(1) Background: As prescribers, physicians play a decisive role in applying and promoting pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing in clinical practices. So far, little is known about physicians’ perspectives on PGx testing in China. The aim of this study was to assess physicians’ knowledge of, attitude towards, and experience of PGx testing in China. (2) Methods: A 39-question online survey was developed. Participants were physicians recruited through two platforms, MEDLINKER and “Dazhuanjia”. (3) Results: A total of 450 respondents completed the survey and 366 questionnaires were eligible for analysis based on the inclusion criteria. Among all included physicians, 275 (75.1%) had heard of PGx testing before. More than half rated their knowledge of PGx testing as “Fair” (61.5%) while 20.0% chose “Excellent” or “Good” and 18.6% chose “Poor” or “Terrible”. “Guidelines, consensus, and treatment paths for disease diagnosis and treatment” (72.7%) were the most preferred sources of information about PGx testing. Respondents were confident in their personal capacity to conduct PGx, with an average score of 3.30 ± 0.09 (out of 5.00). Most respondents (75.6%) believed that PGx could “help to improve efficacy and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions”. Targeted cancer therapy (score 78.95 ± 1.26 out of 100) was considered the field where PGx testing had its highest value. Lack of professionals and knowledge (n = 186, 67.6%), high costs of testing (n = 170, 61.8%), and lack of hospitals to offer PGx testing (n = 166, 60.4%) were identified as the primary obstacles to increasing the uptake of PGx testing in China. Academic conference (n = 213, 72.4%) was considered the most efficient way for physicians to obtain information about PGx testing. (4) Conclusions: Physicians in China have poor knowledge about PGx testing; nonetheless, they generally had confidence in their capacity to order PGx testing and positive attitudes towards the use of PGx testing in routine clinical practices. Future efforts to promote the uptake of PGx testing should focus on foundational education and practical training.

Background: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing is increasingly used in clinical practice to optimize drug therapies. This study aims to understand the involvement of clinical pharmacists in PGx testing at tertiary hospitals in China and their self-assessed capacity to deliver such services. Methods: We developed a questionnaire exploring clinical pharmacists’ involvement and self-assessed level of capacity of performing PGx tests. A random sample was obtained from the Pharmaceutical Affairs Management Professional Committee of the Chinese Hospital Association. Results: A total of 1005 clinical pharmacists completed the survey. Of these, 996 (99.1%) had heard of PGx tests and 588 (59.0%) had been involved in PGx testing and related services. Some clinical pharmacists (28.9%) provided PGx services at the rate of “1–5 cases/year” while 21.9% of clinical pharmacists provided PGx services at the rate of “>30 cases/year”. Clinical pharmacists most frequently provided PGx testing for cardiovascular diseases. “Consult relevant guidelines/literature” (90.1%) was the most frequently used method to familiarize oneself with PGx testing. About 60% of the pharmacists considered themselves to have poor or fair capacity to provide PGx testing and related services. Conclusions: More than half of the pharmacists had been involved in PGx testing and related services. However, pharmacists generally had little confidence in their knowledge level of and capacity to provide PGx-related services.

(1) Background: Uptake of pharmacogenomic testing in routine clinical practices is currently slow in China. Pharmacists might play an important role in leveraging care through applying pharmacogenomics, therefore, it is important to better understand clinical pharmacists’ knowledge of and attitudes toward pharmacogenomic testing, which has not been well-studied. (2) Methods: A self-administered survey was developed based on previous knowledge of pharmacogenomic testing and its uptake in China. Participants were recruited through the Committee of Pharmaceutical Affairs Management under the Chinese Hospital Association. (3) Results: A total of 1005 clinical pharmacists completed the questionnaire, among whom 996 (99.10%) had heard of pharmacogenomic testing before participation. More than half of respondents (60.0%, n = 597) rated their knowledge of pharmacogenomic testing as “average”, while 25% rated it “good” or “excellent”. “Guidelines, consensus and treatment paths for disease diagnosis and treatment” (78.7%) were the most preferred sources of information about pharmacogenomic testing. Most respondents (77.0%) believed that pharmacogenomics could “help to improve efficacy and reduce the incidence of adverse reactions”. Our participants also believed that patients would benefit most from pharmacogenomic testing through better prediction of individual drug responses and thus informed treatment decisions. The top challenge for the uptake of pharmacogenomic testing was its high cost or lack of insurance coverage (76.7%). (4) Conclusions: Most Chinese clinical pharmacists who participated in our study had a positive attitude toward pharmacogenomic testing, while the knowledge of pharmacogenomic testing was generally self-assessed as average.

Objectives This study aimed to understand the perspective of pharmacists on cancer patients’ needs and the most meaningful pharmaceutical care in specialty pharmacies. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists working at hospitals and specialty pharmacies to survey their perspectives on unmet needs of cancer patients, the most valuable pharmaceutical care provided in specialty pharmacies, and strategies to improve pharmaceutical care. Thematic analysis was used for data analysis. Results Five pharmacists from hospitals and 30 pharmacists from specialty pharmacies were interviewed. Cancer patients’ most concerned but unmet needs included efficacy, safety, cost, accessibility of the medications, informational needs, and humanistic care. Difficulties hospitals might have in managing pharmaceutical care included conducting patient education, counseling, follow-up after hospital discharge, and supply for anticancer agents. Pharmacists claimed that the most valued pharmaceutical care measures provided in specialty pharmacies were financial assistance, medication supply, follow-up, patient education and counseling, information provision, and adverse drug reaction management. Pharmaceutical care in specialty pharmacies could be improved through continuing education for pharmacists in specialty pharmacies, the construction of patient communication platforms, and linkage with hospitals to collaboratively provide pharmaceutical care. Conclusions Cancer patients had plenty of unmet needs that remained uncovered by physicians and pharmacists at hospitals, for which specialty pharmacies can be an addition to provide comprehensive pharmaceutical care.