Purpose The Lifelines COVID-19 cohort was set up to assess the psychological and societal impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and investigate potential risk factors for COVID-19 within the Lifelines prospective population cohort. Participants Participants were recruited from the 140 000 eligible participants of Lifelines and the Lifelines NEXT birth cohort, who are all residents of the three northern provinces of the Netherlands. Participants filled out detailed questionnaires about their physical and mental health and experiences on a weekly basis starting in late March 2020, and the cohort consists of everyone who filled in at least one questionnaire in the first 8 weeks of the project. Findings to date >71 000 unique participants responded to the questionnaires at least once during the first 8 weeks, with >22 000 participants responding to seven questionnaires. Compiled questionnaire results are continuously updated and shared with the public through the Corona Barometer website. Early results included a clear signal that younger people living alone were experiencing greater levels of loneliness due to lockdown, and subsequent results showed the easing of anxiety as lockdown was eased in June 2020. Future plans Questionnaires were sent on a (bi)weekly basis starting in March 2020 and on a monthly basis starting July 2020, with plans for new questionnaire rounds to continue through 2020 and early 2021. Questionnaire frequency can be increased again for subsequent waves of infections. Cohort data will be used to address how the COVID-19 pandemic developed in the northern provinces of the Netherlands, which environmental and genetic risk factors predict disease susceptibility and severity and the psychological and societal impacts of the crisis. Cohort data are linked to the extensive health, lifestyle and sociodemographic data held for these participants by Lifelines, a 30-year project that started in 2006, and to data about participants held in national databases.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) shows a wide variation in expression and severity of symptoms, from very mild or no symptoms, to flu-like symptoms, and in more severe cases, to pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and even death. Large differences in outcome have also been observed between males and females. The causes for this variability are likely to be multifactorial, and to include genetics. The SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the infection depends on two human genes: the human receptor angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) for cell invasion, and the serine protease TMPRSS2 for S protein priming. Genetic variation in these two genes may thus modulate an individual's genetic predisposition to infection and virus clearance. While genetic data on COVID-19 patients is being gathered, we carried out a phenome-wide association scan (PheWAS) to investigate the role of these genes in other human phenotypes in the general population. We examined 178 quantitative phenotypes including cytokines and cardio-metabolic biomarkers, as well as usage of 58 medications in 36,339 volunteers from the Lifelines population cohort, in relation to 1,273 genetic variants located in or near ACE2 and TMPRSS2. While none reached our threshold for significance, we observed several interesting suggestive associations. For example, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) near the TMPRSS2 genes were associated with thrombocytes count (p = 1.8 × 10⁻⁵). SNPs within the ACE2 gene were associated with (1) the use of angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) combination therapies (p = 5.7 × 10⁻⁴), an association that is significantly stronger in females (p_diff = 0.01), and (2) with the use of non-steroid anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic products (p = 5.5 × 10⁻⁴). While these associations need to be confirmed in larger sample sizes, they suggest that these variants could play a role in diseases such as thrombocytopenia, hypertension, and chronic inflammation that are often observed in the more severe COVID-19 cases. Further investigation of these genetic variants in the context of COVID-19 is thus promising for better understanding of disease variability. Full results are available at https://covid19research.nl.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) can provide optimized treatment to individual patients while potentially reducing healthcare costs. However, widespread implementation remains absent. We performed a pilot study of PGx screening in Dutch outpatient hospital care to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementation experienced by patients (n = 165), pharmacists (n = 58) and physicians (n = 21). Our results indeed suggest that the current practical experience of healthcare practitioners with PGx is limited, that proper education is necessary, that patients want to know the exact implications of the results, that healthcare practitioners heavily rely on their computer systems, that healthcare practitioners encounter practical problems in the systems used, and a new barrier was identified, namely that there is an unclear allocation of responsibilities between healthcare practitioners about who should discuss PGx with patients and apply PGx results in healthcare. We observed a positive attitude toward PGx among all the stakeholders in our study, and among patients, this was independent of the occurrence of drug-gene interactions during their treatment. Facilitators included the availability of and adherence to Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group guidelines. While clinical decision support (CDS) is available and valued in our medical center, the lack of availability of CDS may be an important barrier within Dutch healthcare in general.

Summary: Background: High inter‐individual variability in therapeutic response to drugs used in the management of Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) leads to high morbidity and high costs. Genetic variants predictive of thiopurine‐induced myelosuppression, thiopurine‐induced pancreatitis and immunogenicity of Tumour Necrosis Factor alpha (TNFα) antagonists have been identified, but uptake of pre‐treatment pharmacogenetic testing into clinical guidelines has been slow.Aim: To explore the efficacy of a pharmacogenetic passport for IBD that includes multiple pharmacogenetic predictors of response.Methods: Patients with IBD exposed to thiopurines and/or TNFα antagonists were retrospectively evaluated for the presence of thiopurine toxicity and/or immunogenicity of TNFα antagonists. All patients were genotyped using both whole‐exome sequencing and the Illumina Global Screening Array. An in‐house‐developed computational pipeline translated genetic data into an IBD pharmacogenetic passport that predicted risks for thiopurine toxicity and immunogenicity of TNFα antagonists per patient. Using pharmacogenetic‐guided treatment guidelines, we calculated clinical efficacy estimates for pharmacogenetic testing for IBD.Results: Among 710 patients with IBD exposed to thiopurines and/or TNFα antagonists, 150 adverse drug responses occurred and our pharmacogenetic passport would have predicted 54 (36%) of these. Using a pharmacogenetic passport for IBD that includes genetic variants predictive of thiopurine‐induced myelosuppression, thiopurine‐induced pancreatitis, and immunogenicity of TNFα antagonists, 24 patients need to be genotyped to prevent one of these adverse drug responses.Conclusions: This study highlights the clinical efficacy of a pharmacogenetic passport for IBD. Implementation of such a pharmacogenetic passport into clinical management of IBD may contribute to a reduction in adverse drug responses.

We explored the association between CYP2C19/3A4 mediated drug-gene-interaction (DGI), drug-drug-interaction (DDI) and drug-drug-gene-interaction (DDGI) and (es)citalopram dispensing course. A cohort study was conducted among adult Caucasians from the Lifelines cohort (167,729 participants) and linked dispensing data from the IADB.nl database as part of the PharmLines Initiative. Exposure groups were categorized into (es)citalopram starters with DGI, DDI and DDGI. The primary outcome was drug switching and/or dose adjustment, and the secondary was early discontinuation after the start of (es)citalopram. Logistic regression modeling was applied to estimate adjusted odd ratios with their confidence interval. We identified 316 (es)citalopram starters with complete CYP2C19/3A4 genetic information. The CYP2C19 IM/PM and CYP3A4 NM combination increased risks of switching and/or dose reduction (OR: 2.75, 95% CI: 1.03–7.29). The higher effect size was achieved by the CYP2C19 IM/PM and CYP3A4 IM combination (OR: 4.38, 95% CI: 1.22–15.69). CYP2C19/3A4 mediated DDIs and DDGIs showed trends towards increased risks of switching and/or dose reduction. In conclusion, a DGI involving predicted decreased CYP2C19 function increases the need for (es)citalopram switching and/or dose reduction which might be enhanced by co-presence of predicted decreased CYP3A4 function. For DDI and DDGI, no conclusions can be drawn from the results.

Pharmacogenomics (PGx) can provide optimized treatment to individual patients while potentially reducing healthcare costs. However, widespread implementation remains absent. We performed a pilot study of PGx screening in Dutch outpatient hospital care to identify the barriers and facilitators to implementation experienced by patients (n=165), pharmacists (n=58) and physicians (n=21). Our results indeed suggest that the current practical experience of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) with PGx is limited, that proper education is necessary, that patients want to know the exact implications of the results, and that there is an unclear allocation of responsibilities between HCPs about who should discuss PGx with patients and apply PGx results in healthcare. We observed a positive attitude toward PGx among all the stakeholders in our study, and among patients this was independent of the occurrence of drug- gene interactions during their treatment. Facilitators included the availability of and adherence to Dutch Pharmacogenetic Working Group guidelines. While Clinical Decision Support (CDS) is available and valued in our medical center, the lack of availability of CDS might be an important barrier within Dutch healthcare in general.