Comparison of the Guidelines of the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Excerpt

An important barrier for the implementation of pharmacogenetics in clinical practice is the translation of the results of a genetic test into clinical action.1 Kirchheiner et al.4 were among the first to extract dosing recommendations based on pharmacokinetic (PK) data of patients with known CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 genotypes. Anticipating a proximate future in which both pharmacists and physicians would be confronted with patients with a known genotype, two consortia, the Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG) and the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), provide widely recognized therapeutic recommendations for specific gene‐drug pairs.5
The DPWG was founded by the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP) in 2005 and in the last decade has reviewed 86 potential gene‐drug pairs of which 47 guidelines provide therapeutic recommendations for one or more aberrant phenotypes (see Table1 and Box 1 for additional information).7
The CPIC, established in 2009 as a joint project between the Pharmacogenomics Research Network and the Pharmacogenomics Knowledgebase (PharmGKB), has a similar goal to provide actionable, genotype‐based prescribing recommendations for known gene‐drug pairs (see Table1).3 To date, the CPIC has published 19 guidelines (eight that have been updated since the original publication) covering 40 gene‐drug pairs, which are publicly available through both the PharmGKB (https://www.pharmgkb.org/) and CPIC websites (https://cpicpgx.org/).8
The aim of this paper is to compare both initiatives and explore differences in the methodology and therapeutic recommendations of both consortia.
    loading  Loading Related Articles