We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing to browse this site, you accept our cookie policy.×
Skip main navigation
Open Drawer MenuClose Drawer Menu
Aging Health
Bioelectronics in Medicine
Biomarkers in Medicine
Breast Cancer Management
CNS Oncology
Colorectal Cancer
Concussion
Epigenomics
Future Cardiology
Future Medicine AI
Future Microbiology
Future Neurology
Future Oncology
Future Rare Diseases
Future Virology
Hepatic Oncology
HIV Therapy
Immunotherapy
International Journal of Endocrine Oncology
International Journal of Hematologic Oncology
Journal of 3D Printing in Medicine
Lung Cancer Management
Melanoma Management
Nanomedicine
Neurodegenerative Disease Management
Pain Management
Pediatric Health
Personalized Medicine
Pharmacogenomics
Regenerative Medicine
Review

Pharmacogenomics of medications given via nonconventional administration routes: a scoping review

    Samantha Socco

    Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois Chicago College of Pharmacy, Chicago, IL 60612, USA

    Department of Precision Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL 60201, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    ,
    Dyson T Wake

    Department of Precision Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL 60201, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    ,
    James C Lee

    Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Illinois Chicago College of Pharmacy, Chicago, IL 60612, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    &
    Henry M Dunnenberger

    *Author for correspondence: Tel.: +1 847 570 3319;

    E-mail Address: mdunnenberger@northshore.org

    Department of Precision Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL 60201, USA

    Search for more papers by this author

    Published Online:3 Nov 2022https://doi.org/10.2217/pgs-2022-0093

    Abstract

    Pharmacogenomics (PGx) implementation has become increasingly widespread. One of the most important aspects of this implementation process is the development of appropriate clinical decision support (CDS). Major PGx resources, such as the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium, provide valuable recommendations for the development of CDS for specific gene–drug pairs but do not specify whether the administration route of a drug is clinically relevant. It is also unknown if PGx alerts for nonorally and non-intravenously administered PGx-relevant medications should be suppressed to reduce alert fatigue. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify studies and their clinical, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic outcomes to better determine if CDS alerts are relevant for nonorally and non-intravenously administered PGx-relevant medications. Although this scoping review identified multiple PGx studies, the results of these studies were inconsistent, and more evidence is needed regarding different routes of medication administration and PGx.

    Plain language summary

    Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is the study of how a person's genes and DNA may impact their response to certain medications. There are many hospitals and large academic medical centers that have begun using pharmacogenomic testing to better help guide treatment decisions for patients. Currently, there are few standards in place to guide these institutions on how to put a patient's pharmacogenomic information into their personal medical chart. To help create these standards, a consensus is needed on what types of medication orders will alert physicians to patients who may have pharmacogenomic-related concerns. One area that must be addressed to help with these standardizations involves the route of administration of a medication. Do pharmacogenomic considerations depend on how a medication is given to the patient (e.g., by mouth or through a vein or muscle)? The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the evidence surrounding this question in the hopes of clarifying what types of medication orders should trigger alerts to physicians. If the administration route results in no concerns regarding a patient's pharmacogenomic data, then the physician should not be shown an alert for that medication order. Too many of these alerts may cause ‘alert fatigue’ and lead to more errors in medication ordering, which may result in patient harm. It is important to address this area of pharmacogenomics to ensure this information is being used appropriately for patient care.

    Tweetable abstract

    A scoping review was conducted to determine if clinical decision support alerts are relevant for non-p.o. and non-iv. administered pharmacogenomic-relevant medications. A significant evidence gap was identified, making it difficult to assess the appropriateness of non-administration-route-dependent clinical decision support order entry alerts.

    References

    • 1. FDATable of Pharmacogenetic Associations. www.fda.gov/medical-devices/precision-medicine/table-pharmacogenetic-associations (Accessed 27 August 2021).
      Google Scholar
    • 2. PharmGKB Clinical Guideline Annotations. www.pharmgkb.org/guidelineAnnotations (Accessed 27 August 2021).
      Google Scholar
    • 3. Relling MV, Klein TE. CPIC: Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium of the Pharmacogenomics Research Network. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89(3), 464–467 (2011).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Roosan D, Hwang A, Roosan MR. Pharmacogenomics cascade testing (PhaCT): a novel approach for preemptive pharmacogenomics testing to optimize medication therapy. Pharmacogenomics J. 21(1), 1–7 (2021).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Wake DT, Smith DM, Kazi S, Dunnenberger HM. Pharmacogenomic clinical decision support: a review, how-to guide, and future vision. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. doi:10.1002/cpt.2387 (2021) (Epub ahead of print).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Jason C. The pros and cons of EHR clinical decision support alerts. EHR Intelligence (2021). https://ehrintelligence.com/news/the-pros-and-cons-of-ehr-clinical-decision-support-alerts (Accessed 13 January 2022).
      Google Scholar
    • 7. Bell GC et al. Development and use of active clinical decision support for preemptive pharmacogenomics. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 21, e93–99 (2014).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Herr TM, Peterson JF, Rasmussen LV, Caraballo PJ, Peissig PL, Starren JB. Pharmacogenomic clinical decision support design and multi-site process outcomes analysis in the eMERGE network. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 26, 143–148 (2019).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Manzi SF et al. Creating a scalable clinical pharmacogenomics service with automated interpretation and medical record result integration - experience from a pediatric tertiary care facility. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 24, 74–80 (2017).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. St Sauver JL et al. Integrating pharmacogenomics into clinical practice: promise vs reality. Am. J. Med. 129, 1093–9e1 (2016).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Weitzel KW et al. Clinical pharmacogenetics implementation: approaches, successes, and challenges. Am. J. Med. Genet. C Semin. Med. Genet. 166C(1), 56–67 (2014).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. Alert fatigue (2019). https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/alert-fatigue#:∼:text=Alert%20fatigue%20is%20common.%20Clinicians%20generally%20override%20the,ignoring%20warnings%20in%20other%20settings%20are%20also%20high (Accessed 19 September 2022).
      Google Scholar
    • 13. McCoy AB, Thomas EJ, Krousel-Wood M, Sittig DF. Clinical decision support alert appropriateness: a review and proposal for improvement. Ochsner J. 14(2), 195–202 (2014).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Justinia T, Qattan W, Almenhali A, Abo-Khatwa A, Alharbi O, Alharbi T. Medication errors and patient safety: evaluation of physicians' responses to medication-related alert overrides in clinical decision support systems. Acta Inform. Med. 29(4), 248–252 (2021).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Chaparro JD, Hussain C, Lee JA, Hehmeyer J, Nguyen M, Hoffman J. Reducing interruptive alert burden using quality improvement methodology. Appl. Clin. Inform. 11(1), 46–58 (2020).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin Wn et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 169(7), 467–473 (2018).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Colquhoun HL, Levac D, O'Brien KK et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 67(12), 1291–1294 (2014).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18(1), 143 (2018).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Sargeant JM, O'Connor AM. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis: applications in veterinary medicine. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 11 (2020).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Lexicomp. Lexi-Drugs Online. UpToDate, Inc, MA, USA (2021). Available at: http://online.lexi.com
      Google Scholar
    • 21. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372, n71 (2021).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22. Polania Gutierrez JJ, Munakomi S. Intramuscular injection. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, FL, USA. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556121/
      Google Scholar
    • 23. Eum S, Schneiderhan ME, Brown JT, Lee AM, Bishop JR. Pharmacogenetic evaluation to assess breakthrough psychosis with aripiprazole long-acting injection: a case report. BMC Psychiatry 17(1), 238 (2017).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Tveito M, Molden E, Høiseth G, Correll CU, Smith RL. Impact of age and CYP2D6 genetics on exposure of aripiprazole and dehydroaripiprazole in patients using long-acting injectable versus oral formulation: relevance of poor and intermediate metabolizer status. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 76(1), 41–49 (2020).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Lisbeth P, Vincent H, Kristof M, Bernard S, Manuel M, Hugo N. Genotype and co-medication dependent CYP2D6 metabolic activity: effects on serum concentrations of aripiprazole, haloperidol, risperidone, paliperidone and zuclopenthixol published correction appears in Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. (13 October 2016). Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 72(2), 175–184 (2016).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Hendset M, Molden E, Refsum H, Hermann M. Impact of CYP2D6 genotype on steady-state serum concentrations of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone in patients using long-acting injectable risperidone. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 29(6), 537–541 (2009).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 27. Choong E, Polari A, Kamdem RH et al. Pharmacogenetic study on risperidone long-acting injection: influence of cytochrome P450 2D6 and pregnane X receptor on risperidone exposure and drug-induced side-effects. J. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 33(3), 289–298 (2013).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 28. Ganoci L, Trkulja V, Živković M et al. ABCB1, ABCG2 and CYP2D6 polymorphism effects on disposition and response to long-acting risperidone. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 104, 110042 (2021).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Ma L, Xiang Q, Zhao N et al. Effects of CYP2D6, CYP3A5, and ABCB1 gene polymorphisms on the pharmacokinetics of two risperidone long-acting injection microsphere formulations. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 109, 110241 (2021).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 30. Williams DG, Patel A, Howard RF. Pharmacogenetics of codeine metabolism in an urban population of children and its implications for analgesic reliability. Br. J. Anaesth. 89(6), 839–845 (2002).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 31. Pal R, Mendelson JE, Flower K et al. Impact of prospectively determined A118G polymorphism on treatment response to injectable naltrexone among methamphetamine-dependent patients: an open-label, pilot study. J Addict. Med. 9(2), 130–135 (2015).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 32. Shah N, Padalia D. Intrathecal Delivery System. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, FL, USA. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538237/
      Google Scholar
    • 33. Ginosar Y, Birnbach DJ, Shirov TT, Arheart K, Caraco Y, Davidson EM. Duration of analgesia and pruritus following intrathecal fentanyl for labour analgesia: no significant effect of A118G μ-opioid receptor polymorphism, but a marked effect of ethnically distinct hospital populations. Br. J. Anaesth. 111(3), 433–444 (2013).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Landau R, Kern C, Columb MO, Smiley RM, Blouin JL. Genetic variability of the mu-opioid receptor influences intrathecal fentanyl analgesia requirements in laboring women. Pain 139(1), 5–14 (2008).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Madadi P, Sistonen J, Silverman G et al. Life-threatening adverse events following therapeutic opioid administration in adults: is pharmacogenetic analysis useful? Pain Res. Manag. 18(3), 133–136 (2013).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Kung CC, Chen SS, Yang HJ, Lai CJ, Chen LK. Pharmacogenetic study of pruritus induced by epidural morphine for post-cesarean section analgesia. Taiwan J. Obstet. Gynecol. 57(1), 89–94 (2018).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Pettini E, Micaglio M, Bitossi U et al. Influence of OPRM1 polymorphism on postoperative pain after intrathecal morphine administration in Italian patients undergoing elective cesarean section. Clin. J. Pain 34(2), 178–181 (2018).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 38. de Cates C, Winters R. Intratympanic steroid injection. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, FL, USA. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK567708/
      Google Scholar
    • 39. Huang CJ, Wan TK, Fang TY, Wang PC. CASP9 genotype confers gentamicin susceptibility in intratympanic treatment of intractable vertigo caused by Ménière's disease. Acta Otolaryngol. 139(4), 336–339 (2019).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Lin CC, Hsu CW, Chen YC et al. A GALNT14 rs9679162 genotype-guided therapeutic strategy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: systemic or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy. Pharmacogenomics J. 20(1), 57–68 (2020).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Lévi F, Karaboué A, Saffroy R et al. Pharmacogenetic determinants of outcomes on triplet hepatic artery infusion and intravenous cetuximab for liver metastases from colorectal cancer (European trial OPTILIV, NCT00852228). Br. J. Cancer 117(7), 965–973 (2017).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Kranzler HR, Lynch KG, Crist RC et al. A delta-opioid receptor gene polymorphism moderates the therapeutic response to extended-release buprenorphine in opioid use disorder. Int. J. Neursopsychopharmacol. 24(2), 89–96 (2021).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Kim J, De Jesus O. Medication routes of administration. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, FL, USA. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568677/
      Google Scholar
    • 44. Cercek A, Boerner T, Tan BR et al. Assessment of hepatic arterial infusion of floxuridine in combination with systemic gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: a phase 2 clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 6(1), 60–67 (2020).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 45. Khan S, Sharman T. Transdermal medications. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, FL, USA. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556035/
      Google Scholar
    • 46. Johnson MR, Hageboutros A, Wang K, High L, Smith JB, Diasio RB. Life-threatening toxicity in a dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase-deficient patient after treatment with topical 5-fluorouracil. Clin. Cancer Res. 5(8), 2006–2011 (1999).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 47. Sargen M, Wanat KA, Jambusaria A, Rosenbach M, Sobanko J, Miller CJ. Systemic toxicity from occlusive therapy with topical 5-fluorouracil: a case report and review of the literature. Dermatol. Surg. 38(10), 1756–1759 (2012).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 48. Zhao Y, Chen W, Zhu W et al. Tandem repeats of TSER significantly influence the efficacy of 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of plantar warts. Per. Med. 13(3), 233–240 (2016).
      CASGoogle Scholar
    • 49. Cohen PR. Topical application of 5-fluorouracil 5 percent cream associated with severe neutropenia: discussion of a case and review of systemic reactions after topical treatment with 5-fluorouracil. Dermatol. Online J. 24(4), 13030/qt974797j7 (2018).
      Google Scholar
    • 50. Sastre JA, Varela G, López M, Muriel C, González-Sarmiento R. Influence of uridine diphosphate-glucuronyltransferase 2B7 (UGT2B7) variants on postoperative buprenorphine analgesia. Pain Pract. 15(1), 22–30 (2015).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 51. Blanco F, Muriel C, Labrador J, Gonzalez-Porras JR, Gonzalez-Sarmiento R, Lozano FS. Influence of UGT2B7, CYP3A4, and OPRM1 gene polymorphisms on transdermal buprenorphine pain control in patients with critical lower limb ischemia awaiting revascularization. Pain Pract. 16(7), 842–849 (2016).
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 52. Takashina Y, Naito T, Mino Y, Yagi T, Ohnishi K, Kawakami J. Impact of CYP3A5 and ABCB1 gene polymorphisms on fentanyl pharmacokinetics and clinical responses in cancer patients undergoing conversion to a transdermal system. Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet. 27(4), 414–421 (2012).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 53. Barratt DT, Bandak B, Klepstad P et al. Genetic, pathological and physiological determinants of transdermal fentanyl pharmacokinetics in 620 cancer patients of the EPOS study. Pharmacogenet. Genomics 24(4), 185–194 (2014).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 54. Roberts MS, Cheruvu HS, Mangion SE et al. Topical drug delivery: history, percutaneous absorption, and product development. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 177, 113929 (2021).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 55. Swen JJ, Nijenhuis M, de Boer A et al. Pharmacogenetics: from bench to byte–an update of guidelines. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 89(5), 662–673 (2011).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 56. Amstutz U, Henricks LM, Offer SM et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guideline for Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Genotype and Fluoropyrimidine Dosing: 2017 update. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 103(2), 210–216 (2018).
      Medline CASGoogle Scholar
    • 57. Aripiprazole extended-release injection (ABILIFY MAINTENA®), package insert. Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co, Tokyo, Japan.
      Google Scholar
    • 58. Roosan D, Hwang A, Law AV, Chok J, Roosan MR. The inclusion of health data standards in the implementation of pharmacogenomics systems: a scoping review. Pharmacogenomics 21(16), 1191–1202 (2020).
      CASGoogle Scholar