Introduction: Aberrant pharmacogenetic variants occur in a high proportion of people and might be relevant for the prescription of over 26 drugs in primary care. Early identification of patients who metabolize these drugs more rapidly or slowly than average could predict therapeutic effectivity and safety. Yet implementation of pharmacogenetics is progressing slowly. A high public health impact can potentially be achieved by increasing the proportion of people tested, when and where eligible according to clinical validity and utility. Methods: In this study we defined actions, roles, and responsibilities for implementation of pharmacogenetics in primary care in consultation with stakeholder groups, by using a three-step mixed-methods approach. First, to define barriers and facilitators, public pharmacists (n = 24), primary care physicians (n = 8), and patients (n = 21) participated in focus groups and face-to-face interviews. Second, a multidisciplinary expert meeting (n = 16) was organized to define desired actions, roles, and responsibilities. Third, an online Delphi Study (n = 18) was conducted to prioritize the designated actions. Results: For the integration of pharmacogenetics in primary care guidelines and practice, lack of evidence for clinical utility was mentioned as a main barrier. Furthermore, reimbursement, and facilitation of data registration and sharing were considered as key elements for future routine application of pharmacogenetic testing. Moreover, the division of roles and responsibilities, especially between general practitioners and pharmacists, is currently perceived as unclear. Sixteen actions in these four areas (clinical utility, reimbursement, data registration and sharing, and roles and responsibilities) were formulated and assigned to specific actors during the expert meeting. After ranking these 16 actions in the Delphi Study, nine actions remained pertinent, covering the four areas with at least one action. However, participants showed low agreement on the prioritization of the different actions, illustrating their different perspectives and the need to attune between them. Discussion: Stakeholders together were able to formulate required actions to achieve true integration of pharmacogenetics in primary care, but no consensus could be achieved on the prioritization of the actions. Coordination of the current independent initiatives by the different stakeholders could facilitate effective and efficient implementation of useful pharmacogenetics in primary care.

The European Union (EU) Council Recommendation on rare diseases urged the member states to implement national and EU collaborative actions to improve the health care of rare disease patients. Following this recommendation, the European Commission launched a tender on newborn screening (NBS) to report on current practices of laboratory testing, form a network of experts and provide guidance on how to further implement NBS screening in a responsible way, the latter of which was provided in an Expert Opinion document. After consultation of experts from EU member states, (potential) candidate member states and European Free Trade Association countries, in a consensus meeting in June 2011, 70 expert opinions were finalized. They included the need to develop case definitions for all disorders screened for to facilitate assessment and international outcome studies. Decision whether a screening program should be performed can be based on screening criteria updated from the traditional Wilson and Jungner (1968) criteria, relating to disease, treatment, test and cost. The interest of the child should be central in the assessment of pros and cons. A European NBS body should assess evidence on (new) screening candidate disorders. For rare conditions, best level evidence should be used. The health system should ensure treatment to cases diagnosed by screening, controlled and revised by follow-up outcome studies. Screening methodology should aim to avoid unintended findings, such as mild forms and carrier status information, as much as possible. Activities to improve NBS in Europe, such as training and scientific evaluation, could benefit from collaboration at EU level and beyond.

Screening for rare diseases first began more than 50 years ago with neonatal bloodspot screening (NBS) for phenylketonuria, and carrier screening for Tay-Sachs disease, sickle cell anaemia and β-thalassaemia. NBS’s primary aim is health gain for children, while carrier screening enables autonomous reproductive choice. While screening can be beneficial, it also has the potential to cause harm and thus decisions are needed on whether a specific screening is worthwhile. These decisions are usually based on screening principles and criteria. Technological developments, both treatment driven and test driven, have led to expansions in neonatal screening and carrier screening. This article demonstrates how the dynamics and expansions in NBS and carrier screening have challenged four well-known screening criteria (treatment, test, target population and programme evaluation), and the decision-making based on them. We show that shifting perspectives on screening criteria for NBS as well as carrier screening lead to converging debates in these separate fields. For example, the child is traditionally considered to be the beneficiary in NBS, but the family and society can also benefit. Vice versa, carrier screening may be driven by disease prevention, rather than reproductive autonomy, raising cross-disciplinary questions regarding potential beneficiaries and which diseases to include. In addition, the stakeholders from these separate fields vary: Globally NBS is often governed as a public health programme while carrier screening is usually available via medical professionals. The article concludes with a call for an exchange of vision and knowledge among all stakeholders of both fields to attune the dynamics of screening.

Introduction: The fluoropyrimidines (FP) (5-Fluorouracil, capecitabine, and tegafur) are commonly used anti-cancer drugs, but lead to moderate to severe toxicity in about 10–40% of patients. DPD testing [either the enzyme activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) or the DPYD genotype] identifies patients at higher risk for toxicity who may be treated more safely with a lower drug dose. The Netherland's National guideline for colon carcinoma was updated in 2017 to recommend DPYD genotyping before treatment with FP. Pretreatment DPYD genotyping identifies approximately 50% of the patients that will develop severe FP toxicity. The aim of the study was to assess the uptake of DPD testing in the Amsterdam University Medical Centers over time and to evaluate stakeholder experiences to indicate barriers and facilitators of implementation in routine clinical care. Materials and Methods: We used a mixed-method approach involving electronic patient records of 753 unique patients and pharmacy information systems analyses and fifteen semi-structured interviews with oncologists, pharmacists, and patients. The constellation perspective was used to identify barriers and facilitators at the level of practice, culture and structure. The proportion of FP users who were DPD tested pretreatment showed an increase from 1% (1/86) in Q2-2017 up to 87% (73/84) in Q4-2018. Unlike a landmark paper published in 2015, the National guideline for colorectal carcinoma followed by meetings to achieve local consensus led to this steep increase in the proportion of patients tested. Results: Facilitating factors for stakeholders to implement testing included the existence of clear protocols, (anecdotal) evidence of the utility, being aware that peers are adhering to standard practice and clear and simple procedures for ordering and reporting. Main barriers included the lack of clear divisions of responsibilities, the lack of consensus on a test approach, long turn-around times and non-user-friendly IT-infrastructures. More professional education on the utility and limitations of pharmacogenetic testing was desired by most stakeholders. Conclusion: While the evidence for DPD testing was sufficient, only after the update of a National guideline and local consensus meetings the proportion of FP users that were DPD tested pretreatment rose to 87%. The implementation of personalized medicine requires stakeholders involved to attune practice, culture and structure.

High‐throughput nucleotide sequencing (often referred to as next‐generation sequencing; NGS) is increasingly being chosen as a diagnostic tool for cases of expected but unresolved genetic origin. When exploring a higher number of genetic variants, there is a higher chance of detecting unsolicited findings. The consequential increased need for decisions on disclosure of these unsolicited findings poses a challenge for the informed consent procedure. This article discusses the ethical and practical dilemmas encountered when contemplating informed consent for NGS in diagnostics from a multidisciplinary point of view. By exploring recent similar experiences with unsolicited findings in other settings, an attempt is made to describe what can be learned so far for implementing NGS in standard genetic diagnostics. The article concludes with a set of points to consider in order to guide decision‐making on the extent of return of results in relation to the mode of informed consent. We hereby aim to provide a sound basis for developing guidelines for optimizing the informed consent procedure.