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
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
Smoking is a common risk factor for many diseases(1). We conducted genome-wide association meta-analyses for the number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) in smokers (n = 31,266) and smoking... Show moreSmoking is a common risk factor for many diseases(1). We conducted genome-wide association meta-analyses for the number of cigarettes smoked per day (CPD) in smokers (n = 31,266) and smoking initiation (n = 46,481) using samples from the ENGAGE Consortium. In a second stage, we tested selected SNPs with in silico replication in the Tobacco and Genetics (TAG) and Glaxo Smith Kline (Ox-GSK) consortia cohorts (n = 45,691 smokers) and assessed some of those in a third sample of European ancestry (n = 9,040). Variants in three genomic regions associated with CPD (P < 5 x 10(-8)), including previously identified SNPs at 15q25 represented by rs1051730[A] (effect size = 0.80 CPD, P = 2.4 x 10(-69)), and SNPs at 19q13 and 8p11, represented by rs4105144[C] (effect size = 0.39 CPD, P = 2.2 x 10(-12)) and rs6474412-T (effect size = 0.29 CPD, P = 1.4 x 10(-8)), respectively. Among the genes at the two newly associated loci are genes encoding nicotine-metabolizing enzymes (CYP2A6 and CYP2B6) and nicotinic acetylcholine receptor subunits (CHRNB3 and CHRNA6), all of which have been highlighted in previous studies of smoking and nicotine dependence2-4. Nominal associations with lung cancer were observed at both 8p11 (rs6474412[T], odds ratio (OR) = 1.09, P = 0.04) and 19q13 (rs4105144[C], OR = 1.12, P = 0.0006). Show less
