Systematic Review

Understanding the barriers and enablers of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care: a qualitative systematic review with meta-aggregation synthesis

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: sadaf.qureshi@nhs.net

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2836-6712

NHS Derby & Derbyshire Clinical Commissioning Group, Medicines Management,10 Nottingham Road, Derby, DE1 3QT, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Asam Latif

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0730-7120

School of Health Sciences, University Park, University of Nottingham, NG2 7RD, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Laura Condon

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7039-3095

Primary Care Stratified Medicine Research Group (PRISM), School of Medicine, University Park, University of Nottingham, NG2 7RD, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Ralph K Akyea

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4529-8237

Primary Care Stratified Medicine Research Group (PRISM), School of Medicine, University Park, University of Nottingham, NG2 7RD, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Joe Kai

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9040-9384

Primary Care Stratified Medicine Research Group (PRISM), School of Medicine, University Park, University of Nottingham, NG2 7RD, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Nadeem Qureshi

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4909-0644

Primary Care Stratified Medicine Research Group (PRISM), School of Medicine, University Park, University of Nottingham, NG2 7RD, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:16 Dec 2021https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2021-0131

View article

Abstract

Introduction: Pharmacogenomic testing can indicate which drugs may have limited therapeutic action or lead to adverse effects, hence guiding rational and safe prescribing. However, in the UK and other countries, there are still significant barriers to implementation of testing in primary care. Objective: This systematic review presents the barriers and enablers to the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care setting. Materials & methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases were searched through to July 2020 for studies that reported primary qualitative data of primary care professionals and patient views. Following screening, data extraction and quality assessment, data synthesis was undertaken using meta-aggregation based on the theoretical domain’s framework (TDF). Confidence in the synthesized findings relating to credibility and dependability was established using CONQual. Eligible papers were categorized into six TDF domains – knowledge; social and professional roles; behavioral regulation; beliefs and consequences; environmental context and resources; and social influences. Results: From 1669 citations, eighteen eligible studies were identified across seven countries, with a sample size of 504 participants including both primary care professionals and patients. From the data, 15 synthesized statements, all with moderate CONQual rating emerged. These categories range from knowledge, awareness among Primary Care Physicians and patients, professional relationships, negative impact of PGx, belief that PGx can reduce adverse drug reactions, clinical evidence, cost–effectiveness, informatics, reporting issues and social issues. Conclusion: Through use of TDF, fifteen synthesized statements provide policymakers with valuable recommendations for the implementation of pharmacogenomics in primary care. In preparation, policymakers need to consider the introduction of effective educational strategies for both PCPs and patients to raise knowledge, awareness, and engagement. The actual introduction of PGx will require reorganization with decision support tools to aid use of PGx in primary care, with a clear delegation of roles and responsibilities between general professionals and pharmacists supplemented by a local pool of experts. Furthermore, policy makers need to address the cost effectiveness of pharmacogenomics and having appropriate infrastructure supporting testing and interpretation including informatic solutions for utilizing pharmacogenomic results.

Keywords:

References

1. Caudle KT, Klein TE, Hoffman JM et al. Incorporation of pharmacogenomics into routine clinical practice: the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline Development Process. Curr. Drug Metab. 15(2), 209–217 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. Cecchin E, Roncato R, Guchelaar HJ, Toffoli G. Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium. Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics (U-PGx): the time for implementation is now. An Horizon2020 Program to drive pharmacogenomics into clinical practice. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 18(3), 204–209 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
3. Rollinson V, Turner R, Pirmohamed M. Pharmacogenomics for primary care: an overview. Genes 11, 1337 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
4. Dawes M. Pharmacogenetics in primary care. Healthcare Manag. Forum 33(3), 97–101 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
5. Verbelen M, Weale M, Lewis C. Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided treatment: are we there yet? Pharmacogenomics J. 17, 395–402 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
6. Suppiah V, Lim CX, Hotham E. Community pharmacists and their role in pharmacogenomics testing: an Australian perspective drawing on international evidence. Aust. J. Primary Health 24(6), 441–447 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
7. Ewbank L, Omojomolo D, Sullivan K, McKenna H. The rising cost of medicines to the NHS. What's the story? The King’s Fund Briefing (2018). https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2018-04/Rising-cost-of-medicines.pdf
Google Scholar
8. Bank PCD, Swen JJ, Schaap RD et al. A pilot study of the implementation of pharmacogenomic pharmacist initiated pre-emptive testing in primary care. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 27, 1532–1541 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
9. Grice GR, Seaton TL, Woodland AM, McLeod HL. Defining the opportunity for pharmacogenetic intervention in primary care. Pharmacogenomics 7(1), 61–65 (2005).
Google Scholar
10. Volpi S, Bult CJ, Chisholm RL et al. Research directions in the clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics: an overview of US programs and projects. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103(5), 778–786 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
11. Johnson JA. Pharmacogenetics in clinical practice: how far have we come and where are we going? Pharmacogenomics 14(7), 835–843 (2013).
CASGoogle Scholar
12. Klein ME, Parvez MM, Shin JG. Clinical implementation of pharmacogenomics for personalized precision medicine: barriers and solutions. J. Pharm. Sci. 106(9), 2368–2379 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
13. Wang YT, Merl MY, Yang J et al. Opportunities for pharmacists to integrate pharmacogenomics into clinical practice. Pharmacogenomics J. 20, 169–178 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
14. Carroll JC, Allanson J, Morrison S et al. Informing integration of genomic medicine into primary care: an assessment of current practice, attitudes, and desired resources. Front. Genet. 10, 1189 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Van der Wouden CH, Cambon-Thomsen A, Cecchin E et al. Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium. Implementing pharmacogenomics in Europe: design and implementation strategy of the Ubiquitous Pharmacogenomics Consortium. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 101(3), 341–358 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. Hippman C, Nislow C. Pharmacogenomic testing: clinical evidence and implementation challenges. J. Pers. Med. 9(3), 40 (2019).
Google Scholar
17. Deverka PA, Doksum T, Carlson RJ. Integrating molecular medicine into the US health-care system: opportunities, barriers, and policy challenges. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 82(4), 427–434 (2007).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
18. Haga SB. Integrating pharmacogenetic testing into primary care. Expert Rev. Precis. Med. Drug Dev. 2(6), 327–336 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Relling MV, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature 526(7573), 343–350 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
20. Abbasi J. Getting pharmacogenomics into the clinic. JAMA 316(15), 1533–1535 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
21. Bell GC, Crews KR, Wilkinson MR et al. Development and use of active clinical decision support for preemptive pharmacogenomics. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 21(e1), e93–e99 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
22. Hicks JK, Stowe D, Willner MA et al. Implementation of clinical pharmacogenomics within a large health system: from electronic health record decision support to consultation services. Pharmacotherapy 36(8), 940–948 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. Borden BA, Galecki P, Wellmann R et al. Assessment of provider-perceived barriers to clinical use of pharmacogenomics during participation in an institutional implementation study. Pharmacogenet. Genomics 29(2), 31–38 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
24. Ellingrod VL, Moline J. Incorporating pharmacogenomics into practice. J. Pharm. Pract. 20(3), 277–282 (2007).
Google Scholar
25. Petit C, Croisetière A, Chen F, Laverdière I. Are pharmacists from the province of Quebec ready to integrate pharmacogenetics into their practice. Pharmacogenomics 21(4), 247–256 (2020).
CASGoogle Scholar
26. Yau A, Husain RB, Haque M. Systematic review of knowledge, attitude and practice towards pharmacogenomics among doctors. Int. J. Pharmaceut. Res. 7(1), Jan–Mar (2015).
Google Scholar
27. O'Brien TJ, LeLacheur S, Ward C, Lee NH, Callier S, Harralson AF. Impact of a personal CYP2D6 testing workshop on physician assistant student attitudes toward pharmacogenetics. Pharmacogenomics 17(4), 341–352 (2016)
Google Scholar
28. Mikat-Stevens NA, Larson IA, Tarini BA. Primary-care providers' perceived barriers to integration of genetics services: a systematic review of the literature. Genet. Med. 17(3), 169–176 (2015).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Suther S, Goodson P. Barriers to the provision of genetic services by primary care physicians: a systematic review of the literature. Genet Med. 5(2), 70–76 (2003).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
30. Hayward J, McDermott J, Qureshi N, Newman W. Pharmacogenomic testing to support prescribing in primary care: a structured review of implementation models. Pharmacogenomics 22(12), 761–776 (2021).
CASGoogle Scholar
31. Yau A, Aziz ABA, Haque M. Knowledge, attitude and practice concerning pharmacogenomics among pharmacists: a systematic review. J. Young Pharmacists 7(3), Jul–Sep (2015).
Google Scholar
32. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E et al. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 12, 181 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
33. Critical appraisal skills programme. CASP (Qualitative) Checklist (2018). http://casp-uk.net
Google Scholar
34. Cane J, O'Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behavior change and implementation research. Implementation Sci. 7, 37 (2012).
Google Scholar
35. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behavior change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Sci. 12, 77 (2017).
Google Scholar
36. Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
Google Scholar
37. Munn Z, Porritt K, Lockwood C, Aromataris E, Pearson A. Establishing confidence in the output of qualitative research synthesis: the ConQual approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 14, 108 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
38. Park ER, Kleimann S, Pelan JA, Shields AE. Anticipating clinical integration of genetically tailored tobacco dependence treatment: perspectives of primary care physicians. Nicotine Tob. Res. 9(2), 271–279 (2007).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
39. Dressler LG, Bell GC, Abernathy PM, Ruch K, Denslow S. Implementing pharmacogenetic testing in rural primary care practices: a pilot feasibility study. Pharmacogenomics 20(6), 433–446 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
40. Williams EC, Young JP, Achtmeyer CE, Hendershot CS. Primary care providers' interest in using a genetic test to guide alcohol use disorder treatment. J. Substance Abuse Treat. 70, 14–20 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Lemke AA, Hutten Selkirk CG, Glaser NS et al. Primary care physician experiences with integrated pharmacogenomic testing in a community health system. Per. Med. 14(5), 389–400 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
42. Frigon MP, Blackburn MÈ, Dubois-Bouchard C, Gagnon AL, Tardif S, Tremblay K. Pharmacogenetic testing in primary care practice: opinions of physicians, pharmacists and patients. Pharmacogenomics 20(8), 589–598 (2019).
CASGoogle Scholar
43. Carroll JC, Makuwaza T, Manca DP et al. Primary care providers' experiences with and perceptions of personalized genomic medicine. Can. Fam. Physician 62(10), e626–e635 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
44. Chase DA, Baron S, Ash JS. Clinical decision support and primary care acceptance of genomic medicine. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 245, 700–703 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
45. Unertl KM, Jaffa H, Field JR, Price L, Peterson JF. Clinician perspectives on using pharmacogenomics in clinical practice. Per. Med. 12(4), 339–347 (2015).
CASGoogle Scholar
46. Haga SB, Tindall G, O'Daniel JM. Professional perspectives about pharmacogenetic testing and managing ancillary findings. Genet. Test Mol. Biomarkers 16(1), 21–24 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
47. Harding B, Webber C, Ruhland L et al. Primary care providers' lived experiences of genetics in practice. J. Community Genet. 10(1), 85–93 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
48. Lee YM, McKillip RP, Borden BA, Klammer CE, Ratain MJ, O'Donnell PH. Assessment of patient perceptions of genomic testing to inform pharmacogenomic implementation. Pharmacogenet. Genomics 27(5), 179–189 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
49. Rafi I, Crinson I, Dawes M, Rafi D, Pirmohamed M, Walter FM. The implementation of pharmacogenomics into UK general practice: a qualitative study exploring barriers, challenges and opportunities. J. Commun. Genet. 11(3), 269–277 (2020).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. Rigter T, Jansen ME, de Groot JM, Janssen SWJ, Rodenburg W, Cornel MC. Implementation of pharmacogenetics in primary care: a multi-stakeholder perspective. Front. Genet. 11, 10 (2020).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
51. Barr M, Rose D. The great ambivalence: factors likely to affect service user and public acceptability of the pharmacogenomics of antidepressant medication. Social Health Illn. 30(6), 944–958 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
52. Issa AM, Tufail W, Hutchinson J, Tenorio J, Baliga MP. Assessing patient readiness for the clinical adoption of personalized medicine. Public Health Genomics 12(3), 163–169 (2009).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
53. De Marco M, Cykert S, Coad N et al. Views on personalized medicine: do the attitudes of African American and white prescription drug consumers differ? Public Health Genomics 13(5), 276–283 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
54. Haddy CA, Ward HM, Angley MT, McKinnon RA. Consumers' views of pharmacogenetics – a qualitative study. Res. Social Adm. Pharm. 6(3), 221–231 (2010).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
55. Van der Wouden CH, Paasman E, Teichert M, Crone MR, Guchelaar HJ, Swen JJ. Assessing the implementation of pharmacogenomic panel-testing in primary care in the Netherlands utilizing a theoretical framework. J. Clin. Med. 9(3), 814 (2020).
Google Scholar
56. Haga SB. First responder to genomic information: a guide for primary care providers. Mol. Diagn. Ther. 23(4), 459–466 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
57. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 8, 45 (2008).
MedlineGoogle Scholar

Vol. 23, No. 2

Supplemental Materials

Metrics

Downloaded 313 times

History

Received 14 October 2021

Accepted 16 November 2021

Published online 16 December 2021

Published in print January 2022

Information

Keywords

Supplementary data

To view the supplementary data that accompany this paper please visit the journal website at: www.futuremedicine.com/doi/suppl/10.2217/pgs-2021-0131

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Nia Roberts, Information Specialist with the University of Oxford, for her tremendous support and guidance in developing the search strategies for the various databases and J Kai for comments on final version.

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This study is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

No writing assistance was utilized in the production of this manuscript.

PDF download