Impact of CYP2C19 genetic testing on provider prescribing patterns for antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with clopidogrel who have ≥1 loss of function alleles for CYP2C19 have an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events. In 2010, the US Food and Drug Administration issued a boxed warning cautioning against the use of clopidogrel in such patients. We sought to assess the impact of CYP2C19 genetic testing on prescribing patterns for antiplatelet therapy among patients with acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention prescribed clopidogrel were offered CYP2C19 testing. Genotype and phenotype results were provided to patients and their physicians, but no specific treatment recommendations were suggested. Patients were categorized based on their genotype (carriers versus noncarriers) and phenotype (extensive, intermediate, and poor metabolizers). The primary outcome was intensification in antiplatelet therapy defined as either dose escalation of clopidogrel or replacement of clopidogrel with prasugrel. Between July 2010 and April 2012, 6032 patients were identified, and 499 (8.3%) underwent CYP2C19 genotyping, of whom 146 (30%) were found to have ≥1 reduced function allele, including 15 (3%) with 2 reduced function alleles. Although reduced function allele carriers were significantly more likely than noncarriers to have an intensification of their antiplatelet therapy, only 20% of poor metabolizers of clopidogrel had their antiplatelet therapy intensified. CONCLUSIONS: Providers were significantly more likely to intensify antiplatelet therapy in CYP2C19 allele carriers, but only 20% of poor metabolizers of clopidogrel had an escalation in the dose of clopidogrel or were switched to prasugrel. These prescribing patterns likely reflect the unclear impact and evolving evidence for clopidogrel pharmacogenomics.

Healthcare payers: a gate or translational bridge to personalized medicine?

Healthcare payers represent stakeholders who can act as either a bridge or a gate to the translation of personalized medicine into routine clinical practice. To date, the slow realization of the promise of personalized medicine has been partly attributable to the lack of clear evidence supporting the clinical utility of genetic and genomic tests and the lag in development of clinical guidelines for the use and interpretation of tests. These factors, along with a paucity of clear guidance from healthcare payers and clinical experience with genomic tests, serve as impediments to timely and consistent reimbursement decisions. The design of alternative strategies for collaborative evidence-generation, clinical decision support and educational initiatives for healthcare providers, patients and the payers themselves are critical needs to achieve the full benefit of personalized medicine in day-to-day healthcare settings.

Statin pharmacogenomics: opportunities to improve patient outcomes and healthcare costs with genetic testing.

HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, commonly known as statins, are some of the most widely prescribed medications worldwide and have been shown to be effective at lowering cholesterol in numerous long-term prospective trials, yet there are significant limitations to their use. First, patients receiving statin therapy have relatively low levels of medication adherence compared with other drug classes. Next, numerous statin formulations are available, each with its own unique safety and efficacy profile, and it may be unclear to prescribers which treatment is optimal for their patients. Finally, statins have class-wide side effects of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis that have resulted in a product recall and dosage limitations. Recent evidence suggests that two genomic markers, KIF6 and SLCO1B1, may inform the therapy choice of patients initiating statins. Given the prevalence of statin usage, their potential health advantages and their overall cost to the healthcare system, there could be significant clinical benefit from creating personalized treatment regimens. Ultimately, if this approach is effective it may encourage higher adoption of generic statins when appropriate, promote adherence, lower rates of myopathy, and overall achieve higher value cardiovascular care. This paper will review the evidence for personalized prescribing of statins via KIF6 and SLCO1B1 and consider some of the implications for testing these markers as part of routine clinical care.