Strategies for DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in the US.

PURPOSE: Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency are at high risk for severe and fatal toxicity from fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy. Pre-treatment DPYD testing is standard of care in many countries, but not the United States (US). This survey assessed pre-treatment DPYD testing approaches in the US to identify best practices for broader adoption. METHODS: From August to October 2023, a 22-item QualtricsXM survey was sent to institutions and clinicians known to conduct pre-treatment DPYD testing and broadly distributed through relevant organizations and social networks. Responses were analyzed using descriptive analysis. RESULTS: Responses from 24 unique US sites that have implemented pre-treatment DPYD testing or have a detailed implementation plan in place were analyzed. Only 33% of sites ordered DPYD testing for all FP-treated patients; at the remaining sites, patients were tested depending on disease characteristics or clinician preference. Almost 50% of sites depend on individual clinicians to remember to order testing without the assistance of electronic alerts or workflow reminders. DPYD testing was most often conducted by commercial laboratories that tested for at least the four or five DPYD variants considered clinically actionable. Approximately 90% of sites reported receiving results within 10 days of ordering. CONCLUSION: Implementing DPYD testing into routine clinical practice is feasible and requires a coordinated effort among the healthcare team. These results will be used to develop best practices for the clinical adoption of DPYD testing to prevent severe and fatal toxicity in cancer patients receiving FP chemotherapy.

Rationale and design for a pragmatic randomized trial to assess gene-based prescribing for SSRIs in the treatment of depression.

Specific selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) metabolism is strongly influenced by two pharmacogenes, CYP2D6 and CYP2C19. However, the effectiveness of prospectively using pharmacogenetic variants to select or dose SSRIs for depression is uncertain in routine clinical practice. The objective of this prospective, multicenter, pragmatic randomized controlled trial is to determine the effectiveness of genotype-guided selection and dosing of antidepressants on control of depression in participants who are 8 years or older with ≥3 months of depressive symptoms who require new or revised therapy. Those randomized to the intervention arm undergo pharmacogenetic testing at baseline and receive a pharmacy consult and/or automated clinical decision support intervention based on an actionable phenotype, while those randomized to the control arm have pharmacogenetic testing at the end of 6-months. In both groups, depression and drug tolerability outcomes are assessed at baseline, 1 month, 3 months (primary), and 6 months. The primary end point is defined by change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Depression score assessed at 3 months versus baseline. Secondary end points include change inpatient health questionnaire (PHQ-8) measure of depression severity, remission rates defined by PROMIS score < 16, medication adherence, and medication side effects. The primary analysis will compare the PROMIS score difference between trial arms among those with an actionable CYP2D6 or CYP2C19 genetic result or a CYP2D6 drug-drug interaction. The trial has completed accrual of 1461 participants, of which 562 were found to have an actionable phenotype to date, and follow-up will be complete in April of 2024.

Use of CYP2D6 Inhibitors with CYP2D6 Opioids: Association with Emergency Department Visits for Pain.

Hydrocodone, tramadol, codeine, and oxycodone are commonly prescribed opioids that rely on activation by cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6). CYP2D6 inhibitors can significantly decrease CYP2D6 activity, leading to reduced generation of active metabolites, and impairing pain control. To understand this impact, we assessed emergency department (ED) visits in patients initiating these CYP2D6-dependent opioids while on CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressants vs. antidepressants that do not inhibit CYP2D6. This retrospective cohort study included adult patients prescribed CYP2D6-dependent opioids utilizing electronic health records data from the University of Florida Health (2015-2021). The association between ED visits and inhibitor exposure was tested using multivariable logistic regression. The primary analysis had 12,118 patients (72% female; mean (SD) age, 55 (13.4)) in the hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine cohort and 5,547 patients (64% female; mean (SD) age, 53.6 (14.2)) in the oxycodone cohort. Hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine-treated patients exposed to CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressants (n = 7,043) had a higher crude rate of pain-related ED visits than those taking other antidepressants (n = 5,075) (3.28% vs. 1.87%), with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.75 (95% CI: 1.36 to 2.24). Similarly, in the oxycodone cohort, CYP2D6-inhibitor antidepressant-exposed individuals (n = 3,206) had a higher crude rate of ED visits than individuals exposed to other antidepressants (n = 2,341) (5.02% vs. 3.37%), with aOR of 1.70 (95% CI: 1.27-2.27). Similar findings were observed in secondary and sensitivity analyses. Our findings suggest patients with concomitant use of hydrocodone/tramadol/codeine or oxycodone and CYP2D6 inhibitors have more frequent ED visits for pain, which may be due to inadequate pain control.

Assessing user perspectives on clinical pharmacogenomics consultation documentation: a user-centered evaluation.

The University of Florida Health Precision Medicine Program plays a crucial role in delivering pharmacogenomics (PGx) result notes to providers who request PGx testing. Despite this, there is currently a lack of a formal assessment of provider needs and established best practice design principles to guide the ongoing development of PGx result notes. This study aims to enhance the content and format of the PGx consult note at UF Health by incorporating valuable feedback from healthcare providers. Through in-depth user sessions involving 11 participants, we evaluated the usability of our consult note template. While overall satisfaction with the content was noted, specific sections, including those addressing phenoconversion and the medication list, were identified for revision to enhance clarity based on insightful provider feedback.

CYP2D6-guided opioid therapy for adults with cancer pain: A randomized implementation clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: The CYP2D6 enzyme metabolizes opioids commonly prescribed for cancer-related pain, and CYP2D6 polymorphisms may contribute to variability in opioid response. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing for patients with cancer and reported pilot outcome data. METHODS: Adult patients from two cancer centers were prospectively enrolled into a hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial and randomized to CYP2D6-genotype-guided opioid selection, with clinical recommendations, or usual care. Implementation metrics, including provider response, medication changes consistent with recommendations, and patient-reported pain and symptom scores at baseline and up to 8 weeks, were assessed. RESULTS: Most (87/114, 76%) patients approached for the study agreed to participate. Of 85 patients randomized, 71% were prescribed oxycodone at baseline. The median (range) time to receive CYP2D6 test results was 10 (3-37) days; 24% of patients had physicians acknowledge genotype results in a clinic note. Among patients with CYP2D6-genotype-guided recommendations to change therapy (n = 11), 18% had a change congruent with recommendations. Among patients who completed baseline and follow-up questionnaires (n = 48), there was no difference in change in mean composite pain score (-1.01 ± 2.1 vs. -0.41 ± 2.5; p = 0.19) or symptom severity at last follow-up (3.96 ± 2.18 vs. 3.47 ± 1.78; p = 0.63) between the usual care arm (n = 26) and genotype-guided arm (n = 22), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed high acceptance of pharmacogenetic testing as part of a clinical trial among patients with cancer pain. However, provider response to genotype-guided recommendations was low, impacting assessment of pain-related outcomes. Addressing barriers to utility of pharmacogenetics results and clinical recommendations will be critical for implementation success.

Lessons from clinical implementation of a preemptive pharmacogenetic panel as part of a testing pilot program with an employer-sponsored medical plan.

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.

Clinician Response to Pharmacogenetic Clinical Decision Support Alerts.

The objective of this study was to characterize clinician response following standardization of pharmacogenetic (PGx) clinical decision support alerts at University of Florida (UF) Health. A retrospective analysis of all PGx alerts that fired at a tertiary academic medical center from August 2020 through May 2022 was performed. Alert acceptance rate was calculated and compared across six gene-drug pairs, patient care setting, and clinician specialty. The disposition of the triggering medication was compared with the alert response and evaluated for congruence. There were a total of 818 alerts included for analysis of alert response, 557 alerts included in acceptance rate calculations, and 392 alerts with sufficient information to assess clinical response. The overall acceptance rate was 63%. The alert response and clinical response were congruent for 47% of alerts. Alert response was influenced by the triggering gene-drug pair, clinician specialty, patient care setting, and specialty of the provider who initially ordered the PGx test. Clinical response was mostly incongruent with alert response. Alert acceptance is influenced by the triggering gene-drug pair, clinician specialty, and care setting. Alert response is not a reliable surrogate marker for clinical action. Any future research into the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts should focus on clinical response rather than alert response. Given the reliance on CDS alerts to enhance uptake of PGx, it is worthwhile to further investigate their impact on prescribing and patient outcomes.

Reimbursement of pharmacogenetic tests at a tertiary academic medical center in the United States.

Introduction: Pharmacogenetics (PGx) has the potential to improve health outcomes but cost of testing is a barrier for equitable access. Reimbursement by insurance providers may lessen the financial burden for patients, but the extent to which PGx claims are covered in clinical practice has not been well-characterized in the literature. Methods: A retrospective analysis of outpatient claims submitted to payers for PGx tests from 1/1/2019 through 12/31/2021 was performed. A reimbursement rate was calculated and compared across specific test types (e.g., single genes, panel), payers, indication, and the year the claim was submitted. Results: A total of 1,039 outpatient claims for PGx testing were analyzed. The overall reimbursement rate was 46% and ranged from 36%-48% across payers. PGx panels were reimbursed at a significantly higher rate than single gene tests (74% vs. 43%, p < 0.001). Discussion: Reimbursement of claims for PGx testing is variable based on the test type, indication, year the claim was submitted, number of diagnosis codes submitted, and number of unique diagnosis codes submitted. Due to the highly variable nature of reimbursement, cost and affordability should be discussed with each patient.

A Pharmacogenetics-Based Approach to Managing Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease: Current Perspectives and Future Steps.

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly used medications to treat acid-related conditions, including gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD). Gastroenterology guidelines mention the importance of CYP2C19 in PPI metabolism and the influence of CYP2C19 genetic variations on variable responses to PPIs, but do not currently recommend the genotyping of CYP2C19 prior to prescribing PPIs. There are strong data to support the influence of CYP2C19 genetic variations on the pharmacokinetics of PPIs and clinical outcomes. Existing pharmacogenetic guideline recommendations for dose increases focus on H. pylori and erosive esophagitis indications, but PPIs are also the main therapy for treating GERD. Recent data suggest GERD patients being treated with a PPI may also benefit from genotype-guided dosing. We summarize the literature supporting this contention and highlight future directions for improved management of patients with GERD through precision medicine approaches.

Implementation of CYP2C19 genotyping to guide proton pump inhibitor use at an academic health center.

PURPOSE: To describe the implementation of CYP2C19 testing into clinical practice at University of Florida (UF) Health Gainesville hospital to guide proton pump inhibitor (PPI) dosing and the lessons learned from this experience. SUMMARY: Different CYP2C19 genotypes are associated with variability in PPI plasma concentrations and intragastric pH, which may contribute to the risk of treatment failure due to subtherapeutic concentrations and adverse effects (eg, infection, bone fracture, renal dysfunction) with sustained supratherapeutic concentrations. Based on evidence available prior to the availability of pertinent Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines, the UF Health Precision Medicine Program (PMP) developed clinical recommendations, provided through automated alerts at the time of a PPI order, to (1) increase the PPI dose for individuals with genotypes linked to increased CYP2C19 enzyme activity (ie, rapid and ultrarapid metabolizers) to improve the likelihood of drug effectiveness and (2) decrease the dose for individuals with decreased CYP2C19 activity (ie, intermediate and poor metabolizers) to reduce the risk of harm. The CYP2C19-PPI implementation was an iterative process that taught us key implementation lessons. Most notably, physician engagement is essential, problem lists in the medical record are unreliable, and special populations (eg, pediatric patients) need to be considered. CONCLUSION: Guiding PPI prescribing based on CYP2C19 genotype is a practical approach to potentially improve the benefit-risk ratio with PPI therapy. Physician engagement is key for successful implementation. A CPIC guideline on CYP2C19 genotype-guided PPI dosing is now available, and automated alerts may be instituted to facilitate implementation.

The importance of phenoconversion when using the CYP2D6 genotype in clinical practice.

Tweetable abstract Clinical phenoconversion needs to be incorporated when interpreting and applying CYP2D6 results in clinical care. This article describes how this can be performed either manually or by utilizing online tools and resources. #Phenoconversion #Pharmacogenomics.

Implementing a pragmatic clinical trial to tailor opioids for acute pain on behalf of the IGNITE ADOPT PGx investigators.

Opioid prescribing for postoperative pain management is challenging because of inter-patient variability in opioid response and concern about opioid addiction. Tramadol, hydrocodone, and codeine depend on the cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) enzyme for formation of highly potent metabolites. Individuals with reduced or absent CYP2D6 activity (i.e., intermediate metabolizers [IMs] or poor metabolizers [PMs], respectively) have lower concentrations of potent opioid metabolites and potentially inadequate pain control. The primary objective of this prospective, multicenter, randomized pragmatic trial is to determine the effect of postoperative CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing on pain control and opioid usage. Up to 2020 participants, age ≥8 years, scheduled to undergo a surgical procedure will be enrolled and randomized to immediate pharmacogenetic testing with clinical decision support (CDS) for CYP2D6 phenotype-guided postoperative pain management (intervention arm) or delayed testing without CDS (control arm). CDS is provided through medical record alerts and/or a pharmacist consult note. For IMs and PM in the intervention arm, CDS includes recommendations to avoid hydrocodone, tramadol, and codeine. Patient-reported pain-related outcomes are collected 10 days and 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery. The primary outcome, a composite of pain intensity and opioid usage at 10 days postsurgery, will be compared in the subgroup of IMs and PMs in the intervention (n = 152) versus the control (n = 152) arm. Secondary end points include prescription pain medication misuse scores and opioid persistence at 6 months. This trial will provide data on the clinical utility of CYP2D6 phenotype-guided opioid selection for improving postoperative pain control and reducing opioid-related risks.

Design and rationale of GUARDD-US: A pragmatic, randomized trial of genetic testing for APOL1 and pharmacogenomic predictors of antihypertensive efficacy in patients with hypertension.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVE: APOL1 risk alleles are associated with increased cardiovascular and chronic kidney disease (CKD) risk. It is unknown whether knowledge of APOL1 risk status motivates patients and providers to attain recommended blood pressure (BP) targets to reduce cardiovascular disease. STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter, pragmatic, randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 6650 individuals with African ancestry and hypertension from 13 health systems. INTERVENTION: APOL1 genotyping with clinical decision support (CDS) results are returned to participants and providers immediately (intervention) or at 6 months (control). A subset of participants are re-randomized to pharmacogenomic testing for relevant antihypertensive medications (pharmacogenomic sub-study). CDS alerts encourage appropriate CKD screening and antihypertensive agent use. OUTCOMES: Blood pressure and surveys are assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome is change in systolic BP from enrollment to 3 months in individuals with two APOL1 risk alleles. Secondary outcomes include new diagnoses of CKD, systolic blood pressure at 6 months, diastolic BP, and survey results. The pharmacogenomic sub-study will evaluate the relationship of pharmacogenomic genotype and change in systolic BP between baseline and 3 months. RESULTS: To date, the trial has enrolled 3423 participants. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of patient and provider knowledge of APOL1 genotype on systolic blood pressure has not been well-studied. GUARDD-US addresses whether blood pressure improves when patients and providers have this information. GUARDD-US provides a CDS framework for primary care and specialty clinics to incorporate APOL1 genetic risk and pharmacogenomic prescribing in the electronic health record. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04191824.

Exploring perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes regarding pharmacogenetic testing in the medically underserved.

Introduction: Pharmacogenetic testing may hold promise in addressing health disparities, as medically underserved patients appear to be prescribed medications with pharmacogenetic guidelines at higher rates. While routine clinical implementation of testing in medically underserved populations has not yet been achieved, using patient perspectives to inform implementation should increase the likelihood of success. The aim of this study was to assess the perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes regarding pharmacogenetic testing in medically underserved patients. Methods: We developed a survey instrument to assess respondent views on pharmacogenetic testing. The survey instrument was developed through a process of literature review, expert input, iterative pilot testing, and final refinement. The survey instrument was fielded to US adults with an estimated household income of $42,000 per year or less. Results: During the survey instrument development, 59 pilot testers provided 133 comments which lead to 38 revisions to the survey instrument. The nationwide survey resulted in 1,060 respondents, of which half (49.8%) reported having no health insurance or being on Medicaid. Most patients (78.9%) had not previously heard of pharmacogenetic testing. After being provided an explanation of pharmacogenetic testing, 60.5% were very or moderately interested in receiving testing if there were no cost and 75.8% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that pharmacogenetic testing should be available to help with medication selection regardless of cost. Respondents shared that their greatest concern with pharmacogenetic testing was that the test would cost them money, which was expressed by over half (52.7%). This was followed by concerns that the results could reveal a risk for a disease, could affect health insurance, and would not improve care. Discussion: Our results indicate a strong interest in pharmacogenetic testing and identify key perceptions, attitudes, concerns, and potential barriers that can be addressed as pharmacogenetic testing is clinically implemented in medically underserved patient populations.

How to Implement a Pharmacogenetics Service at your Institution.

The vast majority of patients possess one or more pharmacogenetic variants that can influence optimal medication use. When pharmacogenetic data are used to guide drug choice and dosing, evidence points to improved disease outcomes, fewer adverse effects, and lower healthcare spending. Although its science is well established, clinical use of pharmacogenetic data to guide drug therapy is still in its infancy. Pharmacogenetics essentially involves the intersection of an individual's genetic data with their medications, which makes pharmacists uniquely qualified to provide clinical support and education in this field. In fact, most pharmacogenetics implementations, to date, have been led by pharmacists as leaders or members of a multidisciplinary team or as individual practitioners. A successful large-scale pharmacogenetics implementation requires coordination and synergy among administrators, clinicians, informatics teams, laboratories, and patients. Because clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics is in its early stages, there is an urgent need for guidance and dissemination of shared experiences to provide a framework for clinicians. Many early adopters of pharmacogenetics have explored various strategies among diverse practice settings. This article relies on the experiences of early adopters to provide guidance for critical steps along the pathway to implementation, including strategies to engage stakeholders; evaluate pharmacogenetic evidence; coordinate laboratory testing, results interpretation and their integration into the electronic health record; identify reimbursement avenues; educate providers and patients; and maintain a successful program. Learning from early adopters' published experiences and strategies can allow clinicians leading a new pharmacogenetics implementation to avoid pitfalls and adapt and apply lessons learned by others to their own practice.

Utilizing a Human-Computer Interaction Approach to Evaluate the Design of Current Pharmacogenomics Clinical Decision Support.

A formal assessment of pharmacogenomics clinical decision support (PGx-CDS) by providers is lacking in the literature. The objective of this study was to evaluate the usability of PGx-CDS tools that have been implemented in a healthcare setting. We enrolled ten prescribing healthcare providers and had them complete a 60-min usability session, which included interacting with two PGx-CDS scenarios using the "Think Aloud" technique, as well as completing the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ). Providers reported positive comments, negative comments, and suggestions for the two PGx-CDS during the usability testing. Most provider comments were in favor of the current PGx-CDS design, with the exception of how the genotype and phenotype information is displayed. The mean CSUQ score for the PGx-CDS overall satisfaction was 6.3 ± 0.95, with seven strongly agreeing and one strongly disagreeing for overall satisfaction. The implemented PGx-CDS at our institution was well received by prescribing healthcare providers. The feedback collected from the session will guide future PGx-CDS designs for our healthcare system and provide a framework for other institutions implementing PGx-CDS.

How to Integrate CYP2D6 Phenoconversion Into Clinical Pharmacogenetics: A Tutorial.

CYP2D6 genotype is increasingly being integrated into practice to guide prescribing of certain medications. The CYP2D6 drug metabolizing enzyme is susceptible to inhibition by concomitant drugs, which can lead to a clinical phenotype that is different from the genotype-based phenotype, a process referred to as phenoconversion. Phenoconversion is highly prevalent but not widely integrated into practice because of either limited experience on how to integrate or lack of knowledge that it has occurred. We built a calculator tool to help clinicians integrate a standardized method of assessing CYP2D6 phenoconversion into practice. During tool-building, we identified several clinical factors that need to be considered when implementing CYP2D6 phenoconversion into clinical practice. This tutorial shares the steps that the University of Florida Health Precision Medicine Program took to build the calculator tool and identified clinical factors to consider when implementing CYP2D6 phenoconversion in clinical practice.

Multisite investigation of strategies for the clinical implementation of pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing.

PURPOSE: The increased availability of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) guidelines and decreasing costs for genetic testing have slowly led to increased utilization of PGx testing in clinical practice. Pre-emptive PGx testing, where testing is performed in advance of drug prescribing, is one means to ensure results are available at the time of prescribing decisions. However, the most efficient and effective methods to clinically implement this strategy remain unclear. METHODS: In this report, we compare and contrast implementation strategies for pre-emptive PGx testing by 15 early-adopter institutions. We surveyed these groups, collecting data on testing approaches, team composition, and workflow dynamics, in addition to estimated third-party reimbursement rates. RESULTS: We found that while pre-emptive PGx testing models varied across sites, institutions shared several commonalities, including methods to identify patients eligible for testing, involvement of a precision medicine clinical team in program leadership, and the implementation of pharmacogenes with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines available. Finally, while reimbursement rate data were difficult to obtain, the data available suggested that reimbursement rates for pre-emptive PGx testing remain low. CONCLUSION: These findings should inform the establishment of future implementation efforts at institutions considering a pre-emptive PGx testing program.

Determining the potential clinical value of panel-based pharmacogenetic testing in patients with chronic pain or gastroesophageal reflux disease.

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.