Attitudes on pharmacogenomic results as secondary findings among medical geneticists.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Meghan N Bartos, Stuart A Scott, Ethylin Wang Jabs, Hetanshi Naik
{"title":"Attitudes on pharmacogenomic results as secondary findings among medical geneticists.","authors":"Meghan N Bartos,&nbsp;Stuart A Scott,&nbsp;Ethylin Wang Jabs,&nbsp;Hetanshi Naik","doi":"10.1097/FPC.0000000000000479","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>As evidence mounts supporting the utility of pharmacogenomic-guided medication management, incorporating pharmacogenomic genes into secondary finding results from sequencing panels is increasingly under consideration. We studied medical geneticists' attitudes on receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Four focus groups with 16 medical geneticists total were conducted followed by thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants ordered genetic sequencing tests; however, the majority had rarely or never ordered pharmacogenomic tests (10/16) or prescribed medications with established response variability (11/16). In total 81.3% expressed low comfort interpreting pharmacogenomic results without appropriate clinical resources (13/16). The positives of receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding included prevention of adverse drug reactions in adults, grateful information-seeking patients, the ability to rapidly prescribe more effective treatments and appreciation of the recent advances in both pharmacogenomic knowledge and available guidelines. Negatives included laboratory reporting issues, exclusivity of pharmacogenomic results to certain populations, lengthy reports concealing pharmacogenomic results in patient charts and laboratories marketing to individuals without prior pharmacogenomic knowledge or targeting inappropriate populations. The most desirable pharmacogenomic resources included a universal electronic health record clinical decision support tool to assist identifying and implementing pharmacogenomic results, a specialized pharmacist as part of the care team, additional pharmacogenomic training during medical/graduate school, and a succinct interpretation of pharmacogenomic results included on laboratory reports.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The majority of participants agreed that adding certain actionable pharmacogenomic genes to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics SF list is reasonable; however, this was qualified with a need for additional resources to support implementation.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":"32 8","pages":"273-280"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/FPC.0000000000000479","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: As evidence mounts supporting the utility of pharmacogenomic-guided medication management, incorporating pharmacogenomic genes into secondary finding results from sequencing panels is increasingly under consideration. We studied medical geneticists' attitudes on receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding.

Methods: Four focus groups with 16 medical geneticists total were conducted followed by thematic analysis.

Results: All participants ordered genetic sequencing tests; however, the majority had rarely or never ordered pharmacogenomic tests (10/16) or prescribed medications with established response variability (11/16). In total 81.3% expressed low comfort interpreting pharmacogenomic results without appropriate clinical resources (13/16). The positives of receiving pharmacogenomic results as secondary finding included prevention of adverse drug reactions in adults, grateful information-seeking patients, the ability to rapidly prescribe more effective treatments and appreciation of the recent advances in both pharmacogenomic knowledge and available guidelines. Negatives included laboratory reporting issues, exclusivity of pharmacogenomic results to certain populations, lengthy reports concealing pharmacogenomic results in patient charts and laboratories marketing to individuals without prior pharmacogenomic knowledge or targeting inappropriate populations. The most desirable pharmacogenomic resources included a universal electronic health record clinical decision support tool to assist identifying and implementing pharmacogenomic results, a specialized pharmacist as part of the care team, additional pharmacogenomic training during medical/graduate school, and a succinct interpretation of pharmacogenomic results included on laboratory reports.

Conclusions: The majority of participants agreed that adding certain actionable pharmacogenomic genes to the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics SF list is reasonable; however, this was qualified with a need for additional resources to support implementation.

医学遗传学家对药物基因组学结果作为次要发现的态度。
随着越来越多的证据支持药物基因组学指导的药物管理的效用,将药物基因组学基因纳入测序小组的二次发现结果越来越受到考虑。我们研究了医学遗传学家对接受药物基因组学结果作为次要发现的态度。方法:4个焦点小组共16名医学遗传学家进行专题分析。结果:所有参与者均要求进行基因测序测试;然而,大多数人很少或从未要求进行药物基因组学测试(10/16)或处方药物,并确定了反应变异性(11/16)。在没有适当临床资源的情况下,81.3%的人表示对药物基因组学结果的解释不太满意(13/16)。接受药物基因组学结果作为次要发现的积极意义包括预防成人药物不良反应,感谢信息寻求患者,能够快速开出更有效的治疗方案,以及对药物基因组学知识和现有指南的最新进展表示赞赏。负面因素包括实验室报告问题,药物基因组学结果对某些人群的排他性,在患者图表中隐瞒药物基因组学结果的冗长报告以及实验室向没有事先药物基因组学知识或针对不适当人群的个人进行营销。最理想的药物基因组学资源包括一个通用的电子健康记录临床决策支持工具,以帮助识别和实施药物基因组学结果,作为护理团队一部分的专业药剂师,在医学/研究生院期间进行额外的药物基因组学培训,以及在实验室报告中对药物基因组学结果进行简洁的解释。结论:大多数与会者同意在美国医学遗传学与基因组学学院SF列表中添加某些可操作的药物基因组基因是合理的;但是,这需要额外的资源来支持执行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信