Perspective

American Society of Pharmacovigilance, PO Box 20433, Houston, TX 77225, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Nicholas J Keeling

Department of Pharmacy Administration, The University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy, 223 Faser Hall, MS 38677, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Jyothsna Giri

Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, MN 55905, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Nina Gonzaludo

Illumina, Inc., 200 Lincoln Centre Drive, Foster City, CA 94404, USA

Search for more papers by this author

J Shawn Jones

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Jerry H. Hodge School of Pharmacy, 5920 Forest Park Rd, Suite 500, Dallas, TX 75235, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Emily Glogowski

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9996-4904

GeneDx, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Christine M Formea

*Author for correspondence:

E-mail Address: christine.formea@imail.org

Center for Individualized Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, MN 55905, USA

Department of Pharmacy Services & Intermountain Precision Genomics, Intermountain Healthcare Pharmacy Services, 4393 S. Riverboat Road, Taylorsville, UT 84123, USA

Search for more papers by this author

Published Online:4 Aug 2020https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2019-0192

View article

Abstract

Pharmacogenomics test coverage and reimbursement are major obstacles to clinical uptake. Several early adopter programs have been successfully initiated through dedicated investments by federal and institutional research funding. As a result of research endeavors, evidence has grown sufficiently to support development of pharmacogenomics guidelines. However, clinical uptake is still limited. Third-party payer support plays an important role in increasing adoption, which to date has been limited to reactive single-gene testing. Access to and interest in direct-to-consumer genetic testing are driving demand for increasing healthcare providers and third-party awareness of this burgeoning field. Pharmacogenomics implementation models developed by early adopters promise to expand patient access and options, as testing continues to increase due to growing consumer interest and falling test prices.

Keywords:

References

1. Osterberg L, Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N. Engl. J. Med. 353(5), 487–497 (2005).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
2. NEHI. Thinking outside the pillbox. A system-wide approach to improving PatientMedication Adherence for Chronic Disease. https://www.nehi.net/writable/publication_files/file/pa_issue_brief_final.pdf
Google Scholar
3. Bosworth HB, Granger BB, Mendys P et al. Medication adherence: a call for action. Am. Heart J. 162(3), 412–424 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
4. McCarthy R. The price you pay for the drug not taken. Business Health 16, 27–33 (1998).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
5. Fagerness J, Fonseca E, Hess GP et al. Pharmacogenetic-guided psychiatric intervention associated with increased adherence and cost savings. Am. J. Manag. Care 20(5), e146–156 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
6. Bielinski SJ, St Sauver JL, Olson JE et al. Are patients willing to incur out-of-pocket costs for pharmacogenomic testing? Pharmacogenomics J. 17(1), 1–3 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
7. Luzum JA, Pakyz RE, Elsey AR et al. The Pharmacogenomics Research Network translational pharmacogenetics program: outcomes and metrics of pharmacogenetic implementations across diverse healthcare systems. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 102(3), 502–510 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
8. Caudle KE, Keeling NJ, Klein TE, Whirl-Carrillo M, Pratt VM, Hoffman JM. Standardization can accelerate the adoption of pharmacogenomics: current status and the path forward. Pharmacogenomics 19(10), 847–860 (2018).
CASGoogle Scholar
9. Dunnenberger HM, Crews KR, Hoffman JM et al. pre-emptive clinical pharmacogenetics implementation: current programs in five US medical centers. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 55, 89–106 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
10. Relling MV, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature 526(7573), 343–350 (2015).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
11. 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
12. Weitzel KW, Alexander M, Bernhardt BA et al. The IGNITE network: a model for genomic medicine implementation and research. BMC Med. Genomics 9, 1 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
13. Cavallari LH, Weitzel KW, Elsey AR et al. Institutional profile: University of Florida Health Personalized Medicine Program. Pharmacogenomics 18(5), 421–426 (2017).
CASGoogle Scholar
14. Keeling NJ, Rosenthal MM, West-Strum D, Patel AS, Haidar CE, Hoffman JM. Pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing: exploring the knowledge and perspectives of US payers. Genet. Med. 21(5), 1224–1232 (2019).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
15. Lynch JA, Berse B, Dotson WD, Khoury MJ, Coomer N, Kautter J. Utilization of genetic tests: analysis of gene-specific billing in Medicare claims data. Genet Med. 19(8), 890–899 (2017).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
16. CPIC. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. https://cpicpgx.org
Google Scholar
17. Giri J, Curry TB, Formea CM, Nicholson WT, Rohrer Vitek CR. Education and knowledge in pharmacogenomics: still a challenge? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103(5), 752–755 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
18. Bielinski SJ, Olson JE, Pathak J et al. Pre-emptive genotyping for personalized medicine: design of the right drug, right dose, right time-using genomic data to individualize treatment protocol. Mayo Clin. Proc. 89(1), 25–33 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
19. Ji Y, Skierka JM, Blommel JH et al. Pre-emptive pharmacogenomic testing for precision medicine: a comprehensive analysis of five actionable pharmacogenomic genes using next-generation DNA sequencing and a customized CYP2D6 genotyping cascade. J. Mol. Diagn. 18(3), 438–445 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
20. Novartis. Tegretol. (2018). https://www.pharma.us.novartis.com/sites/www.pharma.us.novartis.com/files/tegretol.pdf
Google Scholar
21. GlaxoSmithKline. Ziagen. (2018). https://www.gsksource.com/pharma/content/dam/GlaxoSmithKline/US/en/Prescribing_Information/Ziagen/pdf/ZIAGEN-PI-MG.PDF
Google Scholar
22. Arwood MJ, Chumnumwat S, Cavallari LH, Nutescu EA, Duarte JD. Implementing pharmacogenomics at your institution: establishment and overcoming implementation challenges. Clin. Transl. Sci. 9(5), 233–245 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
23. 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
24. Sabatini LM, Mathews C, Ptak D et al. Genomic sequencing procedure microcosting analysis and health economic cost-impact analysis: a report of the Association for Molecular Pathology. J. Mol. Diagn. 18(3), 319–328 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
25. Bruce Quinn Associates LLC. Pharmacogenetics improves health systems performance: economic benefits and key decisions. (2018). https://assets.thermofisher.com/TFS-Assets/GSD/Reference-Materials/pharmacogenetics-health-system-performance-white-paper.pdf
Google Scholar
26. Weitzel KW, Cavallari LH, Lesko LJ. pre-emptive panel-based pharmacogenetic testing: the time is now. Pharm. Res. 34(8), 1551–1555 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
27. McLeod W, Eidus R, Stewart EE. Clinical decision support: using technology to identify patients' unmet needs. Fam. Pract. Manag. 19(2), 22–28 (2012).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
28. Owusu Obeng A, Fei K, Levy KD et al. Physician-reported benefits and barriers to clinical implementation of genomic medicine: a multi-site IGNITE-network survey. J. Pers. Med. 8(3), 24 (2018).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
29. Weitzel KW, Aquilante CL, Johnson S, Kisor DF, Empey PE. Educational strategies to enable expansion of pharmacogenomics-based care. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 73(23), 1986–1998 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
30. IGNITE Network. According to MAC. (2017). https://dcricollab.dcri.duke.edu/sites/NIHKR/IGNITE%20Documents%20and%20Links%20to%20Content/Map%20of%20the%20Pharmacogenetic%20Test%20Reimbursement%20According%20to%20MAC.pdf
Google Scholar
31. Phillips KA, Deverka PA, Trosman JR et al. Payer coverage policies for multigene tests. Nat. Biotechnol. 35(7), 614–617 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
32. Pratt VM. Overview of the AMA Molecular Pathology CPT codes. (2017). https://ignite-genomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/3.2-CPT-Guidance.pdf
Google Scholar
33. OneOme. Billing Information. https://oneome.com/billing#psp
Google Scholar
34. Epstein RS, Moyer TP, Aubert RE et al. Warfarin genotyping reduces hospitalization rates: results from the MM-WES (Medco-Mayo Warfarin Effectiveness Study). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 55(25), 2804–2812 (2010).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
35. Regalado A. More than 26 million people have taken an at-home ancestry test. MIT Technology Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612880/more-than-26-million-people-have-taken-an-at-home-ancestry-test/
Google Scholar
36. van Driest SL, Shi Y, Bowton EA et al. Clinically actionable genotypes among 10,000 patients with pre-emptive pharmacogenomic testing. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95(4), 423–431 (2014).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
37. FDA News Release. FDA authorizes first direct-to-consumer test for detecting genetic variants that may be associated with medication metabolism. (2018). https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm624753.htm
Google Scholar
38. FDA, Medical Devices. Lists of direct-to-consumer tests with marketing authorization, 23andMe pgs pharmacogenetic reports, (DEN180028). https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/InVitroDiagnostics/ucm624726.htm#list
Google Scholar
39. 23andMe. Home page. https://www.23andme.com/
Google Scholar
40. Formea CM, Nicholson WT, McCullough KB et al. Development and evaluation of a pharmacogenomics educational program for pharmacists. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 77(1), 10 (2013).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
41. Nickola TJ, Green JS, Harralson AF, O'Brien TJ. The current and future state of pharmacogenomics medical education in the USA. Pharmacogenomics 13(12), 1419–1425 (2012).
CASGoogle Scholar
42. Crews KR, Cross SJ, McCormick JN et al. Development and implementation of a pharmacist-managed clinical pharmacogenetics service. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 68(2), 143–150 (2011).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
43. Johnson JA, Elsey AR, Clare-Salzler MJ, Nessl D, Conlon M, Nelson DR. Institutional profile: University of Florida and Shands Hospital Personalized Medicine Program: clinical implementation of pharmacogenetics. Pharmacogenomics 14(7), 723–726 (2013).
CASGoogle Scholar
44. Johansen Taber KA, Dickinson BD. Pharmacogenomic knowledge gaps and educational resource needs among physicians in selected specialties. Pharmgenomics Pers. Med. 7, 145–162 (2014).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
45. Amara N, Blouin-Bougie J, Bouthillier D, Simard J. On the readiness of physicians for pharmacogenomics testing: an empirical assessment. Pharmacogenomics J. 18(2), 308–318 (2018).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
46. Olson JE, Rohrer Vitek CR, Bell EJ et al. Participant-perceived understanding and perspectives on pharmacogenomics: the Mayo Clinic RIGHT protocol (Right Drug, Right Dose, Right Time). Genet. Med. 19(7), 819–825 (2017).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
47. Borden BA, Lee SM, Danahey K et al. Patient-provider communications about pharmacogenomic results increase patient recall of medication changes. Pharmacogenomics J. 19, 528–537 (2019).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
48. Pezalla EJ. Payer view of personalized medicine. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 73(23), 2007–2012 (2016).
MedlineGoogle Scholar
49. Brixner D, Biltaji E, Bress A et al. The effect of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool on healthcare resource utilization and estimated costs in the elderly exposed to polypharmacy. J. Med. Econ. 19(3), 213–228 (2016).
Medline CASGoogle Scholar
50. FDA. Collaborative Communities: Addressing Health Care Challenges Together. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/cdrh-strategic-priorities-and-updates/collaborative-communities-addressing-health-care-challenges-together
Google Scholar
51. Pharmacogenomics Access and Reimbursement Coalition (PARC). http://parcoalition.org
Google Scholar
52. FDA. FDA takes new action to advance the development of reliable and beneficial genetic tests that can improve patient care. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-new-action-advance-development-reliable-and-beneficial-genetic-tests-can-improve-patient
Google Scholar
53. American Society of Pharmacovigilance. Standardizing Laboratory Practices for Pharmacogenomics (STRIPE) Initiative. (2019). http://www.stopADR.org/STRIPE
Google Scholar
54. Admera Health. Advancing Precision Medicine Beyond Diagnostics. https://www.admerahealth.com/
Google Scholar
55. AltheaDx. https://www.altheadx.com/
Google Scholar
56. Biocerna. http://www.biocerna.com/pgx
Google Scholar
57. Assurex Health. https://genesight.com/
Google Scholar
58. Quest Diagnostics. Pharmacogenomics: Knowing the possibilities for effective treatment. https://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/physicians/testing-services/condition/genetics/pharmacogenomics/
Google Scholar
59. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Other FDA resources related to pharmacogenomics. http://www.fda.gov/drugs/science-and-research-drugs/other-fda-resources-related-pharmacogenomics#FDAGuidances
Google Scholar
60. Office of the Commissioner. FDA issues warning letter to genomics lab for illegally marketing genetic test that claims to predict patients' responses to specific medications. http://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-warning-letter-genomics-lab-illegally-marketing-genetic-test-claims-predict-patients
Google Scholar
61. US FDA. FDA announces collaborative review of scientific evidence to support associations between genetic information and specific medications. www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fda-announces-collaborative-review-of-scientific-evidence-to-support-associations-between-genetic-information-and-specific-medications-301008526.html.
Google Scholar

Vol. 21, No. 11

Metrics

Downloaded 301 times

History

Received 20 December 2019

Accepted 17 April 2020

Published online 4 August 2020

Published in print July 2020

Information

Keywords

Acknowledgments

This article was compiled by members of the Pharmacogenomics Access and Reimbursement Coalition (www.parcoalition.org).

Financial & competing interests disclosure

N Gonzaludo is an employee and shareholder of Illumina, Inc. E Glogowski is a full-time employee of GeneDx, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of OPKO. GeneDx, a diagnostic lab, does not currently offer pharmacogenomics testing, although it has done so in the past and may do so in the future. 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

PARC report: a health-systems focus on reimbursement and patient access to pharmacogenomics testing

Abstract

References