ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2024
Comparing commercial pharmacogenetic testing results and recommendations for antidepressants with established CPIC guidelines.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinician Experiences at the Frontier of Pharmacogenomics and Future Directions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Pharmacogenomics for stratified antidepressant treatment in major depressive disorder: evidence, limits and a roadmap for clinical use.PharmacogenomicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Increasingly, pharmacogenetic testing helps providers with medication selection based upon patient-specific DNA results. While several government-funded organizations work towards consensus and standardization for testing and interpretation, compliance to these best practices remains inconsistent. Pharmacogenetic testing companies often develop proprietary practices for interpreting and reporting, which can lead to incongruency of reported results among companies and potential discrepancies in interpretation. Methods: To identify the differences of commercial pharmacogenetic testing vendors' interpretation of genotype-to-phenotype translations and medication recommendations from the Clinical Pharmacogenetic Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines, a retrospective manual chart review was completed in a large rural healthcare system that utilizes two institution-approved pharmacogenetic vendors. One hundred patients were evaluated: 50 who completed testing through Company A and 50 who completed testing through Company B. Genes of interest for genotype-to-phenotype translation included Results: There were 32/250 (12.8%) genotype-to-phenotype translation discrepancies from CPIC guidelines, all from Company A. Of 266 evaluated binned medication recommendations, there were 114 (42.9%) discrepancies between the pharmacogenetic testing companies (Company A: 93 discrepancies, Company B: 21 discrepancies) and CPIC's guideline based upon comparison with the novel binning system. Discussion: Significant differences were observed between testing companies' interpretations and recommendations, which is concerning as these discrepancies could lead to providers making medication decisions that are not supported by CPIC's clinical practice guidelines. This may result in suboptimal outcomes for patients, leading to patient and provider dissatisfaction and erosion of trust with pharmacogenetic testing. A proposed resolution for the discrepancies in company-to-company interpretation is adherence to the CPIC guidelines and transparency in interpretation practices.
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.