Jivan Moaddeb1, Rachel Mills2, Susanne B Haga3. 1. Clinical Pharmacist, Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 2. Clinical Research Coordinator and Genetic Counselor, Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. 3. Center for Applied Genomics and Precision Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC. Electronic address: susanne.haga@duke.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Appendix 1 Statements of knowledge of correct medication use Appendix 2 Statements of self-efficacy of correct medication use Appendix 3 Statements of skills of correct medication use To characterize the experiences and feasibility of offering pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in a community pharmacy setting. DESIGN: Pharmacists were invited to complete a survey about PGx testing for each patient who was offered testing. If the patient consented, pharmacists were also asked to complete a follow-up survey about the process of returning PGx testing results to patients and follow-up with the prescribing provider. SETTING: Community pharmacies in North Carolina from August through November 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists at five community pharmacies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient consent for testing, time to introduce PGx testing initially and communicate results, interpretation of test results, and recommended medication changes. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients offered testing, 56 (81%) consented. Pre-test counseling typically lasted 1-5 minutes (81%), and most patients (55%) did not have any questions about the testing. Most pharmacists reported test results to patients by phone (84%), with discussions taking less than 1 minute (48%) or 1-5 minutes (52%). Most pharmacists believed the patients understood their results either very well (54%) or somewhat well (41%). Pharmacists correctly interpreted 47 of the 53 test results (89%). All of the incorrect interpretations were for patients with test results indicating a dosing or drug change (6/19; 32%). Pharmacists reported contacting the ordering physician for four patients to discuss results indicating a dosage or drug change. CONCLUSION: The provision of PGx services in a community pharmacy setting appears feasible, requiring little additional time from the pharmacist, and many patients seem interested in PGx testing. Additional training may be necessary to improve test result interpretation, as well as for communication with both patients and ordering physicians.
OBJECTIVE: Appendix 1 Statements of knowledge of correct medication use Appendix 2 Statements of self-efficacy of correct medication use Appendix 3 Statements of skills of correct medication use To characterize the experiences and feasibility of offering pharmacogenetic (PGx) testing in a community pharmacy setting. DESIGN: Pharmacists were invited to complete a survey about PGx testing for each patient who was offered testing. If the patient consented, pharmacists were also asked to complete a follow-up survey about the process of returning PGx testing results to patients and follow-up with the prescribing provider. SETTING: Community pharmacies in North Carolina from August through November 2014. PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacists at five community pharmacies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient consent for testing, time to introduce PGx testing initially and communicate results, interpretation of test results, and recommended medication changes. RESULTS: Of the 69 patients offered testing, 56 (81%) consented. Pre-test counseling typically lasted 1-5 minutes (81%), and most patients (55%) did not have any questions about the testing. Most pharmacists reported test results to patients by phone (84%), with discussions taking less than 1 minute (48%) or 1-5 minutes (52%). Most pharmacists believed the patients understood their results either very well (54%) or somewhat well (41%). Pharmacists correctly interpreted 47 of the 53 test results (89%). All of the incorrect interpretations were for patients with test results indicating a dosing or drug change (6/19; 32%). Pharmacists reported contacting the ordering physician for four patients to discuss results indicating a dosage or drug change. CONCLUSION: The provision of PGx services in a community pharmacy setting appears feasible, requiring little additional time from the pharmacist, and many patients seem interested in PGx testing. Additional training may be necessary to improve test result interpretation, as well as for communication with both patients and ordering physicians.
Authors: Connie M Remsberg; Brenda S Bray; Susan K Wright; Joe Ashmore; William Kabasenche; Shuwen Wang; Philip Lazarus; Sayed S Daoud Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2017-02-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Jason L Vassy; Sojeong Chun; Sanjay Advani; Sophie A Ludin; Jason G Smith; Elaine C Alligood Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Melanie F Myers; Xue Zhang; Brooke McLaughlin; Diane Kissell; Cassandra L Perry; Matthew Veerkamp; Kejian Zhang; Ingrid A Holm; Cynthia A Prows Journal: Pharmacogenomics Date: 2017-07-26 Impact factor: 2.533
Authors: Nicholas J Keeling; Tyler J Dunn; John P Bentley; Sujith Ramachandran; James M Hoffman; Meagen Rosenthal Journal: Genet Med Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 8.822