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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Acceptability, Feasibility, and Utility of Integrating Pharmacogenetic Testing into a Child Psychiatry Clinic.

Pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing is a tool to identify patients at a higher risk of adverse events or treatment failure. The concern for unwanted side effects can limit medication adherence, particularly in children and adolescents. We conducted a pragmatic study to evaluate the acceptability and feasibility and gather pilot data on the utility of PGx testing in a child and adolescent psychiatry clinic. Both physicians and families participated in the study and answered pre-survey and post-survey questionnaires to examine their attitudes toward PGx testing. Patients were randomized into implementation (N = 25) and control groups (N = 24) and underwent PGx testing at the beginning or end of the study, respectively. Clinical consult notes with genotype-guided recommendations were provided to physicians for their consideration in clinical decisions. Patient-reported symptom severity and antidepressant-related side effects were assessed at baseline and for 12 weeks. Both participating physicians and families agreed that PGx testing is a useful tool to improve medication selection. The time from sample collection to having PGx test results was ~ 10 days and 15 days to having consult notes available, which may have impaired test utility in clinical decision making. There were no differences in any clinical end point between the implementation and control arms; however, there were higher antidepressant side effect scores for CYP2D6 poor and intermediate metabolizers after the eighth week of treatment. Our findings revealed benefits and pitfalls with the use of PGx testing in the real-world clinical setting, which may inform the methodology of a larger trial focused on outcomes.

How to Transition from Single-Gene Pharmacogenetic Testing to Preemptive Panel-Based Testing: A Tutorial.

There have been significant advancements in precision medicine and approaches to medication selection based on pharmacogenetic results. With the availability of direct-to-consumer genetic testing and growing awareness of genetic interindividual variability, patient demand for more precise, individually tailored drug regimens is increasing. The University of Florida (UF) Health Precision Medicine Program (PMP) was established in 2011 to improve integration of genomic data into clinical practice. In the ensuing years, the UF Health PMP has successfully implemented several single-gene tests to optimize the precision of medication prescribing across a variety of clinical settings. Most recently, the UF Health PMP launched a custom-designed pharmacogenetic panel, including pharmacogenes relevant to supportive care medications commonly prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment, referred to as "GatorPGx." This tutorial provides guidance and information to institutions on how to transition from the implementation of single-gene pharmacogenetic testing to a preemptive panel-based testing approach. Here, we demonstrate application of the preemptive panel in the setting of an adult solid tumor oncology clinic. Importantly, the information included herein can be applied to other clinical practice settings.

Precision medication: An illustrative case series guiding the clinical application of multi-drug interactions and pharmacogenomics.

Precision medication entails selecting the precise medication, dose, and timing of administration. Multi-drug interactions and genetics significantly affect precision medication. In this article, we present two simulated cases for real-world applications of precision medication. Clinicians may need to acquire additional skills to apply the principles illustrated by these cases.

A Scoping Review of the Evidence Behind Cytochrome P450 2D6 Isoenzyme Inhibitor Classifications.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lists 22 medications as clinical inhibitors of cytochrome P450 2D6 isoenzyme, with classifications of strong, moderate, and weak. It is accepted that strong inhibitors result in nearly null enzymatic activity, but reduction caused by moderate and weak inhibitors is less well characterized. The objective was to identify if the classification of currently listed FDA moderate and weak inhibitors is supported by publicly available primary literature. We conducted a literature search and reviewed product labels for area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) fold-changes caused by inhibitors in humans and identified 89 inhibitor-substrate pairs. Observed AUC fold-change of the substrate was used to create an observed inhibitor classification per FDA-defined AUC fold-change thresholds. We then compared the observed inhibitor classification with the classification listed in the FDA Table of Inhibitors. We found 62% of the inhibitors within the pairs matched the listed FDA classification. We explored reasons for discordance and suggest modifications to the FDA table of clinical inhibitors for cimetidine, desvenlafaxine, and fluvoxamine.