Comparison of pharmacogenomic guidance in Australian prescribing resources and international pharmacogenomic guidelines

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomic-guided medication management optimises drug therapy to enhance patient outcomes. Despite clinical utility, implementation in Australia remains limited, partly due to the lack of clear and consistent guidance. AIM: This study evaluated the presence and consistency of pharmacogenomic testing indication categories and therapeutic recommendations between Australian prescribing resources and international pharmacogenomic guidelines. METHODS: Testing indications were compared between Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) and Australian prescribing resources (Australian Medicines Handbook (AMH), Therapeutic Guidelines (TG), Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) and eviQ). Therapeutic recommendations were compared between Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), DPWG, and Australian prescribing resources. Weighted kappa was used for analysis (n > 10) and interpreted using the Landis and Koch scale. RESULTS: Among Australian resources, AMH included the highest proportion of testing indications (28%, 19/67); however, it remains an overall low proportion. Testing indications were most consistent between RCPA and TG, with 50% (5/10, 95% CI 0.19-0.81) concordant (e.g. mercaptopurine/TPMT testing 'recommended' in both). For therapeutic recommendations, AMH demonstrated substantial agreement with DPWG (κ 0.80, 95% CI 0.61-0.98); however, 11% (3/27) of recommendations were discordant (e.g. capecitabine/DPYD deficiency 'dose adjustment' in DPWG and 'contraindication' in AMH). Within Australian resources, most (88%, 7/8, 95% CI 0.47-1.00) testing indications were concordant, while for therapeutic recommendations, just over half (57%, 4/7, 95% CI 0.18-0.90) were concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Australian prescribing resources contain limited and inconsistent pharmacogenomic information. Greater harmonisation is needed to support decision-making and facilitate broader pharmacogenomic implementation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Internal Medicine Journal
Published
2026-07-23
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.70538
Primary Topic
Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparison of pharmacogenomic guidance in Australian prescribing resources and international pharmacogenomic guidelines

Stephen Hughes, SOPHIE LENA STOCKER, Ruby Soueid, Luke B. Hesson et al.
Internal Medicine Journal
Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
article

Comparison of pharmacogenomic guidance in Australian prescribing resources and international pharmacogenomic guidelines

Stephen Hughes, SOPHIE LENA STOCKER, Ruby Soueid, Luke B. Hesson, Jackson L. A. Thomas
article en

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomic-guided medication management optimises drug therapy to enhance patient outcomes. Despite clinical utility, implementation in Australia remains limited, partly due to the lack of clear and consistent guidance. AIM: This study evaluated the presence and consistency of pharmacogenomic testing indication categories and therapeutic recommendations between Australian prescribing resources and international pharmacogenomic guidelines. METHODS: Testing indications were compared between Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group (DPWG), Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) and Australian prescribing resources (Australian Medicines Handbook (AMH), Therapeutic Guidelines (TG), Therapeutics Goods Administration (TGA) and eviQ). Therapeutic recommendations were compared between Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC), DPWG, and Australian prescribing resources. Weighted kappa was used for analysis (n > 10) and interpreted using the Landis and Koch scale. RESULTS: Among Australian resources, AMH included the highest proportion of testing indications (28%, 19/67); however, it remains an overall low proportion. Testing indications were most consistent between RCPA and TG, with 50% (5/10, 95% CI 0.19-0.81) concordant (e.g. mercaptopurine/TPMT testing 'recommended' in both). For therapeutic recommendations, AMH demonstrated substantial agreement with DPWG (κ 0.80, 95% CI 0.61-0.98); however, 11% (3/27) of recommendations were discordant (e.g. capecitabine/DPYD deficiency 'dose adjustment' in DPWG and 'contraindication' in AMH). Within Australian resources, most (88%, 7/8, 95% CI 0.47-1.00) testing indications were concordant, while for therapeutic recommendations, just over half (57%, 4/7, 95% CI 0.18-0.90) were concordant. CONCLUSIONS: Australian prescribing resources contain limited and inconsistent pharmacogenomic information. Greater harmonisation is needed to support decision-making and facilitate broader pharmacogenomic implementation.

Internal Medicine Journal
University of Technology Sydney (AU), The University of Sydney (AU), St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU), St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU), St Vincent’s Private Hospital Sydney (AU), Douglass Hanly Moir Pathology (AU), St Vincent's Clinic (AU)
Partnerships for the goals
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.