A 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel to prevent adverse drug reactions: an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised crossover implementation study.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene-drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. METHODS: We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug-gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug-gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug-gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41 696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54-0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61-0·79]; p <0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. FUNDING: European Union Horizon 2020.

Economic evaluation of pharmacogenomic-guided antiplatelet treatment in Spanish patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome participating in the U-PGx PREPARE study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases and especially Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) constitute a major health issue impacting millions of patients worldwide. Being a leading cause of death and hospital admissions in many European countries including Spain, it accounts for enormous amounts of healthcare expenditures for its management. Clopidogrel is one of the oldest antiplatelet medications used as standard of care in ACS. METHODS: In this study, we performed an economic evaluation study to estimate whether a genome-guided clopidogrel treatment is cost-effective compared to conventional one in a large cohort of 243 individuals of Spanish origin suffering from ACS and treated with clopidogrel. Data were derived from the U-PGx PREPARE clinical trial. Effectiveness was measured as survival of individuals while study data on safety and efficacy, as well as on resource utilization associated with each adverse drug reaction were used to measure costs to treat these adverse drug reactions. A generalized linear regression model was used to estimate cost differences for both study groups. RESULTS: Based on our findings, PGx-guided treatment group is cost-effective. PGx-guided treatment demonstrated to have 50% less hospital admissions, reduced emergency visits and almost 13% less ADRs compared to the non-PGx approach with mean QALY 1.07 (95% CI, 1.04-1.10) versus 1.06 (95% CI, 1.03-1.09) for the control group, while life years for both groups were 1.24 (95% CI, 1.20-1.26) and 1.23 (95% CI, 1.19-1.26), respectively. The mean total cost of PGx-guided treatment was 50% less expensive than conventional therapy with clopidogrel [€883 (95% UI, €316-€1582), compared to €1,755 (95% UI, €765-€2949)]. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that PGx-guided clopidogrel treatment represents a cost-effective option for patients suffering from ACS in the Spanish healthcare setting.

Exploring the contribution of genetic variants to high sunitinib exposure in patients with cancer.

AIMS: Sunitinib exhibits considerable interindividual variability in exposure. While the target total plasma concentration of sunitinib and its active metabolite is 50-87.5 ng/mL for the intermittent dosing schedule, ~10-21% of patients experience higher exposures (>87.5 ng/mL), correlated with an increased risk for toxicity. Previous research identified single nucleotide variants (SNVs) in genes from the sunitinib pharmacokinetic pathway to be associated with efficacy and toxicity. However, significant interindividual variability in exposure remains unexplained. Our aim was to identify genetic variants associated with supratherapeutic exposure of sunitinib. METHODS: This was a genome-wide association study. Cases were identified during routine therapeutic drug monitoring and consisted of patients with dose-normalized sunitinib plasma concentrations >87.5 ng/mL (intermittent dosing) or >75 ng/mL (continuous dosing). Controls were sampled from the historical cohort EuroTARGET who tolerated the standard dose of 50 mg in an intermittent schedule. SNVs were tested for an association with sunitinib exposure. A P-value ≤5 × 10-8 was considered significant and a P-value between 5 × 10-8 and 5 × 10-6 was considered suggestive. RESULTS: Sixty-nine cases and 345 controls were included for association analysis. One SNV (rs6923761), located on the gene glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor, was significantly associated with increased sunitinib exposure (P = 7.86 × 10-19). Twelve SNVs were suggestive for an association with sunitinib exposure (P ≤ 5 × 10-6). CONCLUSIONS: While rs6923671 is associated with high sunitinib exposure, the underlying mechanism is not yet clarified and warrants further investigation. We could not confirm the earlier found associations between SNVs in candidate genes involved in the pharmacokinetic pathway of sunitinib and its efficacy and toxicity.

Pharmacokinetic profile of irinotecan in patients with chronic kidney disease: Two cases and literature review.

AIMS: There are limited pharmacokinetic data on the use of irinotecan in patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and no haemodialysis. In this case report, we present 2 cases and review the current literature. METHODS: The dose of irinotecan in both patients was reduced pre-emptively due to reduced GFR. The first patient had her irinotecan dose reduced to 50%, but was nevertheless admitted to hospital because of irinotecan-induced toxicity, including gastrointestinal toxicity and neutropenic fever. The dose was reduced further to 40% for the second cycle; however, the patient was again admitted to the hospital, and irinotecan was stopped indefinitely. The second patient also had his irinotecan dose reduced to 50% and was admitted to the emergency department for gastrointestinal toxicity after the first cycle. However, irinotecan could be administered in the same dose in later cycles. RESULTS: The area under the curve to infinity of irinotecan and SN-38 in the first patient were comparable to those of an individual receiving 100% dose intensity. The area under the curve to infinity of irinotecan and SN-38 in patient 2 in both cycles were slightly less than reference values. Furthermore, clearance values of irinotecan and SN-38 in our patients were comparable to those without renal impairment. CONCLUSION: Our case report suggests that reduced GFR may not significantly affect the clearance of irinotecan and SN-38, but can still result in clinical toxicity. Reduced initial dosing seems indicated in this patient population. Further research is needed to fully understand the relationship between reduced GFR, pharmacokinetics, and toxicity of irinotecan and SN-38.

Implementation of pre-emptive testing of a pharmacogenomic panel in clinical practice: Where do we stand?

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) account for a large proportion of hospitalizations among adults and are more common in multimorbid patients, worsening clinical outcomes and burdening healthcare resources. Over the past decade, pharmacogenomics has been developed as a practical tool for optimizing treatment outcomes by mitigating the risk of ADRs. Some single-gene reactive tests are already used in clinical practice, including the DPYD test for fluoropyrimidines, which demonstrates how integrating pharmacogenomic data into routine care can improve patient safety in a cost-effective manner. The evolution from reactive single-gene testing to comprehensive pre-emptive genotyping panels holds great potential for refining drug prescribing practices. Several implementation projects have been conducted to test the feasibility of applying different genetic panels in clinical practice. Recently, the results of a large prospective randomized trial in Europe (the PREPARE study by Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics consortium) have provided the first evidence that prospective application of a pre-emptive pharmacogenomic test panel in clinical practice, in seven European healthcare systems, is feasible and yielded a 30% reduction in the risk of developing clinically relevant toxicities. Nevertheless, some important questions remain unanswered and will hopefully be addressed by future dedicated studies. These issues include the cost-effectiveness of applying a pre-emptive genotyping panel, the role of multiple co-medications, the transferability of currently tested pharmacogenetic guidelines among patients of non-European origin and the impact of rare pharmacogenetic variants that are not detected by currently used genotyping approaches.

Application of long-read sequencing to elucidate complex pharmacogenomic regions: a proof of principle.

The use of pharmacogenomics in clinical practice is becoming standard of care. However, due to the complex genetic makeup of pharmacogenes, not all genetic variation is currently accounted for. Here, we show the utility of long-read sequencing to resolve complex pharmacogenes by analyzing a well-characterised sample. This data consists of long reads that were processed to resolve phased haploblocks. 73% of pharmacogenes were fully covered in one phased haploblock, including 9/15 genes that are 100% complex. Variant calling accuracy in the pharmacogenes was high, with 99.8% recall and 100% precision for SNVs and 98.7% precision and 98.0% recall for Indels. For the majority of gene-drug interactions in the DPWG and CPIC guidelines, the associated genes could be fully resolved (62% and 63% respectively). Together, these findings suggest that long-read sequencing data offers promising opportunities in elucidating complex pharmacogenes and haplotype phasing while maintaining accurate variant calling.

Development of an extensive workflow for comprehensive clinical pharmacogenomic profiling: lessons from a pilot study on 100 whole exome sequencing data.

This pilot study is aimed at implementing an approach for comprehensive clinical pharmacogenomics (PGx) profiling. Fifty patients with cardiovascular diseases and 50 healthy individuals underwent whole-exome sequencing. Data on 1800 PGx genes were extracted and analyzed through deep filtration separately. Theoretical drug induced phenoconversion was assessed for the patients, using sequence2script. In total, 4539 rare variants (including 115 damaging non-synonymous) were identified. Four publicly available PGx bioinformatics algorithms to assign PGx haplotypes were applied to nine selected very important pharmacogenes (VIP) and revealed a 45-70% concordance rate. To ensure availability of the results at point-of-care, actionable variants were stored in a web-hosted database and PGx-cards were developed for quick access and handed to the study subjects. While a comprehensive clinical PGx profile could be successfully extracted from WES data, available tools to interpret these data demonstrated inconsistencies that complicate clinical application.

A systematic review on disease-drug-drug interactions with immunomodulating drugs: A critical appraisal of risk assessment and drug labelling.

AIM: Use of immunomodulating therapeutics for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases may cause disease-drug-drug interactions (DDDIs) by reversing inflammation-driven alterations in the metabolic capacity of cytochrome P450 enzymes. European Medicine Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines from 2007 recommend that the DDDI potential of therapeutic proteins should be assessed. This systematic analysis aimed to characterize the available DDDI trials with immunomodulatory drugs, experimental evidence for a DDDI risk and reported DDDI risk information in FDA/EMA approved drug labelling. METHOD: For this systematic review, the EMA list of European Public Assessment Reports of human medicine was used to select immunomodulating monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) marketed after 2007 at risk for a DDDI. Selected drugs were included in PubMed and Embase searches to extract reported interaction studies. The Summary of Product Characteristics (SPCs) and the United States Prescribing Information (USPIs) were subsequently used for analysis of DDDI risk descriptions. RESULTS: Clinical interaction studies to evaluate DDDI risks were performed for 12 of the 24 mAbs (50%) and for none of the TKIs. Four studies identified a DDDI risk, of which three were studies with interleukin-6 (IL-6) neutralizing mAbs. Based on (non)clinical data, a DDDI risk was reported in 32% of the SPCs and in 60% of the USPIs. The EMA/FDA documentation aligned with the DDDI risk potential in 35% of the 20 cases. CONCLUSION: This systematic review reinforces that the risk for DDDI by immunomodulating drugs is target- and disease-specific. Drug labelling information designates the greatest DDDI risk to mAbs that neutralize the effects of IL-6, Tumor Necrosis Factor alfa (TNF-α) and interleukin-1 bèta (IL-1ß) in diseases with systemic inflammation.

Pharmacogenomic testing in paediatrics: Clinical implementation strategies.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) relates to the study of genetic factors determining variability in drug response. Implementing PGx testing in paediatric patients can enhance drug safety, helping to improve drug efficacy or reduce the risk of toxicity. Despite its clinical relevance, the implementation of PGx testing in paediatric practice to date has been variable and limited. As with most paediatric pharmacological studies, there are well-recognised barriers to obtaining high-quality PGx evidence, particularly when patient numbers may be small, and off-label or unlicensed prescribing remains widespread. Furthermore, trials enrolling small numbers of children can rarely, in isolation, provide sufficient PGx evidence to change clinical practice, so extrapolation from larger PGx studies in adult patients, where scientifically sound, is essential. This review paper discusses the relevance of PGx to paediatrics and considers implementation strategies from a child health perspective. Examples are provided from Canada, the Netherlands and the UK, with consideration of the different healthcare systems and their distinct approaches to implementation, followed by future recommendations based on these cumulative experiences. Improving the evidence base demonstrating the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of paediatric PGx testing will be critical to drive implementation forwards. International, interdisciplinary collaborations will enhance paediatric data collation, interpretation and evidence curation, while also supporting dedicated paediatric PGx educational initiatives. PGx consortia and paediatric clinical research networks will continue to play a central role in the streamlined development of effective PGx implementation strategies to help optimise paediatric pharmacotherapy.

Volumetric microsampling for simultaneous remote immunosuppressant and kidney function monitoring in outpatient kidney transplant recipients.

AIMS: Immunosuppressant and kidney function monitoring are crucial for kidney transplant recipient follow-up. Microsamples enable remote sampling and minimise patient burden as compared to conventional venous sampling at the clinic. We developed a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay to quantify tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid (MPA), creatinine and iohexol in dried blood spot (DBS), and volumetric absorptive microsample (VAMS) samples. METHODS: The assay was successfully validated analytically for all analytes. Clinical validation was conducted by direct comparison of paired DBS, VAMS and venous reference samples from 25 kidney transplant recipients. Patients received iohexol 5-15 minutes before immunosuppressant intake and were sampled 0, 1, 2 and 3 hours thereafter, enabling tacrolimus and MPA area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and creatinine-based and iohexol-based glomerular filtration rate (GFR) estimation. Method agreement was evaluated using Passing-Bablok regression, Bland-Altman analysis and the percentages of values within 15-30% of the reference (P15 -P30 ) with a P20 acceptance threshold of 80%. RESULTS: For DBS samples, method agreement was excellent for tacrolimus trough concentrations (n = 25, P15  = 92.0%) and AUCs (n = 25; P20  = 95.8%) and adequate for creatinine-based GFR trend monitoring (n = 25; P20  = 80%). DBS-based MPA AUC assessment showed suboptimal agreement (n = 16; P20  = 68.8%), but was considered acceptable given its P30 of 100%. The assay performed inadequately for DBS-based iohexol GFR determination (n = 24; P20  = 75%). The VAMS technique generally showed inferior performance, but can be considered for certain situations. CONCLUSION: The assay was successfully validated for tacrolimus, MPA and creatinine quantification in DBS samples, enabling simultaneous remote kidney function trend monitoring and immunosuppressant therapeutic drug monitoring in kidney transplant recipients.

Increased Tacrolimus Exposure in Kidney Transplant Recipients With COVID-19: Inflammation-Driven Downregulation of Metabolism as a Potential Mechanism.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 disease compared to the general population. This is partly driven by their use of immunosuppressive therapy, which influences inflammatory responses and viral loads. Current guidelines suggest to withdraw mycophenolate while calcineurin inhibitors are often continued during a COVID-19 infection. However, clinical signs of calcineurin toxicity have been described in multiple COVID-19 positive KTRs. In this report we describe the course of tacrolimus exposure prior to, during, and post COVID-19 in observations from three clinical cases as well as four KTRs from a controlled trial population. We postulate inflammation driven downregulation of the CYP3A metabolism as a potential mechanism for higher tacrolimus exposure. To mitigate the risk of tacrolimus overexposure and toxicity therapeutic drug monitoring is recommended in KTRs with COVID-19 both in the in-, out-patient and home monitoring setting.

Population pharmacokinetics and genetics of oral meltdose tacrolimus (Envarsus) in stable adult liver transplant recipients.

AIMS: Meltdose tacrolimus (Envarsus) is marketed as a formulation with a more consistent exposure. Due to the narrow therapeutic window, therapeutic drug monitoring is essential to maintain adequate exposure. The primary objective of this study was to develop a population pharmacokinetic (PK) model of Envarsus among liver transplant patients and select a limited sampling strategy (LSS) for AUC estimation. The secondary objective was to investigate potential covariates including CYP3A/IL genotype suitable for initial dose optimization when converting to Envarsus. METHODS: Adult liver transplant patients were converted from prolonged release tacrolimus (Advagraf) to Envarsus and blood samples were obtained using whole blood and dried blood spot sampling. Subsequently the population PK parameters were estimated using nonlinear-mixed effect modelling. Demographic factors, and recipient and donor CYP3A4, CYP3A5, IL-6, -10 and -18 genotype were tested as potential covariates to explain interindividual variability. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included. A 2-compartment model with delayed absorption was the most suitable to describe population PK parameters. The population PK parameters were as follows: clearance, 3.27 L/h; intercompartmental clearance, 9.6 L/h; volume of distribution of compartments 1 and 2, 95 and 500 L, respectively. No covariates were found to significantly decrease interindividual variability. The best 3-point LSS was t = 0,4,8 with a median bias of 1.8% (-12.5-12.5). CONCLUSIONS: The LSS can be used to adequately predict the AUC. No clinically relevant covariates known to influence the PK of Envarsus, including CYP3A status, were identified and therefore do not seem useful for initial dose optimization.

Personalized Therapy for Mycophenolate: Consensus Report by the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology.

ABSTRACT: When mycophenolic acid (MPA) was originally marketed for immunosuppressive therapy, fixed doses were recommended by the manufacturer. Awareness of the potential for a more personalized dosing has led to development of methods to estimate MPA area under the curve based on the measurement of drug concentrations in only a few samples. This approach is feasible in the clinical routine and has proven successful in terms of correlation with outcome. However, the search for superior correlates has continued, and numerous studies in search of biomarkers that could better predict the perfect dosage for the individual patient have been published. As it was considered timely for an updated and comprehensive presentation of consensus on the status for personalized treatment with MPA, this report was prepared following an initiative from members of the International Association of Therapeutic Drug Monitoring and Clinical Toxicology (IATDMCT). Topics included are the criteria for analytics, methods to estimate exposure including pharmacometrics, the potential influence of pharmacogenetics, development of biomarkers, and the practical aspects of implementation of target concentration intervention. For selected topics with sufficient evidence, such as the application of limited sampling strategies for MPA area under the curve, graded recommendations on target ranges are presented. To provide a comprehensive review, this report also includes updates on the status of potential biomarkers including those which may be promising but with a low level of evidence. In view of the fact that there are very few new immunosuppressive drugs under development for the transplant field, it is likely that MPA will continue to be prescribed on a large scale in the upcoming years. Discontinuation of therapy due to adverse effects is relatively common, increasing the risk for late rejections, which may contribute to graft loss. Therefore, the continued search for innovative methods to better personalize MPA dosage is warranted.

Generating evidence for precision medicine: considerations made by the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium when designing and operationalizing the PREPARE study.

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacogenetic panel-based testing represents a new model for precision medicine. A sufficiently powered prospective study assessing the (cost-)effectiveness of a panel-based pharmacogenomics approach to guide pharmacotherapy is lacking. Therefore, the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium initiated the PREemptive Pharmacogenomic testing for prevention of Adverse drug Reactions (PREPARE) study. Here, we provide an overview of considerations made to mitigate multiple methodological challenges that emerged during the design. METHODS: An evaluation of considerations made when designing the PREPARE study across six domains: study aims and design, primary endpoint definition and collection of adverse drug events, inclusion and exclusion criteria, target population, pharmacogenomics intervention strategy, and statistical analyses. RESULTS: Challenges and respective solutions included: (1) defining and operationalizing a composite primary endpoint enabling measurement of the anticipated effect, by including only severe, causal, and drug genotype-associated adverse drug reactions; (2) avoiding overrepresentation of frequently prescribed drugs within the patient sample while maintaining external validity, by capping drugs of enrolment; (3) designing the pharmacogenomics intervention strategy to be applicable across ethnicities and healthcare settings; and (4) designing a statistical analysis plan to avoid dilution of effect by initially excluding patients without a gene-drug interaction in a gatekeeping analysis. CONCLUSION: Our design considerations will enable quantification of the collective clinical utility of a panel of pharmacogenomics-markers within one trial as a proof-of-concept for pharmacogenomics-guided pharmacotherapy across multiple actionable gene-drug interactions. These considerations may prove useful to other investigators aiming to generate evidence for precision medicine.

Predictive genetic biomarkers for the efficacy of methotrexate in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review.

Multiple pharmacogenetic studies investigated the effectiveness of methotrexate. However, due to the use of nonvalidated outcomes, lack of validation or conflicting results it remains unclear if genetic markers can help to predict response to MTX treatment. Therefore, a systematic review was performed. PubMed was searched for articles reporting potential pharmacogenetic biomarkers associated (p < 0.05) with MTX efficacy using the validated endpoints DAS(28), EULAR, or ACR response criteria. The PICO method was used for study selection, and PRISMA guidelines to prepare the report. Thirty-five studies met the inclusion criteria, providing 39 potential genetic biomarkers in 19 genes. After Bonferroni correction, six genetic biomarkers were associated with the efficacy of MTX: ATIC rs7563206; SLC19A1 rs1051266; DHFR rs836788; TYMS rs2244500, rs2847153, and rs3786362 in at least one study. Only SLC19A1 rs1051266 was replicated in an independent cohort and promising for predicting methotrexate efficacy.

The end of the laboratory developed test as we know it? Recommendations from a national multidisciplinary taskforce of laboratory specialists on the interpretation of the IVDR and its complications.

The in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation (IVDR) will take effect in May 2022. This regulation has a large impact on both the manufacturers of in vitro diagnostic medical devices (IVD) and clinical laboratories. For clinical laboratories, the IVDR poses restrictions on the use of laboratory developed tests (LDTs). To provide a uniform interpretation of the IVDR for colleagues in clinical practice, the IVDR Task Force was created by the scientific societies of laboratory specialties in the Netherlands. A guidance document with explanations and interpretations of relevant passages of the IVDR was drafted to help laboratories prepare for the impact of this new legislation. Feedback from interested parties and stakeholders was collected and used to further improve the document. Here we would like to present our approach to our European colleagues and inform them about the impact of the IVDR and, importantly we would like to present potentially useful approaches to fulfill the requirements of the IVDR for LDTs.

Genetic polymorphisms in ABCG2 and CYP1A2 are associated with imatinib dose reduction in patients treated for gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Imatinib has a mild toxicity profile, although severe adverse events may develop. In this pharmacogenetic pathway analysis the need for dose reduction and cessation of therapy was tested for an association with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes related to imatinib pharmacology. Retrospective data from 315 patients with a gastrointestinal stromal tumor who received imatinib 400 mg o.d. was associated with 36 SNPs. SNPs that showed a trend in univariate testing were tested in a multivariate model with clinical factors and correction for multiple testing was performed. Dose reduction was associated with carriership of the A-allele in rs2231137 in ABCG2 (OR 7.35, p = 0.0002) and two C-alleles in rs762551 in CYP1A2 (OR 7.12, p = 0.001). Results remained significant after correction for multiple testing. Therapy cessation did not show an association with any of the tested SNPs. These results may help identifying patients at increased risk for toxicity who could benefit from intensified follow-up.

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation of fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with cancer: a prospective safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine treatment can result in severe toxicity in up to 30% of patients and is often the result of reduced activity of the key metabolic enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), mostly caused by genetic variants in the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). We assessed the effect of prospective screening for the four most relevant DPYD variants (DPYD*2A [rs3918290, c.1905+1G>A, IVS14+1G>A], c.2846A>T [rs67376798, D949V], c.1679T>G [rs55886062, DPYD*13, I560S], and c.1236G>A [rs56038477, E412E, in haplotype B3]) on patient safety and subsequent DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in daily clinical care. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, safety analysis in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands, the study population consisted of adult patients (≥18 years) with cancer who were intended to start on a fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy (capecitabine or fluorouracil as single agent or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents or radiotherapy). Patients with all tumour types for which fluoropyrimidine-based therapy was considered in their best interest were eligible. We did prospective genotyping for DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A. Heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T and c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G), and DPYD wild-type patients were treated according to the current standard of care. The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of severe (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 grade ≥3) overall fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity across the entire treatment duration. We compared toxicity incidence between DPYD variant allele carriers and DPYD wild-type patients on an intention-to-treat basis, and relative risks (RRs) for severe toxicity were compared between the current study and a historical cohort of DPYD variant allele carriers treated with full dose fluoropyrimidine-based therapy (derived from a previously published meta-analysis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02324452, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, we enrolled 1181 patients. 78 patients were considered non-evaluable, because they were retrospectively identified as not meeting inclusion criteria, did not start fluoropyrimidine-based treatment, or were homozygous or compound heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers. Of 1103 evaluable patients, 85 (8%) were heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, and 1018 (92%) were DPYD wild-type patients. Overall, fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers (33 [39%] of 85 patients) than in wild-type patients (231 [23%] of 1018 patients; p=0·0013). The RR for severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was 1·31 (95% CI 0·63-2·73) for genotype-guided dosing compared with 2·87 (2·14-3·86) in the historical cohort for DPYD*2A carriers, no toxicity compared with 4·30 (2·10-8·80) in c.1679T>G carriers, 2·00 (1·19-3·34) compared with 3·11 (2·25-4·28) for c.2846A>T carriers, and 1·69 (1·18-2·42) compared with 1·72 (1·22-2·42) for c.1236G>A carriers. INTERPRETATION: Prospective DPYD genotyping was feasible in routine clinical practice, and DPYD genotype-based dose reductions improved patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment. For DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G carriers, a 50% initial dose reduction was adequate. For c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T carriers, a larger dose reduction of 50% (instead of 25%) requires investigation. Since fluoropyrimidines are among the most commonly used anticancer agents, these findings suggest that implementation of DPYD genotype-guided individualised dosing should be a new standard of care. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.