Unraveling heterogeneity of the clinical pharmacogenomic guidelines in oncology practice among major regulatory bodies.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) implementation in clinical practice is steadily increasing. PGx uses genetic information to personalize medication use, which increases medication efficacy and decreases side effects. The availability of clinical PGx guidelines is essential for its implementation in clinical settings. Currently, there are few organizations/associations responsible for releasing those guidelines, including the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group, the Canadian Pharmacogenomics Network for Drug Safety and the French National Network of Pharmacogenetics. According to the US FDA, oncology medications are highly correlated to PGx biomarkers. Therefore, summarizing the PGx guidelines for oncology drugs will positively impact the clinical decisions for cancer patients. This review aims to scrutinize side-by-side available clinical PGx guidelines in oncology.

Unveiling the guidance heterogeneity for genome-informed drug treatment interventions among regulatory bodies and research consortia.

Pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine interventions hold promise to optimize drug treatment modalities and hence, improve the quality of life of the patients by minimizing the occurrence of adverse drug reactions and/or maximizing drug treatment efficacy. To this end, proper guidance for accurately prescribing the correct drug at the right dose is empowered by major regulatory bodies, namely the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicine Agency (EMA), and well-recognized research consortia, like the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), that propose therapeutic recommendations after the thorough evaluation of the existing scientific evidence base. In this context, the consistency of these recommendations is crucial for smoothly integrating pharmacogenomics into the clinic. Here, we collected all of the important and clinically actionable pharmacogenomics information provided by the aforementioned renowned sources and documented it in order to assess potential similarities and, most importantly, differences. Our data show that the level of concordance regarding the guidance provided for the same drug-gene association pairs varies significantly, despite the fact that it all derives from a single evidence base. In particular, apart from the expected similarities in a number of association pairs, especially the ones related to cancer genomics, there are still major discrepancies that create confusion as to which guidance should be followed in order to properly inform drug prescribing. This regulatory deficiency calls for the fruitful engagement of the regulatory agencies involved with the contribution of other experts engaged in the field of pharmacogenomics in an effort to harmonize the existing arsenal of guidance for genome-informed drug prescription. The achievement of harmonization would in turn expedite bringing personalized medicine closer to clinical fruition.

Evaluation of Current Regulation and Guidelines of Pharmacogenomic Drug Labels: Opportunities for Improvements.

Pharmacogenomic drug labels in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) provide an instrument for clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics. We compared pharmacogenomic guidance by Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and by the European agencies the European Medicines Agency (EMA), College ter Beoordeling van Geneesmiddelen Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG-MEB), and Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (FIDMD), collectively assigned as EMA/FIDMD+MEB shortened as EMA/FM. Of 54 drugs with an actionable gene-drug interaction in the CPIC and DPWG guidelines, only 50% had actionable pharmacogenomic information in the SmPCs and the agencies were in agreement in only 18% of the cases. We further compared 450 additional drugs, lacking CPIC or DPWG guidance, and found 126 actionable gene-drug labels by the FDA and/or the EMA/FM. Based on these 126 drugs in addition to the 54 above, the consensus of actionable pharmacogenomic labeling between the FDA and the EMA/FM was only 54%. In conclusion, guidelines provided by CPIC/DPWG are only partly implemented into the SmPCs and the implementation of pharmacogenomic drug labels into the clinics would strongly gain from a higher extent of consensus between agencies.

The Ethical, Legal and Regulatory Issues Associated with Pharmacogenomics: Systematically Quantifying the Literature.

Since the human genome was successfully mapped much academic attention has been given to ethical, legal and regulatory issues associated with the integration and application of genomics in health care. In line with the recent political commitment to promoting precision medicine that relies heavily on omic knowledge, it is timely to review the issues that this body of literature has addressed. Focusing on pharmacogenomics, this review quantifies the issues identified in this body of academic work. It reveals that, after nearly two decades, interest in the regulatory and legal issues associated with pharmacogenomics continues to generate significant attention. The ethical issues, while not as predominant, also persist. The analyses highlights that there is a dearth of empirical research exploring the impact that these issues have had.

Pharmacogenetics in Pain Treatment.

Pain is an unpleasant feeling usually resulting from tissue damage that can persist along weeks, months, or even years after the injury, turning into pathological chronic pain, the leading cause of disability. Currently, pharmacology interventions are usually the first-line therapy but there is a highly variable analgesic drug response. Pharmacogenetics (PGx) offers a means to identify genetic biomarkers that can predict individual analgesic response opening doors to precision medicine. PGx analyze the way in which the presence of variations in the DNA sequence (single-nucleotide polymorphisms, SNPs) could be responsible for portions of the population reaching different levels of pain relief (phenotype) due to gene interference in the drug mechanism of action (pharmacodynamics) and/or its concentration at the place of action (pharmacokinetics). SNPs in the cytochrome P450 enzymes genes (CYP2D6) influence metabolism of codeine, tramadol, hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tricyclic antidepressants. Blood concentrations of some NSAIDs depend on CYP2C9 and/or CYP2C8 activity. Additional candidate genes encode for opioid receptors, transporters, and other molecules important for pharmacotherapy in pain management. However, PGx studies are often contradictory, slowing the uptake of this information. This is likely due, in large part, to a lack of robust evidence demonstrating clinical utility and to its polygenic response modulated by other exogenous or epigenetics factors. Novel therapies, including targeting of epigenetic changes and gene therapy-based approaches, broaden future options to improve understanding of pain and the treatment of people who suffer it.

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for CYP2D6 and Tamoxifen Therapy.

Tamoxifen is biotransformed by CYP2D6 to 4-hydroxytamoxifen and 4-hydroxy N-desmethyl tamoxifen (endoxifen), both with greater antiestrogenic potency than the parent drug. Patients with certain CYP2D6 genetic polymorphisms and patients who receive strong CYP2D6 inhibitors exhibit lower endoxifen concentrations and a higher risk of disease recurrence in some studies of tamoxifen adjuvant therapy of early breast cancer. We summarize evidence from the literature and provide therapeutic recommendations for tamoxifen based on CYP2D6 genotype.

Pharmacogenetic Information in Clinical Guidelines: The European Perspective.

Surveys among pharmacists and physicians show that these healthcare professionals have successfully adopted the concept of pharmacogenomics (PGx).1-3 In addition, patients are willing to consent to participate in PGx implementation studies.4 However, the surveys also show that healthcare professionals do not frequently order or recommend a PGx test.1,2 Among others, a frequently perceived hurdle for clinical uptake of PGx is the availability of guidelines translating PGx test results into clinical actions for individual patients.5,6.

Clinical Implementation of Pharmacogenomics for Personalized Precision Medicine: Barriers and Solutions.

Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics (PGx) leads to personalized medicine, which improves the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of treatments. Although PGx-based research has been conducted for more than a decade, several barriers have slowed down its widespread implementation in clinical practice. Globally, there is an imbalance in programs and solutions required to empower the clinical implementation of PGx between countries. Therefore, we aimed to review these issues comprehensively, determine the major barriers, and find the best solutions. Through an extensive review of ongoing clinical implementation programs, scientific, educational, ethical, legal, and social issues, information technology, and reimbursement were identified as the key barriers. The pace of global implementation of genomic medicine coincided with the resource limitations of each country. The key solutions identified for the earlier mentioned barriers are as follows: building of secure and suitable information technology infrastructure with integrated clinical decision support systems along with increasing PGx evidence, more regulations, reimbursement strategies for stakeholder's acceptance, incorporation of PGx education in all institutions and clinics, and PGx promotion to all health care professionals and patients. In conclusion, this review will be helpful for the better understanding of common barriers and solutions pertaining to the clinical application of PGx.

Health regulatory communications of well-established safety-related pharmacogenomics associations in six developed countries: an evaluation of alignment.

Recommendations on genetic testing are typically conveyed by drug regulatory authorities through drug labels, which are legal requirements for market authorization of drugs. We conducted a cross-sectional study of drug labels focusing on three crucial aspects of regulatory pharmacogenomics communications: (i) intent; (ii) interpretation in the local context; and (iii) implications of the genetic information. Labels of drugs associated with well-established safety-related genetic markers for adverse drug reactions across six developed countries of United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore were reviewed. We found differing medical advice for genotype-positive HLA-B*15:02, HLA-A*31:01, UGT1A1*28 and CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolisers in breastfeeding women. This raises questions on implications to clinical practice between these countries. Varying ways of presenting at-risk population and allele frequencies also raises question in incorporating such information in drug labels. An international guidance addressing these crucial aspects of regulatory pharmacogenomic communications in drug labels is long overdue.

Pharmacogenomics inventions in Ukraine and Europe: the issue of patentability and the perspective to create personalized weapon for bioterrorism

Since the researcher in pharmacogenomics has been given the promise to create personalized treatment and drugs for patients suffering from many common diseases, particularly those with multiple treatment modalities, the issue about the legal status of inventions in the field of pharmacogenomics and criteria of patentability for them becomes as one of the most important to solved on the beginning of pharmacogenomics era. The prospect of acquiring exclusive rights for inventions, which are based on the establishment of certain medicines to treat a wide range of health problems, which are provided by patent protection is a strong incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop research in pharmacogenomic. Patent availability nowadays in a one hand is the main instrument for protecting investments, and guaranteed earnings for pharmaceutical companies what provides the investments to new researches. Although, on the other hand, patents in the pharmaceutical and pharmacogenomics areas are legal instrument for manipulate categories such a health and sickness, life or death depending of the material wealth individuals. The question of compliance with the conditions of patentability to inventions in pharmacogenomic including general questions of the patentability of the inventions, additionally correlates the possibility of obtaining a patent for an invention that uses human genes, the issues of morality and public order, and concerns the use of the results of pharmacogenomic as weapons of bioterrorism. This article analyzes the patentability of inventions pharmacogenomic from the point of view of industrial property rights under the laws of Ukraine and the EU. In addition, this article aims to discuss the issues associated with the new modern object for patent law, which are the results of the study pharmacogenomics; the determination of criteria of patentability of pharmacogenomics in accordance with the legislation of Ukraine and to compare them with the criteria according to EU. Also in this article described the problem of possible appearance personalized bioterrorism, which would considered depends on the genotype of the human. For the end article examines the impact of patent policy on the development of new and innovative medicines and the possibility of using patent protection as an additional instrument for the prevention of bioterrorism

Habida cuenta de que el investigador en farmacogenómica ha prometido crear un tratamiento personalizado y medicamentos para los pacientes que sufren de muchas enfermedades comunes, en particular aquellos con múltiples modalidades de tratamiento, la cuestión de la situación jurídica de las invenciones en el campo de la farmacogenómica y los criterios de patentabilidad para ellos se convierte en uno de los asuntos más importantes a resolver en el inicio de la era de la farmacogenómica. La perspectiva de adquirir derechos exclusivos para las invenciones, que se basan en el establecimiento de ciertos medicamentos para tratar una amplia gama de problemas de salud, que son proporcionados por la protección de patentes, es un fuerte incentivo para que las empresas farmacéuticas desarrollen investigación en farmacogenómica. La disponibilidad de patentes hoy en día, por un lado, es el principal instrumento para proteger las inversiones y garantizar los ingresos para las empresas farmacéuticas proporcionen inversiones a nuevas investigaciones. Aunque, por otro lado, las patentes en las áreas farmacéutica y farmacogenómica son instrumentos legales para manipular categorías tales como salud y enfermedad, vida o muerte dependiendo de la riqueza material de los individuos. La cuestión del cumplimiento de las condiciones de patentabilidad de las invenciones farmacogenómicas, incluidas las cuestiones generales de la patentabilidad de las invenciones, correlaciona adicionalmente la posibilidad de obtener una patente para una invención que utiliza genes humanos, cuestiones de moralidad y orden público, y se refiere al uso de los resultados de la farmacogenómica como armas de bioterrorismo. Este artículo analiza la patentabilidad de las invenciones farmacogenómicas desde el punto de vista de los derechos de propiedad industrial bajo la normativa en Ucrania y en la UE. Además, este artículo pretende discutir las cuestiones asociadas con el nuevo objeto moderno para el derecho de patentes, que son los resultados del estudio de la farmacogenómica; la determinación de criterios de patentabilidad de farmacogenómica de conformidad con la legislación de Ucrania y compararlos con los criterios de la UE. También en este artículo se describe el problema de la posible aparición del bioterrorismo personalizado, que se consideraría dependiente del genotipo del humano. Para terminar, el artículo examina el impacto de la política de patentes en el desarrollo de medicamentos nuevos e innovadores y la posibilidad de utilizar la protección de la patente como instrumento adicional para la prevención del bioterrorismo

Clinical and regulatory considerations in pharmacogenetic testing.

PURPOSE: Both regulatory science and clinical practice rely on best available scientific data to guide decision-making. However, changes in clinical practice may be driven by numerous other factors such as cost. In this review, we reexamine noteworthy examples where pharmacogenetic testing information was added to drug labeling to explore how the available evidence, potential public health impact, and predictive utility of each pharmacogenetic biomarker impacts clinical uptake. SUMMARY: Advances in the field of pharmacogenetics have led to new discoveries about the genetic basis for variability in drug response. The Food and Drug Administration recognizes the value of pharmacogenetic testing strategies and has been proactive about incorporating pharmacogenetic information into the labeling of both new drugs and drugs already on the market. Although some examples have readily translated to routine clinical practice, clinical uptake of genetic testing for many drugs has been limited. CONCLUSION: Both regulatory science and clinical practice rely on data-driven approaches to guide decision making; however, additional factors are also important in clinical practice that do not impact regulatory decision making, and these considerations may result in heterogeneity in clinical uptake of pharmacogenetic testing.

The integration and interpretation of pharmacogenomics - a comparative study between the United States of America and Europe: towards better health care.

The study of pharmacogenomics has, by harnessing sequence information from human genomes, the potential to lead to novel approaches in drug discovery, an individualized application of drug therapy, and new insights into disease prevention. For this potential to be realized results need to be interpreted to the prescriber into a format which dictates an action. This mini review briefly describes the history, the regulatory environment, opinions towards, and implementation, integration and interpretation of pharmacogenomics in the United States of America and Europe. The article discusses also how interpretation of pharmacogenomics could move forward to better implementation in health care.

[Pharmacogenetics in anesthesia and intensive care medicine : Clinical and legal challenges exemplified by malignant hyperthermia]. / Pharmakogenetik in Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin : Klinische und juristische Herausforderung am Beispiel der Malignen Hyperthermie.

Pharmacotherapy is a key component of anesthesiology and intensive care medicine. The individual genetic profile influences not only the effect of pharmaceuticals but can also completely alter the mode of action. New technologies for genetic screening (e.g. next generation sequencing) and increasing knowledge of molecular pathways foster the disclosure of pharmacogenetic syndromes, which are classified as rare diseases. Taking into account the high genetic variability in humans and over 8000 known rare diseases, up to 20 % of the population may be affected. In summary, rare diseases are not rare. Most pharmacogenetic syndromes lead to a weakening or loss of pharmacological action. In contrast, malignant hyperthermia (MH), which is the most relevant pharmacogenetic syndrome for anesthesia, is characterized by a pharmacologically induced overactivation of calcium metabolism in skeletal muscle. Volatile anesthetic agents and succinylcholine trigger life-threatening hypermetabolic crises. Emergency treatment is based on inhibition of the calcium release channel of the sarcoplasmic reticulum by dantrolene. After an adverse pharmacological event patients must be informed and a clarification consultation must be carried out during which the hereditory character of MH is explained. The patient should be referred to a specialist MH center where a predisposition can be diagnosed by the functional in vitro contracture test from a muscle biopsy. Additional molecular genetic investigations can yield mutations in the genes for calcium-regulating proteins in skeletal muscle, e.g. ryanodine receptor 1 (RyR1) and calcium voltage-gated channel subunit alpha 1S (CACNA1S). Currently, an association to MH has only been shown for 35 mutations out of more than 400 known and probably hundreds of unknown genetic variations. Furthermore, MH predisposition is not excluded by negative mutation screening. For anesthesiological patient safety it is crucial to identify individuals at risk and warn genetic relatives; however, the legal requirements of the Patients Rights Act and the Human Genetic Examination Act must be strictly adhered to. Specific features of insurance and employment law must be respected under consideration of the Human Genetic Examination Act.

Precision medicine in the age of big data: The present and future role of large-scale unbiased sequencing in drug discovery and development.

High throughput molecular and functional profiling of patients is a key driver of precision medicine. DNA and RNA characterization has been enabled at unprecedented cost and scale through rapid, disruptive progress in sequencing technology, but challenges persist in data management and interpretation. We analyze the state-of-the-art of large-scale unbiased sequencing in drug discovery and development, including technology, application, ethical, regulatory, policy and commercial considerations, and discuss issues of LUS implementation in clinical and regulatory practice.

The role of ADME pharmacogenomics in early clinical trials: perspective of the Industry Pharmacogenomics Working Group (I-PWG).

Genetic polymorphisms in metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters have been shown to significantly impact the exposure of drugs having a high dependence on a single mechanism for their absorption, distribution or clearance, such that genotyping can lead to actionable steps in disease treatment. Recently, global regulatory agencies have provided guidance for assessment of pharmacogenomics during early stages of drug development, both in the form of formal guidance and perspectives published in scientific journals. The Industry Pharmacogenomics Working Group (I-PWG), conducted a survey among member companies to assess the practices relating to absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion pharmacogenomics) during early stages of clinical development, to assess the impact of the recent Regulatory Guidance issued by the US FDA and EMA on Industry practices.

The 3-I framework: a framework for developing public policies regarding pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in Canada.

The 3-I framework of analyzing the ideas, interests, and institutions around a topic has been used by political scientists to guide public policy development. In Canada, there is a lack of policy governing pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing compared to other developed nations. The goal of this study was to use the 3-I framework, a policy development tool, and apply it to PGx testing to identify and analyze areas where current policy is limited and challenges exist in bringing PGx testing into wide-spread clinical practice in Canada. A scoping review of the literature was conducted to determine the extent and challenges of PGx policy implementation at federal and provincial levels. Based on the 3-I analysis, contentious ideas related to PGx are (i) genetic discrimination, (ii) informed consent, (iii) the lack of knowledge about PGx in health care, (iv) the value of PGx testing, (v) the roles of health care workers in the coordination of PGx services, and (vi) confidentiality and privacy. The 3-I framework is a useful tool for policy makers, and applying it to PGx policy development is a new approach in Canadian genomics. Policy makers at every organizational level can use this analysis to help develop targeted PGx policies.

Calidad y legibilidad de la hoja de información al paciente en estudios con análisis farmacogenético / Quality and legibility of written informed consent form in pahrmacogenetic research

Fundamento y objetivo: Los estudios de farmacogenética se han convertido en una práctica habitual en el desarrollo de nuevos medicamentos, surgiendo la necesidad de evaluar las Hojas de Información al Paciente (HIP). Los objetivos de este estudio son evaluar el grado de adecuación a las recomendaciones establecidas por la legislación y grupos de expertos de la información contenida en las HIP de estudios que incluyan análisis del material genético y analizar su legibilidad. Material y métodos: Se analizó el contenido de las HIP que recibieron los participantes en los estudios farmacogenéticos presentados al Comité Ético entre abril de 2011 y abril de 2013 en un hospital de tercer nivel. Para evaluar la calidad de la HIP se elaboró un cuestionario con 42 preguntas con los elementos que debe contener la información que reciben los sujetos. La facilidad de lectura fue evaluada aplicando distintos índices de legibilidad. Resultados: El 31,5% de las 92 HIP presentaron más del 75% de los apartados considerados en el cuestionario. Las secciones con menor grado de cumplimiento fueron las relativas a los riesgos y beneficios (41,7%) y a las compensaciones derivadas del estudio (56,1%). Ninguna de las HIP cumplió con menos del 50% del global del cuestionario. El 90% de las HIP mostraron un grado adecuado de legibilidad. Conclusiones: Se han encontrado deficiencias en algunos puntos de la información contenida en las HIP evaluadas. El grado de legibilidad es elevado, siendo necesario futuros estudios para establecer el grado de entendimiento real de los pacientes

Background and objective: Pharmacogenetic studies have become in recent years a common practice in the development of new drugs, with the need to evaluate the information and readability of Informed Consent Forms (ICFs) to ensure compliance with the recommendations set by current legislation and expert groups. Materials and methods: Retrospective observational study that analyzes the content of ICFs received by participants of pharmacogenetic studies approved in a tertiary hospital. To evaluate the quality of the ICFs, a questionnaire of 42 questions was prepared (Table 1) with the elements that must contain the information given to subjects, while readability was assessed using different readability indices. Results: The 31.5% of the 92 ICFs analyzed showed more than 75% of sections considered in the questionnaire. Sections with lower compliance were relative to risks and benefits (41.7%) and compensation for study participation (56.1%). None of the ICFs fulfilled with less than 50% of overall sections. Regarding legibility, about 90%, have a suitable degree for the most of population based on indexes used. Conclusions: Deficiencies were found in some parts of the information contained in ICFs, while the degree of legibility was high, being necessary for future studies to establish the degree of real understanding of patients

Interpretación de resultados toxicológicos post-mórtem: criterios de garantía de calidad / Postmortem toxicological results interpretation: quality assurance criteria

La correcta interpretación de los resultados toxicológicos post mórtem debe ser capaz de ofrecer una explicación sobre el significado y la trascendencia de los resultados analíticos obtenidos en el caso forense estudiado. El ajuste de la interpretación de resultados a la realidad de los hechos acontecidos será función de la calidad de la muestra analizada y de los resultados analíticos y del conocimiento de la existencia diversos fenómenos post mórtem y de las circunstancias en la que ocurrió la muerte. Todo el proceso está dificultado por la inexistencia de recomendaciones o protocolos que guíen al toxicólogo en el proceso de la interpretación. Constituye, por tanto, la etapa más compleja de la investigación toxicológica. Con el objetivo de ayudar al toxicólogo forense en esta tarea, se presenta esta revisión bibliográfica sobre los conocimientos existentes (AU)

The correct interpretation of postmortem toxicology results offers an explanation on the meaning and significance of the obtained analytical results. Interpretation agreement to reality will depend on the quality of the sample and analytical results. It will also depends on the knowledge of the existence of different postmortem phenomena and the circumstances in which the death occurred. The whole process is hampered by the lack of recommendations or protocols to guide the toxicologist in the process of interpretation. Therefore, it is the more complex stage of toxicological research. In order to assist the forensic toxicologist in this task, this review of the existing knowledge on this matter is presented (AU)