Alexandre Vivot1,2, Isabelle Boutron1,2,3, Philippe Ravaud1,2,3,4, Raphaël Porcher1,2,3. 1. Centre d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel Dieu, Assistance Publique des Hôpitaux de Paris, Paris, France. 2. METHODS Team, Unit 1153, INSERM, Paris, France. 3. Faculté de Médecine, University of Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France. 4. Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare guidance for genetic testing in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug labels in oncology to those of drugs for other therapeutic areas. METHODS: We reviewed labels of all the FDA-approved drugs with labels containing pharmacogenomic information. We assessed whether genetic testing was required or recommended before prescription and, if not, the reason for pharmacogenomic labeling. RESULTS: We included 140 drugs corresponding to 158 drug-biomarker pairs. Overall, 46 (29%) of 158 pairs stated a requirement or recommendation for genetic biomarker testing in the label. This proportion was higher in oncology than in other areas (62 vs. 12%; P < 0.001). For the 112 drug-biomarker pairs (including 20 in oncology) without recommendation or requirement for genetic testing, the main reasons for pharmacogenomic labeling were change in pharmacologic end points (32%) and higher risk of toxicity (30%). For 11 (10%) pairs (including 1 in oncology), a genetic biomarker was mentioned only to inform that it was not relevant. In oncology, the main reasons for pharmacogenomic labeling were higher risk of toxicity (55%) and definition of the mechanism of action (25%). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of biomarkers in drug labels does not always correspond to required or recommended genetic testing, especially outside oncology.Genet Med 17 9, 733-738.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare guidance for genetic testing in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug labels in oncology to those of drugs for other therapeutic areas. METHODS: We reviewed labels of all the FDA-approved drugs with labels containing pharmacogenomic information. We assessed whether genetic testing was required or recommended before prescription and, if not, the reason for pharmacogenomic labeling. RESULTS: We included 140 drugs corresponding to 158 drug-biomarker pairs. Overall, 46 (29%) of 158 pairs stated a requirement or recommendation for genetic biomarker testing in the label. This proportion was higher in oncology than in other areas (62 vs. 12%; P < 0.001). For the 112 drug-biomarker pairs (including 20 in oncology) without recommendation or requirement for genetic testing, the main reasons for pharmacogenomic labeling were change in pharmacologic end points (32%) and higher risk of toxicity (30%). For 11 (10%) pairs (including 1 in oncology), a genetic biomarker was mentioned only to inform that it was not relevant. In oncology, the main reasons for pharmacogenomic labeling were higher risk of toxicity (55%) and definition of the mechanism of action (25%). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of biomarkers in drug labels does not always correspond to required or recommended genetic testing, especially outside oncology.Genet Med 17 9, 733-738.
Authors: C Le Tourneau; X Paoletti; N Servant; I Bièche; D Gentien; T Rio Frio; A Vincent-Salomon; V Servois; J Romejon; O Mariani; V Bernard; P Huppe; G Pierron; F Mulot; C Callens; J Wong; C Mauborgne; E Rouleau; C Reyes; E Henry; Q Leroy; P Gestraud; P La Rosa; L Escalup; E Mitry; O Trédan; J-P Delord; M Campone; A Goncalves; N Isambert; C Gavoille; M Kamal Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Ruben L Osnabrugge; Stuart J Head; Felix Zijlstra; Jurriën M ten Berg; Myriam G Hunink; A Pieter Kappetein; A Cecile J W Janssens Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Kinga Malottki; Mousumi Biswas; Jonathan J Deeks; Richard D Riley; Charles Craddock; Philip Johnson; Lucinda Billingham Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-01-27 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: P C Mathias; N Hendrix; W-J Wang; K Keyloun; M Khelifi; P Tarczy-Hornoch; B Devine Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2017-06-05 Impact factor: 6.875