Most cardiovascular prescribers perceived CYP2C19 (73%) and CYP2D6 (61%) genetic testing as beneficial, but access was limited to 30% and 19% respectively.
Cross-Sectional (n=265)
Cardiovascular prescribers desire access to CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 pharmacogenomic testing to guide therapy, but significant barriers exist including lack of access, guidance, and patient information.
Abstract: The aim of this study was to elucidate cardiovascular prescriber access, uptake, and attitudes toward CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genetic testing to guide prescribing of commonly used medications such as clopidogrel, antiarrhythmics, proton pump inhibitors, and antidepressants. A survey, designed in collaboration with the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) WG on Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy and external experts was disseminated to ESC members using SurveyMonkey. 265 prescribers from 68 countries participated. Most respondents thought testing would be beneficial, though CYP2C19 testing was perceived as more beneficial (73%) and desirable than CYP2D6 (61%). Access to CYP2C19 testing was more common (30%) than CYP2D6 testing (19%), but mostly outside of public funded health systems. Uptake in those who had access was higher for CYP2C19 (67%), than for CYP2D6 (33%). Confidence in interpreting results to prescribe was also higher with CYP2C19 (69%) than with CYP2D6 (53%), but most respondents wanted information prior to prescribing. One third of respondents highlighted the need for a turnaround time that matched their clinical practice. Unsolicited Pharmacogenomic (PGx) information from a patient was uncommon, but most prescribers acted on the information. A minority of respondents had undertaken PGx testing themselves, but most wanted testing for relevant medications. Respondents’ experiences as patients made them more likely to believe that PGx testing was warranted. A minority ( ~ 15%) were aware of either local prescriber guidance or patient information materials regarding PGx testing. Prescribers want access to pharmacogenomics data regarding CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 for prescribing cardiovascular medicines. However, there are barriers which hamper implementation. Prescribers lived experience with medication use as patients impacted their views of PGx. 265 prescribers responded to the ESC survey from 68 countries. Most prescribers wanted access to pharmacogenomic testing for CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 for their patients and for themselves. Though most prescribers thought these pharmacogenomic tests would be useful and could improve the risk/benefit profile of relevant medications, prescribers responded more positively to CYP2C19 compared with CYP2D6 testing. Guidance and information for both prescribers and patients were lacking.
Magavern et al. (Thu,) conducted a cross-sectional in Cardiovascular prescriber attitudes to pharmacogenomics (n=265). Survey on CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genetic testing was evaluated on Perceived benefit and access to CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 genetic testing. Most cardiovascular prescribers perceived CYP2C19 (73%) and CYP2D6 (61%) genetic testing as beneficial, but access was limited to 30% and 19% respectively.