ArticleClinical and translational science2018
Patient Decisions to Receive Secondary Pharmacogenomic Findings and Development of a Multidisciplinary Practice Model to Integrate Results Into Patient Care.
Article in Clinical and translational science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Participants' Preferences for Individual Results of Pharmacogenomics Research: A Case of a Ugandan HIV Research Institute.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023Article
- Integrating Somatic and Germline Next-Generation Sequencing Into Routine Clinical Oncology Practice.JCO precision oncology · 2021Review
- Revisiting Secondary Information Related to Pharmacogenetic Testing.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Genetic testing in dementia - utility and clinical strategies.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021Review
- PharmGKB summary: sertraline pathway, pharmacokinetics.Pharmacogenetics and genomics · 2020Article
- Pharmacogenetics and Practice: Tailoring Prescribing for Safety and Effectiveness.The journal for nurse practitioners : JNPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whole exome sequencing (WES) has the potential of identifying secondary findings that are predictive of poor pharmacotherapy outcomes. The purpose of this study was to investigate patients' wishes regarding the reporting of secondary pharmacogenomic findings. WES results (n = 106 patients) were retrospectively reviewed to determine the number of patients electing to receive secondary pharmacogenomic results. Phenotypes were assigned based on Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines. The percent of patients with a predicted phenotype associated with a gene-based CPIC dosing recommendation was determined. Ninety-nine patients (93.4%) elected to receive secondary pharmacogenomic findings. For each gene-drug pair analyzed, the number of patients with an actionable phenotype ranged from two (2%) to 43 patients (43.4%). Combining all gene-drug pairs, 84 unique patients (84.8%) had an actionable phenotype. A prospective multidisciplinary practice model was developed for integrating secondary pharmacogenomic findings into clinical practice. Our model highlights a unique collaboration between physician-geneticists, pharmacists, and genetic counselors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.