4.6 Article

Standardizing terms for clinical pharmacogenetic test results: consensus terms from the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC)

Journal

GENETICS IN MEDICINE
Volume 19, Issue 2, Pages 215-223

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2016.87

Keywords

CPIC; nomenclature; pharmacogenetics; pharmacogenomics; terminology

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [R24 GM115264, R24 GM61374, K23 GM104401, U19 GM61388]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Reporting and sharing pharmacogenetic test results across clinical laboratories and electronic health records is a crucial step toward the implementation of clinical pharmacogenetics, but allele function and phenotype terms are not standardized. Our goal was to develop terms that can be broadly applied to characterize pharmacogenetic allele function and inferred phenotypes. Materials and methods: Terms currently used by genetic testing laboratories and in the literature were identified. The Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) used the Delphi method to obtain a consensus and agree on uniform terms among pharmacogenetic experts. Results: Experts with diverse involvement in at least one area of pharmacogenetics (clinicians, researchers, genetic testing laborato- rians, pharmacogenetics implementers, and clinical informaticians; n = 58) participated. After completion of five surveys, a consensus (>70%) was reached with 90% of experts agreeing to the final sets of pharmacogenetic terms. Discussion: The proposed standardized pharmacogenetic terms will improve the understanding and interpretation Of pharmacogenetic tests and reduce confusion by maintaining consistent nomenclature. These standard terms can also facilitate pharmacogenetic data sharing across diverse electronic health care recbrd systems with clinical decision support.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available