These data from real-world observations demonstrate a higher risk for cardiovascular events in patients with a CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele if clopidogrel versus alternative therapy is prescribed. A future randomized study of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy may be of value.

Purpose: CYP2D6 bioactivates codeine and tramadol, with intermediate and poor metabolizers (IMs and PMs) expected to have impaired analgesia. This pragmatic proof-of-concept trial tested the effects of CYP2D6-guided opioid prescribing on pain control. Methods: Participants with chronic pain (94% on an opioid) from 7 clinics were enrolled into CYP2D6-guided (n=235) or usual care (n=135) arms using a cluster design. CYP2D6 phenotypes were assigned based on genotype and CYP2D6 inhibitor use, with recommendations for opioid prescribing made in the CYP2D6-guided arm. Pain was assessed at baseline and 3 months using PROMIS ® measures. Results: On stepwise multiple linear regression, the primary outcome of composite pain intensity (composite of current pain and worst and average pain in the past week) among IM/PMs initially prescribed tramadol/codeine (n=45) had greater improvement in the CYP2D6-guided versus usual care arm (−1.01±1.59 versus −0.40±1.20; adj- P =0.016); 24% of CYP2D6-guided versus 0% of usual care participants reported ≥30% (clinically meaningful) reduction in the composite outcome. In contrast, among normal metabolizers prescribed tramadol or codeine at baseline, there was no difference in the change in composite pain intensity at 3 months between CYP2D6-guided (−0.61±1.39) and usual care (−0.54±1.69) groups (adj-P=0.540). Conclusion: These data support the potential benefits of CYP2D6-guided pain management.

Aim: To explore primary care physicians' views of the utility and delivery of direct access to pharmacogenomics (PGx) testing in a community health system. Methods: This descriptive study assessed the perspectives of 15 healthcare providers utilizing qualitative individual interviews. Results: Three main themes emerged: perceived value and utility of PGx testing; challenges to implementation in practice; and provider as well as patient needs. Conclusion: While providers in this study viewed benefits of PGx testing as avoiding side effects, titrating doses more quickly, improving shared decision-making and providing psychological reassurance, challenges will need to be addressed such as privacy concerns, cost, insurance coverage and understanding the complexity of PGx test results.

Participants reported value in both methods of PGx testing. Patient experiences, understanding and result utilization will play an important role in informing future development and implementation of PGx programs.

Although thiopurine S‐methyltransferase (TPMT) genotyping to guide thiopurine dosing is common in the pediatric cancer population, limited data exist on TPMT testing implementation in diverse, multidisciplinary settings. We established TPMT testing (genotype and enzyme) with clinical decision support, provider/patient education, and pharmacist consultations in a tertiary medical center and collected data over 3 years. During this time, 834 patients underwent 873 TPMT tests (147 (17%) genotype, 726 (83%) enzyme). TPMT tests were most commonly ordered for gastroenterology, rheumatology, dermatology, and hematology/oncology patients (661 of 834 patients (79.2%); 580 outpatient vs. 293 inpatient; P < 0.0001). Thirty‐nine patients had both genotype and enzyme tests (n = 2 discordant results). We observed significant differences between TPMT test use and characteristics in a diverse, multispecialty environment vs. a pediatric cancer setting, which led to unique implementation needs. As pharmacogenetic implementations expand, disseminating lessons learned in diverse, real‐world environments will be important to support routine adoption.