with pharmacogenomics: a regulatory perspective.

The sequencing of the human genome and the revolution it has caused in biomedical science created hope for a new era in the prevention and treatment of serious illnesses. In the area of drug development, much of this hope is focused in the field of pharmacogenomics (PGx), which is the study of how individual genetic differences affect drug response. Many people expected advances in pharmacogenomics to lead to the rapid development of new "personalized medicines," where drugs and dosages could be tailored specifically to a patient's genotype. However, pharmacogenomics has largely failed to meet these expectations and the Food and Drug Administration has only approved a handful of drugs that rely on PGx data. This article evaluates how FDA regulates the use of pharmacogenomics and discusses how the current regulatory scheme fails to provide an adequate route for developing personalized medicine. The article then proposes modifying the current regulatory regime to encourage development of PGx-based drugs by either allowing PGx-based drugs to be approved with unvalidated biomarkers if the sponsor commits to Phase IV studies or using the Orphan Drug Act to provide economic incentives.

Evaluation of Current Regulation and Guidelines of Pharmacogenomic Drug Labels: Opportunities for Improvements.

Pharmacogenomic drug labels in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) provide an instrument for clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics. We compared pharmacogenomic guidance by Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and by the European agencies the European Medicines Agency (EMA), College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG-MEB), and Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (FIDMD), collectively assigned as EMA/FIDMD+MEB shortened as EMA/FM. Of 54 drugs with an actionable gene-drug interaction in the CPIC and DPWG guidelines, only 50% had actionable pharmacogenomic information in the SmPCs and the agencies were in agreement in only 18% of the cases. We further compared 450 additional drugs, lacking CPIC or DPWG guidance, and found 126 actionable gene-drug labels by the FDA and/or the EMA/FM. Based on these 126 drugs in addition to the 54 above, the consensus of actionable pharmacogenomic labeling between the FDA and the EMA/FM was only 54%. In conclusion, guidelines provided by CPIC/DPWG are only partly implemented into the SmPCs and the implementation of pharmacogenomic drug labels into the clinics would strongly gain from a higher extent of consensus between agencies.

Unraveling heterogeneity of the clinical pharmacogenomic guidelines in oncology practice among major regulatory bodies.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) implementation in clinical practice is steadily increasing. PGx uses genetic information to personalize medication use, which increases medication efficacy and decreases side effects. The availability of clinical PGx guidelines is essential for its implementation in clinical settings. Currently, there are few organizations/associations responsible for releasing those guidelines, including the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group, the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety and the French National Network of Pharmacogenetics. According to the US FDA, oncology medications are highly correlated to PGx biomarkers. Therefore, summarizing the PGx guidelines for oncology drugs will positively impact the clinical decisions for cancer patients. This review aims to scrutinize side-by-side available clinical PGx guidelines in oncology.

Drug development: assessment of pharmacogenetic studies by Spanish research ethics committees.

The decision taken by research ethics committees (RECs) while assessing pharmacogenetic (PGx) substudies as part of international clinical trials is almost unknown. A total of 255 applications of 36 PGx substudies embedded in clinical trials (12 phase 2, 24 phase 3) were submitted to 72 RECs in 2006-2007 by GlaxoSmithKline in Spain. These were trials of 17 different compounds, aimed to be conducted in the five continents. Of the 255 applications, 226 (89%) were directly approved by RECs without raising any queries to the sponsor; 1% (3/255) were plainly rejected by two RECs. The rest (10%) were followed by 64 queries asked by 16 RECs on 25 PGx substudies. Following responses from the sponsor, all but two applications were approved. Thus, the RECs involved finally approved 98% (250/255) of the submitted applications. The requirements specifically raised by two RECs (PGx samples to be transferred to a public biobank or alternatively destroyed immediately, or storage permitted only 5 years after the trial is concluded) could not be met by the sponsor. It can be inferred from the results obtained that ethical and scientific standards implemented by the sponsor in the design, conduct and sample management of PGx substudies satisfied the vast majority (70/72; 97%) of RECs involved in this study.

[Beyond the diagnosis of a genetic disease, the question of informing the relatives]. / Au-delà du diagnostic d'une maladie génétique, la question de l'information de la parentèle.

The examination of a person's genetic characteristics is not a classic diagnostic. It concerns the gene pool of an entire family. It is valid in the present and may affect some part of the future. The diseases that it reveals, sometime very serious ones, may or may not be treated. But genetic advice allows sometimes to preventing some of these diseases. The 2004 Bioethics Law makes the provision that in case a serious genetic anomaly is diagnosed during the examination of a person's genetic characteristics, the medical doctor informs the person or its legal representative of the risks that his silence could cause to the potentially concerned family members as long as prevention measures or care can be offered to them. For these reasons, besides the specificity of the diagnostic for the person directly concerned, there is also the question of the right of other people, like family members, to be informed of the diagnostic. As such, there is an ethical conflict between medical confidentiality owed to each patient and the duty of information. The pharmacist must know the medical confidentiality rules that frame this information. He must also know the different patient attitudes and must be able to encourage him to inform his family because the future if not the life of others may depend on this information.

Providing patients with information on pharmacogenetic testing.

This article outlines the key issues to be considered before recommending the use of pharmacogenetic tests, which may predict a patient's response to a particular drug.