A Study of Routine Pharmacogenomic Testing in the Midwest Region: The Current State and Barriers Faced by the Field
by Kelsie E. Tingle, 2025 PharmD Candidate, Paul R. Hutson, PharmD, MS, Emili J. Leary, PharmD
Objective: The purpose of this study was to survey major medical facilities in Wisconsin and nearby states about their typical use of pharmacogenomic testing in clinical practice.
Methods: Twenty healthcare systems in Wisconsin and the surrounding region were sent a questionnaire regarding which facilities were and were not implementing pharmacogenomics, along with which genes have been prioritized by those facilities that reported ongoing pharmacogenomic testing.
Results: Fourteen medical centers responded to the survey, and 10 facilities reported testing. Among the respondents, no two facilities tested for the same set of genes. Additionally, no single gene was tested for by all responding facilities.
Conclusions: Pharmacogenomic testing faces several barriers, which include evidence for clinical utility, cost effectiveness, and physician education and awareness. The lack of standardization across facilities implementing pharmacogenomics may be indicative of barriers faced by the field and institution-specific factors; the lack of standardization creates difficulties in comparing data between facilities due to inconsistencies in approach and in genes tested. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to lead to greater medication safety and efficacy, but its expansion would be aided significantly by additional clinician education and appropriate advocacy for the merits of pharmacogenomic testing, both in those facilities currently implementing and those seeking to do so.
Keywords: Pharmacogenetics, Pharmacogenomic Testing, Wisconsin, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Delivery of Health Care, Reference Standards
Download PDF
2023 November/December Table of Contents
Objective: The purpose of this study was to survey major medical facilities in Wisconsin and nearby states about their typical use of pharmacogenomic testing in clinical practice.
Methods: Twenty healthcare systems in Wisconsin and the surrounding region were sent a questionnaire regarding which facilities were and were not implementing pharmacogenomics, along with which genes have been prioritized by those facilities that reported ongoing pharmacogenomic testing.
Results: Fourteen medical centers responded to the survey, and 10 facilities reported testing. Among the respondents, no two facilities tested for the same set of genes. Additionally, no single gene was tested for by all responding facilities.
Conclusions: Pharmacogenomic testing faces several barriers, which include evidence for clinical utility, cost effectiveness, and physician education and awareness. The lack of standardization across facilities implementing pharmacogenomics may be indicative of barriers faced by the field and institution-specific factors; the lack of standardization creates difficulties in comparing data between facilities due to inconsistencies in approach and in genes tested. Pharmacogenomics has the potential to lead to greater medication safety and efficacy, but its expansion would be aided significantly by additional clinician education and appropriate advocacy for the merits of pharmacogenomic testing, both in those facilities currently implementing and those seeking to do so.
Keywords: Pharmacogenetics, Pharmacogenomic Testing, Wisconsin, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Delivery of Health Care, Reference Standards
Download PDF
2023 November/December Table of Contents