Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

The impact of pharmacogenetic testing in patients exposed to polypharmacy: a scoping review

Abstract

Polypharmacy poses a significant risk for adverse reactions. While there are clinical decision support tools to assist clinicians in medication management, pharmacogenetic testing to identify potential drug–gene or drug–drug–gene interactions is not widely implemented in the clinical setting. A PRISMA-compliant scoping review was performed to determine if pharmacogenetic testing for absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion (ADME)-related genetic variants is associated with improved clinical outcomes in patients with polypharmacy. Six studies were reviewed. Five reported improved clinical outcomes, reduced side effects, reduction in the number of drugs used, or reduced healthcare utilization. The reviewed studies varied in methodological quality, risk of bias, and outcome measures. Age, diet, disease state, and treatment adherence also influence drug response, and may confound the relationship between genetic polymorphisms and treatment outcomes. Further studies using a randomized control design are needed. We conclude that pharmacogenetic testing represents an opportunity to improve health outcomes in patients exposed to polypharmacy, particularly in patients with psychiatric disorders and the elderly.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. Medication safety in polypharmacy: technical report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2019. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/325454.

  2. Mair A, Wilson M, Dreischulte T. Addressing the challenge of polypharmacy. Annu Rev Pharm Toxicol. 2020;60:661–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hales CM, Servais J, Martin CB, Kohen D. Prescription drug use among adults aged 40-79 in the United States and Canada. NCHS Data Brief. 2019;347:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey GE. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17:230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Roberts A, Kamdem LK, Weston GS. The pharmacogenetics of drug metabolism. In: Zdanowicz MM, editor. Concepts in pharmacogenomics. 2nd ed. Bethesda, MD: American Society of Health-System Pharmacists; 2017. p. 107–50.

  6. Almazroo OA, Miah MK, Venkataramanan R. Drug metabolism in the liver. Clin Liver Dis. 2017;21:1–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Manikandan P, Nagini S. Cytochrome P450 structure, function and clinical significance: a review. Curr Drug Targets. 2018;19:38–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zanger UM, Schwab M. Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism: regulation of gene expression, enzyme activities, and impact of genetic variation. Pharm Ther. 2013;138:103–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium. Retrieved March 2020. https://cpicpgx.org/.

  10. Crews KR, Gaedigk A, Dunnenberger HM, Klein TE, Shen DD, Callaghan JT, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines for codeine therapy in the context of cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) genotype. Clin Pharm Ther. 2012;91:321–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Bottorff MB, Bright DR, Kisor DF. Commentary: should pharmacogenomic evidence be considered in clinical decision making? Focus on select cardiovascular drugs. Pharmacotherapy. 2017;37:1005–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. US Food & Drug Administration. Table of pharmacogenomic biomarkers in drug labelling. Retrieved March 2020. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/science-and-research-drugs/table-pharmacogenomic-biomarkers-drug-labeling.

  13. Baxter. Nexterone (amiodarone HCl) Injection for intravenous use [package insert on the Internet]. Deerfield IL: Baxter; 2011. Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022325s002lbl.pdf.

  14. Shah RR, Smith RL. Addressing phenoconversion: the Achilles’ heel of personalized medicine. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;79:222–40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Klomp SD, Manson ML, Guchelaar HJ, Swen JJ. Phenoconversion of cytochrome P450 metabolism: a systematic review. J Clin Med. 2020;9:2890.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Viswanathan M, Berkman ND, Dryden DM, Hartling L. Assessing risk of bias and confounding in observational studies of interventions or exposures: further development of the RTI item bank [Internet]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK154461/.

  18. Jorgensen AL, Williamson PR. Methodological quality of pharmacogenetic studies: issues of concern. Stat Med. 2008;27:6547–69.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ross S, Anand SS, Joseph P, Paré G. Promises and challenges of pharmacogenetics: an overview of study design, methodological and statistical issues. JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2012;1:2.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Thorn CF, Whirl-Carrillo M, Hachad H, Johnson JA, McDonagh EM, Ratain MJ, et al. Essential characteristics of pharmacogenomics study publications. Clin Pharm Ther. 2019;105:86–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Blasco-Fontecilla H. Clinical utility of pharmacogenetic testing in children and adolescents with severe mental disorders. J Neural Transm. 2019;126:101–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Brixner D, Biltaji E, Bress A, Unni S, Ye X, Mamiya T, 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. 2016;19:213–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Elliott LS, Henderson JC, Neradilek MB, Moyer NA, Ashcraft KC, Thirumaran RK. Clinical impact of pharmacogenetic profiling with a clinical decision support tool in polypharmacy home health patients: a prospective pilot randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0170905.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. van der Wouden CH, Bank PCD, Özokcu K, Swen JJ, Guchelaar HJ. Pharmacist-Initiated pre-emptive pharmacogenetic panel testing with clinical decision support in primary care: record of PGx results and real-world impact. Genes. 2019;10:416.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Winner JG, Carhart JM, Altar CA, Allen JD, Dechairo BM. A prospective, randomized, double-blind study assessing the clinical impact of integrated pharmacogenomic testing for major depressive disorder. Disco Med. 2013;16:219–27.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hall-Flavin DK, Winner JG, Allen JD, Carhart JM, Proctor B, Snyder KA, et al. Utility of integrated pharmacogenomic testing to support the treatment of major depressive disorder in a psychiatric outpatient setting. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2013;23:535–48.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pérez V, Salavert A, Espadaler J, Tuson M, Saiz-Ruiz J, Sáez-Navarro C, et al. Efficacy of prospective pharmacogenetic testing in the treatment of major depressive disorder: results of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. BMC Psychiatry. 2017;17:250.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Relling MV, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics in the clinic. Nature. 2015;526:343–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Weitzel KW, Cavallari LH, Lesko LJ. Preemptive panel-based pharmacogenetic testing: the time is now. Pharm Res. 2017;34:1551–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cavallari LH, Van Driest SL, Prows CA, Bishop JR, Limdi NA, Pratt VM, et al. Multi-site investigation of strategies for the clinical implementation of CYP2D6 genotyping to guide drug prescribing. Genet Med. 2019;21:2255–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Luzum JA, Pakyz RE, Elsey AR, Haidar CE, Peterson JF, Whirl-Carrillo M, et al. The pharmacogenomics research network translational pharmacogenetics program: outcomes and metrics of pharmacogenetic implementations across diverse healthcare systems. Clin Pharm Ther. 2017;102:502–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Licito A, Marotta G, Battaglia M, Benincasa G, Mentone L, Grillo MR, et al. Assessment of pharmacogenomic SLCO1B1 assay for prediction of neuromuscular pain in type 2 diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular patients: preliminary results. Eur Rev Med Pharm Sci. 2020;24:469–77.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mugoša S, Djordjević N, Djukanović N, Protić D, Bukumirić Z, Radosavljević I, et al. Factors affecting the development of adverse drug reactions to β-blockers in hospitalized cardiac patient population. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:1461–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Pautas E, Moreau C, Gouin-Thibault I, Golmard JL, Mahé I, Legendre C, et al. Genetic factors (VKORC1, CYP2C9, EPHX1, and CYP4F2) are predictor variables for warfarin response in very elderly, frail inpatients. Clin Pharm Ther. 2010;87:57–64.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Samer CF, Lorenzini KI, Rollason V, Daali Y, Desmeules JA. Applications of CYP450 testing in the clinical setting. Mol Diagn Ther. 2013;17:165–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Maciel A, Cullors A, Lukowiak AA, Garces J. Estimating cost savings of pharmacogenetic testing for depression in real-world clinical settings. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2018;14:225–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Saldivar JS, Taylor D, Sugarman EA, Cullors A, Garces JA, Oades K, et al. Initial assessment of the benefits of implementing pharmacogenetics into the medical management of patients in a long-term care facility. Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2016;9:1–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Sugarman EA, Cullors A, Centeno J, Taylor D. Contribution of pharmacogenetic testing to modeled medication change recommendations in a long-term care population with polypharmacy. Drugs Aging. 2016;33:929–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Verbelen M, Weale ME, Lewis CM. Cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenetic-guided treatment: are we there yet? Pharmacogenomics J. 2017;17:395–402.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. van der Wouden CH, van Rhenen MH, Jama WOM, Ingelman-Sundberg M, Lauschke VM, Konta L, et al. Development of the PGx-passport: a panel of actionable germline genetic variants for pre-emptive pharmacogenetic testing. Clin Pharm Ther. 2019;106:866–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Pariente G, Leibson T, Carls A, Adams-Webber T, Ito S, Koren G. Pregnancy-associated changes in pharmacokinetics: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Mangoni AA, Jackson SH. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57:6–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Guttman Y, Nudel A, Kerem Z. Polymorphism in cytochrome P450 3A4 is ethnicity related. Front Genet. 2019;10:224.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Puris E, Pasanen M, Gynther M, Häkkinen MR, Pihlajamäki J, Keränen T, et al. A liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry analysis of nine cytochrome P450 probe drugs and their corresponding metabolites in human serum and urine. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2017;409:251–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Alagiakrishnan K, Mah D, Padwal R. Classic challenges and emerging approaches to medication therapy in older adults. Discov Med. 2018;26:137–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2019 updated AGS beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67:674–94.

  48. Lloret-Linares C, Daali Y, Chevret S, Nieto I, Molière F, Courtet P, et al. Exploring venlafaxine pharmacokinetic variability with a phenotyping approach, a multicentric french-swiss study (MARVEL study). BMC Pharm Toxicol. 2017;18:70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Mariappan TT, Shen H, Marathe P. Endogenous biomarkers to assess drug-drug interactions by drug transporters and enzymes. Curr Drug Metab. 2017;18:757–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vogl S, Lutz RW, Schönfelder G, Lutz WK. CYP2C9 genotype vs. metabolic phenotype for individual drug dosing–a correlation analysis using flurbiprofen as probe drug. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0126329.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Jenessa McElfresh, Health Sciences Librarian (Clemson University), for her assistance during manuscript preparation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erika L. Meaddough.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Meaddough, E.L., Sarasua, S.M., Fasolino, T.K. et al. The impact of pharmacogenetic testing in patients exposed to polypharmacy: a scoping review. Pharmacogenomics J 21, 409–422 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41397-021-00224-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41397-021-00224-w

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links