Attitudes about pharmacogenomic testing vary by healthcare specialty

Papers of special note have been highlighted as: • of interest

References

• 1. Roden DM, McLeod HL, Relling MV et al. Pharmacogenomics. Lancet 394(10197), 521–532 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 2. Relling MV, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature 526(7573), 343–350 (2015).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 3. Weinshillboum R, Wang L. Pharmacogenomics: precision medicine and drug response. Mayo Clin. Proc. 92(11), 1711–1722 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 4. Moyer AM, Caraballo PJ. The challenges of implementing pharmacogenomic testing in the clinic. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 17(6), 567–577 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 5. Albassam A, Alshammari S, Ouda G, Koshy S, Awad A. Knowledge, perceptions and confidence of physicians and pharmacists towards pharmacogenetics practice in Kuwait. PLOS ONE 13(9), e0203033 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 6. Lemke AA, Selkirk CGH, 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
• 7. Clinical Guideline Annotations. PharmGKB, CA, USA. www.pharmgkb.org/guidelineAnnotations (Accessed 5 February 2023).
  Google Scholar
• 8. Horowitz CR, Orlando LA, Slavotinek AM et al. The Genomic Medicine Integrative Research Framework: a conceptual framework for conducting genomic medicine research. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 104(6), 1088–1096 (2019).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 9. Crellin E, McClaren B, Nisselle A, Best S, Gaff C, Metcalfe S. Preparing medical specialists to practice genomic medicine: education an essential part of a broader strategy. Front. Genet. 10(789), eCollection, doi: 10.3389/fgene.2019.00789 (2019). • Physicians request additional educational supports that more broadly address genetics. Exploration into speciality specific educational needs is required to best support physicians.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 10. Champion VL, Skinner CS. The health belief model. In: Health Behavior and Health Education Theory, Research and Practice (4th Edition). Glanz KRimer BKViswanath K (Eds). Jossey-Bass, CA, USA, 45–65 (2008).
  Google Scholar
• 11. Fishbein M. Developing effective behavior change interventions: some lessons learned from behavioral research. In: NIH Pub No. 95-4035 Reviewing the Behavioral Science Knowledge Base on Technology Transfer. Backer TEDavid SLSoucy GP (Eds). (NIDA Research Monograph).National Institute on Drug Abuse. MD, USA, 246–261 (1995).
  Google Scholar
• 12. Sweeny K, Ghane A, Legg AM, Huynh HP, Andrews SE. Predictors of genetic testing decisions: a systematic review and critique of the literature. J. Genet. Couns. 23(3), 263–288 (2014).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 13. Carroll JC, Wilson BJ, Allanson J et al. GenetiKit: a randomized controlled trial to enhance delivery of genetics services by family physicians. Fam. Pract. 28(6), 615–623 (2011).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 14. Demeshko A, Pennisi DJ, Narayan S, Gray SW, Brown MA, McInerney-Leo AM. Factors influencing cancer genetic somatic mutation test ordering by cancer physician. J. Transl. Med. 18(1), 431 (2020).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 15. Campion M, Goldgar C, Hopkin RJ, Prows CA, Dasgupta S. Genomic education for the next generation of health-care providers. Genet. Med. 21(11), 2422–2430 (2019). • The current genomics workforce is not adequate to address the growing need for genomics specialists. To promote the expansion of genomics in medicine, meaningful genomics education is required in all medical training programs.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 16. Haga SB, Burke W, Ginsburg GS, Mills R, Agans R. Primary care physicians' knowledge of and experience with pharmacogenetic testing. Clin. Genet. 82(4), 388–394 (2012). • Primary care physicians report that pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing would be useful in their clinics, but are lacking the knowledge and skillset to implement this.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 17. 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). • Healthcare providers across disciplines are interested in utilizing PGx testing in their clinics, but not confident in their ability to interpret and implement such testing. Providers report that access to resources and educational materials would improve confidence.
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 18. Li J, Xu T, Yashar BM. Genetics educational needs in China: physicians' experience and knowledge of genetic testing. Genet. Med. 17(9), 757–760 (2015).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 19. Salm M, Abbate K, Appelbaum P et al. Use of genetic tests among neurologists and psychiatrists: knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, and needs for training. J. Gene. Couns. 23(2), 156–163 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 20. Klitzman R, Chung W, Marder K et al. Attitudes and practices among internists concerning genetic testing. J. Genet. Couns. 22(1), 90–100 (2013).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 21. 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). • There are similar barriers and limitations across the globe to implementing PGx testing into clinical care. A key solution would be increased education, and institutional supports for clinical application.
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 22. Karas Kuželički N, Prodan Žitnik I, Gurwitz D et al. Pharmacogenomics education in medical and pharmacy schools: conclusions of a global survey. Pharmacogenomics 20(9), 643–657 (2019).
  Google Scholar
• 23. Luzum JA, Luzum MJ. Physicians' attitudes toward pharmacogenetic testing before and after pharmacogenetic education. Pers. Med. 13(2), 119–127 (2016).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 24. Talwar D, Tseng TS, Foster M, Xu L, Chen LS. Genetics/genomics education for nongenetic health professionals: a systematic literature review. Genet. Med. 19(7), 725–732 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 25. Christensen KD, Bell M, Zawatsky CLB et al. Precision population medicine in primary care: the Sanford Chip experience. Front. Genet. 12(274), eCollection, doi: 0.3389/fgene.2021.626845 (2021).
  Google Scholar
• 26. Hajek C, Hutchinson AM, Galbraith LN et al. Improved provider preparedness through an 8-part genetics and genomic education program. Genet. Med. 24(1), 214–224 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 27. Petry N, Baye J, Aifaoui A et al. Implementation of wide-scale pharmacogenetic testing in primary care. Pharmacogenomics 20(12), 903–913 (2019). • Comprehensive overview of the work we did within the Sanford PGx program: successful implementation of PGx testing in primary care requires careful consideration, implementation of clinical tools, access to genetics professionals and a robust clinical education program.
  Google Scholar
• 28. Baye J, Massmann A, Petry N et al. Development and early evaluation of clinical decision support for long QT syndrome population screening. J. Transl. Genet. Genom. 6(3), 375–387 (2022).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 29. Baye JF, Petry NJ, Jacobson SL et al. Malignant hyperthermia susceptibility: utilization of genetic results in an electronic medical record to increase safety. Pharmacogenomics 21(17), 1207–1215 (2020).
  CASGoogle Scholar
• 30. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. Prioritization of CPIC Guidelines (2022) https://cpicpgx.org/prioritization-of-cpic-guidelines/ (Accessed 5 February 2023).
  Google Scholar
• 31. Pet DB, Holm IA, Williams JL et al. Physicians' perspectives on receiving unsolicited genomic results. Genet. Med. 21(2), 311–318 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 32. Vears DF, Senecal K, Borry P. Reporting practices for unsolicited and secondary findings from next generation sequencing technologies: perspectives of laboratory personnel. Hum. Mutat. 38(8), 905–911 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 33. All of Us Research Program Investigators. The ‘All of Us’ Research Program. N. Engl. J. Med. 381(7), 668–676 (2019).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 34. Galli M, Benenati S, Franchi F et al. Comparative effects of guided vs potent P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis of 61 898 patients from 15 randomized trials. Eur. Heart J. 43(10), 959–967 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 35. Malik AH, Gupta R, Chakraborty S et al. Effect of genotype-guided oral P2Y12 inhibitor selection after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Cardiovasc. Revasc. Med. 41, 115–121 (2022).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 36. Beitelshees AL, Thomas CD, Empey PE et al. CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in diverse clinical settings. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 11(4), e024159 (2022).
  Medline CASGoogle Scholar
• 37. Tolley CL, Slight SP, Husband AK, Watson N, Bates DW. Improving medication-related clinical decision support. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. 75(4), 239–246 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 38. Hinderer M, Boeker M, Wagner SA et al. Integrating clinical decision support systems for pharmacogenomic testing into clinical routine – a scoping review of designs of user–system interactions in recent system development. BMC Med. Inform. Decis. Mak. 17(1), 81–81 (2017).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 39. Hoffman JM, Flynn AJ, Juskewitch JE, Freimuth RR. Biomedical data science and informatics challenges to implementing pharmacogenomics with electronic health records. Annu. Rev. Biomed. Data Sci. 3, 289–314 (2020).
  Google Scholar
• 40. Massmann A, Petry NJ. Impact of transitioning to an active, noninterruptive CYP2C19/proton pump inhibitor alert on prescribing patterns. Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxad100 (2023) (Epub ahead of print).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 41. Bertakis KD. The influence of gender on the doctor–patient interaction. Patient Educ. Couns. 76(3), 356–360 (2009).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar
• 42. Peterson EB, Chou WS, Gaysynsky A et al. Communication of cancer-related genetic and genomic information: a landscape analysis of reviews. Transl. Behav. Med. 8(1), 59–70 (2018).
  MedlineGoogle Scholar