Background: Personalised medicine (PM) is an innovative way to produce better patient outcomes by using an individualised or stratified approach to disease and treatment rather than a collective treatment approach for patients. Despite its tangible advantages, the complex process to translate PM into the member states and European healthcare systems has delayed its uptake. The aim of this study is to identify relevant barriers represented by an index to summarise challenging areas for the implementation of PM in Europe. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted, and a gaps-and-needs assessment together with a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-and-threats analysis were applied to review strategic reports and conduct interviews with key stakeholders. Furthermore, surveys were sent out to representatives of stakeholder groups. The index was constructed based on the priorisation of relevant factors by stakeholders. Results: A need for stakeholder-agreed standards at all levels of implementation of PM exists, from validating biomarkers to definitions of ‘informed consent'. The barriers to implement PM are identified in 7 areas, namely, stakeholder involvement, standardisation, interoperable infrastructure, European-level policy making, funding, data and research, and healthcare systems. Conclusions: Challenges in the above-mentioned areas can and must be successfully tackled if we are to create a healthier Europe through PM. In order to create an environment in which PM can thrive for the patients' best outcomes, there is an urgent need for systematic actions to remove as many barriers as possible.

Introduction: Aberrant pharmacogenetic variants occur in a high proportion of people and might be relevant for the prescription of over 26 drugs in primary care. Early identification of patients who metabolize these drugs more rapidly or slowly than average could predict therapeutic effectivity and safety. Yet implementation of pharmacogenetics is progressing slowly. A high public health impact can potentially be achieved by increasing the proportion of people tested, when and where eligible according to clinical validity and utility. Discussion: Stakeholders together were able to formulate required actions to achieve true integration of pharmacogenetics in primary care, but no consensus could be achieved on the prioritization of the actions. Coordination of the current independent initiatives by the different stakeholders could facilitate effective and efficient implementation of useful pharmacogenetics in primary care.

Screening for rare diseases first began more than 50 years ago with neonatal bloodspot screening (NBS) for phenylketonuria, and carrier screening for Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anaemia and β-thalassaemia. NBS’s primary aim is health gain for children, while carrier screening enables autonomous reproductive choice. While screening can be beneficial, it also has the potential to cause harm and thus decisions are needed on whether a specific screening is worthwhile. These decisions are usually based on screening principles and criteria. Technological developments, both treatment driven and test driven, have led to expansions in neonatal screening and carrier screening. This article demonstrates how the dynamics and expansions in NBS and carrier screening have challenged four well-known screening criteria (treatment, test, target population and programme evaluation), and the decision-making based on them. We show that shifting perspectives on screening criteria for NBS as well as carrier screening lead to converging debates in these separate fields. For example, the child is traditionally considered to be the beneficiary in NBS, but the family and society can also benefit. Vice versa, carrier screening may be driven by disease prevention, rather than reproductive autonomy, raising cross-disciplinary questions regarding potential beneficiaries and which diseases to include. In addition, the stakeholders from these separate fields vary: Globally NBS is often governed as a public health programme while carrier screening is usually available via medical professionals. The article concludes with a call for an exchange of vision and knowledge among all stakeholders of both fields to attune the dynamics of screening.