Pharmacogenetics testing (DPYD and UGT1A1) for fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan in routine clinical care: Perspectives of medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Despite robust evidence and international guidelines, to support routine pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, integration in practice has been limited. This study explored clinicians' views and experiences of pre-treatment DPYD and UGT1A1 gene testing and barriers to and enablers of routine clinical implementation. METHODS: A study-specific 17-question survey was emailed (01 February-12 April 2022) to clinicians from the Medical Oncology Group of Australia (MOGA), the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) and International Society of Oncology Pharmacy Practitioners (ISOPP). Data were analysed and reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were collected from 156 clinicians (78% medical oncologists, 22% pharmacists). Median response rate of 8% (ranged from 6% to 24%) across all organisations. Only 21% routinely test for DPYD and 1% for UGT1A1. For patients undergoing curative/palliative intent treatments, clinicians reported intent to implement genotype-guided dosing by reducing FP dose for DPYD intermediate metabolisers (79%/94%), avoiding FP for DPYD poor metabolisers (68%/90%), and reducing irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (84%, palliative setting only). Barriers to implementation included: lack of financial reimbursements (82%) and perceived lengthy test turnaround time (76%). Most Clinicians identified a dedicated program coordinator, i.e., PGx pharmacist (74%) and availability of resources for education/training (74%) as enablers to implementation. CONCLUSION: PGx testing is not routinely practised despite robust evidence for its impact on clinical decision making in curative and palliative settings. Research data, education and implementation studies may overcome clinicians' hesitancy to follow guidelines, especially for curative intent treatments, and may overcome other identified barriers to routine clinical implementation.

Patient and healthcare professional acceptability of pharmacogenetic screening for DPYD and UGT1A1: A cross sectional survey.

This study explored the acceptability of a novel pharmacist-led pharmacogenetics (PGx) screening program among patients with cancer and healthcare professionals (HCPs) taking part in a multicenter clinical trial of PGx testing (PACIFIC-PGx ANZCTR:12621000251820). Medical oncologists, oncology pharmacists, and patients with cancer from across four sites (metropolitan/regional), took part in an observational, cross-sectional survey. Participants were recruited from the multicenter trial. Two study-specific surveys were developed to inform implementation strategies for scaled and sustainable translation into routine clinical care: one consisting of 21 questions targeting HCPs and one consisting of 17 questions targeting patients. Responses were collected from 24 HCPs and 288 patients. The 5-to-7-day PGx results turnaround time was acceptable to HCP (100%) and patients (69%). Most HCPs (92%) indicated that it was appropriate for the PGx clinical pharmacist to provide results to patients. Patients reported equal preference for receiving PGx results from a doctor/pharmacist. Patients and HCPs highly rated the pharmacist-led PGx service. HCPs were overall accepting of the program, with the majority (96%) willing to offer PGx testing to their patients beyond the trial. HCPs identified that lack of financial reimbursements (62%) and lack of infrastructure (38%) were the main reasons likely to prevent/slow the implementation of PGx screening program into routine clinical care. Survey data have shown overall acceptability from patients and HCPs participating in the PGx Program. Barriers to implementation of PGx testing in routine care have been identified, providing opportunity to develop targeted implementation strategies for scaled translation into routine practice.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of toxicity and treatment outcomes with pharmacogenetic-guided dosing compared to standard of care BSA-based fluoropyrimidine dosing.

BACKGROUND: Serious and potentially life-threatening toxicities can occur following 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine exposure. Patients carrying Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase (DPYD) variant alleles associated with decreased enzymatic function are at a greater risk of early/severe 5-fluorouracil/capecitabine toxicity. The objective of this systematic review/meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes between Pharmacogenetics Guided Dosing (PGD) versus non-PGD and within PGD (DPYD variant allele carriers versus wild type). METHODS: A systematic review/meta-analysis of original publications indexed in Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) library from inception to 7-Dec-2020. Eligible studies evaluated at least one pre-defined treatment outcome measures (toxicity/hospitalisations/survival/overall response/quality of life). RESULTS: Of 1090 identified publications, 17 met predefined eligibility criteria. The meta-analysis observed reduced incidence of grade 3/4 overall toxicity (Risk Ratio [RR] 0.32 [95% Cl 0.27-0.39], p < 0.00001) and grade 3/4 diarrhoea (RR 0.38 [95% Cl 0.24-0.61], p < 0.0001) among PGD versus non-PGD cohorts. Within PGD cohorts, there was no statistical differences for overall response rates (complete/partial) (RR 1.31 [95% Cl 0.93-1.85], p = 0.12). Similar results were found with stable disease (RR 1.27 [95% Cl 0.66-2.44], p = 0.47). CONCLUSION: PGD improves patient outcomes in terms of grade 3/4 toxicity, in particular overall toxicity and diarrhoea, without impacting on treatment response. REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study is registered with PROSPERO, registration number CRD42020223768.

A randomised controlled trial of clinical pharmacy intervention versus standard care to improve medication adherence in outpatients with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Patient understanding of medicines information and adherence to medication instructions are important variables for ensuring optimal cancer care. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aimed to evaluate the impact of an outpatient clinical pharmacy service on medication adherence and symptom burden in cancer patients. METHODS: In this single-centre RCT, 115 patients were randomised 1:1 to a pharmacist-led pharmaceutical care program (intervention, n = 59) versus standard of care (control, n = 56) within an outpatient multidisciplinary radiotherapy clinic. The primary endpoint was medication adherence as assessed by Medication Understanding and Use Self-Efficacy (MUSE) scale and Teach-Back assessment. Secondary endpoints were patient-reported symptom burden assessed by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). Patients were assessed at baseline (weeks 1-2) and at discharge from radiotherapy (weeks 5-7). RESULTS: Polypharmacy (use of five or more medications) was observed in 26% of patients at baseline compared to 97% at discharge. Patient self-efficacy and medication adherence was higher in the intervention arm compared to the control arm, with a mean MUSE score difference of 2.70 (95% CI 1.24, 4.17) after adjustment for baseline, and a higher proportion of patients with average Teach-Back score of four or more (86% vs 14%; odds ratio (OR) 46.09, 95% CI 14.49, 146.56). The mean (SD) scores for aggregate ESAS (0-100) at discharge were 26.2 (14.0) in the intervention arm and 32.0 (15.8) in the control arm demonstrating lower overall symptom burden associated with the intervention (mean score difference adjusted for baseline - 0.52; 95% CI - 1.03, - 0.01). CONCLUSION: A structured outpatient clinic pharmacy service significantly improved medication adherence and reduced overall symptom burden in patients receiving radiotherapy.

Cancer patients' perspectives on participating in a community pharmacy-based hyperglycaemia screening service - A qualitative exploration of enablers and barriers.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with cancer are often treated with high dose glucocorticosteroids, increasing their risk of developing hyperglycaemia or steroid-induced diabetes, which can be reduced by regular monitoring of blood glucose levels. Community pharmacies can provide easily accessible monitoring services to patients, but may not be convenient or acceptable for people with a cancer diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' motivations, perceptions of benefits and barriers influencing their decisions to participate in a novel community pharmacy-based hyperglycaemia screening and monitoring program. METHODS: Patients initiated on high-dose-glucocorticosteroids at a quaternary cancer centre, who were meeting risk factor-based inclusion criteria and offered participation in a community-based blood glucose monitoring program, were purposively recruited to semi-structured interviews. Interview transcripts were analysed using content analysis and the Framework Method. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients participated in the interviews, of whom eighteen enrolled into the monitoring program and six declined participation. Interview analysis identified themes of motivators and barriers which were interpreted within the Health Belief Model. Patients individually balanced perceptions of risk and susceptibility to hyperglycaemia with the illness and treatment burden of a cancer diagnosis and the ability to access the program. Health concerns, accessibility of the community pharmacy, trust in healthcare professionals and altruism of patients (giving back) were identified as enablers to enrol. Barriers were inaccessibility of the community pharmacy, extra burden to deal with monitoring appointments, and initial misunderstandings about the screening and monitoring program. CONCLUSION: Ascertaining individual tipping points based on motivators or enablers and barriers with subsequent tailoring of supportive care programs will be more likely to meet patients' individual needs and may increase the likelihood of delivering appropriate care via community pharmacies.