ReviewFrontiers in genetics2021
Development and Implementation of In-House Pharmacogenomic Testing Program at a Major Academic Health System.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- BioFRAM PGx, an Implementation Proposal for Pharmacogenetics in the Spanish National Health System.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Pharmacogenomics of Antineoplastic Therapy in Children: Genetic Determinants of Toxicity and Efficacy.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Development and Validation of a Multigene Panel for Pharmacogenomics Testing Using Next-Generation Sequencing for Routine Clinical Practice.Clinical and translational science · 2026Article
- Development of a Multifaceted Program for Pharmacogenetics Adoption at an Academic Medical Center: Practical Considerations and Lessons Learned.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2024Article
- Challenges and prospects in bridging precision medicine and artificial intelligence in genomic psychiatric treatment.World journal of psychiatry · 2024Review
- Implementing a pragmatic clinical trial to tailor opioids for chronic pain on behalf of the IGNITE ADOPT PGx investigators.Clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Strategies for DPYD testing prior to fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in the US.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- The Contribution of Genetic Testing in Optimizing Therapy for Patients with Recurrent Depressive Disorder.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Moving toward precision medicine to predict drug sensitivity in patients with metastatic breast cancer.ESMO open · 2024Review
- Moving towards the implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in Quebec.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- Public Attitudes toward Pharmacogenomic Testing and Establishing a Statewide Pharmacogenomics Database in the State of Minnesota.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- A Scoping Review of Attitudes and Experiences with Pharmacogenomic Testing among Patients and the General Public: Implications for Patient Counseling.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pharmacogenomics (PGx) studies how a person's genes affect the response to medications and is quickly becoming a significant part of precision medicine. The clinical application of PGx principles has consistently been cited as a major opportunity for improving therapeutic outcomes. Several recent studies have demonstrated that most individuals (> 90%) harbor PGx variants that would be clinically actionable if prescribed a medication relevant to that gene. In multiple well-conducted studies, the results of PGx testing have been shown to guide therapy choice and dosing modifications which improve treatment efficacy and reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Although the value of PGx testing is evident, its successful implementation in a clinical setting presents a number of challenges to molecular diagnostic laboratories, healthcare systems, providers and patients. Different molecular methods can be applied to identify PGx variants and the design of the assay is therefore extremely important. Once the genotyping results are available the biggest technical challenge lies in turning this complex genetic information into phenotypes and actionable recommendations that a busy clinician can effectively utilize to provide better medical care, in a cost-effective, efficient and reliable manner. In this paper we describe a successful and highly collaborative implementation of the PGx testing program at the University of Minnesota and MHealth Fairview Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory and selected Pharmacies and Clinics. We offer detailed descriptions of the necessary components of the pharmacogenomic testing implementation, the development and technical validation of the in-house SNP based multiplex PCR based assay targeting 20 genes and 48 SNPs as well as a separate CYP2D6 copy number assay along with the process of PGx report design, results of the provider and pharmacists usability studies, and the development of the software tool for genotype-phenotype translation and gene-phenotype-drug CPIC-based recommendations. Finally, we outline the process of developing the clinical workflow that connects the providers with the PGx experts within the Molecular Diagnostic Laboratory and the Pharmacy.
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.