Sony Tuteja1, Kevin Haynes2, Cara Zayac3, Jon E Sprague4, Barbara Bernhardt1, Reed Pyeritz1. 1. Penn Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies, PA, USA ; Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Division of Translational Medicine & Human Genetics, Smilow Translational Research Center, 3400 Civic Center Boulevard, Building 421, 11-142, PA 19104-5158, USA. 2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA. 3. Penn Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies, PA, USA. 4. The Raabe College of Pharmacy, Ohio Northern University, Ada, OH, USA.
Abstract
AIM: To examine community pharmacists' attitudes towards pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, including their views of the clinical utility of PGx and the ethical, social, legal and practical implications of PGx testing. METHODS: A web-based survey administered to 5600 licensed community pharmacists in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (USA). RESULTS: Of 580 respondents, 78% had a Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy and 58% worked in a chain drug store. Doctors of pharmacy-trained pharmacists had a significantly higher knowledge score than those with a Bachelor of Science in pharmacy (3.2 ± 0.9 vs 2.6 ± 0.6; p < 0.0001). All pharmacists had positive attitudes towards PGx and most (87%) felt it would decrease the number of adverse events, and optimize drug dosing. More than half (57%) of pharmacists felt that it was their role to counsel patients regarding PGx information. Many (65%) were concerned that PGx test results may be used to deny health insurance. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the type of education, all pharmacists had positive attitudes towards PGx. There is still a concern among pharmacists that PGx test results may be used to deny health insurance and, thus, there is a need to educate pharmacists about legal protections prohibiting certain forms of unfair discrimination based on genotype.
AIM: To examine community pharmacists' attitudes towards pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing, including their views of the clinical utility of PGx and the ethical, social, legal and practical implications of PGx testing. METHODS: A web-based survey administered to 5600 licensed community pharmacists in the states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (USA). RESULTS: Of 580 respondents, 78% had a Bachelor of Science degree in pharmacy and 58% worked in a chain drug store. Doctors of pharmacy-trained pharmacists had a significantly higher knowledge score than those with a Bachelor of Science in pharmacy (3.2 ± 0.9 vs 2.6 ± 0.6; p < 0.0001). All pharmacists had positive attitudes towards PGx and most (87%) felt it would decrease the number of adverse events, and optimize drug dosing. More than half (57%) of pharmacists felt that it was their role to counsel patients regarding PGx information. Many (65%) were concerned that PGx test results may be used to deny health insurance. CONCLUSION: Regardless of the type of education, all pharmacists had positive attitudes towards PGx. There is still a concern among pharmacists that PGx test results may be used to deny health insurance and, thus, there is a need to educate pharmacists about legal protections prohibiting certain forms of unfair discrimination based on genotype.
Authors: D Gurwitz; J E Lunshof; G Dedoussis; C S Flordellis; U Fuhr; J Kirchheiner; J Licinio; A Llerena; V G Manolopoulos; L J Sheffield; G Siest; F Torricelli; V Vasiliou; S Wong Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2005 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: John E Murphy; James S Green; Laura A Adams; Robert B Squire; Grace M Kuo; Alan McKay Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Felix W Frueh; Shashi Amur; Padmaja Mummaneni; Robert S Epstein; Ronald E Aubert; Teresa M DeLuca; Robert R Verbrugge; Gilbert J Burckart; Lawrence J Lesko Journal: Pharmacotherapy Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.705
Authors: Solomon M Adams; Kacey B Anderson; James C Coons; Randall B Smith; Susan M Meyer; Lisa S Parker; Philip E Empey Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2016-02-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Katrina M Romagnoli; Richard D Boyce; Philip E Empey; Solomon Adams; Harry Hochheiser Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: K Lachance; S Korol; E O'Meara; A Ducharme; N Racine; M Liszkowski; J L Rouleau; G B Pelletier; M Carrier; M White; S de Denus Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 3.550
Authors: Kristin Wiisanen Weitzel; Christina L Aquilante; Samuel Johnson; David F Kisor; Philip E Empey Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2016-12-01 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Philip E Empey; James M Stevenson; Sony Tuteja; Kristin W Weitzel; Dominick J Angiolillo; Amber L Beitelshees; James C Coons; Julio D Duarte; Francesco Franchi; Linda J B Jeng; Julie A Johnson; Rolf P Kreutz; Nita A Limdi; Kristin A Maloney; Aniwaa Owusu Obeng; Josh F Peterson; Natasha Petry; Victoria M Pratt; Fabiana Rollini; Stuart A Scott; Todd C Skaar; Mark R Vesely; George A Stouffer; Russell A Wilke; Larisa H Cavallari; Craig R Lee Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 6.875