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

ABSTRACT

DISCLAIMER In an effort to expedite the publication of articles, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. 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*5701 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.