Background: Pharmacists' clinical decision-making is a core process in pharmaceutical care. However, the practical aspects and effective teaching methods of this process remain largely unexplored.... Show moreBackground: Pharmacists' clinical decision-making is a core process in pharmaceutical care. However, the practical aspects and effective teaching methods of this process remain largely unexplored. Objective: To examine the cognitive processes involved in pharmacists' perceptions of how they make clinical decisions in pharmacy practice. Methods: Semi-structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with pharmacists working in community, outpatient, and hospital care in the Netherlands between August and December 2021. Participants were explicitly asked for examples when asked how they make clinical decisions in practice and how they teach this to others. After transcribing audio-recorded interviews, an inductive thematic analysis was conducted to identify cognitive processes. A theoretical model of clinical decision-making was then used and adapted to structure the identified processes. Results: In total, 21 cognitive processes were identified from interviews with 16 pharmacists working in community (n = 5), outpatient (n = 2), and hospital care (n = 9). These cognitive processes were organized into 8 steps of the adapted theoretical model, i.e. problem and demand for care consideration, information collection, clinical reasoning, clinical judgment, shared decision-making, implementation, outcomes evaluation, and reflection. Pharmacists struggled to articulate their clinical decision-making and went back-and-forth in their explanations of this process. All pharmacists emphasized the importance of identifying the problem and described how they collect information through reviewing, gathering, recalling, and investigating. Clinical reasoning entailed various cognitive processes, of which comprehending the problem in the patient's context was deemed challenging at times. Pharmacists seemed least active in evaluating patient outcomes and reflecting on these outcomes. Conclusions: Pharmacists use multiple cognitive processes when making clinical decisions in pharmacy practice, and their back-and-forth explanations emphasize its dynamic nature. This study adds to a greater understanding of how pharmacists make clinical decisions and to the development of a theoretical model that describes this process, which can be used in pharmacy practice and education. Show less
Mertens, J.F.; Koster, E.S.; Deneer, V.H.M.; Bouvy, M.L.; Gelder, T. van 2023
BackgroundPharmacists’ clinical decision-making is considered a core process of pharmaceutical care in pharmacy practice, but little is known about the factors influencing this process.ObjectiveTo... Show moreBackgroundPharmacists’ clinical decision-making is considered a core process of pharmaceutical care in pharmacy practice, but little is known about the factors influencing this process.ObjectiveTo identify factors influencing clinical decision-making among pharmacists working in pharmacy practice.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists working in primary, secondary, and tertiary care settings in the Netherlands between August and December 2021. A thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive approach. The emerged themes were categorized into the Capability–Opportunity-Motivation–Behaviour (COM-B) model domains.ResultsIn total, 16 pharmacists working in primary care (n = 7), secondary care (n = 4) or tertiary care (n = 5) were interviewed. Factors influencing pharmacists' capability to make clinical decisions are a broad theoretical knowledge base, clinical experience, and skills, including contextualizing data, clinical reasoning, and clinical judgment. The pharmacy setting, data availability, rules and regulations, intra- and interprofessional collaboration, education, patient perspectives, and time are mentioned as factors influencing their opportunity. Factors influencing pharmacists’ motivation are confidence, curiosity, critical thinking, and responsibility.ConclusionsThe reported factors covered all domains of the COM-B model, implying that clinical decision-making is influenced by a combination of pharmacists' capability, opportunity, and motivation. Addressing these different factors in pharmacy practice and education may improve pharmacists’ clinical decision-making, thereby improving patient outcomes. Show less
Beunk, L.; Nijenhuis, M.; Soree, B.; Boer-Veger, N.J. de; Buunk, A.M.; Guchelaar, H.J.; ... ; Weide, J. van der 2023
The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. A... Show moreThe Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate pharmacogenetics implementation in clinical practice by developing evidence-based guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. A guideline describing the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2D6, CYP3A4 and CYP1A2 and antipsychotics is presented here. The DPWG identified gene-drug interactions that require therapy adjustments when respective genotype is known for CYP2D6 with aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol, and for CYP3A4 with quetiapine. Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained based on a systematic review of published literature. Reduction of the normal dose is recommended for aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, haloperidol, pimozide, risperidone and zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6-predicted PMs, and for pimozide and zuclopenthixol also for CYP2D6 IMs. For CYP2D6 UMs, a dose increase or an alternative drug is recommended for haloperidol and an alternative drug or titration of the dose for risperidone. In addition, in case of no or limited clinical effect, a dose increase is recommended for zuclopenthixol for CYP2D6 UMs. Even though evidence is limited, the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative drug to treat symptoms of depression or a dose reduction for other indications for quetiapine and CYP3A4 PMs. No therapy adjustments are recommended for the other CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 predicted phenotypes. In addition, no action is required for the gene-drug combinations CYP2D6 and clozapine, flupentixol, olanzapine or quetiapine and also not for CYP1A2 and clozapine or olanzapine. For identified gene-drug interactions requiring therapy adjustments, genotyping of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 prior to treatment should not be considered for all patients, but on an individual patient basis only. Show less
Background The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive... Show moreBackground The benefit of pharmacogenetic testing before starting drug therapy has been well documented for several single gene–drug combinations. However, the clinical utility of a pre-emptive genotyping strategy using a pharmacogenetic panel has not been rigorously assessed. Methods We conducted an open-label, multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised, crossover implementation study of a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel in 18 hospitals, nine community health centres, and 28 community pharmacies in seven European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK). Patients aged 18 years or older receiving a first prescription for a drug clinically recommended in the guidelines of the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (ie, the index drug) as part of routine care were eligible for inclusion. Exclusion criteria included previous genetic testing for a gene relevant to the index drug, a planned duration of treatment of less than 7 consecutive days, and severe renal or liver insufficiency. All patients gave written informed consent before taking part in the study. Participants were genotyped for 50 germline variants in 12 genes, and those with an actionable variant (ie, a drug–gene interaction test result for which the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group [DPWG] recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) were treated according to DPWG recommendations. Patients in the control group received standard treatment. To prepare clinicians for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing, local teams were educated during a site-initiation visit and online educational material was made available. The primary outcome was the occurrence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions within the 12-week follow-up period. Analyses were irrespective of patient adherence to the DPWG guidelines. The primary analysis was done using a gatekeeping analysis, in which outcomes in people with an actionable drug–gene interaction in the study group versus the control group were compared, and only if the difference was statistically significant was an analysis done that included all of the patients in the study. Outcomes were compared between the study and control groups, both for patients with an actionable drug–gene interaction test result (ie, a result for which the DPWG recommended a change to standard-of-care drug treatment) and for all patients who received at least one dose of index drug. The safety analysis included all participants who received at least one dose of a study drug. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03093818 and is closed to new participants. Findings Between March 7, 2017, and June 30, 2020, 41696 patients were assessed for eligibility and 6944 (51·4 % female, 48·6% male; 97·7% self-reported European, Mediterranean, or Middle Eastern ethnicity) were enrolled and assigned to receive genotype-guided drug treatment (n=3342) or standard care (n=3602). 99 patients (52 [1·6%] of the study group and 47 [1·3%] of the control group) withdrew consent after group assignment. 652 participants (367 [11·0%] in the study group and 285 [7·9%] in the control group) were lost to follow-up. In patients with an actionable test result for the index drug (n=1558), a clinically relevant adverse drug reaction occurred in 152 (21·0%) of 725 patients in the study group and 231 (27·7%) of 833 patients in the control group (odds ratio [OR] 0·70 [95% CI 0·54–0·91]; p=0·0075), whereas for all patients, the incidence was 628 (21·5%) of 2923 patients in the study group and 934 (28·6%) of 3270 patients in the control group (OR 0·70 [95% CI 0·61–0·79]; p <0·0001). Interpretation Genotype-guided treatment using a 12-gene pharmacogenetic panel significantly reduced the incidence of clinically relevant adverse drug reactions and was feasible across diverse European health-care system organisations and settings. Large-scale implementation could help to make drug therapy increasingly safe. Show less
Nijenhuis, M.; Soree, B.; Jama, W.O.M.; Boer-Veger, N.J. de; Buunk, A.M.; Guchelaar, H.J.; ... ; Risselada, A. 2022
Pharmacogenetics (PGx) studies the effect of heritable genetic variation on drug response. Clinical adoption of PGx has remained limited, despite progress in the field. To promote implementation,... Show morePharmacogenetics (PGx) studies the effect of heritable genetic variation on drug response. Clinical adoption of PGx has remained limited, despite progress in the field. To promote implementation, the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) develops evidence-based guidelines on how to optimize pharmacotherapy based on PGx test results. This guideline describes optimization of atomoxetine therapy based on genetic variation in the CYP2D6 gene. The CYP2D6 enzyme is involved in conversion of atomoxetine into the metabolite 4-hydroxyatomoxetine. With decreasing CYP2D6 enzyme activity, the exposure to atomoxetine and the risk of atomoxetine induced side effects increases. So, for patients with genetically absent CYP2D6 enzyme activity (CYP2D6 poor metabolisers), the DPWG recommends to start with the normal initial dose, bearing in mind that increasing this dose probably will not be required. In case of side effects and/or a late response, the DPWG recommends to reduce the dose and check for sustained effectiveness for both poor metabolisers and patients with genetically reduced CYP2D6 enzyme activity (CYP2D6 intermediate metabolisers). Extra vigilance for ineffectiveness is required in patients with genetically increased CYP2D6 enzyme activity (CYP2D6 ultra-rapid metabolisers). No interaction was found between the CYP2D6 and COMT genes and methylphenidate. In addition, no interaction was found between CYP2D6 and clonidine, confirming the suitability of clonidine as a possible alternative for atomoxetine in variant CYP2D6 metabolisers. The DPWG classifies CYP2D6 genotyping as being "potentially beneficial " for atomoxetine. CYP2D6 testing prior to treatment can be considered on an individual patient basis. Show less
The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes... Show moreThe Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of the anti-cancer drug irinotecan to decrease the risk of severe toxicity, such as (febrile) neutropenia or diarrhoea. Uridine diphosphate glucuronosyl transferase 1A1 (UGT1A1 encoded by the UGT1A1 gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of irinotecan-induced toxicity. Gene variants leading to UGT1A1 enzyme deficiency (e.g. UGT1A1*6, *28 and *37) can be used to optimize an individual's starting dose thereby preventing carriers from toxicity. Homozygous or compound heterozygous carriers of these allele variants are defined as UGT1A1 poor metabolisers (PM). DPWG recommends a 70% starting dose in PM patients and no dose reduction in IM patients who start treatment with irinotecan. Based on the DPWG clinical implication score, UGT1A1 genotyping is considered "essential", indicating that UGT1A1 testing must be performed prior to initiating irinotecan treatment. Show less
Mertens, J.F.; Koster, E.S.; Deneer, V.H.M.; Bouvy, M.L.; Gelder, T. van 2022
Background: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency for pharmacists, but there is a lack of conceptual clarity that complicates teaching and assessment. This scoping review was conducted... Show moreBackground: Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency for pharmacists, but there is a lack of conceptual clarity that complicates teaching and assessment. This scoping review was conducted to identify, map, and examine evidence on used cognitive processes and their conceptualization of clinical reasoning by pharmacists.Methods: In March 2021, seven databases were searched for relevant primary research studies. Included were studies that examined cognitive processes in pharmacists while addressing a clinical scenario in a pharmacy-related setting. Using descriptive analysis, study characteristics, conceptualizations, operationalizations, and key findings were mapped, summarized, and examined. Results were reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.Results: From 2252 abstracts, 17 studies were included that examined clinical reasoning in the context of forming a diagnosis (n = 9) or determining medication appropriateness (n = 4). Most studies conceptualized clinical reasoning as a context-dependent cognitive process whereby pharmacists apply and integrate knowledge and clinical experience to interpret available clinical data. Different terms labelled pharmacists' reasoning that showed analytical and intuitive ap-proaches to clinical scenarios, either separately or combined. Medication review studies reported a predominance of analytical reasoning. The majority of diagnosis-forming studies in primary care identified no distinct cognitive reasoning pattern when addressing self-care scenarios.Implications: This overview reflects a small but growing body of research on clinical reasoning by pharmacists. It is recommended that this competence be taught by explicating and reflecting on clinical reasoning as separate stage of the clinical decision-making process with transparent cognitive processes. Show less
Pol, K.H. van der; Nijenhuis, M.; Soree, B.; Boer-Veger, N.J. de; Buunk, A.M.; Guchelaar, H.J.; ... ; Rongen, G.A. 2022
The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes... Show moreThe Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the gene-drug interaction of ABCG2 with allopurinol, HLA-B with allopurinol, MTHFR with folic acid, and MTHFR with methotrexate, relevant for the treatment of gout, cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis. A systematic review was performed based on which pharmacotherapeutic recommendations were developed. Allopurinol is less effective in patients with the ABCG2 p.(Gln141Lys) variant. In HLA-B*58:01 carriers, the risk of severe cutaneous adverse events associated with allopurinol is strongly increased. The DPWG recommends using a higher allopurinol dose in patients with the ABCG2 p.(Gln141Lys) variant. For HLA-B*58:01 positive patients the DPWG recommends choosing an alternative (for instance febuxostat). The DPWG indicates that another option would be to precede treatment with allopurinol tolerance induction. Genotyping of ABCG2 in patients starting on allopurinol was judged to be 'potentially beneficial' for drug effectiveness, meaning genotyping can be considered on an individual patient basis. Genotyping for HLA-B*58:01 in patients starting on allopurinol was judged to be 'beneficial' for drug safety, meaning it is advised to consider genotyping the patient before (or directly after) drug therapy has been initiated. For MTHFR-folic acid there is evidence for a gene-drug interaction, but there is insufficient evidence for a clinical effect that makes therapy adjustment useful. Finally, for MTHFR-methotrexate there is insufficient evidence for a gene-drug interaction. Show less
Brouwer, J.M.J.L.; Nijenhuis, M.; Soree, B.; Guchelaar, H.J.; Swen, J.J.; Schaik, R.H.N. van; ... ; Mulder, H. 2021
The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline presented here, presents the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and antidepressants of the selective serotonin... Show moreThe Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline presented here, presents the gene-drug interaction between the genes CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 and antidepressants of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor type (SSRIs). Both genes' genotypes are translated into predicted normal metabolizer (NM), intermediate metabolizer (IM), poor metabolizer (PM), or ultra-rapid metabolizer (UM). Evidence-based dose recommendations were obtained, based on a structured analysis of published literature. In CYP2C19 PM patients, escitalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 75% of the normal maximum dose. Escitalopram should be avoided in UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, citalopram dose should not exceed 50% of the normal maximum dose. In CYP2C19 IM patients, this is 70% (65-75%) of the normal maximum dose. In contrast to escitalopram, no action is needed for CYP2C19 UM patients. In CYP2C19 PM patients, sertraline dose should not exceed 37.5% of the normal maximum dose. No action is needed for CYP2C19 IM and UM patients. In CYP2D6 UM patients, paroxetine should be avoided. No action is needed for CYP2D6 PM and IM patients. In addition, no action is needed for the other gene-drug combinations. Clinical effects (increase in adverse events or decrease in efficacy) were lacking for these other gene-drug combinations. DPWG classifies CYP2C19 genotyping before the start of escitalopram, citalopram, and sertraline, and CYP2D6 genotyping before the start of paroxetine as "potentially beneficial" for toxicity/effectivity predictions. This indicates that genotyping prior to treatment can be considered on an individual patient basis. Show less
Matic, M.; Nijenhuis, M.; Soree, B.; Boer-Veger, N.J. de; Buunk, A.M.; Houwink, E.J.F.; ... ; Schaik, R.H.N. van 2021
The current Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline, describes the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6 and the opioids codeine, tramadol and oxycodone. CYP2D6 genotype is translated... Show moreThe current Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) guideline, describes the gene-drug interaction between CYP2D6 and the opioids codeine, tramadol and oxycodone. CYP2D6 genotype is translated into normal metaboliser (NM), intermediate metaboliser (IM), poor metaboliser (PM) or ultra-rapid metaboliser (UM). Codeine is contraindicated in UM adults if doses >20 mg every 6 h (q6h), in children >= 12 years if doses >10 mg q6h, or with additional risk factors. In PMs, an alternative analgesic should be given which is not or to a lesser extent metabolised by CYP2D6 (not tramadol). In IMs with insufficient analgesia, a higher dose or alternative analgesic should be given. For tramadol, the recommendations for IMs and PMs are the same as the recommendation for codeine and IMs. UMs should receive an alternative drug not or to a lesser extent metabolised by CYP2D6 or the dose should be decreased to 40% of the commonly prescribed dose. Due to the absence of effect on clinical outcomes of oxycodone in PMs, IMs and UMs no action is required. DPWG classifies CYP2D6 genotyping for codeine "beneficial" and recommends testing prior to, or shortly after initiation of treatment in case of higher doses or additional risk factors. CYP2D6 genotyping is classified as "potentially beneficial" for tramadol and can be considered on an individual patient basis. Show less
Claassens, D.M.F.; Gimbel, M.E.; Bergmeijer, T.O.; Vos, G.J.A.; Hermanides, R.S.; Harst, P. van der; ... ; Berg, J.M. ten 2021
Background: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles derive less benefit from clopidogrel treatment. Despite this, in elderly patients,... Show moreBackground: Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles derive less benefit from clopidogrel treatment. Despite this, in elderly patients, clopidogrel might be preferred over more potent P2Y12 inhibitors due to a lower bleeding risk. Whether CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment in the elderly could be of benefit has not been studied specifically.Methods: Patients aged 70 years and older with known CYP2C19*2 and *3 genotype were identified from the POPular Genetics and POPular Age trials. Noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles treated with clopidogrel were compared to patients, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype, treated with ticagrelor and to clopidogrel treated carriers of loss-of-function alleles. We assessed net clinical benefit (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding), atherothrombotic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke) and bleeding outcomes (PLATO major and minor bleeding).Results: A total of 991 patients were assessed. There was no significant difference in net clinical benefit (17.2% vs. 15.1%, adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.44), atherothrombotic outcomes (9.7% vs. 9.2%, adjHR 1.00, 95%CI 0.66-1.50), and bleeding outcomes (17.7% vs. 19.8%, adjHR 0.80, 95%CI 0.62-1.12) between clopidogrel in noncarriers of loss-of-function alleles and ticagrelor respectively.Conclusion: In ACS patients aged 70 years and older, there was no significant difference in net clinical benefit and atherothrombotic outcomes between noncarriers of a loss-of-function allele treated with clopidogrel and pa-tients treated with ticagrelor. The bleeding rate was numerically; though not statistically significant, lower in pa-tients using clopidogrel.(c) 2021 Published by Elsevier B.V. Show less
BACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) occlude during the first year after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) despite aspirin use. The POPular CABG trial (The Effect... Show moreBACKGROUND: Approximately 15% of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) occlude during the first year after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) despite aspirin use. The POPular CABG trial (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Saphenous Vein Graft Patency in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery) investigated whether ticagrelor added to standard aspirin improves SVG patency at 1 year after CABG.METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial, patients with >= 1 SVGs were randomly assigned (1: 1) after CABG to ticagrelor or placebo added to standard aspirin (80 mg or 100 mg). The primary outcome was SVG occlusion at 1 year, assessed with coronary computed tomography angiography, in all patients that had primary outcome imaging available. A generalized estimating equation model was used to perform the primary analysis per SVG. The secondary outcome was 1-year SVG failure, which was a composite of SVG occlusion, SVG revascularization, myocardial infarction in myocardial territory supplied by a SVG, or sudden death.RESULTS: Among 499 randomly assigned patients, the mean age was 67.9 +/- 8.3 years, 87.1% were male, the indication for CABG was acute coronary syndrome in 31.3%, and 95.2% of procedures used cardiopulmonary bypass. Primary outcome imaging was available in 220 patients in the ticagrelor group and 223 patients in the placebo group. The SVG occlusion rate in the ticagrelor group was 10.5% (51 of 484 SVGs) versus 9.1% in the placebo group (43 of 470 SVGs), odds ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.73-2.30]; P=0.38. SVG failure occurred in 35 (14.2%) patients in the ticagrelor group versus 29 (11.6%) patients in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.72-2.05]).CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the addition of ticagrelor to standard aspirin did not reduce SVG occlusion at 1 year after CABG. Show less
Objectives Pharmacogenetic panel-based testing represents a new model for precision medicine. A sufficiently powered prospective study assessing the (cost-)effectiveness of a panel-based... Show moreObjectives Pharmacogenetic panel-based testing represents a new model for precision medicine. A sufficiently powered prospective study assessing the (cost-)effectiveness of a panel-based pharmacogenomics approach to guide pharmacotherapy is lacking. Therefore, the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium initiated the PREemptive Pharmacogenomic testing for prevention of Adverse drug Reactions (PREPARE) study. Here, we provide an overview of considerations made to mitigate multiple methodological challenges that emerged during the design. Methods An evaluation of considerations made when designing the PREPARE study across six domains: study aims and design, primary endpoint definition and collection of adverse drug events, inclusion and exclusion criteria, target population, pharmacogenomics intervention strategy, and statistical analyses. Results Challenges and respective solutions included: (1) defining and operationalizing a composite primary endpoint enabling measurement of the anticipated effect, by including only severe, causal, and drug genotype-associated adverse drug reactions; (2) avoiding overrepresentation of frequently prescribed drugs within the patient sample while maintaining external validity, by capping drugs of enrolment; (3) designing the pharmacogenomics intervention strategy to be applicable across ethnicities and healthcare settings; and (4) designing a statistical analysis plan to avoid dilution of effect by initially excluding patients without a gene-drug interaction in a gatekeeping analysis. Conclusion Our design considerations will enable quantification of the collective clinical utility of a panel of pharmacogenomics-markers within one trial as a proof-of-concept for pharmacogenomics-guided pharmacotherapy across multiple actionable gene-drug interactions. These considerations may prove useful to other investigators aiming to generate evidence for precision medicine. Show less
Despite advances in the field of pharmacogenetics (PGx), clinical acceptance has remained limited. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by... Show moreDespite advances in the field of pharmacogenetics (PGx), clinical acceptance has remained limited. The Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) aims to facilitate PGx implementation by developing evidence-based pharmacogenetics guidelines to optimize pharmacotherapy. This guideline describes the starting dose optimization of three anti-cancer drugs (fluoropyrimidines: 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine and tegafur) to decrease the risk of severe, potentially fatal, toxicity (such as diarrhoea, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis or myelosuppression). Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD, encoded by the DPYD gene) enzyme deficiency increases risk of fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity. The DPYD-gene activity score, determined by four DPYD variants, predicts DPD activity and can be used to optimize an individual's starting dose. The gene activity score ranges from 0 (no DPD activity) to 2 (normal DPD activity). In case it is not possible to calculate the gene activity score based on DPYD genotype, we recommend to determine the DPD activity and adjust the initial dose based on available data. For patients initiating 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine: subjects with a gene activity score of 0 are recommended to avoid systemic and cutaneous 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine; subjects with a gene activity score of 1 or 1.5 are recommended to initiate therapy with 50% the standard dose of 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. For subjects initiating tegafur: subjects with a gene activity score of 0, 1 or 1.5 are recommended to avoid tegafur. Subjects with a gene activity score of 2 (reference) should receive a standard dose. Based on the DPWG clinical implication score, DPYD genotyping is considered "essential", therefore directing DPYD testing prior to initiating fluoropyrimidines. Show less
Rongen, A. van; Aa, M.P van der; Matic, M.; Schaik, R.H.N. van; Deneer, V.H.M.; Vorst, M.M. van der; Knibbe, C.A.J. 2018
