Background: For diseases with a genetic cause genomics can deliver improved diagnostics and facilitate access to targeted treatments. Drug pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics are often dependent on genetic variation underlying these processes. As pharmacogenomics comes of age it may be the first way in which genomics is utilised at a population level. Still required is guidance and standards of how genomic information can be communicated within the health record, and how clinicians should be alerted to variation impacting the use of medicines. Methods: The Professional Record Standards Body commissioned by National Health Service England developed guidance on using pharmacogenomics information in clinical practice. We conducted research with those implementing pharmacogenomics in England and internationally to produce guidance and recommendations for a systems-based approach. Results: A consensus viewpoint is that systems need to be in place to ensure the safe provision of pharmacogenomics information that is curated, actionable and up-to-date. Standards should be established with respect to notification and information exchange, which could impact new or existing prescribing and these must be in keeping with routine practice. Alerting systems should contribute to safer practices. Conclusion: Ensuring pharmacogenetics information is available to make use of medicines safer will require major effort of which this guidance is a beginning. Standards are required to ensure useful genomic information within the health record can be communicated to clinicians in the right format and times to be actioned successfully. A multidisciplinary group of stakeholders must be engaged in developing pharmacogenomic standards to support the most appropriate prescribing.

Introduction: Free-of-charge (FoC) medicine schemes are increasingly available and allow access to investigational treatments outside clinical trials or in advance of licensing or NHS commissioning. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed FoC medicine schemes evaluated between 2013 and 2019 by a single NHS trust and a regional drug and therapeutics committee (DTC). The details of each locally reviewed FoC scheme, and any nationally available MHRA Early Access to Medicines Scheme (MHRA EAMS) in the same period, were recorded and categorised. Results: Most FoC schemes (95%) allowed access to medicines intended to address an unmet clinical need. Over 7 years, 90% were company-FoC schemes and 10% were MHRA EAMS that were locally reviewed. Phase 3 clinical trial data were available for 44% of FoC schemes; 37% had phase 2 data; and 19% were supported only by phase 1, retrospective observational studies, or pre-clinical data. Utilisation of company-FoC schemes increased on average by 50% per year, while MHRA EAMS showed little growth. Conclusion: Company-FoC medicine schemes are increasingly common. This may indicate a preference for pharmaceutical companies to independently co-ordinate schemes. Motivations for company-FoC schemes remain unclear and many provide access to treatments that are yet to be evaluated in appropriately conducted clinical trials, and whose efficacy and risk of harm remain uncertain. There is no standardisation of this practice and there is no regulatory oversight. Moreover, no standardised data collection framework is in place that could demonstrate the utility of such programmes in addressing unmet clinical need or allow generation of further evidence.