Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Pharmacokinetics
Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics 10/2007

01-10-2007 | Leading Article

Clinical Translation of Genotyping and Haplotyping Data

Implementation of in Vivo Pharmacology Experience Leading Drug Prescription to Pharmacotyping

Author: Dr Ioannis S. Vizirianakis

Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics | Issue 10/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

The completion of the Human Genome Project has raised expectations for the translation of genomic knowledge into clinical forms that would lead to improved diagnosis of diseases and identification of new drug targets. Such an opportunity is quite challenging within science and society, although there is still uncertainty regarding its outcomes in new drug development and healthcare. Undoubtedly, however, the recent approval by the US FDA of the first two pharmacogenomic tests for genotyping drug-metabolising enzymes is expected to empower and eventually lead to general applicability of various genetic diagnostic tools to improve pharmacotherapy outcomes in the post-genomic era. To this end, the application of genomic knowledge and technologies in everyday clinical practice leads personalised medicine concepts towards the achievement of individualised drug selection and dosage profiling (i.e. pharmacotyping) for ensuring maximum drug effectiveness and safety. Within this framework, pharmacogenomic information can implement the existing clinical pharmacology experience in clinical diagnosis and drug delivery. The latter can be further advanced through the development of workflow information-based operating systems in healthcare to support the utilisation, assessment and outcome of engaged clinical and genomic information. Such a direction may help to suitably revise and adjust clinical regulatory guidelines as well as clinical pharmacology guidelines. This will further facilitate better designing of clinical trials for new drug development as well as pharmacovigilance registries and evaluation of these data. To critically describe the existing environment, this article comprehensively discusses scientific efforts aimed at making clinical translation of genotyping and haplotyping data more efficient and productive in forms that are readily applicable in everyday healthcare. In addition, specific and systematic pharmacogenomic and clinical attempts related to the development of new molecularly targeted drugs, as well as improvement of the efficacy and safety of commonly prescribed drugs, are presented. To this end, the clinical pharmacogenomic experience gained thus far in the use of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in oncology, as well as the process of empowerment through the use of genomic knowledge of the cardiac safety of drugs modulating the function of the human ether-à-go-go-related gene (HERG) potassium channel, represent examples of how the implementation of clinical experience with genomic information guides the development of new drugs and the improvement of pharmacotherapy outcomes.
Footnotes
1
Pharmacotyping means the application of pharmacogenomic principles in drug prescription and drug selection in routine clinical practice, i.e. drug delivery profiling for an individual based on evaluation of genomic, proteomic, transcriptomic, metabolomic and toxicogenomic drug-related data. In such a way, pharmacotyping can be defined as individualised drug delivery profiling based on the patient’s clinical, genomic and bioinformatic data managed in a way that allows their application in pharmacotherapy. In other words, pharmacotyping is individualised drug selection and dosage profiling by the physician based on the patient’s genotyping and haplotyping data for genes involved in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the drug in the body. In this way, co-evaluation of phamacogenomic data with other factors contributing to drug response variability, e.g. environmental and lifestyle factors, will be achieved. This transition of drug prescription towards the use of pharmacogenomics and personalised medicine concepts in healthcare predicts that pharmacotyping will be a major challenge in pharmacotherapy in the years to come. If this happens, processing within the drug delivery environment will change from a drug-selection process based mainly on the physician’s own experience to more highly integrated, information-based and computer-aided pharmacotherapy using clinical and genomic data, thus ensuring personalised medicine and making drug delivery digitised, more efficient and safer.
 
2
The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
Literature
1.
Vizirianakis IS. From defining bioinformatics and pharmacogenomics to developing information-based medicine and pharmacotyping in healthcare. In: Gad SC, editor. Handbook of pharmaceutical biotechnology. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007: 201–28CrossRef
2.
Evans WE, McLeod HL. Pharmacogenomics: drug disposition, drug targets, and side effects. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 538–49PubMedCrossRef
3.
Ginsburg GS, McCarthy JJ. Personalized medicine: revolutionizing drug discovery and patient care. Trends Biotechnol 2001; 19: 491–6PubMedCrossRef
4.
Müller M. Pharmacogenomics and the complexity of drug response. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003; 41: 231–40PubMed
5.
Vizirianakis IS. Improving pharmacotherapy outcomes by pharmacogenomics: from expectation to reality? Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6: 701–11PubMedCrossRef
6.
Manasco PK, Rieser P, Renegar G, et al. Pharmacogenetics and the genetic basis of ADRs. In: Mann RD, Andrews EB, editors. Pharmacovigilance. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002: 516–53
7.
McLeod HL, Evans WE. Pharmacogenomics: unlocking the human genome for better drug therapy. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2001; 41: 101–21PubMedCrossRef
8.
Vizirianakis IS. Challenges in current drug delivery from the potential application of pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine in clinical practice. Curr Drug Deliv 2004; 1: 73–80PubMedCrossRef
9.
Loktionov A. Common gene polymorphisms, cancer progression and prognosis. Cancer Let 2004; 208: 1–33CrossRef
10.
Anderson JL, Carlquist JF, Horne BD, et al. Cardiovascular pharmacogenomics: current status, future prospects. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol Ther 2003; 8: 71–83PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cacabelos R. The application of functional genomics to Alzheimer’s disease. Pharmacogenomics 2004; 4: 597–621CrossRef
12.
Ulrich CM, Robien K, Mcleod HL. Cancer pharmacogenetics: polymorphisms, pathways and beyond. Nat Rev Cancer 2003; 3: 912–20PubMedCrossRef
13.
Sayers I, Hall IP. Pharmacogenetic approaches in the treatment of asthma. Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2005; 5: 101–8PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
Maitland ML, Vasisht K, Ratain MJ. TPMT, UGT1A1 and DPYD: genotyping to ensure safer cancer therapy? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2006; 27: 432–7PubMedCrossRef
16.
Mayo Clinic to provide pharmacogenomics test to indicate risks of side effects from irinotecan [editorial]. Personalized Medicine 2006; 3: 15–8CrossRef
17.
Traxler P. Tyrosine kinases as targets in cancer therapy: successes and failures. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2003; 7: 215–34PubMedCrossRef
18.
Tenen DG. Disruption of differentiation in human cancer: AML shows the way. Nature Rev Cancer 2003; 3: 89–101CrossRef
19.
20.
Hockenbery DM, Giedt CD, O’Neill JW, et al. Mitochondria and apoptosis: new therapeutic targets. Adv Cancer Res 2002; 85: 203–42PubMedCrossRef
21.
Fischer OM, Streit S, Hart S, et al. Beyond herceptin and Gleevec. Curr Opin Chem Biol 2003; 7: 490–5PubMedCrossRef
22.
Tsiftsoglou AS, Pappas IS, Vizirianakis IS. Mechanisms involved in the induced differentiation of leukemia cells. Pharmacol Ther 2003; 100: 257–90PubMedCrossRef
23.
Million RP. Impact of genetic diagnostics on drug development strategy. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 459–62PubMedCrossRef
24.
Redell MS, Tweardy DJ. Targeting transcription factors in cancer: challenges and evolving strategies. Drug Discov Today: Technologies 2006; 3: 261–7CrossRef
25.
Capdeville R, Buchdunger E, Zimmermann J, et al. Clivec (STI-571, imatinib), a rationally developed, targeted anticancer drug. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1: 493–502PubMedCrossRef
26.
Cowan-Jacob SW, Guez V, Fendrich G, et al. Imatinib (STI571) resistance in chronic myelogenous leukemia: molecular basis of the underlying mechanisms and potential strategies for treatment. Mini Rev Med Chem 2004; 4: 285–99PubMedCrossRef
27.
Suzuki T, Mitsudomi T, Hida T. The impact of EGFR mutations on gefitinib sensitivity in non-small cell lung cancer. Personalized Medicine 2004; 1: 27–34CrossRef
28.
Golsteyn RM. The story of gefitinib, an EGFR kinase that works in lung cancer. Drug Discov Today 2004; 9: 587PubMedCrossRef
29.
Paez JG, Janne PA, Lee JC, et al. EGFR mutations in lung cancer: correlation with clinical response to gefitinib therapy. Science 2004; 304: 1497–500PubMedCrossRef
30.
Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness of non-small-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med 2004; 350: 2129–39PubMedCrossRef
31.
Giaccone G, Rodriguez JA. EGFR inhibitors: what have we learned from the treatment of lung cancer? Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2005; 2: 554–61PubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
Wilhelm S, Carter C, Lynch M, et al. Discovery and development of sorafenib: a multikinase inhibitor for treating cancer. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 835–44PubMedCrossRef
34.
Domen J. The role of apoptosis in regulating hematopoietic stem cell numbers. Apoptosis 2001; 6: 239–52PubMedCrossRef
35.
Tsiftsoglou AS, Pappas IS, Vizirianakis IS. The developmental program of murine erythroleukemia cells. Oncol Res 2003; 13: 339–46PubMed
36.
Tagliafico E, Tenedini E, Manfredini R, et al. Identification of a molecular signature predictive to sensitivity to differentiation induction in acute myeloid leukemia. Leukemia 2006; 20: 1751–8PubMedCrossRef
37.
Nebert DW, Nebert LJ, Vesell ES. Pharmacogenomics and ‘individualized drug therapy’: high expectations and disappointing achievements. Am J Pharmacogenomics 2003; 3: 361–70PubMedCrossRef
38.
Roses AD. Pharmacogenetics and drug development: the path to safer and more effective drugs. Nat Rev Genet 2004; 5: 645–56PubMedCrossRef
39.
Lindpaintner K. The impact of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics on drug discovery. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1: 463–9PubMedCrossRef
40.
41.
Yoo CB. Jones PA. Epigenetic therapy of cancer: past, present and future. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 37–50PubMedCrossRef
42.
Gage BF, Eby C, Milligan PE, et al. Use of pharmacogenetics and clinical factors to predict the maintenance dose of warfarin. Thromb Haemost 2004; 91: 87–94PubMed
43.
Voora D, McLeod HL, Eby C, et al. The pharmacogenetics of coumarin therapy. Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6: 503–13PubMedCrossRef
44.
Hall IP. Pharmacogenetics and ethnicity: more complexities of personalized prescribing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2005; 171: 535–6PubMedCrossRef
45.
Issa AM. Ethical perspectives on pharmacogenomic profiling in the drug development process. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1: 300–8PubMedCrossRef
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
In Vivo Pharmacology Training Group. The fall and rise of in vivo pharmacology. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2002; 23: 13–8CrossRef
52.
Collis MG. What is the future role of pharmacologists in the pharmaceutical industry? Trends Pharmacol Sci 2006; 27: 126–9PubMedCrossRef
53.
Walker MJA, Soh MLM. Challenges facing pharmacology: the in vivo situation. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2006; 27: 125–6PubMedCrossRef
54.
Carpenter AE, Sabatini DM. Systematic genome-wide screens of gene function. Nat Rev Genet 2004; 5: 11–22PubMedCrossRef
55.
56.
Mizuno N, Niwa T, Yotsumoto Y, et al. Impact of drug transporter studies on drug discovery and development. Pharmacol Rev 2003; 55: 425–61PubMedCrossRef
57.
Chan LMS, Lowes S, Hirst BH. The ABCs of drug transport in intestine and live: efflux proteins limiting drug absorption and bioavailability. Eur J Pharm Sci 2004; 21: 25–51PubMedCrossRef
58.
Lee W, Kim RB. Transporters and renal drug elimination. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2004; 44: 137–66PubMedCrossRef
59.
De Groot MJ. Designing better drugs: predicting cytochrome P450 metabolism. Drug Discov Today 2006; 11: 601–6PubMedCrossRef
60.
Ekins S. Predicting undesirable drug interactions with promiscuous proteins in silico. Drug Discov Today 2004; 9: 276–85PubMedCrossRef
61.
Kurland L, Lind L, Melhus H. Using genotyping to predict responses to anti-hypertensive treatment. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2005; 26: 443–7PubMed
62.
Saavedra JM. Studies on genes and hypertension: a daunting task. J Hypertension 2005; 23: 929–32CrossRef
63.
O’Kane DJ, Weinshilboum RM, Moyer TP. Pharmacogenomics and reducing the frequency of adverse drug events. Pharmacogenomics 2003; 4: 1–4PubMedCrossRef
64.
65.
Millenson ML. The promise of personalized medicine: a conversation with Michael Svinte. Health Affairs 2006; 25: w54–60CrossRef
66.
Gurwitz D, Lunshof JE, Altman RB. A call for the creation of personalized medicine databases. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 23–6PubMedCrossRef
67.
Thornton M, Gladwin A, Payne R, et al. Automation and validation of DNA-banking systems. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10: 1369–75PubMedCrossRef
68.
Martin P, Haefeli WE, Martin-Facklam M. A drug database model as a central element for computer-supported dose adjustment within a CPOE system. J Amer Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 427–32CrossRef
69.
Orphanoudakis S. HYGEIAnet: the integrated regional health information network of Crete. Stud Health Technol Inform 2004; 100: 66–78PubMed
70.
Mäkinen M, Forsström J, Äärimaa M, et al. A European survey on the possibilities and obstacles of electronic prescriptions in cross-border healthcare. Telemed J E Health 2006; 12: 484–9PubMedCrossRef
71.
British Pharmacological Society and the Physiological Society. Tackling the need to teach integrative pharmacology and physiology: problems and ways forward. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2006; 27: 130–3CrossRef
72.
73.
Psaty BM, Burke SP. Protecting the health of the public: Institute of Medicine recommendations on drug safety. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 1753–5PubMedCrossRef
74.
Belardinelli L, Antzelevitch C, Vos MA. Assessing predictors of drug-induced torsade de pointes. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2003; 24: 619–25PubMedCrossRef
75.
Liew C-C, Dzau VJ. Molecular genetics and genomics of heart failure. Nat Rev Genet 2004; 5: 811–25PubMedCrossRef
76.
Redfern WS, Carlsson L, Davis AS, et al. Relationships between preclinical cardiac electrophysiology, clinical QT interval prolongation and torsade de pointes for a broad range of drugs: evidence for a provisional safety margin in drug development. Cardiovasc Res 2003; 58: 32–45PubMedCrossRef
77.
78.
Aronov AM. Predictive in silico modeling for hERG channel blockers. Drug Discov Today 2005; 10: 149–55PubMedCrossRef
79.
Napolitano C, Priori SG, Schwartz PJ, et al. Genetic testing in the long QT syndrome: development and validation of an efficient approach to genotyping in clinical practice. J Amer Med Assoc 2005; 294: 2975–80CrossRef
80.
Darpo B, Nebout T, Sager FT. Clinical evaluation of QT/QTc prolongation and proarrhythmic potential for nonantiarrhythmic drugs: the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E14 guideline. J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 46: 498–507PubMedCrossRef
81.
Shah RR. Drugs, QTc interval prolongation and final ICH E14 guideline: an important milestone with challenges ahead. Drug Saf 2005; 28: 1009–28PubMedCrossRef
82.
Vizirianakis IS. Pharmaceutical education in the wake of genomic technologies for drug development and personalized medicine. Eur J Pharm Sci 2002; 15: 243–50PubMedCrossRef
83.
Gurwitz D, Weizman A, Rehavi M. Education: teaching pharmacogenomics to prepare future physicians and researchers for personalized medicine. Trends Pharmacol Sci 2003; 24: 122–5PubMedCrossRef
84.
Gurwitz D, Lunshof JE, Dedoussis G, et al. Pharmacogenomics education: International Society of Pharmacogenomics recommendations for medical, pharmaceutical, and health schools deans of education. Pharmacogenomics J 2005; 5: 221–5PubMedCrossRef
85.
Vizirianakis IS. The transformation of pharmacogenetics into pharmacogenomics reinforces personalized medicine towards pharmacotyping for improved patient care. In: Barnes LP, editor. New research on pharmacogenetics. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 2007: 1–38
86.
87.
Guo Y, Shafer S, Weller P, et al. Pharmacogenomics and drug development. Pharmacogenomics 2005; 6: 857–64PubMedCrossRef
88.
Guo Y, Weiler P, Allard J, et al. Understanding our drugs and our diseases. Proc Am Thorac Soc 2006; 3: 409–12PubMedCrossRef
89.
Leon De J, Armstrong SC, Cozza KL. Clinical guidelines for psychiatrists for the use of pharmacogenetic testing for CYP450 2D6 and CYP450 2C19. Psychosomatics 2006; 47: 75–85PubMedCrossRef
90.
Redon R, Ishikawa S, Fitch KR, et al. Global variation in copy number in the human genome. Nature 2006; 444: 444–54PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Clinical Translation of Genotyping and Haplotyping Data
Implementation of in Vivo Pharmacology Experience Leading Drug Prescription to Pharmacotyping
Author
Dr Ioannis S. Vizirianakis
Publication date
01-10-2007
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical Pharmacokinetics / Issue 10/2007
Print ISSN: 0312-5963
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1926
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200746100-00001

Other articles of this Issue 10/2007

Clinical Pharmacokinetics 10/2007 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Population Pharmacokinetic Meta-Analysis of Trabectedin (ET-743, Yondelis®) in Cancer Patients

Original Research Article

Correlation of the Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Amikacin and Ceftazidime

Original Research Article

Lack of Bioequivalence between Different Formulations of Isosorbide Dinitrate and Hydralazine and the Fixed-Dose Combination of Isosorbide Dinitrate/Hydralazine

Original Research Article

Transdermal Administration of Radiolabelled [14C]Rotigotine by a Patch Formulation

Review Article

Cholestasis and Endogenous Opioids