Benchmarking pharmacogenomics genotyping tools: Performance analysis on short-read sequencing samples and depth-dependent evaluation.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) investigates the influence of genetics on drug responses, enabling tailored treatments for personalized healthcare. This study assessed the accuracy of genotyping six genes using whole genome sequencing with four different computational tools and various sequencing depths. The effects of using different reference genomes (GRCh38 and GRCh37) and sequence aligners (BWA-MEM and Bowtie2) were also explored. The results showed generally minor variations in tool performance across most genes; however, more notable discrepancies were observed in the analysis of the complex CYP2D6 gene. Cyrius, a CYP2D6-specific tool, demonstrated the most robust performance, achieving the highest concordance rates for CYP2D6 in all instances, comparable to the consensus approach in most cases. There were rather small differences between the samples with 20× coverage depth and those with higher depth, but the decreased performance was more evident at lower depths, particularly at 5×. Additionally, variations in CYP2D6 results were observed when samples were aligned to different reference genomes using the same method, or to the same genome using different aligners, which led to reporting incorrect rare star alleles in several cases. These findings inform the selection of optimal PGx tools and methodologies as well as suggest that employing a consensus approach with two or more tools might be preferable for certain genes and tool combinations, especially at lower sequencing depths, to ensure accurate results. Additionally, we show how the upstream alignment can affect the performance of tools, an important factor to take into account.

Recommendations for pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice guidelines in the US.

PURPOSE: Pharmacogenetic testing can identify patients who may benefit from personalized drug treatment. However, clinical uptake of pharmacogenetic testing has been limited. Clinical practice guidelines recommend biomarker tests that the guideline authors deem to have demonstrated clinical utility, meaning that testing improves treatment outcomes. The objective of this narrative review is to describe the current status of pharmacogenetic testing recommendations within clinical practice guidelines in the US. SUMMARY: Guidelines were reviewed for pharmacogenetic testing recommendations for 21 gene-drug pairs that have well-established drug response associations and all of which are categorized as clinically actionable by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. The degree of consistency within and between organizations in pharmacogenetic testing recommendations was assessed. Relatively few clinical practice guidelines that provide a pharmacogenetic testing recommendation were identified. Testing recommendations for HLA-B*57:01 before initiation of abacavir and G6PD before initiation of rasburicase, both of which are included in drug labeling, were mostly consistent across guidelines. Gene-drug pairs with at least one clinical practice guideline recommending testing or stating that testing could be considered included CYP2C19-clopidogrel, CYP2D6-codeine, CYP2D6-tramadol, CYP2B6-efavirenz, TPMT-thiopurines, and NUDT15-thiopurines. Testing recommendations for the same gene-drug pair were often inconsistent between organizations and sometimes inconsistent between different guidelines from the same organization. CONCLUSION: A standardized approach to evaluating the evidence of clinical utility for pharmacogenetic testing may increase the inclusion and consistency of pharmacogenetic testing recommendations in clinical practice guidelines, which could benefit patients and society by increasing clinical use of pharmacogenetic testing.

Pharmacogenomic testing to support prescribing in primary care: a structured review of implementation models.

The application of pharmacogenomics could meaningfully contribute toward medicines optimization within primary care. This review identified 13 studies describing eight implementation models utilizing a multi-gene pharmacogenomic panel within a primary care or community setting. These were small feasibility studies (n <200). They demonstrated importance and feasibility of pre-test counseling, the role of the pharmacist, data integration into the electronic medical record and point-of-care clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Findings were considered alongside existing primary care prescribing practices and implementation frameworks to demonstrate how issues may be addressed by existing nationalized healthcare and primary care infrastructure. Development of point-of-care CDSS should be prioritized; establishing clinical leadership, education programs, defining practitioner roles and responsibilities and addressing commissioning issues will also be crucial.

Application of the community dialogues method to identify ethical values and priorities related to pharmacogenomics.

Given the expansion of genetics in medicine, there is a growing need to develop approaches to engage patients in understanding how genetics affects their health. Various qualitative methods have been applied to gain a deeper understanding of patient perspectives in topics related to genetics. Community dialogues (CD) are a bi-directional research method that invites community members to discuss a pertinent, challenging topic over the course of a multi-week period and the community members openly discuss their positions on the topic. Authors discuss the first application of the CD method to the topic of pharmacogenetics testing. Additional CD are needed to engage diverse participant populations on this topic to improve genetics literacy, enhance physician engagement and drive policy change.

Recommendations for Clinical CYP2D6 Genotyping Allele Selection: A Joint Consensus Recommendation of the Association for Molecular Pathology, College of American Pathologists, Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group of the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association, and the European Society for Pharmacogenomics and Personalized Therapy.

The goals of the Association for Molecular Pathology Clinical Practice Committee's Pharmacogenomics (PGx) Working Group are to define the key attributes of pharmacogenetic alleles recommended for clinical testing, and to determine a minimal set of variants that should be included in clinical PGx genotyping assays. This document series provides recommendations on a minimal panel of variant alleles (Tier 1) and an extended panel of variant alleles (Tier 2) that will aid clinical laboratories in designing assays for PGx testing. When developing these recommendations, the Association for Molecular Pathology PGx Working Group considered the functional impact of the variant alleles, allele frequencies in multiethnic populations, the availability of reference materials, as well as other technical considerations with regard to PGx testing. The ultimate goal of this Working Group is to promote standardization of PGx gene/allele testing across clinical laboratories. This document is focused on clinical CYP2D6 PGx testing that may be applied to all cytochrome P450 2D6-metabolized medications. These recommendations are not meant to be interpreted as prescriptive but to provide a reference guide for clinical laboratories that may be either implementing PGx testing or reviewing and updating their existing platform.

Predictive biomarkers and clinical evidence.

Predictive biomarkers play an important role in our efforts to individualize pharmacotherapy, and within recent years, a number of different types of assays have been introduced. These biomarkers may potentially support the selection and dosage of specific drugs in order to maximize efficacy and minimize adverse reactions in the individual patient. However, in many instances, the scientific and clinical evidence is insufficient to support the prescribing decision. When predictive biomarkers are used to guide pharmacotherapy, it is important to secure that decisions are based on solid clinical evidence. Here, the regulatory authorities, especially the FDA, have been at the forefront in relation to regulate this type of biomarker assay in order to secure patient safety. The approval process for companion diagnostics is an example of this effort, where the scientific validity of the biomarker and assay is in focus. With the approaching implementation of the new IVD Regulation, greater attention will also be paid to analytical and clinical validity of biomarker assays in the EU. For any type of predictive biomarker assay, including pharmacogenetic and tumour profiling tests, the clinical evidence needs to be in place before they are used routinely in the clinic.

Providers' perspectives on the clinical utility of pharmacogenomic testing in pediatric patients.

Aim: To assess providers' knowledge, attitudes, perceptions, and experiences related to pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in pediatric patients. Materials & methods: An electronic survey was sent to multidisciplinary healthcare providers at a pediatric hospital. Results: Of 261 respondents, 71.3% were slightly or not at all familiar with PGx, despite 50.2% reporting prior PGx education or training. Most providers, apart from psychiatry, perceived PGx to be at least moderately useful to inform clinical decisions. However, only 26.4% of providers had recent PGx testing experience. Unfamiliarity with PGx and uncertainty about the clinical value of testing were common perceived challenges. Conclusion: Low PGx familiarity among pediatric providers suggests additional education and electronic resources are needed for PGx examples in which data support testing in children.

Impact of pretreatment dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase genotype-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing on chemotherapy associated adverse events.

Consensus guidelines exist for genotype-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing based on variation in the gene dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD). However, these guidelines have not been widely implemented in North America and most studies of pretreatment DPYD screening have been conducted in Europe. Given regional differences in treatment practices and rates of adverse events (AEs), we investigated the impact of pretreatment DPYD genotyping on AEs in a Canadian context. Patients referred for DPYD genotyping prior to fluoropyrimidine treatment were enrolled from December 2013 through November 2019 and followed until completion of fluoropyrimidine treatment. Patients were genotyped for DPYD c.1905+1G>A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A. Genotype-guided dosing recommendations were informed by Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who experienced a severe fluoropyrimidine-related AE (grade ≥3, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0). Secondary outcomes included early severe AEs, severe AEs by toxicity category, discontinuation of fluoropyrimidine treatment due to AEs, and fluoropyrimidine-related death. Among 1394 patients, mean (SD) age was 64 (12) years, 764 (54.8%) were men, and 47 (3.4%) were DPYD variant carriers treated with dose reduction. Eleven variant carriers (23%) and 418 (31.0%) noncarriers experienced a severe fluoropyrimidine-related AE (p = 0.265). Six carriers (15%) and 284 noncarriers (21.1%) experienced early severe fluoropyrimidine-related AEs (p = 0.167). DPYD variant carriers treated with genotype-guided dosing did not experience an increased risk for severe AEs. Our data support a role for DPYD genotyping in the use of fluoropyrimidines in North America.

Synthesis of major pharmacogenomics pretest counseling themes: a multisite comparison.

The accessibility of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing has grown substantially over the last decade and with it has arisen a demand for patients to be counseled on the use of these tests. While guidelines exist for the use of PGx results; objective determinants for who should receive PGx testing remain incomplete. PGx clinical services have been created to meet these screening and education needs and significant variability exists between these programs. This article describes the practices of four PGx clinics during pretest counseling sessions. A description of the major tenets of the benefits, limitations and risks of testing are compiled. Additional tools are provided to serve as a foundation for those wishing to begin or expand their own counseling service.

Review and Consensus on Pharmacogenomic Testing in Psychiatry.

The implementation of pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in psychiatry remains modest, in part due to divergent perceptions of the quality and completeness of the evidence base and diverse perspectives on the clinical utility of PGx testing among psychiatrists and other healthcare providers. Recognizing the current lack of consensus within the field, the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics assembled a group of experts to conduct a narrative synthesis of the PGx literature, prescribing guidelines, and product labels related to psychotropic medications as well as the key considerations and limitations related to the use of PGx testing in psychiatry. The group concluded that to inform medication selection and dosing of several commonly-used antidepressant and antipsychotic medications, current published evidence, prescribing guidelines, and product labels support the use of PGx testing for 2 cytochrome P450 genes (CYP2D6, CYP2C19). In addition, the evidence supports testing for human leukocyte antigen genes when using the mood stabilizers carbamazepine (HLA-A and HLA-B), oxcarbazepine (HLA-B), and phenytoin (CYP2C9, HLA-B). For valproate, screening for variants in certain genes (POLG, OTC, CSP1) is recommended when a mitochondrial disorder or a urea cycle disorder is suspected. Although barriers to implementing PGx testing remain to be fully resolved, the current trajectory of discovery and innovation in the field suggests these barriers will be overcome and testing will become an important tool in psychiatry.

Clinical validation of combinatorial pharmacogenomic testing and single-gene guidelines in predicting psychotropic medication blood levels and clinical outcomes in patients with depression.

We evaluated the clinical validity of a combinatorial pharmacogenomic test and single-gene Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines against patient outcomes and medication blood levels to assess their ability to inform prescribing in major depressive disorder (MDD). This is a secondary analysis of the Genomics Used to Improve DEpression Decisions (GUIDED) randomized-controlled trial, which included patients with a diagnosis of MDD, and ≥1 prior medication failure. The ability to predict increased/decreased medication metabolism was validated against blood levels at screening (adjusted for age, sex, smoking status). The ability of predicted gene-drug interactions (pharmacogenomic test) or therapeutic recommendations (single-gene guidelines) to predict patient outcomes was validated against week 8 outcomes (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale; symptom improvement, response, remission). Analyses were performed for patients taking any eligible medication (outcomes N=1,022, blood levels N=1,034) and the subset taking medications with single-gene guidelines (outcomes N=584, blood levels N=372). The combinatorial pharmacogenomic test was the only significant predictor of patient outcomes. Both the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test and single-gene guidelines were significant predictors of blood levels for all medications when evaluated separately; however, only the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test remained significant when both were included in the multivariate model. There were no substantial differences when all medications were evaluated or for the subset with single-gene guidelines. Overall, this evaluation of clinical validity demonstrates that the combinatorial pharmacogenomic test was a superior predictor of patient outcomes and medication blood levels when compared with guidelines based on individual genes.

Development of Rapid Pharmacogenomic Testing Assay in a Mobile Molecular Biology Laboratory (2MoBiL).

Pharmacogenomics is rapidly assuming an integral part in modern health care. Still, its broad applicability relies on the feasibility of performing pharmacogenomic testing in all clinical settings, including in remote areas or resource-limited settings with budget restrictions. In this study, we describe the development and feasibility of rapid and reliable pharmacogenomics assays using a portable molecular biology laboratory, namely the 2MoBiL (Mobile Molecular Biology Laboratory). More precisely, we demonstrate that the genotyping of rs4149056, located within SLCO1B1, can be efficiently and reliably performed using the 2MoBiL portable laboratory and conventional benchtop laboratory equipment and a gold standard genotyping method (KASP assay) as directly comparable methodologies. Taking into account the compact size of 2MoBiL, which directly and positively impacts on its portability, and the high accuracy achieved, we conclude that the 2MoBiL-based genotyping method is warranted for further studies in clinical practices at remote areas and resource-limited as well as time-constrained planetary health settings. To contextualize the broader and potential future applications of 2MoBiL, we emphasize that genotyping of a limited set of clinically relevant single-nucleotide polymorphisms is often a common endpoint of genomics and pharmacogenomics discovery and translational research pipeline. Hence, rapid genotyping by 2MoBiL can be an essential catalyst for global implementation of pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine in the clinic. The Clinical Trial Registration number is NCT03093818.

Genotype-Guided Hydralazine Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Despite its approval in 1953, hydralazine hydrochloride continues to be used in the management of resistant hypertension, a condition frequently managed by nephrologists and other clinicians. Hydralazine hydrochloride undergoes metabolism by the N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2) enzyme. NAT2 is highly polymorphic as approximately 50% of the general population are slow acetylators. In this review, we first evaluate the link between NAT2 genotype and phenotype. We then assess the evidence available for genotype-guided therapy of hydralazine, specifically addressing associations of NAT2 acetylator status with hydralazine pharmacokinetics, antihypertensive efficacy, and toxicity. SUMMARY: There is a critical need to use hydralazine in some patients with resistant hypertension. Available evidence supports a significant link between genotype and NAT2 enzyme activity as 29 studies were identified with an overall concordance between genotype and phenotype of 92%. The literature also supports an association between acetylator status and hydralazine concentration, as fourteen of fifteen identified studies revealed significant relationships with a consistent direction of effect. Although fewer studies are available to directly link acetylator status with hydralazine antihypertensive efficacy, the evidence from this smaller set of studies is significant in 7 of 9 studies identified. Finally, 5 studies were identified which support the association of acetylator status with hydralazine-induced lupus. Clinicians should maintain vigilance when prescribing maximum doses of hydralazine. Key Messages: NAT2 slow acetylator status predicts increased hydralazine levels, which may lead to increased efficacy and adverse effects. Caution should be exercised in slow acetylators with total daily hydralazine doses of 200 mg or more. Fast acetylators are at risk for inefficacy at lower doses of hydralazine. With appropriate guidance on the usage of NAT2 genotype, clinicians can adopt a personalized approach to hydralazine dosing and prescription, enabling more efficient and safe treatment of resistant hypertension.

STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies: Development of the STROPS guideline.

BACKGROUND: Large sample sizes are often required to detect statistically significant associations between pharmacogenetic markers and treatment response. Meta-analysis may be performed to synthesize data from several studies, increasing sample size and, consequently, power to detect significant genetic effects. However, performing robust synthesis of data from pharmacogenetic studies is often challenging because of poor reporting of key data in study reports. There is currently no guideline for the reporting of pharmacogenetic studies that has been developed using a widely accepted robust methodology. The objective of this project was to develop the STrengthening the Reporting Of Pharmacogenetic Studies (STROPS) guideline. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We established a preliminary checklist of reporting items to be considered for inclusion in the guideline. We invited representatives of key stakeholder groups to participate in a 2-round Delphi survey. A total of 52 individuals participated in both rounds of the survey, scoring items with regards to their importance for inclusion in the STROPS guideline. We then held a consensus meeting, at which 8 individuals considered the results of the Delphi survey and voted on whether each item ought to be included in the final guideline. The STROPS guideline consists of 54 items and is accompanied by an explanation and elaboration document. The guideline contains items that are particularly important in the field of pharmacogenetics, such as the drug regimen of interest and whether adherence to treatment was accounted for in the conducted analyses. The guideline also requires that outcomes be clearly defined and justified, because in pharmacogenetic studies, there may be a greater number of possible outcomes than in other types of study (for example, disease-gene association studies). A limitation of this project is that our consensus meeting involved a small number of individuals, the majority of whom are based in the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: Our aim is for the STROPS guideline to improve the transparency of reporting of pharmacogenetic studies and also to facilitate the conduct of high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We encourage authors to adhere to the STROPS guideline when publishing pharmacogenetic studies.

[Pharmacogenetics in daily practice]. / Farmacogenetica in de dagelijkse praktijk.

With the exception of a few medical specialties, the implementation of pharmacogenetic tests in daily practice has thus far been limited. The Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP) has developed pharmacogenetics-based therapeutic doserecommendations for 80 medicinal product combinations on the basis of a systematic literature review. Genotyping of patients can take place on a reactive or pre-emptive basis; the advantage of pre-emptive genotyping is that it provides genetic information the moment a medicinal product is prescribed. Clinical decision support software is crucial to implement pharmacogenetics into daily practice.