Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31594036›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2020

Repurposing of Diagnostic Whole Exome Sequencing Data of 1,583 Individuals for Clinical Pharmacogenetics.

Maaike van der Lee, William G Allard, Sander Bollen, Gijs W E Santen, Claudia A L Ruivenkamp, Mariëtte J V Hoffer, Marjolein Kriek, Henk-Jan Guchelaar, Seyed Y Anvar, Jesse J Swen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Pharmacogenetics at Scale: An Analysis of the UK Biobank.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Maaike van der LeeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
William G AllardDepartment of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Sander BollenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Gijs W E SantenDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Claudia A L RuivenkampDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Mariëtte J V HofferDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Marjolein KriekDepartment of Clinical Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Henk-Jan GuchelaarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Seyed Y AnvarDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jesse J SwenDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3965-5552

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For ~ 80 drugs, widely recognized pharmacogenetics dosing guidelines are available. However, the use of these guidelines in clinical practice remains limited as only a fraction of patients is subjected to pharmacogenetic screening. We investigated the feasibility of repurposing whole exome sequencing (WES) data for a panel of 42 variants in 11 pharmacogenes to provide a pharmacogenomic profile. Existing diagnostic WES-data from child-parent trios totaling 1,583 individuals were used. Results were successfully extracted for 39 variants. No information could be extracted for three variants, located in CYP2C19, UGT1A1, and CYP3A5, and for CYP2D6 copy number. At least one actionable phenotype was present in 86% of the individuals. Haplotype phasing proved relevant for CYP2B6 assignments as 1.5% of the phenotypes were corrected after phasing. In conclusion, repurposing WES-data can yield meaningful pharmacogenetic profiles for 7 of 11 important pharmacogenes, which can be used to guide drug treatment.

Indexed as

Cohort StudiesDNA Copy Number VariationsDose-Response Relationship, DrugExome SequencingFeasibility StudiesHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmacogeneticsPharmacogenomic TestingPhenotypeProspective StudiesRetrospective StudiesPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID31594036
PMCPMC7027978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.